Why Software Teams Still Mistake Tools, Buzzwords, and Diagrams for Architecture
- Krish Ayyar
- Nov 16, 2025
- 3 min read
The Sunil (ICMG) – Sean / Shyam (Name changed for privacy) Exchange.
This interaction highlights a recurring pattern among software development teams — where the concept of “Architecture” is reduced to tool usage, buzzwords, templates, and a handful of diagrams, instead of being understood as a model of enterprise anatomy.
1. Context
Sean / Shyam lead a software team that believes architecture = tool + diagrams + vocabulary.
They insist they have “Architecture” because they:
Define a few Business Capabilities and place them in a tiered diagram
Create 5 or 6 P1–P4 diagrams (Strategy, Process, System, Component)
Maintain a “Metamodel” in a repository tool
Register objects and shapes inside the tool and call it “Architecture Modeling”
Use terms like microservices, domain-driven design, platform thinking, zero trust, composable, and event-driven as proof that they are “architecting”
Run an Architecture Review Board (ARB) that reviews everything at P5 (Implementation) — code reviews, infra-as-code templates, pipelines, and deployment checklists
Prepare Project Management artifacts — timeline, role charts, effort estimates — and include them under “Architecture Package”
However, everything they do operates within the IT function only, and almost entirely at P5 (Implementation).
The belief is:
“If it is recorded in a tool, aligned to a metamodel, and has some business capability boxes on top — that is Architecture.”
This framing assumes that adding terminology, documentation, and PM governance can fix Enterprise Architecture.
But none of this creates systemic visibility.
2. Sunil’s Response
Sunil reframes the entire issue. He clarifies that:
The vocabulary itself (educate, rationalize, define capabilities, register metamodel objects) perpetuates the problem.
Tools do not create architecture; linkages do.
The real discipline lies in producing 150–200 interconnected diagrams across P1–P4 — covering Strategy, Process, System Logic, and Component Specification — with traceability into P5 (Implementation) and P6 (Operations).
An ARB that operates entirely at P5 is not an Architecture Review Board. It is an Implementation Review Board with the wrong name.
Registering shapes in a tool “metamodel” does not produce structure. Only enterprise anatomy makes structure visible.
The goal is to reveal the software platform’s anatomy — not create a gallery of curated diagrams or PM deliverables.
This marks the philosophical shift from:
Governance → Anatomy Tools → Logic Buzzwords → Systemic Visibility
3. Diagnostic Observation
This case reveals the illusion of architecture that dominates software teams:
What traditional teams do
Focus on tool usage
Promote buzzwords
Produce project plans and label them as “architecture packages”
Maintain metamodel entries and call it “modeling”
Review code-level artifacts and call it “architecture governance”
What anatomical thinkers do
Reveal relationships, dependencies, and interconnections across P1–P6
Show how Strategy → Process → System Logic → Components → Implementation → Operations link as one unified model
Model the entire software platform anatomy, not a diagram collection
Until the platform’s internal anatomy is modeled — across Data, Rule, Function, Event, UI, and Network — everything remains a slide deck with no structural meaning.
4. Reflection
Sean / Shyam's team speaks the language of:
tools,
templates,
buzzwords,
metamodel entries,
project plans,
and implementation reviews.
Sunil speaks the language of linkages, dependencies, systemic logic, and anatomical restoration.
This case stands as a live example of why Software Architecture must evolve:
from drawing to diagnosing,from documentation to system logic,from tool thinking to anatomical thinking,
from IT governance to platform anatomy.
Note: ICMG Software Platform Anatomy™ (D1–D15 × P1–P6) and related frameworks are proprietary and licensed intellectual property of ICMG.
