The Myth of Specialized Architectures
For decades, IT architecture has been misunderstood and fragmented into specialized domains like Security Architecture, Network Architecture, and Data Architecture. These terms, while signifying essential areas of focus, have been misleadingly presented as comprehensive architecture. In reality, they represent specializations within architecture, not architecture itself.
This is as absurd as defining architecture by the materials used rather than the blueprint. Similarly, IT architecture must integrate all facets of an enterprise through a unified blueprint, not just isolated configurations.
The Problem: Specializations Mistaken for Architecture
1. Fragmented Understanding
Specialized architectures often focus on specific technologies or configurations, such as firewalls, switches, or databases.
This siloed approach results in disconnected decisions that ignore interdependencies across the broader enterprise system.
2. Lack of Holistic Perspective
True architecture considers how security, network, or data decisions align with:
Business goals
Processes
System interactions
Component Specifications
Implementation plans
Operations
Specialized architectures often fail to address these broader perspectives, limiting their strategic value.
Specialized approaches rarely address these questions, limiting their strategic value.
3. Focus on Configuration Over Strategy
For instance:
Security Architecture becomes a checklist of tools like firewalls or access controls without considering how they support compliance, data governance, or scalability.
Data Architecture becomes a conversation about configuring Oracle databases or designing ETL pipelines, missing how data aligns with workflows or supports decision-making.
True Architecture: Beyond Specializations
The ICMG Product Anatomy Model provides a comprehensive framework for defining true architecture. It spans six perspectives and six variables for each perspective, ensuring that systems align holistically with business goals.