Enterprise Architecture ≠ Glorified Solution Architecture

I’ve walked into enough boardrooms and IT strategy sessions to know what usually happens when I bring up the term Enterprise Architecture. I either get a few polite nods, or someone leans back and says something like, “You mean Solution Architecture at a bigger scale, right?” And that, for me, has always been the crux of the problem.

As a TOGAF certified Enterprise Architect, I’ve seen this misunderstanding play out far too many times. At best, people assume EA is some ivory-tower design exercise. At worst, they see it as a bloated layer of bureaucracy that slows things down. In many organisations, it gets reduced to glorified solution architecture; some pretty diagrams, a few system designs, and little connection to business value. But EA is so much more than that. It’s not just about technology stacks or system integrations. Done right, it’s the connective tissue between business strategy and execution. Without it, enterprises risk stumbling in the dark, spending millions on tech that doesn’t advance their goals, or worse, building silos that drag them backward.

I have huge respect for Solution Architects; Have been one before I became an EA. They design how a particular system will be implemented, how it fits with existing systems, and how it solves a specific business problem. Their lens is project-level. They’re the building architects, focused on making sure this building stands strong. But when I step into the EA role, my job is different. I’m the city planner. I ask:

• How do all these buildings (solutions) fit into a coherent city?
• Are we zoning correctly so we don’t end up with factories in residential neighbourhoods?
• Do we have the infrastructure (roads, utilities, services) to scale as the city grows?

When people confuse EA with SA, they shrink its scope. EA isn’t about designing a solution. It’s about designing the system of systems, Its where strategy, business processes, information, applications, and technology align to deliver value. That’s a world apart from being “just a bigger SA.”

Here’s where the real damage happens. When EA is misunderstood as “big solution architecture,” it inevitably gets seen as just an IT thing. I’ve been in conversations where EA is reduced to tasks like:

• “Can you map our application landscape?”
• “Can you design the new integration pattern?”
• “Can you update the infra diagram for the board deck?”

Sure, all of these are useful. But if that’s all EA does, it becomes plumbing work. Tactical. Transactional. And when EA is stuck in that mode, it loses the ability to influence the bigger picture: where the business is headed, what capabilities it needs, and how technology investments can drive that journey. The result? EA gets written off as overhead. People start asking: Why do we need these folks at all? I’ve seen organisations go down that path. They think they’re saving time by cutting EA out or shrinking its scope. But what they actually do is spend more money on duplicate systems, siloed processes, and one-off solutions that don’t add up.

Here’s how I define it in practice: Enterprise Architecture is the discipline of translating business strategy into execution through a structured view of capabilities, processes, data, applications, and technology.

I see EA as the bridge:

• On one side, business goals—grow into new markets, improve customer experience, meet regulatory demands.
• On the other, execution—the systems, data, and infrastructure that make those goals real.

My job as an EA is to make sure those two sides connect seamlessly. That means answering questions like:

• What capabilities does the business need to achieve its strategy?
• Which applications and data support those capabilities?
• What technology stack delivers them reliably and securely?
• How do we ensure governance, reuse, and alignment; without creating bureaucracy that slows delivery?

Without EA, I’ve seen these answers left to chance; or worse, decided by the loudest voice in the room. That’s not strategy; that’s chaos with a budget.

This is the analogy I often use because it makes the distinction crystal clear. A building architect will give you a beautiful skyscraper, optimised for efficiency, using cutting-edge materials. Fantastic. Now, imagine you hire ten such architects for ten different buildings; each brilliant in isolation. Without a city planner, you could end up with:

• A residential block next to a noisy industrial plant.
• Roads that don’t connect.
• Power and water systems that weren’t planned for the load.
• No green spaces or schools because nobody thought beyond their project.

That’s what I’ve seen in enterprises where EA is missing or misunderstood. The result is islands of excellence that don’t add up to an integrated whole. As a city planner, I don’t tell building architects what each skyscraper should look like. But I make sure the zoning, infrastructure, and standards are in place so the city thrives; not just today, but twenty years from now. That’s the role EA plays in an organisation.

So what’s the real danger of reducing EA to “big solution design”? It’s not just inefficiency; it’s strategic failure. I’ve seen enterprises fall into these traps:

• Duplicated investments: Multiple business units buy or build the same capability because no one mapped it at the enterprise level.
• Tech sprawl: An explosion of systems, each solving a piece of the puzzle, but none integrated.
• Misaligned priorities: IT delivers shiny new platforms while business leaders wonder why they don’t move strategy forward.
• Regulatory risk: Fragmented processes and data make compliance a nightmare.
• Slowed change: Every new initiative drags because the underlying architecture is a tangled mess.

The cost isn’t just financial; it’s competitive. In today’s world, agility is survival. Without a strong EA function, enterprises end up reactive, always playing catch-up. Contrast that with organisations where EA has a seat at the table. They can trace a business goal all the way down to the infrastructure that supports it. They can pivot quickly because they’re not reinventing the wheel each time. They know which capabilities matter, and they invest accordingly. That’s when EA becomes a force multiplier.

For me, Enterprise Architecture has never been about drawing diagrams or enforcing rigid frameworks. It’s about ensuring every tech decision ladders up to business strategy. Think of it like this: Solution Architects make sure each note is played well. Enterprise Architecture ensures all the notes come together as music. That’s why EA is strategy in action.

Every time someone tells me EA is “just plumbing diagrams,” I’ll remind them: you wouldn’t build a city without a planner. Why build an enterprise without one?

Cirvesh