"These days, I'm less concerned with how the software itself works. That's just not feasible when your organization has hundreds of applications . My main concerns are more about how these applications interact with the rest of the landscape. How the data flows, where data lives, whether there are bottlenecks, who's going to maintain it, and what role will this application have in the future."
"In an enterprise environment this is inevitable. There are so many applications and more than half of them are 3rd party SaaS applications. You need to keep on top of what you can control and let go of the parts you can't."
"But architectural debt goes way beyond the technical layers. Enterprise architecture is not technical architecture . And yes architectural debt can cost an organization a lot of headaches, but architectural debt on business and strategy layers can do even more damage."
Architectural debt differs from code debt and arises from structural decisions that cause problems months later. Enterprise architects prioritize how applications interact across the landscape, focusing on data flows, data location, bottlenecks, maintenance responsibility, and future roles. Large organizations commonly host hundreds of applications and many third-party SaaS systems, requiring control over manageable elements and acceptance of uncontrollable parts. Architectural debt spans technical, business, and strategy layers, with business and strategy layer debt often causing greater harm. Enterprise architecture is distinct from technical architecture and should emphasize landscape-level governance and integration over low-level code concerns.
Read at Frederickvanbrabant
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]