Enterprise architecture aligns an organization’s business, applications, data, and technology so they work together as a cohesive whole. It is a continuous practice rather than a one-time plan. It guides decisions, manages dependencies, and moves the organization toward its long-term goals.
Enterprise architecture thinking differs from engineering thinking in three ways.
Engineering: How should this system be built?Enterprise architecture: How does this change fit the whole organization over time?
Business architecture centers on what an organization must be able to do, independent of how it does that work today.
Each of those abilities is a capability. A capability map lists them with no systems, teams, or vendors, so the map stays useful as those details change. Capabilities usually take noun names, which keeps them apart from processes, which usually take verb names.
Capability map holds: the work the organization must be able to doCapability map leaves out: systems, teams, vendors
Application architecture is the view of the systems an organization uses and what they support.
An application portfolio lists each system next to the capability it serves, which shows where several systems support the same capability.
System A → Capability 1System B → Capability 1System C → Capability 2
Data architecture describes what data an organization holds, where it lives, how it moves, and who is accountable for it. It is a domain of its own because data often outlives the applications that manage it.
Kind of data → system of record
Technology architecture is the view of the platforms and infrastructure that every other system runs on.
Storefront: Cloud hostingPoint-of-sale: Store serversPayment processor: Vendor-hosted
A decision in one domain often forces change in the others. Each team sees only its own part, so the full ripple effect stays hidden from any single team. Seeing the whole decision is a core reason enterprise architecture exists.
Business: What work changes?Application: Which systems must support it?Data: What information is new, or moves?Technology: Can the platforms carry the load?
The Architecture Development Method (ADM) is TOGAF’s cycle for developing and governing architecture. A launched to-be state becomes the new as-is state, and the next change starts from there. Many organizations have an Architecture Review Board review major changes. The Architecture Repository records those decisions and their reasoning, so later teams can look them up instead of re-arguing them.
as-is state → change → to-be state → new as-is state
Every architectural decision has stakeholders, such as capability owners, application teams, finance, compliance, and executives. Each one sees only part of the picture. The architect translates between those views to build alignment. Many organizations also use an Architecture Review Board to review major decisions against architectural goals and standards.
Capability owners: process fitApplication teams: system supportFinance: revenue and budget impactCompliance: regulatory and policy requirementsExecutives: strategic alignment
An organization can acquire a capability in three ways: build, buy, or integrate.
Build: most control, ongoing investmentBuy: speed, vendor dependencyIntegrate: reuse, added complexityCore capability → favors buildCommodity capability → favors buy or integrate
Security spans all four domains rather than belonging to one. Business sets compliance requirements and defines who should have access. Data sets the rules for what is sensitive and how it is protected and retained. Application governs how users and systems authenticate. Technology defends the infrastructure. Because it touches every domain, security is a cross-cutting concern rather than a domain of its own.
TOGAF (The Open Group Architecture Framework) is a widely used enterprise architecture framework. It organizes the work into four interdependent domains, often shortened to BDAT:
The domains act as connected lenses on the same organization rather than separate silos.
An AI assistant can support enterprise architecture work as a sounding board. It can flag inconsistencies, cross-reference portfolios, scan past decisions for conflicts, and argue alternatives that surface overlooked trade-offs. Architectural judgment stays with the architect, who makes the final call.