Breaking the Myth: “Project Architecture” – A $1 Trillion Misconception

For decades, IT teams have been treating project implementation as architecture, leading to fragmented systems, duplicated efforts, and massive inefficiencies. This fundamental misunderstanding has cost enterprises billions of dollars globally, as projects keep rebuilding isolated structures instead of contributing to a single enterprise anatomy.

Would you ever call a balcony its own architecture???? No????

"Then why do we keep calling a project 'architecture' when what we actually mean is a project for component execution?"

Breaking the Myth of Project Architecture

The reality is simple:

1. Architecture is ONE and ONLY ONE—the enterprise anatomy.

2. Projects don’t need their own architecture; they need to implement components within the enterprise anatomy.

3. What we call “project architecture” today is actually just construction—details of how something is implemented, not the architecture itself.

The Balcony vs. The Building: The Problem with Project-Based Architecture

Imagine you’re constructing a 30-story skyscraper. The architecture of the building defines:

1. The foundation

2. The structural integrity

3. The load-bearing components

4. How every floor, window, and balcony fits together etc etc

Now, when you decide to add a balcony, would you call it “balcony architecture”???? No. It’s just a project to implement a component that was always part of the bigger plan.

Yet, in IT, what’s happening????

Every project treats itself like a new building, even though it’s just adding a component (balcony). Instead of implementing a balcony within the existing structure (anatomy), teams start designing an entirely new building. The result?

They unknowingly create fragmented architectures that don’t fit together.

The result???? A fragmented enterprise where nothing fits together.

Why This Misconception is Costing Enterprises Billions

Since we don’t fully understand enterprise anatomy, every project’s so-called “architecture” is actually just details of implementation. This leads to:

1. Teams documenting how they built something, but that’s construction, not architecture.

2. Every project creating its own isolated structure instead of integrating with the larger enterprise.

   Without a clear enterprise anatomy, teams unknowingly redesign what already exists, leading to fragmentation.

3. Just stacking projects, is not anatomy

   
   

And this isn’t just a theoretical problem—it’s why enterprises struggle with:

1. Tech debt (too many separate architectures trying to be integrated later)

2. System inefficiencies (overlapping functionality across projects)

3. Scalability issues (because nothing was designed to fit together)

The Cost of Fragmentation: Multiple Independent Projects, Multiple Architectures vs. One Enterprise Anatomy

For decades, IT teams have been running projects as if each one needs its own

architecture, rather than aligning with a single enterprise structure (anatomy). The result?

1. Multiple projects, multiple architectures that don’t fit together

2. Burning millions on duplicated efforts, rework, and integration failures

3. A fragmented enterprise where nothing scales properly

Meanwhile, the alternative is simple:

1. One enterprise anatomy, one architecture

2. Every project implements a well-defined component of the Enterprise Anatomy

3. Lower cost, seamless integration, and sustainable scaling

The Hidden Cost of Project-Based Architectures

When every project is treated as a standalone architectural design, companies unintentionally create:

1. Duplicated Solutions: Teams unknowingly build features and systems that already exist elsewhere.

2. Expensive Integration Work: Separate architectures require complex integrations later, driving up costs.

3. Technical Debt: Different teams use different models, technologies, and structures, leading to long-term inefficiencies.

4. Scalability Issues: Systems were never designed to fit together, causing breakdowns as the business grows.

And the worst part? This keeps happening, project after project, year after year.

The Fix: One Enterprise Anatomy, One Architecture

Instead of creating fragmented architectures for every project, enterprises must shift to:

✔ Enterprise anatomy as the foundation – A single structured model that all projects follow.✔ Projects as component implementations – Every project builds a defined piece of the larger architecture.✔ Enforced alignment – Governance ensures that no project strays from enterprise architecture principles.

The bottom line?Multiple architectures burn cash. One anatomy, one architecture saves millions.

The Shift: Moving to an Enterprise Anatomy-Driven Model

Instead of asking, “What’s the project architecture?”, we need to ask:

1. Are we following the structure, or are we unknowingly creating something new?

2. If we are creating something new, how does it fit within the enterprise anatomy?

3. Is this project implementing a well-defined component, or are we accidentally redefining architecture with each project?

Here’s how to fix it:

Step 1 - Shift project approvals from “architecture sign-off” to “enterprise anatomy alignment.”

1. Stop approving standalone architectures for each project.

2. Start ensuring projects fit into the existing enterprise structure.

   
   
   
   

Step 2 - Make enterprise anatomy the only reference point.

1. Stop using project documentation as the source of truth.

2. Align every project to a single enterprise model that evolves over time.

Step 3 - Hold vendors accountable for implementation, not architecture.

1. Stop letting vendors create their own isolated structures.

2. Make them work within the enterprise anatomy—no exceptions.

Until we make this shift, IT will keep burning millions on projects that don’t fit into the bigger picture.

Are You Building a Skyscraper or Just Adding a Balcony?

If you’re approving project architectures, you’re approving fragmentation.

If you’re designing enterprise anatomy, you’re building sustainable, scalable systems.

The next time someone says “project architecture,” ask them this:

Engage the ICMG Team – We Will Help!'

Are we designing real architecture, or just documenting construction?

So, before approving the next “project architecture,” ask: Are we solving a problem, or just adding to the chaos?