In practice, architects are often builders, developers. So then they are butchers who are testing their own meat. Why doesn’t an architect confine himself to his primary role: designing and managing a set of rules and guidelines that contribute to consistent results? That architect can then monitor that those principles are properly followed by the builders and that they achieve the intended result in a responsible manner. Instead, I see many architects drawing up and working out the specifications for the building themselves. If I explain this to an architect, the response is often: there is no one else who follows the principles. But should you then go and build yourself? Isn’t the medicine worse than the disease?

I can well imagine that it takes a lot of self-control to limit yourself to the role of architect. It is simply very tempting for architects to get involved in the execution: that’s where it happens after all… But for centuries, separation of duties has been the most effective intervention for control. By stepping out of his actual role, the architect pulls the rug from under his initial task.

For “enterprise architects,” this is even more true. First of all, 99 percent of these architects are not concerned with enterprise architecture at all but with enterprise information system architecture. In this way, enterprise information system architects hijack an entire field. I could live with that if they set a shining example for architects in other disciplines. But look at how they model the world. From the mid-eighties, a tidal wave of ‘enterprise’ architectural models poured over us, which – with a few exceptions – were mainly characterized by matrix and layer models with aspect axes. These aspects varied with the model. If an author came up with a new aspect, it was added to such an axis, and there you are… yet another model. Just look at PRISM, Zachman, SABSA or TOGAF.

Fortunately, there were also exceptions that did not use aspect axes but structure axes. That started in 1993 with the Strategic Alignment Model (SAM), by Henderson and Venkatraman. This model became the basis for more sustainable architectural models, which also used structural axes. Think of the nine-square model commonly used in the Netherlands: a clear combination of two structural axes.

In that light, it is again surprising to see how the Dutch government presents a matrix model for its reference architectures that nevertheless contains an aspect axis (check the NORA site). This then penetrates into the reference architectures derived from NORA in numerous other disciplines: think of the GEMMA, the ZIRA, the HORA, the CORA, DIZRA and so on. When will we ever learn? Aspects – the playground of many architects – are never the basis for sustainable solutions.

This hurts even more, because it the architect who should have protected us from this all…