This week I wrote about my experiences with technical and architectural debt. When I was a developer we used to distinguish between code debt (temporary hacks) and architectural debt (structural decisions that bite you later). But in enterprise architecture, it goes way beyond technical implementation.
To me architectural debt is found on all layers.
Application/Infrastructure layer: This is about integration patterns, system overlap, and vendor lock-in. Not the code itself, but how applications interact with each other. Debt here directly hits operations through increased costs and slower delivery.
Business layer: This covers ownership, stewardship, and process documentation. When business processes are outdated or phantom processes exist, people work under wrong assumptions. Projects start on the back foot before they even begin. Issues here multiply operational problems.
Strategy layer: The most damaging level. If your business capability maps are outdated or misaligned, you're basing 3-5 year strategies on wrong assumptions. This blocks transformation and can make bad long-term strategy look appealing.
TheEdonian•3mo ago
To me architectural debt is found on all layers.
Application/Infrastructure layer: This is about integration patterns, system overlap, and vendor lock-in. Not the code itself, but how applications interact with each other. Debt here directly hits operations through increased costs and slower delivery.
Business layer: This covers ownership, stewardship, and process documentation. When business processes are outdated or phantom processes exist, people work under wrong assumptions. Projects start on the back foot before they even begin. Issues here multiply operational problems.
Strategy layer: The most damaging level. If your business capability maps are outdated or misaligned, you're basing 3-5 year strategies on wrong assumptions. This blocks transformation and can make bad long-term strategy look appealing.