Is There Ever Enough Architects?
Enterprise and solution architecture are fields where the amount of work can expand endlessly. The more details you add, the more effort it requires. Increasing precision, introducing new types of models, or expanding governance structures can easily multiply the workload tenfold—or even a hundredfold.
And if architecture governance becomes too heavy-handed, it won’t just be architects working on documentation—soon, entire development teams will be spending more time producing architecture artifacts instead of delivering results.
The tricky part? This often happens unintentionally. Time disappears into endless modeling, nothing ever seems fully completed, and yet, people constantly feel overwhelmed. Meanwhile, no one stops to question whether all this effort is actually necessary.
The Real Problem: Unlimited Work, Undefined Scope
One of the biggest challenges in architecture work is that there’s rarely a clear understanding of two critical factors:
What kind of architecture is needed, and for what purposes?
How much effort does it take to produce, maintain, and use it?
Surprisingly, it’s not usually architecture stakeholders such as leadership that set the bar too high—it’s often the architects themselves.
This is why architecture teams frequently struggle to balance effort with delivering value. Without clear boundaries and prioritization, architecture work expands indefinitely, consuming time and resources without necessarily improving outcomes.
So, how do you prevent architecture from becoming a never-ending black hole of effort?
The Solution: Clarity, Prioritization, and Piloting
Instead of letting architecture efforts scale uncontrollably, set clear boundaries from the start.
Define What Architecture Means in Your Organization
Before anything else, establish what enterprise and solution architecture actually include in your organization. Architecture can mean different things to different people, so it’s critical to align expectations upfront.
Even a lightweight plan should cover:
What are the key objectives of architecture?
Which models and descriptions are needed? What should the metamodel look like?
Who should be involved in architecture work? Who will actually use architecture?
How will architecture governance work?
What is the roadmap for developing architecture and architecture work over time?
By defining what architecture should and should not cover, you avoid unnecessary complexity and ensure everyone understands what to expect from architecture efforts.
Estimate and Pilot the Workload
The easiest way to avoid an architecture resource sinkhole is to test the workload in practice before scaling up.
Rather than committing to an expansive architecture initiative from the start, pilot the creation of key models. Choose a small but meaningful subset of architecture content to produce and measure:
How much effort does it take to create and maintain?
Who needs to be involved?
How useful is it in planning and decision-making?
By gathering real-world data on effort vs. impact, you can refine your approach before scaling architecture efforts across the organization.
Keep Governance Lean and Agile
Architecture governance should enable—not restrict—planning, development and decision-making. Overly rigid processes can quickly turn architecture into a bureaucratic burden rather than a valuable strategic tool.
Instead of focusing on approval processes and rigid standards, prioritize:
Making architecture accessible—Use collaboration tools, produce easy-to-understand visuals, and provide support on how to use and create architecture effectively.
Embedding architecture into existing workflows—Ensure that architecture is a natural part of planning and decision-making, rather than an isolated process.
Reviewing and iterating continuously—Architecture should evolve over time, rather than being produced once and assumed to be set in stone.
A lean and flexible approach keeps architecture relevant, practical, and actually useful.
Final Thoughts: Enough Architects, But the Right Focus
The goal isn’t to minimize architecture work—it’s to ensure effort and impact are balanced. There is no single “right” number of architects for an organization. Instead, what matters is focusing their time on the architecture work that truly makes a difference.
Before expanding architecture efforts, ask the tough questions:
Are we focusing on high-value architecture work, or just adding complexity?
Do we actually use the models we create, or are they just documentation for the sake of documentation?
Is our governance helping development teams deliver better solutions, or is it slowing them down?
By keeping architecture practical, lean, and focused, you ensure that no matter how many architects you have, they are working on what really matters. More importantly, this approach helps maximize the value of the resources you already have—ensuring that your architecture efforts are efficient, impactful, and directly contribute to business and IT success.
💬 What’s your experience with balancing architecture work? Let’s discuss in the comments!
📚✨ Subscribe for more insights on keeping enterprise and solution architecture practical and impactful