From Clash to Collaboration

“Most organisations introduced agile expecting faster and better outcomes”, says Eric Onderdelinden, Director Enterprise Architecture at Deloitte Consulting. “And that’s a logical move from a software development perspective – fast iterations, continuous feedback, empowered teams. But the reality is that those agile teams operate within a company that still plans, budgets and reports on an annual cycle. And that company expects those agile teams to stay aligned with the overall strategy and priorities, even if there are changes.”

That tension between agile execution and long-term strategic control creates a familiar pain point. Teams may race ahead, but the rest of the organisation moves at a different pace or in a different direction. The result is misalignment, duplicated efforts, and disconnected customer experiences. Andreas Boon, Specialist Lead in Business & Enterprise Architecture at Deloitte, recognises the challenge. “Agile at team level works well. But when you scale up, the lack of coordination becomes a real problem. You can’t just let 100 teams interpret the strategic direction on their own. You’ll end up with 100 different outcomes.”

When Agile Becomes a Silo

Agile, ironically, may speed up innovation by introducing new silos. Take the example of an American multinational, known for its GPS-enabled products: each product line operates independently, leading to wildly inconsistent user interfaces between devices. “That kind of fragmentation also happens inside organisations”, says Onderdelinden. “You apply for a mortgage and later a personal loan – and you have to upload the same documents twice but in slightly different ways confusing you as a customer, because different teams built the flows separately.”

This is where architecture should step in – but often doesn’t. “In many organisations, architecture was pushed aside in the agile push”, explains Boon. “Seen as too slow, too bureaucratic. But the pendulum has swung too far. Without architectural alignment, you lose consistency, scalability, and technical robustness. This misalignment can build up technical debt, where suboptimal architectural decisions make the IT landscape increasingly complex and difficult to maintain.”

Architects in the Middle of the Storm

Today’s architects find themselves in a challenging spot. They are expected to support fast-moving teams while safeguarding long-term direction and alignment. “It’s not their job to slow things down,” Boon says, “but to ensure short-term gains don’t compromise long-term value.” This means architects often have to operate on two levels: contributing within agile teams, and at the same time ensuring cross-team coherence. “They’re commonly expected to combine a holistic view and detailed view of the whole system”, Onderdelinden notes. “But that’s incredibly hard if you’re fully embedded in one squad.”

To succeed, architects need to adapt their own ways of working. That includes embracing agile principles themselves – being more iterative, value-focused, and responsive to change. At the same time, they must help shape architectures that enable agility at scale – by reducing dependencies, enabling flexibility, and managing complexity across domains.

Mindset Matters More Than Method

The clash isn’t just structural – it’s cultural as well. “Agile developers think in terms of fast, visible value”, explains Onderdelinden. “Architects think in terms of risk, complexity, and long-term stability. You see it even in how they park their cars. Developers park front-in – it’s fast. Architects reverse in – it takes longer, but they’re ready for the exit.” While amusing, the metaphor underscores a deeper truth: this isn’t about tools or frameworks, but how people think and act. Agile teams need to learn to zoom out to understand the broader impact of their work, and to break out of their autonomy bubble. Architects, on the other hand, must become more adaptive – less risk-averse, more engaged with the teams, and quicker to move.

The Strength Lies in the Synergy

Onderdelinden and Boon are clear: this is not a question of choosing sides. The future lies in synthesis. “Agile delivers value fast. Architecture ensures that value is sustainable”, says Onderdelinden. “When organisations get that balance right, they don’t just move faster – they move smarter.” It’s a message reinforced by maturity data. Despite two decades of agile and three decades of enterprise architecture, most organisations rate just above 2 out of 5 in maturity. “That shows how hard it is”, he says. “Everyone is trying, but few have figured it out.”

Why Now? Because the Cost of Waiting Is Too High

The need to act is no longer academic. Failures in finding the right balance have already led to major strategic failures. Just Eat Takeaway’s failed integration of Grubhub, heavily relying on IT systems synergy but ending with a 75% loss in acquisition value within three years, is a clear example of agile enthusiasm without sufficient structural grounding. This illustrates how quickly strategic intent can shift during execution, moving from integration and scaling to divestment in less than three years. It underscores the importance of adopting a balanced agile mindset, as agile anticipates change rather than stability, allowing organisations to adapt when strategic circumstances evolve. Organisations that wait, risk wasting millions, frustrating customers, and falling behind more adaptive competitors.

First Steps Towards Balance

So, what can organisations do today? “It starts with real collaboration and a genuine dialogue”, says Boon. “Not a power struggle, but a partnership between architects and agile teams. They each bring something essential to the table.” For traditional architecture functions, the shift begins by embracing concepts like the Minimum Viable Architecture. Focus less on solving the biggest problem perfectly, and more on delivering meaningful value, incrementally. For agile teams, the challenge is to look beyond their backlog and engage their neighbours – understand the bigger picture and align their efforts. “Talk to your neighbours. Understand how your work fits in”, Boon advises.

Conclusion: From Conflict to Collaboration

This isn’t about a clash between methods. It’s about bridging perspective. Organisations don’t have to choose between architecture and agility – they need both. “Those who get the balance right,” Onderdelinden concludes, “will be the ones who innovate reliably, scale sustainably, and stay relevant in a fast-changing world.” In the next article, we will explore how organisations can build that bridge.