From Policeman to Advisor
Finding the EAM Style that Works for Your Organisation
In our previous article, we explored the growing need to bridge agile ways of working with enterprise architecture. We saw how organisations are often caught between speed and structure – struggling to align innovation with long-term goals. But what does that balance actually look like in practice? In this follow-up, we introduce the concept of Enterprise Architecture Management (EAM) styles – and a continuum that helps organisations find the mix that works for them.
“Many organisations want to be more agile”, says Rolf van Baar, Business Analyst at Deloitte who recently conducted thesis research on EAM styles and technical debt. “But the enterprise architecture function often lags behind. While the organisation is transforming, architecture remains stuck in traditional ways of working.” His research identified two dominant management styles within EAM: directive and adaptive. Each offers clear advantages – and equally clear pitfalls.
The directive style is the classic approach to architecture: strategic, documented, and top-down. “It’s all about stability and control”, Van Baar explains. “You define standards, create blueprints, and make sure the organisation follows the architectural guidelines.” This works well in highly regulated environments, or when long-term risk management is key. But the trade-off? “It’s often slow, rigid, and disconnected from the business reality”, he says. “You risk becoming the architect in the ivory tower.”
On the other end of the spectrum is the adaptive style – a more agile-inspired approach. “You set lightweight guardrails and give local teams more freedom to make decisions”, says Van Baar. This allows for flexibility, responsiveness, and faster time to value. “But it also introduces risks: fragmentation, inconsistent standards, and a loss of strategic overview.”
Enter the Continuum
Rather than forcing a binary choice, Van Baar suggests seeing these styles as two ends of a spectrum. “The key is to find the balance that fits your organisation – and that can shift over time”, he says. “You might start more directive to build maturity, and then gradually move toward adaptive as your teams and governance evolve.” This continuum approach helps organisations think less in absolutes, and more in terms of dynamic alignment. “It’s not about choosing a side. It’s about understanding where you are now, and where you need to be to deliver value sustainably.”
“Most organisations don't sit neatly at one point on the continuum”, says Eric Onderdelinden, Director Enterprise Architecture at Deloitte. “The art lies in adapting as you grow – tightening governance when complexity and risks increase, and loosening it when innovation requires more speed.”
Managing Technical Debt
One of the key motivators behind Van Baar’s research was the impact of these styles on technical debt: the usually invisible structural problems created when short-term solutions are chosen over more sustainable ones. Examples include cutting corners in code leading to excessive resource consumption or security risks or implementing one to one interfaces that are extremely costly to run and maintain. Technical debt needs to be fixed at some point in time, and it is always more costly compared to a first time right approach. “Both styles of architecture governance come with risks”, he notes. “Adaptive approaches are quick but can accumulate hidden debt if decisions aren’t documented or coordinated. Directive approaches aim to prevent technical debt but may lead to outdated systems because change takes too long.”
His conclusion? “The best-managed technical debt comes from a conscious blend of both styles – where you take an adaptive approach, but still document architectural deviations, understand trade-offs, and have a plan to course-correct.” “Agile often delivers impressive front-end results”, adds Andreas Boon, Specialist Lead in Business & Enterprise Architecture at Deloitte. “But if you ignore the non-functional aspects – scalability, performance, robustness – you’re building castles on sand. That’s where architectural thinking must step in.”
One Size Doesn’t Fit All
Van Baar’s research involved four large organisations, each facing very different challenges – from regulatory pressures to supply chain disruption. The common thread? “There is no one perfect model”, he says. “Every organisation has to find their own sweet spot on the continuum.” And that sweet spot is influenced by many factors: the maturity of the architecture function, the culture of the organisation, the level of regulation, and even how well the business and IT collaborate.
What’s more, the optimal EAM style may vary within the same organisation, depending on the business department. For instance, R&D might benefit from a more flexible and innovative approach, while Finance might require a more standardized and compliant style. “You can’t copy-paste agility”, Onderdelinden explains. “A model that works for a fintech start-up build on exploiting state of the art IT solutions won’t work for a high-tech manufacturing giant that is dependent on the perfect protection of its IP. Strategy, culture, and regulation – and even department needs – all shape the EAM style that fits.”
"There is no perfect model. Every organisation has to find their own sweet spot on the EAM continuum."
Rolf van Baar, Business Analyst at Deloitte
Practical Steps Towards Balance
So, what can organisations do today to move toward the right balance? “One thing that stood out in my research,” says Van Baar, “was the importance of forums where architects and business stakeholders can come together regularly.” These forums create space for incremental decision-making – combining the adaptive need for speed with the directive need for strategic alignment.
To make the forums truly valuable, it’s essential to clarify their focus. “Rather than trying to address every decision, these sessions should concentrate on the most critical choices – the ones that might reset direction, bend the rules, or prove hard to undo. Everyday, easily reversible calls belong with the teams closest to the work. The forum’s job is to provide space for those weightier, long-lasting choices that require careful consideration and alignment.”
Mindset Matters
Another success factor? Shifting the role of architects from policeman to advisor. “Instead of policing standards, enterprise architects can empower the leaders and teams – guiding them with just enough structure, while encouraging local ownership.” And of course, there’s the human factor. “Mindset matters”, Van Baar says. “Some organisations still have enterprise architects who haven’t made the shift. They’re used to working in a very controlled, top-down way. To support a modern business, that has to change.” Onderdelinden adds: “Never underestimate the ability of the business to go around architecture control, if they feel it slows them down unacceptably. So, either you adapt or you become irrelevant as an architect.”
Reflect Before You Act
Van Baar’s core message is one of awareness and intention. “It’s not about being perfectly balanced, because that is a fantasy and not something to strive for per se”, he says. “It’s about knowing where you are, and where you want to go – and making conscious decisions about how you work.” In a fast-changing world, that kind of strategic self-awareness can make all the difference. “Architects need to stop being the gatekeepers of the past and become enablers of the future”, Boon concludes. “That means listening more, ensuring just enough governance, and creating fit-for-purpose architecture – and engaging where the real work happens.”
Ready to explore your own EAM balance?
Take a step back and reflect: where does your organisation currently sit on the continuum – and where do you want it to be? Start the conversation with your architecture and business teams, and consider how your style accelerates (or hinders) sustainable value delivery. Want to learn more or discuss how to evolve your EAM approach? Reach out to our team – we’re here to help you turn style into strategy.
