The Challenge: A Global Platform’s Architecture Reality Check
When a global online platform undertook the ICMG Fast Track Rating to benchmark its enterprise projects, its leadership expected strong results. With their technological scale and global reach, they assumed their project architectures were robust, structured, and strategically aligned. But the results told a different story.
When ICMG conducted an Enterprise Rating Assessment the leading global travel
platform, evaluating 12 enterprise projects at different stages of maturity: ✔ Some running for 6 months ✔ Others for 2 years ✔ A few exceeding 6 years
The findings were eye-opening, challenging long-held assumptions about the completeness of architecture.
ICMG’s Fast Track Rating Approach
To ensure a rigorous yet efficient evaluation, ICMG applied its Fast Track Rating Model, which included:
✔ 12 project managers participating in a structured architecture assessment
✔ Each project leader spending 3-6 hours completing the ICMG rating template
✔ Live 2-hour presentations per project, totaling 24 hours of assessment sessions
✔ Benchmarking architecture content—analyzing project objectives, processes, systems, subsystems, and components
The goal? To uncover the true depth of architectural thinking embedded in each project.
Unexpected Findings: A Significant Gap in Architectural Thinking
Despite operating at the forefront of technology, the company’s projects scored between just 5% and 12% in architecture content—far below the expected 60-80%. The gap between perception and reality was undeniable.
For an enterprise that prided itself on engineering excellence, this was an eye-opener. The assessment revealed that while technical execution was strong, actual architectural thinking was critically lacking.
The Root Cause: Mistaking Implementation for Architecture
The primary reason behind these low architecture scores? A 25-year-old mindset and outdated architectural guidelines that blurred the lines between implementation and architecture.
Key issues included:
✔ Teams equated detailed implementation plans with architectural clarity, assuming execution was enough.
✔ The organization lacked structured architectural models, making it difficult to visualize system logic and manage complexity.
✔ Project documentation focused on what was built, not why and how different components should interact strategically.
✔ Lack of structured architecture content – Projects were driven by technical execution rather than well-defined architectural models.
✔ Minimal focus on system logic and component visual modeling – Essential elements of enterprise architecture were either absent or underdeveloped.
✔ Stakeholder misalignment – The same generic diagrams were used for all teams, regardless of their needs or technical depth.
ICMG’s assessment made it clear: Implementation is not architecture.
ICMG’s rating methodology brought this into sharp focus—showing why implementation is not the same as architecture and highlighting the missing elements needed for true architectural maturity.
The Transformation: A New Approach to Enterprise Architecture
Armed with these insights, leadership initiated a full-scale architectural realignment. All 12 project teams underwent a customized training program, blending onsite and online learning, followed by a hands-on prototyping phase.
Each team was tasked with redefining and refining their project architectures using ICMG’s Anatomy Model.
The Shift from Implementation Thinking to Architecture Thinking. By the end of the exercise, project teams completely reframed their approach, transitioning from:
🚫 Focusing solely on implementation details → ✔ Creating architecture covering multiple perspectives
🚫 Using generic diagrams for all stakeholders → ✔ Customizing architecture views based on audience needs
🚫 Managing complexity through workarounds → ✔ Using architecture models to address complexity effectively
This shift not only improved internal workflows but also positioned the company for long-term scalability and efficiency.
Key areas of improvement included:
Structured visual modeling—transforming abstract complexity into clear, navigable architecture.
From generic documentation to structured architectural components—focusing on strategy, process, and systems rather than just execution.
Improved stakeholder engagement—creating tailored architectural views instead of presenting the same one-size-fits-all diagrams to all stakeholders.
Teams gained a clearer understanding of architecture vs. implementation, eliminating past misconceptions.
Stakeholder engagement improved dramatically, with architecture becoming a strategic discussion rather than just a technical report.
Project transparency, system alignment, and architecture clarity saw significant improvements across all 12 projects.
Perhaps most importantly, the organization recognized the need for continuous benchmarking—understanding that ICMG’s role as an independent evaluator is critical in ensuring architecture remains a strategic enabler rather than just a technical afterthought.
Key Takeaways for Enterprise Projects
🔹 Architecture is NOT implementation – Execution details do not replace structured enterprise models.
🔹 Benchmarking matters – Without structured evaluation, gaps remain invisible.
🔹 Stakeholder alignment is critical – Architecture must be tailored for different teams, not forced into a one-size-fits-all format.
🔹 Continuous learning drives success – Architecture must evolve with business needs, industry trends, and emerging technologies.
The Value of ICMG Rating in Enterprise-Wide Transformation
This case study underscores a crucial lesson: Without measuring architecture correctly, organizations risk making decisions based solely on execution—missing the bigger picture of how everything connects.
The ICMG Rating Platform 2025 enables organizations to avoid outdated architectural assumptions, refine their enterprise project structures, and build sustainable, scalable, and well-aligned architectures.
For enterprises investing in large-scale transformation, the message is clear:Execution alone is not enough. True success comes from mastering architectural clarity.