By Patrik Maltusch and Jessica Schwarz
When Enterprise Architecture (EA) is mentioned, it is often associated with frameworks, diagrams and technical roadmaps. In universities, this perception can make the EA methodology feel distant from day-to-day academic and administrative realities. Yet in practice, Enterprise Architecture is as much about people as it is about systems. Across higher education institutions in Europe, community practitioners are discovering that the true value of architecture lies not in documentation alone, but in its ability to foster shared understanding, collaboration and alignment across diverse communities. For the EUNIS community, this human dimension of EA is particularly important.
Universities are among the most complex organisations to architect. They bring together teaching, research, administration, libraries, IT services and external partners, each with distinct missions, cultures and ways of working. Academic freedom, decentralised decision-making and long institutional histories add further layers of complexity. In this environment, Enterprise Architecture cannot succeed as a purely top-down or technical exercise. True institutional maturity is not about achieving a ‘full score’ on a technical audit. As the EUNIS community has highlighted, a single average score is an ‘architectural deception.’ Instead, maturity is reflected in Decomposed Fields—for example, an institution might be ‘high on technology’ but ‘low on governance’. Recognising this allows the EA practitioner to act as a facilitator, focusing human energy on the specific areas, like governance or Identity and Access Management (IAM) roadmaps, where the community feels the most friction. As such, EA functions best as a connecting practice, one that helps people navigate complexity together and make informed decisions that respect both institutional values and operational realities.
One of the most powerful contributions of EA in higher education is its ability to create a shared language. In 2026, this ‘shared language’ is being codified through the integration of the Service Reference Model (SRM) into the HERM. By moving toward a Service Abstraction, we are not just drawing boxes; we are creating a neutral vocabulary that allows a researcher in Sweden and an administrator in Spain to discuss ‘Service Delivery’ without getting bogged down in local organisational charts. It shifts the conversation from ‘Who owns this?’ to ‘How do we serve our community?’. Visual models, capability maps and architecture views help make complex systems and processes understandable to non-technical stakeholders. Rather than prescribing solutions, EA enables conversations. It helps academic leaders, administrators and IT professionals see how their priorities intersect, where dependencies exist and what trade-offs may be required. In this sense, EA supports decision-making through clarity rather than control.
Institutional silos are a familiar challenge in universities. Faculties, departments and central services often operate with limited visibility into each other’s systems and processes. EA provides a neutral space where these perspectives can meet. Across EUNIS institutions, EA practitioners report success when architecture work is co-created, through workshops, collaborative mapping sessions and iterative discussions. Quantifying the value of these human relationships is notoriously difficult—it is the ‘cost of not failing.’ To help make this ‘invisible’ value visible to leadership, practitioners are using the Resilience Reflection Canvas. By looking through the lens of ‘People & Capabilities,’ we can show that cross-training and leadership buy-in aren’t just ‘nice-to-haves’; they are critical infrastructure that prevents institutional paralysis during a crisis. These practices invite participation, build trust and turn architecture into a shared endeavour rather than an imposed structure.
Tensions between academic and administrative priorities are not uncommon. Academics may fear that architectural standardisation could limit flexibility or innovation, while administrators seek efficiency, sustainability and compliance. Enterprise Architecture can act as a bridge between these worlds. By focusing on capabilities, outcomes and institutional goals rather than specific tools or platforms, EA creates room for dialogue. It helps reconcile academic freedom with the need for reliable, scalable and secure systems, without framing one as more important than the other.
In this people-centred approach, the role of the EA practitioner evolves significantly. Beyond technical expertise, successful architects act as facilitators, translators and listeners.
Soft skills, such as communication, empathy, storytelling and the ability to navigate organisational dynamics, become just as important as modelling techniques. We often refer to this as the ‘Iceberg Model’ of EA. While the visible part of the iceberg—the diagrams and the IT roadmaps—is what people see, the 90% below the waterline consists of the ‘enabler-enablers’: the trust, the informal networks, and the shared mindset. Without this invisible foundation, the visible blueprints are just paper. The architect’s real job in 2026 isn’t just to build the blueprint, but to cultivate the conditions that allow the blueprint to stay upright. EA practitioners often find themselves mediating between different perspectives, helping stakeholders articulate their needs and aligning them with broader institutional strategies.
Within the EUNIS community, practitioners share stories of EA being used to:
- support cross-faculty collaboration on shared digital platforms,
- align research infrastructure planning with institutional strategies,
- clarify responsibilities between central IT and local units,
- enable smoother organisational change during digital transformation initiatives.
While contexts differ, a common lesson emerges: EA works best when people are actively involved in shaping it.
Over time, Enterprise Architecture can contribute to broader cultural change within institutions. By promoting transparency, shared ownership and long-term thinking, EA supports universities in addressing complex challenges such as digitalisation, sustainability and organisational resilience. When embedded into institutional culture rather than treated as a project deliverable, EA becomes a continuous practice that evolves alongside the organisation.
Extraordinary institutional outcomes do not come from the most expensive tools; they come from doing ‘ordinary’ structural things better than everyone else. In 2026, the most ‘structural’ thing an architect can do is build a bridge between people. The EUNIS Enterprise Architecture community provides a valuable space for this. By bringing together practitioners from across Europe, EUNIS enables peer exchange, reflection and mutual support. Institutions benefit not only from shared tools and methods, but from shared experiences—learning what works, what does not, and why. This collective perspective is particularly powerful in higher education, where diversity of institutional models is a strength rather than a weakness.
Enterprise Architecture in universities is ultimately about enabling people to work better together. Systems and technologies matter, but they serve institutional missions shaped by human values, relationships and choices. By placing people at the centre of architecture practice, EUNIS institutions can use EA not just to manage complexity, but to build alignment, trust and shared purpose across their communities.
