Daily Inspiration Quote by Tony Scott

Scott’s definition of enterprise architecture sounds like bureaucratic housekeeping until you hear the power move inside it: architecture isn’t being framed as diagrams or tech choices, but as governance. “Fully describing and mapping” is a bid for total visibility - the fantasy that an organization can be rendered legible, end to end, and therefore steerable. The word “fully” does a lot of ideological work. It signals ambition, yes, but also a mistrust of improvisation: if the business can be captured in models, surprises can be minimized, budgets can be justified, and accountability can be pinned to something that looks objective.

The sentence is built like a bridge: business functionality and requirements on one side, information systems requirements on the other. That “relating” is the real intent. Scott is arguing that enterprise architecture is not an IT art project; it’s translation and alignment. In a corporate setting, that’s how you win arguments. When a business leader wants speed and a technologist wants integrity, “mapping” becomes the neutral language that turns competing instincts into a plan.

Context matters: as a director-level figure, Scott is speaking from the vantage point of coordination, not invention. Directors are paid to reduce friction between teams, vendors, legacy systems, and shifting priorities. The subtext is a promise to executives: give us architecture, and we’ll make your sprawling organization navigable. It’s also a warning to IT: your systems don’t get to be clever; they have to correspond. Enterprise architecture, in this framing, is the politics of coherence.