In midsize pharmaceutical companies—those operating in the €2 billion+ revenue range—IT complexity grows fast. Between legacy systems, M&A aftermaths, regulatory scrutiny, and digital ambitions, the IT landscape quickly becomes a maze. To bring order to this chaos, many of these companies turn to architecture thinking on various levels: enterprise, domain, application and solution. The intent is noble. The reality? Often underwhelming.

Despite significant investments, architecture in these businesses too often becomes an isolated, theoretical discipline. Glossy diagrams are produced. Governance boards are established. But the business impact? Minimal. Project roadmaps continue to clash. Systems are selected and implemented without alignment. Projects stall, go-lives fail, and IT budgets balloon without delivering the expected business value.

So why does architecture thinking struggle to take root in these organizations? And more importantly, how can they make it work?

The Root of the Problem: Disconnect

At the core lies a fundamental disconnect between architecture and the business. Architecture teams are often built as siloed groups with a mandate to “bring structure,” but little power or integration with operational decision-making. They tend to focus on documentation, standards, and theoretical best practices rather than pragmatic enablement.

On the other side, business and functional leaders are under pressure to deliver quick wins—launching products, entering markets, responding to audits. They often see architecture as a bottleneck rather than an enabler. When that perception sets in, architecture becomes a checkbox function: something to involve after the real decisions are made.

The Cost of Architectural Drift

When architecture is seen as optional or ornamental, the downstream effects are painful. Without architectural oversight:

• Business functions create their own IT roadmaps, leading to redundancy and friction.
• Projects start without a shared understanding of the current or target landscape.
• Strategic initiatives (like S/4HANA migrations or R&D digitization) suffer delays or derail entirely.
• IT spend goes up, but maturity does not. Instead, complexity compounds.

For pharma companies operating in a highly regulated, innovation-driven space, this is not just costly—it’s risky.

Making Architecture Real and Useful

So how do you fix it? The goal is not to abandon architecture, but to rethink it: from a compliance activity to a business capability. Here are five principles to make architecture thinking applied, actionable, and connected to the business it serves:

1. Start with Business Capabilities, Not Technology Layers

Rather than structuring architecture around traditional domains (apps, infra, data), orient it around business capabilities. For example, instead of separate maps for "SAP," "CRM," and "Data Lake," create an architecture view of the "Clinical Trial Process" or "Digital Lab Workflow." This brings instant relevance and creates a shared language with the business.

2. Embed Architects in Programs and Functions

Architects should not operate from a distant center of excellence. They should be embedded in projects, business programs and functional areas like manufacturing, supply chain, and R&D IT. Their job should be to co-create the roadmap, not critique it from the sidelines.

3. Treat Architecture as a Service, Not a Police Force

Architects should support decision-making, not slow it down. This means being responsive, pragmatic, and collaborative—offering clear options, trade-offs, and risk profiles to help product owners and business leaders move forward with confidence.

4. Focus on Decision Logs and Roadmaps Over Diagrams

Architecture outputs should be decision-centric, not just diagrammatic. What choices did we make? Why? What’s the roadmap? What dependencies exist? These are the tools business stakeholders actually need. A beautiful application landscape diagram is nice, but a clear, actionable decision record is invaluable.

5. Link Architecture Governance to Business Outcomes

Architectural governance should not exist for its own sake. Every architecture board, checkpoint, or review should be tied to a business milestone: a go-live, a product launch, a market entry. If governance doesn’t accelerate or protect these outcomes, it needs to change.

A Strategic Lever, Not a Sunk Cost

Midsize pharma companies sit in a strategic sweet spot: large enough to have global reach and innovation ambition, but small enough to move faster than Big Pharma—if their architecture enables them to do so.

The good news is that architecture can be a lever for competitive advantage. But only if it’s applied with empathy, clarity, and an obsession with outcomes. When architecture becomes about helping the business make better, faster decisions with less risk, it transforms from a sunk cost to a strategic asset.

The question isn’t whether midsize pharma needs architecture. The question is whether they’re ready to do it differently.

Get in touch with Frans Nieuweboer to discuss where and how Aegis can support your architecture strategy.