Three Maps, One Week, Same Missing Layer

Posted on December 19, 2025

Why the Pattern I Documented in 2008 Is Repeating in 2025

April 1, 2008.

That’s when I laid out the entire architectural critique — and introduced the concept of the Metaprise — seventeen years ago.

This week, three major vendor maps were published or updated. All three repeat the same pattern I documented in 2008. All three are missing the same layer.

What I Wrote in 2008

“The inherent flaw in the Theory of Constraints (TOC) philosophy is similar to that of the old ‘chain’ of Christmas lights in which one bulb could bring down the entire string. In short, the theory confines or limits you to work within the framework of a flawed architecture.”

“I have commonly referred to this as being a linear or sequential architecture in which an equation-based model has been used as a framework for application development.”

“The basic principles of TOC actually touch on the periphery of the foundational elements of an agent-based model in which the synchronization of seemingly disparate elements are a reflection of the real-world processes that defines the organization.”

“With 85% of all initiatives failing to achieve the expected results, it would be hard to miss.”

“These vendors are confining their client base to work within the limited framework of a flawed architecture… At best, these are little more than static ‘band-aide’ solutions.”

What I Named in 2008

The Genealogy Is Now Complete

The Christmas Lights Analogy — Then and Now

The Punch Line

I introduced Metaprise and agent-based synchronization in April 2008 as the alternative to sequential architectures.

Seventeen years later, every vendor map — CB Insights, DPW, Andrei’s SCOR-based Agentic AI map — is still built on the sequential foundation I critiqued.

The architecture never changed. The failure rate never changed. The missing layer is still missing.