Architectural debt often gets overshadowed by technical debt, yet it's a significant concern for enterprise architects. The author distinguishes between code debt—temporary hacks that developers create to meet deadlines—and architectural debt, which involves structural decisions that can lead to complications later. As organizations expand, especially with numerous third-party applications, understanding how these systems interact becomes critical. The focus should shift from individual code quality to broader integration patterns, data flow, and system maintenance. The article breaks down architectural debt into three layers: application/infrastructure, business, and strategy. At the application level, architects should assess integration practices and avoid vendor lock-in while considering overlaps in functionality. The business layer emphasizes the importance of clear ownership and documentation. Misunderstandings here can lead to significant operational problems. In the strategy layer, the risk lies in poorly defined capabilities, which can misguide long-term planning and transformation efforts. Tackling architectural debt requires visibility and a strategic approach. Enterprise architects have the advantage of time and resources to identify and present architectural issues to stakeholders. Keeping track of existing debt and systematically addressing it is essential. The author advises balancing the need to address debt with the realities of organizational constraints, recognizing that some areas may tolerate debt better than others, especially during innovation phases.