Agile Management vs Agile Architecture

Project management is, by its very nature, linear. There is step-by-step process which may fork and merge but which has a critical path and an inherent order.
The Agile approach contradicts this somewhat; iterations look like reversing direction and constant revision appears to be scope creep. As indeed it can be. A good project manager adapts by dealing with a curved line rather than a straight one. But still a line.
Architecture looks at a problem in a more multi-dimensional way. A solution is created by first sketching the shape and adding detail by refining - or changing aspects as you go. A problem has multiple facets which are all valid ways of looking at a system.
This approach works well with Agile, as long as it is incorporated into the (wider*) cycles and a basic enterprise framework is in place beforehand.
Which is, I think, why some junior managers find my ways of working as somewhat frustrating. Senior managers tend to care more about outcomes and oversight than the exact mechanism for getting there.

* "Agile" as practiced in most organisations is more correctly described as 'iterative' where each phase of the SDLC cycles to refine the output and also cycles as a whole to build up a practical system from the "MVP".

Interoperability in Construction

In IT there is a strong drive to buy Off-The-Shelf software sold (or leased) by a known vendor. This is generally a good idea, why build it yourself if someone else offers something better at a reasonable price.
However, one of the issues is that the packages contain everything they need to work in isolation, but they are very rarely in isolation. Any IT system in any sizable organisation requires working in conjuction with multiple other systems, being connected and sharing responsibilities - interoperating with the rest of the technology landscape.

By analogy, consider building a house.
You buy the plans, or a pre-fab designed by a reputable firm with a history of quality workmanship. The house follows a standard layout that works for 99% of the firm's customers and will probably work for you as well. The design just needs to be built and minor adjustments made to suit the land, local regulations, your personal preferences and so forth.

Of course, the vendor wants to appeal to a wide audience and so the plans are written to allow the house to be built almost anywhere. As such they include a water tank and septic system, solar panels and space for a walk-in freezer. After all, you may want to build in the back of beyond away from modern conveniences. On the other hand, you may also wish to build on an inner city block with everything just on the door-step including a parking garage next door.

If a good architect wrote the plans, the design the water tank to be replaced with a mains supply without any other impact on the build. The garage could be left out and the electrical connections would all run through a switchboard that could be wired into the grid. This is interoperability.
Too many of the off-the-shelf packages I have seen have the equivalent of filling the water tank from mains and assume that is a suitable fix.