This second value proposition of architecture has quite a different set of primary stakeholders, with very different challenges. But the underlying needs of Governance and sponsorship remain - without these the architecture (now firmly in the "guidance" domain) still sits on the shelf gathering dust.
"Doing things right" is not so much a question of executive decision making, it's more about "conformance" - given a solution delivery programme/project is up and running (thanks to the enterprise exploiting architecture's other value proposition!), the solution designers are expected to design the solution in accordance with the architecture - using the enterprises ABBs and reference designs to ensure their solution fits in with the wider environment.
But what if it doesn't? Either by design (sorry!) or accident? And how would anyone know?
Conformance
We need a process, or at least protocol that ensures the design is reviewed, in exactly the same way and at the same times as the project itself is reviewed as part of Project Management. But of course the conformance review is by the enterprise's architects (not PMs!), working in concert with the project's designers.
We need a process, or at least protocol that ensures the design is reviewed, in exactly the same way and at the same times as the project itself is reviewed as part of Project Management. But of course the conformance review is by the enterprise's architects (not PMs!), working in concert with the project's designers.
What happens when it doesn't conform? Absolutely nothing without architectural sponsorship. So the CAB is vital here too... But indirectly!
Imagine taking an architecturally detailed disagreement between the architects and designers to a business exec, and asking them to sit in judgement!
No, what is needed is a second body, this time focused on the architectural content, that we might call "The Office of the Chief Architect" (OCA) sponsored by the CAB and which owns the development and exploitation of the architecture. Only when the OCA and design team agree to disagree ("we need to be live by Christmas" v "you must use the new infrastructure which goes live next year") does the OCA approach the CAB for a resolution - which will inevitably be business value based.and not " down in the weeds"
There remains one last challenge - how to ensure the solution designers (plural) within a programme or project work together in a coherent way, solving the business problem within the enterprise's architectural constraints?
They need a Design Authority. A body within the programme/project with the authority to oversee, review and approve the design within the context of the solution's requirements, and to negotiate outwards with the OCA during conformance reviews.
The details of how these three governance bodies work together (when "doing things right ") beyond this blog, but suffice it to say they only need a limited number of relatively simple processes - two associated with "conformance", two with " vitality ", and one with "communication".
Vitality
What's this about "vitality"? Basically, it means is the architecture still the right architecture? What if loads of projects do not conform? I don't mean vicariously, I mean on purpose? What's going on? Probably the architecture is (or has become) inappropriate. It no longer serves the needs of the enterprise, and must reviewed and revised.
What's this about "vitality"? Basically, it means is the architecture still the right architecture? What if loads of projects do not conform? I don't mean vicariously, I mean on purpose? What's going on? Probably the architecture is (or has become) inappropriate. It no longer serves the needs of the enterprise, and must reviewed and revised.
No comments:
Post a Comment