Reflection: is this really how it is?

By now, many of you will be thinking, maybe even saying "yeh, right, in your/my dreams!"  and "Ian's describing a utopia, that cannot exist in this real world!"

Well, funnily enough, it's a rare sight in my world, too.

But that's because my experiences have largely been with dis-functional "Architecture and Design" departments, looking for guidance and help to "make it work"- and all of my "Making it Work" posts are based on practical, first hand experience with these clients, that I have seen work, that have transformed (or at least improved) the effectiveness of the team (or teams).

For example, the "three body" Architecture Governance structure is missing - usually one of the three bodies is not present.

• whether it be the Architecture Board (AB), meaning that the Office of the Chief Architect (OCA) has no "teeth"
• or the OCA is not there, which means the AB has a confused and frustrating relationship with the Program's Design Authority (DA) - basically they do not speak the same language, nor have the same set of issues; 
• or there's no DA, which means the AB and OCA have no-one "in authority" within the program to work with.

All those capable and competent "Architecture and Design" departments have not needed my (or my IBM colleagues) help, so I've seen them rarely.  But they DO exist - there's plenty of evidence in the literature, conferences  and on-line reviews to prove the point.