Are traditional architecture engagement models still relevant?
30th November 2016
Author Adrian Kearns
Reinvention dominates the business landscape, pervading how we work and how we engage with those around us. As an architect, I sometimes wonder how many of my industry colleagues have noticed this and contemplated similar innovation. As architects we are often perceived as dinosaurs; surely then, the time to start reintegrating ourselves is now.
The current state of architectural engagement
A good architect can bring excellent value, but that value is lost if it arrives too late. Some of the barriers to this value even appear to be systemic or stem from entrenched legacy thinking.
The way in which architects engage is influenced by several factors, including:
- Control: architectural governance is often perceived as regulatory rather than wisdom.
- Processes: these are often complex, “heavy”, unwieldy and time-consuming.
- Resourcing: architectural capability is often scarce, a scarcity which is exacerbated by heavy processes.
Traditional architectural engagement tends to be based on a “these are the rules” approach renown for volumes of documentation and thinking before any real work starts. Interestingly this way of working doesn’t really have a name – it “just is”. There’s definitely a number of architects who got the Agile memo, but overall that percentage is still relatively small.
There are architecture frameworks such as TOGAF, but a framework is not an engagement model. TOGAF has the “Request for Architecture Work” concept, but this is more of a one-shot form. TOGAF is aimed at enterprise architecture and whilst it refers to solution architecture it does not attempt to address how architects should engage with stakeholders in a product or project delivery setting.
At the project level, architectural engagement will ideally be in the form of an embedded solution architect. Ideally their engagement will start with the business case and continue through to overseeing the implementation. At worst, their involvement will be sporadic or non-existent. For various reasons such as a scarcity of architects, coupled with the weightiness of architecture processes, this engagement will likely be forgone for smaller projects. The associated risk is that smaller projects often grow into bigger ones, consequently attracting belated architectural attention.
So, short of everyone drinking the agile Kool-Aid what should we do? What might a revamped engagement model look like? How do we start, and what are the challenges we need to solve?
The goal is to ensure that architects are able to add value in a timely and sustainable manner.
As architects often work as part of an architectural practice, and within the boundaries of architectural governance, both the architecture practice and governance may need to be revamped:
- The architecture practice should reinforce behaviours and processes that make the team more consistent in their approach, allows them to support each other, and thus positions the team to offer a more consistent experience to their business clients.
- Ideally architectural governance should support the team in this change as they are its ambassadors. Governance should not be about doing architecture for the benefit of the architect.
At a high level, think about making these changes so that the following value is unlocked:
|Create a toolbox of processes, tools & artefacts that is accessible.||
|Encourage architectural mentoring and coaching.||
This isn’t a wholesale re-write, but more of a health check and possible diet. You might be familiar with the concept of a good value proposition being one that your grandmother could understand; check your architectural governance processes and make sure they can pass that test. Make sure that what is expected is very clear, not onerous, and that its business value is self-evident.
Create a toolbox of processes, tools & artefacts that is accessible
Empowering the business, whilst keeping them and the architect team aligned, is going to mean having some supporting materials available. These will work with the revamped governance and be very practical in nature. In situations where architects are working with the business in a mentoring context they will need materials that they can refer the business too, and which the business can use with a degree of self-reliance. These materials should outline:
- Technology constraints that are deemed important, and why. If possible, a sense of direction, as business and architecture are seldom static.
- What questions to ask themselves, and when, so that the business doesn’t paint themselves into a corner.
- Areas of danger or concern; things they should escalate to the architect so that they can be appropriately supported. Thinking along the lines of RACI can be helpful – for example: when should they inform and when should they consult.
These material might be pre-written guides, checklists and (lightweight) documentation and diagrams, or, checklists that the business progressively complete with varying degrees of assistance from an architect. They might be anything from risk assessments, solution option assessments to solution architecture definitions.
Creating materials that effectively support the business (and the architects) means creating materials that are easy to access – not just in terms of being easily located, but also easy to read, and understand.Materials should be suitably light-weight, so that they are easy to consume and keep up to date. After all there’s no point freeing up an architect’s time just to write more documents.
In terms of the artefacts you expect the business/projects to deliver, ask yourself “who will read the documents”? If the answer is “only other architects” then exactly what value does it provide and is it really necessary?
Encourage mentoring and coaching
There will always be a need for architects to do the architecture, and to be deeply embedded in a given project; but conversely there are many opportunities where a lighter touch may be equally effective.
Coming to the business with a mentoring approach places everyone on a more equal footing, and increases the chance of a more meaningful collaboration. The architects are close enough to spot potential issues, establish some sort of rapport with the business and lead them where appropriate. The business is free to do some of the heavy lifting themselves, freeing up some of the architect’s time.
If successful, architectural value should become easier to unlock, and more valued by everyone.
So far we’ve focused on the engagement model, i.e. elements of structure, broad approach and the rationale behind it. Hand-in-glove with those concepts is the style of engagement, i.e. the communication style used and how you relate to stakeholders on a personal level.
It is vital that you tune-in to your audience. Architects need to be leaders, they need to manage stakeholders of all types, and in a range of different situations. To do this effectively will require you to adjust your engagement style to suit both the audience and the message.
The best laid plans are easily ruined by poor execution, and as good architecture is dependent on good communication it is essential to get this right. Effective communication is a substantive topic in its own right, and beyond the scope of this article, but to get started, consider:
- Being available, approachable and responsive.
- Being good at active listening.
- Being able to relate to others.
- Being able to simplify the complex.
- Being able to speak up.
- Being good at asking questions.
- Being effective at persuasion, mediation, facilitation.
- How to say no without coming across as (or actually being) a roadblock.
- Picking the right communication style for the audience.
As a discipline architecture offers great value, and architects tend to be clever people, but realising that value is not straight forward – as architects we need to be proactive, we need to be mindful of changing expectations as the world changes around us. Just because architecture deals in the fundamental does not mean it is impervious to change.
As practitioners of architecture, take what you can from new ways of working, such as Agile and collaborative tools.
Show the business and the rest of IT that architecture is not something up an ivory tower, and that we can lead innovation and change by example.
Adrian Kearns is a Manager in our Wellington team with a focus on technology and how it enables the Digital Enterprise. Adrian has over 16 years’ of professional IT experience across both government and private sectors; covering business-operations, solution architecture, system design and development. He is also a co-founder of the Wellington Solution Architects Forum. His customer and business focus has enabled some of New Zealand’s largest businesses and public agencies to accelerate change and stay ahead.
Photo by Cecil Stoughton / JFK Library, sourced from historyinpieces.com