Over the years I've noticed a strange phenomenon, sometimes the most logical decision isn't the decision made. Have you ever witnessed an unbelievably strong argument to build system infrastructure with all the right scientifically backed architecture documentation, ROI analysis, market analysis and compelling innovation forecasts only for it to be rejected? I have and wonder, why does this happen?
Other than times when an organization simply cannot justify the funds for the right project, there are other reasons for dismissing a sound, scientifically justified system architecture proposal such as:
We've all heard that an Enterprise Architect is a 'change agent'. I go one step further, all Architects are change agents. Let me give you an example, a project Solution Architect's responsibility is to ensure the software quality of the software the project delivers. They constantly influence the project team to build the right software solution that meets the needs of the key stakeholders as well as ensure the the longevity of the software. An Enterprise Architect is responsible for understanding the business' needs and influencing that the right projects are delivered and they have the right level of system quality.
The point I'd like to raise in this blog posting is that simply building architecture documents, whether it be fully fleshed or not, isn't the high order bit for an Architect. Adoption is the high order bit for Architects. Yes, I'm saying that the engineering aspects of an architect's role is not as important as the abilities to gain adoption of their ideas with the sole purpose of making change - the type of change that ensures the business gets the most value from their investment. Of course, if sound engineering is necessary to make change, then the Architect should do this...but only after careful analysis that this is the right thing to spend time on to actually make change.
I'm not saying that an Architect need not worry or spend time on building sound architecture. On the contrary, if an Architect doesn't do this, then I question the integrity of their ideas. What I'm highlighting is to not depend on sound architecture alone to impact change.
Interestingly, in order to gain adoption and make change, Architects must be leaders. Why? Because leaders are influential, leaders gain momentum, and most importantly leaders consciously understand when to lose and win the right battles in order to with the war. And the war Architects engage on is change.
To my fellow Architects out there, remember not to get stuck on engineering excellence. Architects are leaders and we use these leadership skills to obtain adoption and drive change with the sole purpose of ensuring that the business gets the most value from their investment.
PingBack from http://www.artofbam.com/wordpress/?p=3134
Can you give practical examples of how a leader of this kind could spread their thoughts? i.e. is it via dedicated presentations? As a "side-kick"-role in other projects? At the coffee-table? ... ?
I began writing a quick response to Eric’s question in this blog about Architect’s high-order bit is
@Eric great question. I've written a dedicated blog post to answer it because I felt a brief reply wouldn't do it justice. You can find my reply here.
Modeling helps improve the success of delivering a high-quality solution A primary responsibility of
Welcome to the July 1, 2008 edition of Carnival of Enterprise Architecture (Issue #10). Business Process Management Stephan Grindley presents Enterprise Asset Management Software - a Great Way to Manage posted at Asset Management Articles. Bozidar Spirovski
We all agree now that Adoption is key for Enterprise Architects . And the trick to adoption is resonating
I strongly believe that Leadership is a critical competency for successful Enterprise Solution Architects