The politics of architecture

Since the architect cannot remove the human element from the equation, his next step is to effectively deal with it. To do this, the architect needs to know and master the most important areas of politics avoidance and more realistically, politics management. These are:

* The art of communication;
* Credibility;
* Understanding that business drives, technology enables, but both build; and
* Choosing the right battles.

From an architectural and planning perspective, an extensive amount of communication needs to be done pre and post most of the deliverables. Some 60% of architecture projects should in essence be around communicating findings and solutions to all stakeholders as well as managing their expectations and requirements.

In a meeting, all too often we are thinking about our next point or how to short-circuit a person`s statement and not actually understanding or even listening to that particular person. In a recent Stephen Covey workshop, he presented a hierarchical structure of listening patterns ranging from downright ignoring to emotive listening as the ideal.

Often, architects are so bent on achieving the perfect architecture with the perfect standards and procedures that they lose sight of the problems and issues at hand.

Craig Martin, MD, SiloFx Enterprise Architecture Solutions

Emotive listening implies that one needs to understand at an emotional level what the speaker is trying to communicate and repeat it afterwards. Various rules are applied to this technique, such as you are not allowed to probe for information or make suggestions of your own. I suggest a token passing or six hats approach to achieving effective communication.

Token ring communication means that no one in the room is allowed to speak unless they hold the "token". The six hat thinking principle is one in which, depending on which hat you are wearing, you can only say certain things about a specific topic. Hats can be realist, pessimist, or optimist and so on.

By combining these two approaches during workshops and information-gathering sessions, some interesting results are played out in which people are forced to listen, as well as view problems from different perspectives.

Although some meeting time can be wasted by following this method, if it`s done in moderation then it could be used to ease the tension around stalemates reached concerning the top of the pyramid as well as provide valuable information.

The domain of architecture is often seen as the domain of the techie, and architects need to seek ways to change this view. The starting point here is credibility. Once an architectural exercise has begun, the architect`s main role is that of facilitator and soldier. The primary sponsor - and not the architect - should be the presenter of the findings to the business. Although the sponsor is usually the head of technology (since the perception is that this is where architecture belongs), this can result in a failed architecture exercise since the business never buys into the concept and it becomes a classic "business versus technology" paradigm.

Ideally, members of an architecture team should be the business owners and the top resources from each department, not merely leftover resources in need of utilisation. Only then will the effort be successful.

Architects need to understand that enterprise architecture is not the domain of technology. It is a business domain of which the technology components are merely the enablers. However, the technology representatives must feed into the process to create a dual paradigm view of the problems as well as a dual paradigm solution set. This creates a rather unique output since the same result is being achieved, but from two different perspectives. Both perspectives must hold the same weight with an adjudicator in the middle to make the final decision on certain contentious points.

Often, architects are so bent on achieving the perfect architecture with the perfect standards and procedures that they lose sight of the problems and issues at hand. Many an hour has been wasted arguing points around whether, for example, a process or a function is to be used as the main driver for a blueprint. While these issues have their place, it is the architect`s job to ensure the value versus effort trade-off is made.

In the many workshops and meetings held during an architectural planning episode, the architect should learn the value of compromise in order to achieve the desired solution. The architect must continually seek to balance the mandate given by the business with the resources made available by that business to complete the task. These resources are often constrained by cost and time.

Since too much compromise can actually open a project to risk, we need to first consider its definition. The standard view of compromise is that two parties agree on a path, but neither is really happy with the chosen path. This is not ideal from a project and political perspective. A trade-off is actually more suitable, in which one thing is exchanged for another. Therefore, a trade-off includes an exchange whereas a compromise often does not. This principle is seen on the ground level through techniques such as the architecture trade-off analysis method, where business owners have to compromise goals such as performance with availability.

Guiding principles also help within this domain, but unless all parties have agreed and bought into these principles, they are merely rules on a page that restrict innovation.

The key element to remember here is to spend more time striving to reach agreement at the top of the pyramid and less at the bottom. This implies that more debate should be had to solidify the "what" and "why" of the business rather than the "how" of the business. Applying some of the principles above will help you and the architecture function in your business deliver more effectively.

SiloFX sponsors ITWeb`s enterprise architecture industry portal, which takes an in-depth look at this still often misunderstood discipline. Enterprise architecture provides the blueprint to ensure the best IT value contribution possible. It`s becoming increasingly important in a business environment characterised by mergers, acquisitions and consolidations, where the ability to quickly integrate business and IT plans is paramount.