What is the best approach when an Architecture function doesnt have executive backing?
It’s a topic I’ve discussed in detail with my architecture network, which, in today’s current climate has become more prevalent. How do you stay in an organisation where the executive stakeholders don’t appreciate, don’t care, or simply don’t believe in architecture?
With any activity that has critical strategic importance to an organisation, there is a key requirement to get the executive stakeholders sold on what you are trying to achieve. They are the ones with the budget and hold the overall decision as to the direction of the company. What happens when the people who you are meant to be able to lean on, who are meant to be your biggest advocates, don’t trust or believe in your decisions?
The support of the Architecture function within organisations often comes in sets of waves. Riding in on those waves are executives, with them is the baggage that they have brought from a previous surfing trip. what type of executive you get and what kind of preconceived ideas they have, could drastically influence how much of an impact architecture will have within an organisation moving forward.
For every exec that understands what architecture is and how it can benefit an organisation -there are others who are operationally focused and perceive architecture as “pie-in-the-sky” thinking -delivering little to no value. If your organisation has the ‘other’ type of exec, (which I’m sure many of you have had in the past) it can be a very nervous time. In times like these, where organisations are trying to cut down on costs and focus on core business, it becomes a fight for survival. Therefore, it is important to decide on an approach that you will take to combat this.
The common approaches taken by those lacking support
The “Tackle it head on and learn the art of Politics” approach - Architecture is about thinking holistically. It's about creating frameworks that aren’t dependent on individuals. Therefore, the approach of getting involved in politics and focusing on how you can appease certain individuals is often the last thing many want to do. However, if you can master this and are happy to take a few knockbacks, you could be surprised with how you could turn things around.
The “Ride it out” approach - Sit back and wait for the next set of waves to come in. This tactic is common and tends to end up with architecture becoming more of a delivery function, rather than being brought into the decision-making process. It isn’t an admission of defeat, it's an understanding and acceptance of what battles you are able to win.
Or the “Get in your car and drive to a different beach” approach - As many do, when they see the writing on the wall, they look elsewhere and take on a new challenge where they can see strategic buy-in and potential for growth. The general thought here is, why would I waste years of my life fighting a losing battle, when I can make real change somewhere else?
What approach would you have taken when confronted with this situation, and has this previously been a deciding factor for you when deciding whether to take on a new role/engagement?