Your customers’ ideas are constantly changing. You are regularly faced with new regulatory challenges. The competitive situation is also in a permanent state of flux, and promising new technologies come to light every day. You observe these changes tirelessly, but reacting to all of them would take more time and money than you are willing to invest.
This situation raises questions as to the effectiveness of your organization’s architecture:
- Does your architecture support your current business model?
- Can your company be changed and further developed?
- Are problems with people, the business and technology addressed in a consistent manner?
- Does your architecture underpin governance and compliance efforts, or does it cause significant risks and costs?
- Do your employees and colleagues think investments in technology make sense?
- Is your technology up to date?
- Which elements might hold risks?
- Which technology trends (link) could improve your business?
- What would probably be expensive impairments?
These questions highlight the extreme expectations that are placed on architects and managers nowadays, in particular in view of the fact that many companies merely pursue keep-the-lights-on policies. There are simple answers to these questions, but there are virtually no standard solutions to the problems behind them.
Realistic approaches to making substantial and sustainable improvements are context-specific: in addition to excellent architecture and technology expertise, they require a deep understanding of the concrete situation in your organization and its competitive and regulatory environment, your business objectives and strategy, and your organizational culture.
Huge technology projects with large up-front investments that take many months before realizing any business benefits are unacceptable to most of our clients. We favour approaches that provide incremental improvements for incremental investments, while continuing to support the ongoing business and its evolution.
”Move fast and break things” has been propagated for years, but has never been a viable approach for any serious business – and, as it turns out, has neither been sustainable nor entirely successful for Facebook either.