Does architecture have a value in delivering technology?

Have you ever watched Grand Designs or George Clarke's Amazing Spaces? What differences were there between an approach with architects, designers, project managers, surveyors, lead contractors, master craftsmen and more and the more ad-hoc, give it a go myself, how difficult can it be approach?

Why do I ask? I get asked quite frequently about the value of architecture in delivering technology. I also, although not quite so often, get asked the same question about design and other activities that can be considered as ‘planning’ to change rather than ‘building’ a change.

Why do I pick house building as an analogy? We love it in the UK. TV has a number of programs considering how to turn old into new, build new from scratch ranging from the size of a shed to the that of a country estate. House building is a complex task which over the years has introduced lots of governance to make it safe and protect the buyer from poor quality work.

So, the role of architecture. It is an outward facing discipline mainly. In our house analogy for example the majority of the work is to review how the new building, floor, room will sit in the space it is targeting. Consider a new house it needs to sit within its plot to allow suitable access by road and path, it needs to consider access to utilities such as water, gas and electricity, it needs to consider environmental aspects such as trees, light, ground quality and more. However it also considers, at a high level, the users desires for the space. Bedrooms may require less light than an office. Utility rooms require water and room for white goods. However it would fall short of detailed layouts for where to put items, cabling diagrams, lighting schemes and more. This would be the role of designers, looking inwards.

In technology, and business, the same holds true. We need to understand how the change sits within its space. We need to review the new organisation, the new or changed division, department, team or person. What effect will it have on its surroundings be they people, infrastructure or technology. What utilities does it need…this is mainly information in technology and understanding this is where our understanding of integration comes from. What or who has that information? We consider the usage and the high level principles and requirements for the change such that we can understand its dependencies and demands on its environment.

Governance is strong in house building. Building regulations impose regular checks of standards to ensure safety but have also progressed beyond safety to the overall quality in areas such as thermal properties. This governance, and in fact the architecture and design effort, varies by project size. An entire housing estate has significant effort invested where as a shed in the corner of the garden takes less. Delivery of technology change can often overlook this need for governance or impose housing estate levels of governance when only building a new shed. Neither achieves a great outcome and cost the business money, create risk and damage revenue.

To achieve a pragmatic approach business and technology architects will establish principles, standards and apply relevant methodologies that can adapt to scale. Regular checks can reduce the need to back track and re-work. Establishing a roadmap of change to ensure one part is complete before moving on can avoid, using my analogy, building the first floor on top of badly laid foundations. What is the first question to cover when understanding the scale of governance….are you configuring or customising? A simple example, if I am using a finance system to create a credit note then the credit note feature has been well tested by the supplier and its many customers. However if I am changing my CRM to handle credit notes then there was no credit note feature [in most CRM’s] it is new and unproven. The risk is significantly higher and should be reviewed starting with the question….why create the feature when it already exists in another system. Would you prefer to file down a hammer to make a chisel or buy a chisel?

The practice of architecture and design in the life-cycle of enterprise creation and change is rich and complex. It is easy to overlook at the start resulting, in later years, with an organisation that is brittle and inflexible. Conversely it is easy to spend years planning by which time the requirements have changed and the plans are useless.

 So, does architecture have value in enterprise change? Why not let me know?