Thursday, 31 July 2008

Architects - why are there so many and why are we reverse engineering a solution?

IT has a horrendous reputation in the Bank and I don't blame them. We are delivering solutions that do not meet the Bank's needs - cool (best of breed) technology is not a need, but a want. There are 3 teams of architects in the Bank: Enterprise, Solution and Infrastructure.

The Bank wants to make sure that it is the Infrastructure Architects that get to draw up the evaluation criteria. Shouldn't the process start at the Enterprise level and filter down through the project lifecycle?

The process as I see it should be:
a) Identify business need
b) Evaluate and document requirements
c) Engage with the Solution Architects
d) Business, Enterprise and Solution Architecture develop conceptual solution
e) Conceptual solution implementation tender created
f) Choose aligned Technology that meets needs, not infrastructure wants.
g) Build solution

Now, I am not saying that the Infrastructure Architects are not needed, but just that it is funny that they are driving a solution that we will need to do again in a few years and Business will shout again and reduce our performance appraisal score because we are not delivering the right solutions?

Infrastructure and a specialist skill and it is very important, but following a good enterprise architecture and ensuring that Solutions align with that architecture will mean that the job of the Infrastructure team will be made easier.

No comments: