Good architecture shouldn't need a carrot or a stick

Last post I wrote about how you can approach buy in for your architecture. I’ve been thinking a lot more about the topic, and would like to delve a bit deeper into it. I still stand fully behind the post I wrote two weeks ago, but the more I think (and research) about it, the ideal situation is that you don’t have to seek buy in for your architecture at all. The carrot and the stick Almost all architecture offices I’ve seen have a policing stance. When you want to get your software, tooling, or approach implemented, you’re going to need to pass through the architecture board (or some kind of board). In these boards, there are architects that go through all the documents required (artefacts) and either approve or disapprove the setup. I would call this the stick approach. People don’t want to go through this procedure. They have to prepare all of these documents, follow all of these guidelines and after all of this work, the faceless board can still stop everything in its tracks. With…