Enterprise Architecture Function
32 processes, 29 standards, 17 sprints — architectural control of 81 initiatives over 2 years
What doesn't work
Product teams made architecture decisions autonomously: technology choices, integration design, scaling. Result — technology zoo, service duplication (45 of 83), incompatible interfaces. Architecture errors discovered only in production. EA function effectively absent: 1 process, 1 standard, 8 initiatives.
Architectural approach
Created enterprise architecture function from scratch: growth from 1 to 32 standard processes, 1 to 29 standards, 8 to 81 initiatives under AC control. Architecture Decision Records (ADR) and Architecture Decision Log (ADL). Architecture Committee (AC) with mandatory verification — 15+ protocols, 50+ projects reviewed in 2022–2024. OTIF metrics. C4 Model for documentation. TOGAF methodology.
What made it hard
Building a culture of architectural control in a company that never had one — the first months every project tried to bypass the architecture gate. Growing from 1 to 32 processes in 2 years — each new process had to be not just documented but actually enforced. OTIF metrics met architect resistance: 'we're creators, not a factory' — had to demonstrate that standardization accelerates rather than constrains.
My role & contribution
CTO / Technical Director
Built the enterprise architecture function from scratch: from 1 process to 32, from 1 standard to 29, from 8 to 81 initiatives. Personally chaired the Architecture Committee (15+ protocols, 50+ projects). Developed NFR checklists, OTIF metrics, ADR/ADL templates. Implemented mandatory architecture gate.
How it looks
How it works
17 monthly sprints with grooming on 21st–30th. Mandatory architecture gate before implementation. NFR checklist per project. Multi-variant decisions (≥3 options in different price ranges). OTIF metric with penalty for missed statuses. Tech debt control during implementation and acceptance. Architecture Council (AS) for strategic decisions. Vendor selection — formalized process with weighted criteria.
Why this way
Mandatory verification instead of advisory architecture
Architects as consultants — teams can ignore recommendations
Advisory model: teams ignore when rushing. Result — 45 duplicates out of 83 services. Mandatory gate: no project starts implementation without architecture review.
0 new duplicated services. 32 processes, 29 standards, 81 initiatives. Technical debt −20%
Results
- 01
- Processes: 1 → 16 → 32 (growth over 2 years)
- 02
- Standards: 1 → 29
- 03
- Initiatives under AC: 8 → 81
- 04
- 17 sprints, 15+ AC protocols, 50+ projects reviewed
- 05
- OTIF SLA for architects
- 06
- +5–15% capacity from meeting optimization, −20% tech debt
Impact on business
Built architecture function from scratch, now controlling 81 initiatives. 45→0 new service duplicates. T2M −1–10%. Services expanded by 10% through new architect roles. Every decision documented in ADR/ADL — knowledge preserved across team changes. Vendor selection with weighted criteria prevents platform choice errors.
Algorithms & patterns
Technologies
- Jira
- Confluence
- C4 Model
- TOGAF
- ADR/ADL
- Vendor Selection Framework