myBusinessArchitectmyBusinessArchitectmyBusinessArchitectmyBusinessArchitectThe email arrived on a Tuesday morning: "I was surprised to learn that an assessment of my faculty's capabilities was conducted without my involvement or input." The dean was not wrong. The assessment had followed proper methodology, was authorised by the VP Academic, and had produced accurate findings. None of that mattered. The architecture was now contaminated by the process that produced it. Meanwhile, Fiona had been watching the architecture's traction fade: steering committee attendance dropping, the quarterly review postponed because three of five VP attendees had scheduling conflicts. Diane was direct: "You are confusing crisis enthusiasm with organisational commitment." This chapter gives you the framework for what to do when the architecture is right and the organisation is not acting on it. Six sources of resistance, each requiring a different response, and the practices that build influence that survives when the crisis energy fades. And when a decision stalls despite sound evidence, Value Network Analysis shows what has to flow between you and the people who decide.
By the end of this chapter, you'll be able to:
The email had arrived on a Tuesday morning in her second month at Lakeshore, days after her gap assessment reached Sandra's office.
"I was surprised to learn that an assessment of my faculty's capabilities was conducted without my involvement or input. I would have expected the courtesy of a conversation before my area was evaluated by an external process."
Fiona read it twice. It came from the Dean of Skilled Trades, and that was what stung: Skilled Trades was one of the two faculties the strategy most needed to move. The dean was not wrong. The capability assessment had followed proper methodology, had been authorised by the VP Academic, and had produced accurate findings. None of that mattered. A senior leader felt that his territory had been evaluated without his knowledge, and now the findings, however sound, were contaminated by the process that produced them. The architecture was right. The communication had failed. And Fiona, who had been at Lakeshore long enough to know its faculties' capabilities and not long enough to know their deans, had no framework for what to do next.
If you have been doing architecture work for any length of time, you recognise this moment. The analysis is solid. The evidence is clear. And the stakeholder is not interested, because the architecture triggered something the communication did not address. This chapter gives you the framework Fiona needed that Tuesday morning. But the email was only the first sign. Consider where things stood five months later.
Eighteen months after the crisis, Fiona had noticed the shift. It was not dramatic. Meetings rescheduled, then rescheduled again. A steering committee member who used to ask probing questions now skimmed the slides and nodded. Sandra's quarterly forum, the review Fiona prepared (with the Four Ares as its agenda), drew twelve people for her first session. The next drew eight. The one after that was postponed because three of the five VP attendees had "scheduling conflicts".
The crisis that had created the architecture mandate was receding. Enrolment had stabilised. The clean energy pilot was running. The capability investment had been approved. From the perspective of Lakeshore's leadership, the existential questions had been answered and the urgent decisions had been made. Business architecture had been useful. The question forming in the hallways, unspoken but palpable, was whether it was still useful.
Fiona raised it with Diane Okoro over coffee. "The architecture was right. The decisions were good. But it feels like the organisation is reverting. People are going back to their silos. The capability investment is approved but the energy behind it is fading."
Diane was direct. "You are confusing crisis enthusiasm with organisational commitment. The crisis made people willing to listen. It did not make them believers. You have to earn that separately, and you earn it one useful conversation at a time. The question is not whether the organisation needs architecture. The question is whether the organisation experiences architecture as useful to the work they are doing this week."
This chapter is about that problem: the gap between the architecture being right and the organisation acting on it. The communication skills from Chapters 1 through 6 are necessary but not sufficient. You also need to understand why people resist architecture work, how to respond without either retreating or escalating, and how to build the kind of influence that survives when the crisis energy fades. This is not a chapter about politics or manipulation. It is about earning credibility through consistent, translated, useful communication.
And that dean's email? We will return to it in Section 7.2, where Fiona turns the worst moment of her first year at Lakeshore into one of her most productive relationships.
Curriculum Connection: In Building the Common Language (COR-BA-101), you encountered the challenge of selling reference models to people who think their vocabulary is fine. The resistance you felt in that chapter has the same root causes described here: territorial threat, jargon overload, perceived irrelevance, past initiative fatigue, fear of exposure, and loss of autonomy. The communication strategies in this chapter are the tools for those exact situations. If you bookmarked a specific resistance scenario in COR-BA-101, this is where you develop the response.
Create a free account to access Communicating Business Architecture and start learning.