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 authorized 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, Marcus 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 organizational commitment." This chapter gives you the framework for what to do when the architecture is right and the organization 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.
By the end of this chapter, you'll be able to:
The 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. I would have expected the courtesy of a conversation before my area was evaluated by an external process."
Marcus read it twice. The dean was not wrong. The capability assessment had followed proper methodology, had been authorized 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 Marcus had no framework for what to do next.
If you have been doing architecture work for any length of time, you recognize 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 Marcus needed that Tuesday morning. But first, consider how he got there.
Eight months into the transformation, Marcus 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. The quarterly architecture review that Marcus had designed (using the Four Ares as its agenda) drew twelve people for its first session. The second session drew eight. The third was postponed because three of the five VP attendees had "scheduling conflicts."
The crisis that had created the architecture mandate was receding. Enrolment had stabilized. The clean energy funding had been secured. The phased investment plan 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.
Marcus raised this with Diane Okoro. "The architecture was right. The decisions were good. But it feels like the organization is reverting. People are going back to their silos. The capability investment plan is approved but the energy behind it is fading."
Diane was direct. "You are confusing crisis enthusiasm with organizational 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 organization needs architecture. The question is whether the organization 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 organization 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 Marcus turns the worst moment in his architecture practice into one of his 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 identity threat. 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.