Tech Canvas

These are not software-first or tech-native companies. They are organizations in healthcare, insurance, retail, logistics, and manufacturing — whose business models are not built around selling software, but are now being reshaped through technology.

In these enterprises, modernization is not a one-time overhaul. It is a multi-year, multi-program transformation — often involving legacy systems, compliance regulations, global teams, and fragmented architectures. Governance is essential not to slow teams down, but to ensure:

• Strategic alignment across siloed initiatives
• Informed decisions that factor in downstream implications
• Visibility for leadership across infrastructure, business, and finance

🏗️ Modernization Themes and the Role of Governance

Many traditional enterprises are in varying stages of transformation across a consistent set of modernization themes. For those that have fully embraced maturity across the following themes, governance must evolve into a lighter-weight, federated, and decentralized model:

• Data Platform Modernization: Cloud-based lakehouses and real-time data platforms with self-service and AI capabilities
• Cloud Migration & Hybrid Infrastructure: Predominantly serverless workloads and rationalized use of multi-cloud environments
• Application Modernization: Cloud-native development using microservices and micro frontends, with standardized integration patterns
• AI Enablement: Embedded AI/ML into business processes with governed MLOps and explainability
• SaaS Consolidation: Rationalized SaaS portfolios with centralized identity and integration
• IoT and Edge Modernization: Well-integrated edge intelligence with cloud analytics
• Enterprise Observability: Mature telemetry, tracing, and reliability metrics aligned with business SLAs
• Agile Operating Model: Teams structured via product-platform models, influenced by SAFe and Team Topologies

In such organizations, governance becomes more about reinforcing alignment and facilitating visibility rather than mandating direction. Architecture advice groups and lean governance mechanisms become more effective than traditional gatekeeping.

However, for the majority of enterprises still undergoing transformation across these areas, the need for structured governance is significant.

🧩 Why Governance is Essential During Transformation

Even as organizations adopt modern practices — cloud-native, serverless, SaaS consolidation, data lakehouses — they may still:

• Maintain legacy systems or host mission-critical platforms on-prem
• Operate in regulated environments with compliance constraints
• Execute transformation programs at different paces across business units

Without effective governance:

• A platform team may invest millions in a container platform, while product teams transition to serverless
• A central IT group might renew on-prem database licenses while the data team moves to a cloud lakehouse
• Integration patterns proliferate unchecked, creating long-term technical debt

These aren’t just technical mismatches — they lead to missed business goals, redundant spend, and avoidable delays.

🔎 What Decisions Require Governance?

Governance is not about policing every Jira ticket. It’s about reviewing and aligning decisions with strategic, cross-functional impact, such as:

• Adoption of new technologies or frameworks (e.g., service mesh, low-code tools, AI platforms)
• Build vs. buy evaluations for shared platforms or developer tooling
• Integration or data sharing architecture between domains or BUs
• CapEx investments in hardware, licenses, infrastructure refreshes
• Strategic SaaS and cloud implementations that cut across business lines
• Long-term vendor partnerships or contractual commitments

These decisions shape an organization’s technical, financial, and operational future — they must be governed intentionally.

🛠 Mechanisms for Governance: From Control to Enablement

Governance in modern enterprises must evolve into a layered, collaborative process that supports decision-making without paralyzing progress. In the context of traditional organizations transforming through modernization themes, the following governance mechanisms work best:

1. Team-Led Architectural Ownership

• Teams initiating significant changes take responsibility for engaging relevant stakeholders early.
• They socialize ideas with impacted groups (e.g., security, operations, EA) and gather input before advancing the proposal.

2. Architecture Advice Process (from Keeling’s Framework in Facilitating Software Architecture)

• Peer-driven, voluntary sessions focused on architectural alignment and shared learning
• Encourages early discovery of technical or operational misalignments
• Organized around domain-specific topics (e.g., cloud, security, data)

3. Lean Enterprise Architecture Group

• Provides templates, roadmaps, and reusable assets
• Functions as a facilitative center — enabling consistent practices, not enforcing them
• Forms a networked federation of architects embedded across programs

4. Architecture Review Board (ARB)

• A single, cross-functional governance body to review decisions with enterprise-wide implications
• Brings together architecture, finance, procurement, security, and delivery leaders into a shared decision forum
• Acts as the convergence point — not for control, but for visibility, risk management, and execution alignment
• Not a control board, but a visibility and alignment mechanism
• Reviews decisions with high strategic importance or financial implication
• Offers a forum for leadership — not only technical, but also finance, product, and procurement — to:
  • Understand decisions in-flight
  • Raise potential conflicts
  • Share lessons or existing investments

🧩 Should there be one review board or many?

Rather than creating multiple forums with overlapping leadership panels — for finance, security, project portfolio, and architecture — a unified ARB can be designed to consolidate reviews of decisions with broad organizational impact.

• Teams proposing significant changes should first ensure alignment through advisory groups and consultations with affected stakeholders such as enterprise architecture and security.
• The ARB then functions as the final convergence point, reviewing the cumulative impact of a decision — across technology, procurement, financials, labor models, and delivery priorities.
• This eliminates redundancy and ensures cross-functional visibility without creating parallel or duplicative forums.

This unified ARB model is particularly effective for traditional enterprises undergoing modernization:

• It reduces redundancy by preventing the same leaders from attending multiple overlapping forums
• It promotes informed, cross-disciplinary decisions by bringing together architectural, financial, procurement, and delivery perspectives into a unified forum. Technology decisions today rarely exist in isolation — they have implications across:
  • Finance (CapEx/OpEx models)
  • Security (compliance, data protection)
  • Team labor models (skill sets, outsourcing, agile delivery)
  • Delivery prioritization (project and product alignment)

This integration enables early identification of downstream impacts, improved risk visibility, and fewer surprises late in execution.

• It aligns with modern governance trends that favor distributed ownership with centralized visibility
• It reinforces the EA function as a facilitator of cross-functional collaboration, not a bottleneck

However, to avoid overloading the ARB:

• The threshold for escalation must be clearly defined
• Advisory groups must remain empowered to handle domain-specific guidance
• Participation in the ARB should be rotational or topic-specific, not one-size-fits-all

This ensures that architectural decisions have organizational coherence and no blind spots across business units.

---

Governance in traditional enterprises is not about slowing change — it’s about guiding change in the right direction. When structured through lightweight advisory processes, federated architecture communities, and a purposeful ARB, governance ensures alignment without becoming a bottleneck. It provides a system of accountability and visibility across transformation programs — enabling informed decisions, cross-team awareness, and coherence in enterprise-wide investments and architectural direction.