← Back to principles
Architecture
Architecture is a Collaborative Responsibility
Statement
Architecture is a Collaborative Responsibility
What this means in practice
Architects work hands-on with delivery teams and stakeholders, collaborating across disciplines and staying close to real constraints and code. Architecture emerges through shared understanding, transparent decisions, and continuous engagement rather than authority. Architectural direction is shaped by the people building and operating the systems, not imposed in isolation.
Why this matters
When architecture is a collaborative responsibility, decisions are grounded in delivery reality and understood by those who implement them. Without collaboration, architecture becomes detached—guidance is hard to apply, misunderstandings increase, decision latency rises, and architects are perceived as blockers rather than partners. This slows delivery and reduces quality across the organisation.
Practices that meet this principle
Architects are embedded within or regularly attend delivery team ceremonies
Architecture decisions are discussed openly with engineers, testers, and other disciplines before being finalised
Lightweight architecture reviews or walkthroughs are conducted collaboratively with the team
Stakeholders and domain experts are actively involved in shaping architectural direction
Shared documentation or decision records are co-authored with delivery teams
Validation
A project meets this principle when:
Architects actively participate in delivery team activities rather than operating in isolation
Architecture decisions reflect input from multiple disciplines and stakeholders
OR:
Team members can articulate the architectural direction and the reasoning behind key decisions
Scoring Guide
Score −1 — Disagreement / Rejected: The team acknowledges this principle is applicable but has explicitly decided not to follow it for this product. A rationale and decision record exist explaining why collaborative architecture is not adopted.
Score 0 — Not doing: Architects work in isolation. Decisions are handed down without team input. No collaborative sessions or shared documentation. Team members cannot explain the architectural direction.
Score 1 — Planned: The team has committed work to adopt collaborative architecture practices. An owner and target date exist for embedding architects in delivery and establishing collaborative decision-making. The plan is tracked.
Score 2 — Adopted for new work: Architects are embedded in or regularly attend delivery ceremonies for all new work. Decisions are discussed openly with engineers, testers, and stakeholders before being finalised. Decision records show contributions from multiple disciplines. Any exceptions are explicit and reviewed.
Score 3 — Enforced for new work + migration plan: Collaborative architecture is systematically enforced for all new work through process or tooling (e.g. mandatory collaborative reviews, co-authored templates). A tracked migration plan exists to extend collaborative practices to legacy and in-flight work.
Score 4 — Fully adhered: Collaborative architecture is the norm across all work. Lightweight reviews and workshops are conducted routinely with the full team. Shared documentation is co-authored. Team members across disciplines can articulate architectural direction and reasoning behind key decisions. Remaining gaps are minimal, known, and time-bound.