Legal, security and product each want different things from the launch. What is your role?
Why C is the answer
Make the trade-offs visible, and get a named decision owner
Architects surface trade-offs and consequences. A named owner stops the same dispute coming back.
In detail
- Architects surface trade-offs and their consequences.
- A named owner stops the same dispute coming back.
- Record the decision and who made it.
Use case
An illustrative scenario, not a real incident.
Legal wants review, product wants speed, and security wants limits. The architect lays out the trade-offs, and a named owner decides, so the dispute ends.
See it in different ways
sequenceDiagram participant S as Sponsor participant A as Architect S->>A: A broad ask A->>S: Problem, baseline and target A->>A: Build and measure A-->>S: Result, limits and options S->>A: Named decision
sequenceDiagram participant P0 as Teams participant P1 as Architect participant P2 as Decision owner P0->>P1: Competing needs P1->>P2: Options and consequences P2-->>P0: Decision
Key point: Surface trade-offs, and get a named owner.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. Split the work so that each group gets a separate version
- Separate versions multiply the cost, and may break the rules.
- B. Choose the option that the most senior stakeholder prefers
- Seniority does not resolve a legal or security risk.
- D. Keep building, and raise the disagreement after launch
- Raising it after launch makes the fix much more expensive.