English | EN 
The Architecture Review Board (ARB) is a standard practice in many organizations, acting as a group of senior architects and stakeholders who regularly review proposed changes to the IT landscape. They evaluate how well these changes align with the overall architecture, identify potential risks and conflicts, and decide whether to approve or reject the proposals.
In the river metaphor: Think of the ARB like a lock system in a canal. Just as boats must pass through a lock to maintain the water level and ensure safe passage, projects and changes in an organization must go through the ARB to ensure they align with architectural principles and maintain system stability. If the flow of projects is too high, the ARB can become a bottleneck. Conversely, skipping the review process risks undermining the architecture, much like eroding river banks.
Remember my blog about practice theory? This holds some clues for recommendations:
Shared understanding: The ARB should promote a shared understanding of architectural principles among all stakeholders, not just its members. This can be done through workshops, training, and clear documentation. The ARB should be seen as a collaborative platform rather than a bureaucratic hurdle, similar to how clear procedures help boat captains navigate a lock system safely.
Shared artifacts: The ARB uses various artifacts like architecture diagrams, impact assessments, and risk registers. These “material arrangements” should be designed to aid effective decision-making and communication (Schatzki, 2001). Templates should be clear and easy to use, much like the forms a lock operator fills out.
Social dynamics: Recognize that the ARB is not just about technical decisions but also involves social dynamics. Emotions, power dynamics, and organizational politics can affect its effectiveness. The “teleoaffective structure” (Schatzki, 2001), the shared sense of purpose and values, should be cultivated to promote trust and collaboration. Thus, making the ARB a point of smooth transition rather than a source of conflict.
This blog is part of my discovery and attempt to clarify understanding and improve our architecture practices.
References
Schatzki, T. R. (2001). Introduction: Practice theory. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr-Cetina, & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 1–14). Routledge.