Founder & CEO @ Lever Talent | Host of The Lever Show | Helping leaders develop talent strategies that leverage a tech-empowered future.

You’re capable of more than you could ever imagine.

I started my career impatient, driven, and a little naive. In my mid-20s, I was sprinting up the corporate ladder… and got fired.  

That moment forced me to get honest about what actually changes a team: clarity, standards, and the courage to hold them.

My belief is simple: as AI and automation take more transactions, the human work matters more. Technology multiplies what’s already there (judgment, trust, focus). Software doesn’t change a team. Cadence does.

In 2022, I followed that belief and started Lever Talent. I work with CHROs, CPOs, and HR or L&D leaders to align talent with the business so teams get better because of technology instead of being buried by it. We make it practical:

• Lead with Leverage: a manager cadence that makes expectations real (and conversations easier)
• MVV that sticks: values → rituals → behavior change
• AI, but usable: 30-60-90 change plans that turn pilots into ROI
• People-ops command center: fewer dashboards, better decisions

With technology, our leverage is limitless. Let’s build teams that prove it.

DM me to get in touch.

Drew Fortin

I’ve stopped believing in generic leadership training.

You can’t copy-paste culture and expect alignment.

We kicked off a new program called Lead with Leverage, and it reminded me how rare true leadership alignment actually is.

Some of these leaders have been with the company for 20 years, yet not one has ever been trained on what leadership actually means inside their business.

They’d done all the usual things: 

- Attended a seminar
- Used a learning platform subscription 
- Had a one-off “manager bootcamp.”

But here’s the problem: 

Management training only works when it’s anchored to the business it’s meant to serve.

That’s why at Lever Talent, Inc. , we build leadership programs with companies, not for them, because culture and strategy can’t be outsourced.

Real leadership development has to answer questions that no generic curriculum ever can:

- What behaviors are non-negotiable for leaders here?
- What does “great” leadership look like in this company?
- What are leaders being asked to do differently right now to win?

When those answers are clear, training becomes actionable.

So yes, leadership training matters.

But only when it’s designed to be applied, not just completed.

That’s the difference between checking a box and actually changing how leadership shows up in your business.

Founder & CEO @ Lever Talent | SHRM-SCP | Helping leaders develop talent strategies that leverage a tech-empowered future.

No alternative text description for this image

The best leaders do the same thing the best parents do:

They raise their teams to be independent of them.

It’s easy for leaders to get stuck in the business instead of working on the business, usually because they don’t trust the system you’ve built.

But if you're a leader and involved in everything, you’re the bottleneck.

Great leadership is creating enough clarity that the business can run without you, and that only happens:

- When the mission is clear.
- When the values actually show up in decisions.
- When people know what’s in bounds and what’s out of bounds.

You can only make so many decisions yourself before you hit a ceiling.

The only way to scale is to build a system where others make the same decisions you would, without asking.

And yes, it can feel like working yourself out of a job.

But that’s the point.

If your leadership still requires you everywhere, all the time, you haven’t built a system.

You’ve built dependence.

NVIDIA is one of the most valuable companies in the world.

Jensen Huang proudly says he runs a flat org with 40 direct reports, no 1:1s.

People are idolizing it like it’s the future of management.

But that structure only works in context.

If you’ve built a deeply tenured, insanely high-skill team over decades, maybe you earn the right to that span of control.

That’s the exception, not the operating model most companies can just copy-paste.

We’re heading toward a world where fewer people run much larger organizations. 

That means leaders oversee more, control less, and must trust deeper.

Because the moment your org grows, your job as a leader must evolve too.

Your brain only has so much time and attention. At scale, control becomes an illusion. 

The moment your organization grows, the job of a leader has to change with it.

Great leadership isn’t:

- Knowing everything.
- Approving everything.
- Overseeing every decision.

Great leadership is:

What people do when you’re not there.

Relinquishing control is a skill.

And the sooner leaders learn that, the faster their organizations actually grow.

Culture is the single biggest reason people quit.

And it’s the one thing most leaders still treat like a “soft” topic.

A new survey found that 94% of U.S. workers say workplace culture impacts their decision to stay.

When employees talk about “culture,” they mean things like:

- How connected they feel to their team and the company at large
- How genuine they can be with team members 
- Clarity in roles and responsibilities and alignment to the strategic vision
- Does it feel like everyone is showing up and equally contributing 

Culture isn’t owned by HR. It’s built moment by moment, especially by the people in charge:

- What questions are welcomed (or punished)
- Whether it’s safe to admit you don’t know
- What behaviors get rewarded under pressure
- What happens when you fail or don’t follow through 

And the data says that 22% of professionals plan to leave this year due to values misalignment. Because only 36% believe their company is investing in their growth.

Culture is the infrastructure of a company's success.

How leaders show up, how people are treated, and what’s rewarded under pressure all shape whether employees stay, grow, and give their best.

“Prove AI can’t replace you” might be the most dehumanizing sentence to enter the workplace in decades.

I understand what Shopify’s CEO is trying to push on.

AI should force leaders to question bloated processes and low-leverage work.

But the moment the conversation becomes “prove a human is necessary,” you’ve already reduced people to a cost problem.

That’s not how great work gets done.

AI is incredible at execution, pattern recognition, speed, and scale. It’s terrible at context, judgment, trust, and meaning.

Using AI as a gatekeeper for jobs is fundamentally different from using AI as an accelerator for people.

One creates fear, defensiveness, and employees who spend every review cycle justifying their existence.

The other creates better decisions, sharper thinking, and teams that ask higher-quality questions.

And let’s talk about performance reviews for a second.

If AI becomes part of how employees are evaluated, leaders need to be crystal clear about what they’re optimizing for.

If leaders don’t take responsibility for defining that relationship, employees will fill in the gaps themselves.

And fear always fills the gaps faster than clarity.

AI shouldn’t be about replacing people.

It should be about figuring out how much more people can do when the machine finally carries its share of the load.

The best career advice I ever got?

Follow what makes you forget to check the clock.

Here’s the litmus test I’ve come back to over and over again in my career:

When you’re truly aligned with your work, you lose track of time.

You start thinking, “I should take a break… but I can’t wait to get back to this”.

We’ve all felt it somewhere.

Maybe it was a creative project, or a problem you couldn’t stop thinking about. 

Something that pulled you in so deeply, you forgot the clock existed.

That’s what work feels like when it’s aligned. It fuels you.

So when someone says, “I just want to work my hours and be done,” I get it, we all need balance.

But I also get curious:

Have you immersed yourself enough to see if the spark is there?

Or are you still standing at arm’s length?

And if the answer is honest, “This doesn’t do it for me,” then the next question matters even more:

Where do you lose track of time?

And how might you turn more of that into something valuable?

Your career is the greatest asset you’ll ever own. You get out what you put in.

The worst kind of leadership is the kind that hides bad news behind a smile and calls it optimism.

The kind that insists everything is fine when everyone can see the flames.

This forced positivity is a trust killer; all it does is erode employee confidence and doesn't boost morale. 

Because when leaders only share the upside and deflect hard questions with vague platitudes, all that grows is suspicion.

When words and actions don’t match, people assume the worst.

If your strategy relies on pretending the dumpster fire is just a “temporary heat source,” don’t be surprised when your best people start looking for exits.

Being truthful as a leader doesn’t mean dumping confidential details or catastrophizing the future.

It means being honest enough to say:

“Here’s what’s going well, and here’s what’s not. This is what we’re doing about it. And while I may not be able to share everything, here’s what I can...”

People expect honesty, accountability, and a little humanity from their leaders.

So have the hard conversation. Trust me, your team can handle it.

I think I finally found the image that best describes me, trying to keep up with AI learning.

We use AI every day at Lever Talent, Inc. . It’s part of how we work, how we think, how we experiment. We're continuously building it into our client-facing programs and internal processes.

And I’ll be the first to admit: there are moments when I feel behind. Because I should.

AI is moving faster than any leadership shift I’ve seen in my career. The only way I know how to respond is to keep learning constantly.

To read, to test, to break things, and to talk to people who know more than I do.

But what worries me is the leaders who don’t feel continuously overwhelmed.

In most big decisions, reorgs, restructures, and investments, we want ~70% confidence.

But with AI, I’m seeing leaders operate at 50% confidence and call it transformation.

Weak leadership is hoping the tool will save them all, which is just denial.

AI can’t rescue a broken operating model or turn mediocrity into excellence.

It only amplifies what’s already there.

So yes, I’m still learning, and drinking from the fire hose.

The only way to lead through change is by staying agile.

I’d rather be soaked and curious than dry and pretending I’ve got it all figured out.

Big Tech is spending hundreds of billions on AI.

But tech unemployment is climbing...

For years, tech was the safest bet in the labor market. There was high pay, high demand, and major tailwinds.

But that era is over. What we’re watching now is a sorting event.

If your skills are tightly coupled to:

– legacy systems
– outsourced execution
– work that AI can accelerate or replace

You’re feeling the squeeze already.

If your skills help organizations:

– design better operating models
– apply AI to real business problems
– lead humans through uncertainty and change

You’re still in demand.

There's this misconception that most companies are “overstaffed.” That's not true, they're misaligned.

They cut people before they redesign how work gets done.

They invest in AI before they rethink roles, decision rights, and incentives.

They pause hiring instead of building confidence and clarity.

That creates fear, and that fear is the real talent risk heading into 2026.

Tech isn’t dying. But the old tech career bargain is.

If leaders were totally honest about their 5–7 year plan, it would look a whole lot like this:

The future is messy. 

Most leadership teams can describe the destination beautifully. It sounds great out loud.

What’s far less clear is the distance between today and that future, and what actually has to change to get there.

That’s the uncomfortable gap. 

The confusion comes down to three words that sound similar, but mean completely different things:

Mission, vision, and values.

Your mission is the reason why you exist. It doesn’t change just because the market does.

Vision is where you’re going in 5–7 years. It should feel aspirational and also a little scary.

Values are what have to change in how people think, decide, and act to get there.

And those values must evolve.

If your company was built on risk-taking, there will come a point where raw risk-taking is no longer an advantage.

If you never evolve those values, you end up protecting the past instead of building the future.

So if your future plan looks a little chaotic on the wall, that’s actually a good thing.

Just make sure you’re being precise and pragmatic about what has to change in order to get there.

Only 6% of Gen Z want to be a traditional leader.

Because we made leadership look miserable.

- Endless hours
- Inbox anxiety
- Burnout disguised as loyalty.

If that’s what “making it” looks like, who would want the corner office?

But there’s something deeper happening here. We’re living through a quiet revolution in what agency means.

Agency used to mean getting promoted, someone else handing you authority.

Now it means owning your time, your values, and your impact.

That’s why when I started Lever Talent, Inc. I kept coming back to this idea:

We need a Jerry Maguire for the individual.

Because today’s headhunters don’t really work for talent, they work for business. They don’t get paid to build your career; they get paid to fill a seat.

But people are realizing they can take ownership of their own careers, fractional, freelance, hybrid, on their own terms.

They’re building agency into the way they work.

Here’s the twist, though, and it’s one too many leaders and creators are skipping over:

You can choose balance.

But if you want flexibility, you might have to trade speed.

If you want balance, you might have to let go of the myth of “having it all.”

The goal isn’t to have your cake and eat it too.

It’s to know which cake you’re baking, and why.

We’ve been hiring backwards for decades.

Job descriptions shouldn’t define the org; the org should define the jobs.

AI is changing how we organize work.

People are one resource.

Tools and partners are others.

AI is reallocating human energy to where it actually matters, which means the real shift needs to be in organizational design.

Most companies still design orgs around people first:

“I need a payroll person.”
“I need an L&D lead.”
“I need a generalist.”

That model is backwards.

Instead of hiring a payroll manager, companies should design for automated compliance, then decide if that’s a person, a tool, or a partner.

Strategy and org design should define the capabilities you need.

Only then do you decide where humans belong.

If AI keeps accelerating, we can’t rebuild our orgs every few years.

That's why the focus needs to be on designing for adaptability from day one.

Because when AI takes the busywork, org design becomes the real leadership job.

I don’t think the AI + ARR conversation is actually about revenue.

I think it’s about leadership.

ARR (annual recurring revenue) has long been the lifeblood of SaaS. It’s a clean signal of durability, predictability, and product-market fit.

But AI app companies aren’t playing the same game.

Right now, we’re celebrating speed. 

Fast ARR. Fast adoption. Fast valuations. 

And I get why, AI is moving at a pace none of us has seen before. $275B in investment will do that.

But I can already see the bottleneck that's about to happen:

When leaders chase metrics they don’t fully understand, they start optimizing for optics instead of durability.

A lot of AI “ARR” today isn’t recurring in the way leaders assume. 

It’s pilots, credits, usage-based experiments, and early excitement multiplied by 12. 

That may satisfy a board deck, but it creates false confidence inside the organization.

And false confidence leads to bad leadership decisions:

– Overhiring in areas before demand is proven
– Betting culture on momentum instead of value
– Promising stability to teams that don’t yet exist

And no, this isn’t just an AI startup issue.

It’s the same leadership mistake we’ve seen in every major shift; AI is just exposing it faster.

It’s time for leaders to start asking harder questions:

Are we building something people depend on, or just trying to look like we are?

AI won’t be the downfall of companies. Leadership will, if it keeps confusing activity for impact.

Leaders need to be willing to slow down, tell the truth, and build systems: people, tech, and operating models that actually hold.

That’s responsible leadership.

And it’s about to matter a lot more than ARR charts.

Apple had five CEOs before Steve Jobs came back.

So why do we all think of Apple as the iPhone company?

Because leadership doesn’t just run a company, it defines its identity.

Look at the products Apple shipped under each CEO before Jobs returned:

- Apple II
- Lisa
- Macintosh clones
- Newton
- Copland OS

A dozen experiments that look like they came from entirely different companies

They don’t even resemble each other, and that’s the point.

When strategy is unclear, the product becomes unclear.

Each CEO had talent. Each had a vision.

But they created five different operating systems for the same organization.

Everyone inside Apple was forced to run on whatever version happened to be installed at the time.

Then Jobs returns in 1997 and does something simple:

He deletes almost everything, and he aligns teams to a single, coherent future.

And suddenly, the Apple we recognize is born.

Because of a leadership philosophy that unified product, people, and purpose.

If five CEOs can turn Apple into five different companies, ask yourself:

What version of your company are you creating right now?

And is your operating model capable of delivering the future you keep selling?

Most companies don’t have a clear definition of what leadership means, and that's what sets them up for failure.

Every exec deck starts the same:

At Acme Studios, we value...

“Trust.”
“Integrity.”
“Honesty.”

Cool. But can you explain what your values actually do? How do they help your company move toward your vision?

When I ask leaders to explain, I'm usually met with silence.

For a lot of companies, mission, vision, and values are just boxes to check.

Not systems to operate.

And that used to work when managers could rely on metrics, approvals, and oversight to keep things moving.

But AI is already stripping out transactional work.

Middle management is thinning. Leaders now own more people, more decisions, and more ambiguity than ever before.

But frameworks and dashboards can’t solve that.

Leaders can’t OKR their way through ambiguity, or metric their way to judgment.

That's why real leadership needs to build trust systems so people can make sound decisions without constant oversight.

Because good management is what people do when you’re not watching.

That's why your mission needs to reduce drag, and your values need to accelerate decisions.

Because if your leadership model depends on constant oversight…

The only thing it's causing is friction.

AI is forcing every leader into a choice they can’t dodge:

Do you believe your people are fundamentally creative and motivated, or lazy and in need of control?

Your AI strategy has already answered:

When leaders deploy AI to monitor keystrokes, rank “productivity,” we’re telling people exactly what we think of them.

And people respond accordingly.

- Fear replaces initiative.
- Compliance replaces creativity.

Work stops being about contribution and starts being about survival.

AI is reinforcing our dimmest view of humans that people can’t be trusted unless machines watch them.

But we don’t need AI to tighten control.

We need it to free people from the work that dulls their talent.

The real opportunity is using AI to uncover the potential we’ve buried under bureaucracy:

• Redundant approvals
• Performative documentation
• Meetings that exist because the calendar said so

That’s how you get outcomes AI alone will never deliver.

Leaders need to create conditions for people to think freely again.

So be honest with yourself:

What does your AI strategy say you believe about your people?

Leaders who’ve successfully built even one new venture lean into uncertainty. 

Because they’ve learned something most organizations never do: 

That growth is a leadership problem. McKinsey’s latest research confirms it. 

Yes, the economics have changed. 

AI has collapsed timelines, headcount, and cost in ways that would’ve sounded irresponsible five years ago.

But that’s not why some companies win, and others stall.

The difference is leadership maturity.

The strongest leaders do the hard work: 

Designing teams that can actually experiment, and cultures where learning is rewarded instead of quietly punished.

That takes discipline.

And it takes leaders who are willing to say “no” far more often than “yes.”

Venture building fails when leaders treat it like an innovation initiative instead of an operating model shift. 

You can’t bolt this onto a rigid org, a fearful culture, or managers who’ve never been trained to lead ambiguity.

In uncertain times, it’s tempting for leaders to play defense and optimize what already exists.

But history keeps showing us the same thing: the companies willing to build while things feel uncomfortable are the ones that create the next wave of growth.

With extensive experience in IT Technology Leadership, Enterprise Architecture, and IT Management, I have committed my career to advancing innovation and driving impactful transformation. As a Technology Architect at IAG Transform, I play a critical role in shaping digital transformation, aligning technology strategies with business goals, and implementing innovative, scalable solutions.

My expertise lies in navigating the complexities of enterprise IT to deliver secure, maintainable, and future-ready systems that meet strategic objectives. I am passionate about harnessing digital capabilities to redefine business landscapes, fostering agility, innovation, and sustainable growth.

Beyond technical expertise, I excel at building strong relationships, influencing stakeholders, and promoting best practices to ensure excellence in digital solutions. My leadership is driven by a dedication to bridging the gap between technology and business, empowering organizations to achieve their strategic vision.

Nadzeya Stalbouskaya

𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗘𝘅𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗜𝘁𝘀 𝗩𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲 𝗜𝘀 𝗜𝗻𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲
I’ve worked in organizations with mature EA practices. Frameworks in place. Governance running. Diagrams approved.

And still, in leadership conversations, the same question comes back again and again: “𝘚𝘰... 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳?”

This is uncomfortable to admit, but important:
the problem is rarely the architecture itself.
It’s how we position it.

Over time, I’ve noticed three recurring patterns that quietly erase architectural value.

𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁. 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲.
Not intentionally. Not maliciously. But when architecture is invited to “review” instead of “shape,” it becomes commentary, not leadership. At that point, no diagram can save the outcome.

𝗦𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱. 𝗪𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 𝗶𝗻 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀.
Capabilities, layers, standards, target states.
All valid. All necessary. But business leaders don’t fund structures. They fund outcomes. Speed. Risk reduction. Optionality. Cost of delay.
When architecture can’t translate into these terms, it becomes invisible.

𝗧𝗵𝗶𝗿𝗱. 𝗪𝗲 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹.
Communication is often labelled as a “soft” competency.
In reality, it’s a core architectural capability. If an architect cannot explain why a decision matters, what risk it removes, or what future it enables, the architecture might be correct and still irrelevant.

What actually helps?

An outcome-driven mindset. Clear cause–effect narratives. Visuals that show trade-offs, not just structure. And metrics that connect architecture to decisions, not documentation.

Gartner has been saying this for years: architecture creates value only when it accelerates decision-making. McKinsey makes a similar point from another angle: organizations fail not from lack of strategy, but from decision paralysis caused by complexity.

Architecture is meant to reduce that complexity. If it doesn’t, we should be honest enough to ask why.

This is not a critique of architects. It’s a reminder of our responsibility.

Architecture is not about being right. It’s about being useful at the moment decisions are made.

𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯: 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮? 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘥?

#EnterpriseArchitecture #ArchitectureLeadership #DecisionMaking #ArchitectureValue

undefined undefined

First, the idea that AI adoption would automatically lead to productivity gains.
Sources:
https://www.gartner.com/en/articles/ai-value-realization
https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/why-ai-doesnt-automatically-make-teams-more-productive

Second, predictions around “autonomous enterprises” proved overly optimistic.
Source:
https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/the-state-of-ai

Third, the expectation that governance would become lighter with smarter technology did not hold.
Source:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/ai-governance/

https://www.pcquest.com/tech-explained/is-your-enterprise-architecture-ready-for-ai-10944385

Technology Architect at IAG Transform | Architecture Debt Advocate | Enterprise Architecture | SAP | Data & AI & Innovation | Digital Transformation

I’ve just completed the SAFe® 6 Architect certification.
Not because I collect certificates. And not because every architect “must” have SAFe. I went for it for one very simple reason. I wanted to challenge my own position as an architect in a scaled, agile environment.

Over three very intensive days, I didn’t learn magic frameworks or perfect answers. What I did get was something more useful. A clearer view of where architecture really sits when delivery is fast, messy, and political. Where trade-offs are constant. And where alignment matters more than elegant diagrams.

What worked for me:
– Strong focus on collaboration between architects, product, and delivery
– Clear language for talking about intent, not just solutions
– Practical tension between long-term thinking and short-term execution

What didn’t fully land:
– Some patterns feel idealistic if the organisation isn’t ready
– SAFe doesn’t remove complexity. It just makes it visible faster

My main takeaway is simple.
SAFe is not a silver bullet. And it’s not for every organisation. But for architects working in large, distributed environments, it gives a shared vocabulary. And sometimes, shared language is the biggest enabler we have.

I’m glad I did it. Not because it gave me answers. But because it sharpened my questions.

#Architecture #SAFe #ContinuousLearning #EnterpriseArchitecture

I’m really excited to share this.
On January 30, I’ll be speaking at Women In Architecture (WIA) about something many of us have experienced first-hand:
why well-designed architectures still fail in real life.

This talk is not about frameworks or perfect diagrams.
It’s about what actually breaks architectures inside organizations: unclear ownership, decisions made under pressure, governance gaps, and small “invisible” issues that quietly accumulate until systems stop delivering value.

Everything in this session is based on real experience, not theory.
The gap between designed architecture and lived architecture is often where the real risks sit.

If you’ve ever wondered why good ideas don’t survive reality, this conversation is for you.

📅 January 30
🕓 10am EST | 3pm GMT | 4pm CET

Hope to see you there.

View company: Women In Architecture (WIA)

Upcoming Women In Architecture (WIA) meeting: Why Good Architectures Fail in Real Life with Nadzeya Stalbouskaya

This talk explores the gap between “designed” architecture and how systems actually work in organizations. It focuses on the non-technical factors that most often cause failure: unclear ownership, decision-making under pressure, governance gaps, and small invisible issues that accumulate over time. The session is based on real experience rather than theory, showing why many well-designed architectures still fail to deliver business outcomes.

🗓️ 30th January
⏰ 10am EST | 3pm GMT | 4PM CET
🔗 Join WIA here: https://lnkd.in/ew79DmQg

Preeti Ramdour (🅢🅗🅔/🅗🅔🅡)

𝗕𝘂𝘀𝘆 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗜𝘀 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗰 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲
Architecture without strategy is a very busy hobby.
You draw.
You align.
You review.
You redesign what was already redesigned last quarter.

And somehow, nothing really changes.

I’ve seen incredibly smart architects stuck in endless delivery loops, not because they lack skills, but because they lack strategic anchoring. Without strategy, architecture becomes reactive by default.

Here’s my honest take.

𝙒𝙞𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙮, 𝙖𝙧𝙘𝙝𝙞𝙩𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙨 𝙗𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙚 𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙜𝙧𝙖𝙢 𝙨𝙚𝙧𝙫𝙞𝙘𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙫𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙨
If there is no clear strategic direction, every request feels equally important. Everything looks urgent. Everything deserves a diagram.

You don’t design towards something.
You just design away from the last fire.

That’s not architecture. That’s survival with PowerPoint.

𝙎𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙮 𝙞𝙨 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙤𝙬𝙨 𝙖𝙧𝙘𝙝𝙞𝙩𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙨𝙖𝙮 “𝙣𝙤” 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙛𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮
Strategy gives architects something very powerful: a reason.
Not opinions.
Not personal preferences.
A reason.

When architecture decisions are tied to strategy, “no” stops sounding defensive and starts sounding responsible. Without it, architects either block everything or approve everything. Both are equally dangerous.

𝙎𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙮 𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙣𝙨 𝙖𝙧𝙘𝙝𝙞𝙩𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙚𝙛𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙩 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙤 𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙖𝙘𝙩
You can work very hard and still be irrelevant. Strategy is what connects architectural choices to outcomes. Speed. Risk. Cost. Optionality. Long-term viability.
Without that connection, architecture looks busy but feels invisible. With it, even small decisions suddenly matter.

𝗠𝘆 𝗳𝗮𝘃𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗶𝗿𝗼𝗻𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀:
People think strategy is abstract and architecture is practical.
In reality, strategy is what makes architecture practical.

𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘤 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯?
𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘭 𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨?

#EnterpriseArchitecture #ArchitectureStrategy #TechLeadership #ArchitectLife

I’m happy to share that I’ve obtained a new certification: 𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗟 𝟰 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿: 𝗗𝗶𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 & 𝗜𝗧 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆 from PeopleCert!
This one wasn’t about learning another framework or memorising terms. For me, it was about stepping back and looking at a question we don’t ask often enough: 𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘥𝘰 𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦?

What I appreciated most in this course was the focus on trade-offs.
 Not “best practices”, but real choices.
 Not tools, but direction.
 Not speed alone, but sustainability.

As architects and technology leaders, we often sit in the middle.
 Between strategy and execution.
 Between ambition and constraints.
 Between what the business wants now and what the organisation can survive later.

ITIL DITS gave me a useful lens to structure those conversations better. Not louder. Just clearer.
Learning never replaces experience. But sometimes it helps you name what you already feel and make it easier to explain to others.

𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘥 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸? 𝘋𝘰 𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘴 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘱 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘪𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘰𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵?

#ITIL4 #DigitalStrategy #TechnologyLeadership #EnterpriseArchitecture

I’m happy to share that I’ve obtained a new certification: Associate Certified Mentor from Guider!
And no, this post is not about another badge. It’s about why I decided to formalise something I’ve been doing for years anyway. Over time, I noticed a pattern. People rarely come to mentoring with technical questions only. They come with confusion. With overload. With too many options and not enough clarity.

What this certification helped me articulate more clearly are three things I already believed:

1. Mentoring is not about giving answers.
 It’s about helping someone see the real problem they are trying to solve. Often, that problem is not where they think it is.

2. Experience matters more than advice.
 Frameworks help, stories help more. Real cases, mistakes, trade-offs, and limits are what actually move people forward.

3. Good mentoring is a system, not a talent.
 Structure, boundaries, listening, and responsibility matter. Without them, mentoring becomes either therapy or motivation talk. Neither scales.

I work in architecture, governance, and complex systems. Mentoring fits naturally into that world. It’s still about clarity, ownership, and helping systems hold under pressure. The system here just happens to be a human one.
I’m glad I took the time to slow down and reflect on this properly.
If you mentor others, formally or informally, what part of it do you find the hardest? And if you’ve been mentored before, what actually helped you most?

#Mentorship  #LeadershipInPractice #ArchitectureMindset  #ProfessionalGrowth

Guider

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗦𝗲𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗠𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗸 𝗶𝗻 𝗟𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲 𝗘𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀
In large organizations, architecture rarely fails because it is too strict. It fails because it is either ignored or applied without context.

After working with enterprise architecture in complex, agile environments, I’ve learned one simple truth: architecture only works when it balances direction with adaptability.

Here is what actually makes architecture effective at scale.

𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗼𝗺, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗱𝗶𝘁𝘆
There is a common fear that architectural principles slow teams down, especially in Scrum or other agile setups. In practice, the opposite is true.
Clear architectural principles remove decision friction. They define what is not up for debate, so teams can move faster where choice actually matters.
Gartner and the Scaled Agile Framework both emphasize that architecture should provide guardrails, not detailed instructions. When principles are clear, teams don’t need constant approvals, they can act with confidence.

𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗮𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆
In many large companies, architecture works on a different timeline than delivery teams. That gap makes architecture irrelevant.
Effective architects engage early, work iteratively, and adjust intent as learning happens. This is fully compatible with Scrum, but only if architects focus on enabling decisions, not policing solutions.
Architecture that cannot keep pace with delivery will always be bypassed.

𝗜𝗻𝗳𝗹𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆
In big organizations, architects rarely succeed through formal power. They succeed through trust, clarity, and the ability to explain trade-offs.
McKinsey research on transformation failures repeatedly shows that initiatives stall when architectural intent is not understood by teams. Architects who can translate strategy into actionable guidance become partners. Those who cannot become obstacles.

Architecture at scale is not about control.
It is about alignment.

When principles are clear, engagement is continuous, and communication is strong, architecture stops being a blocker and becomes a multiplier.

𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘵 𝘴𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯? 𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘥𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘧𝘢𝘴𝘵-𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘮𝘴?

#EnterpriseArchitecture #AgileAtScale #ArchitectureLeadership #TechStrategy

𝗔𝗜 𝗗𝗼𝗲𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗕𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗸 𝗘𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀. 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗗𝗼𝗲𝘀
I keep seeing the same question everywhere lately: “𝙄𝙨 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙀𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙚 𝘼𝙧𝙘𝙝𝙞𝙩𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙙𝙮 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝘼𝙄?”

I recently read an article that framed this question very clearly and it resonated with me not because of the technology part, but because of what usually gets ignored in these discussions.

AI readiness is rarely about AI.

Most enterprises already have tools, platforms, pilots, PoCs, even “AI strategies”. What they often don’t have is an architecture that can absorb AI without breaking everything around it.

From my experience, AI exposes architectural weaknesses faster than any transformation programme ever did.

It exposes:
💠fragmented data ownership
💠unclear decision rights
💠invisible dependencies
💠governance that exists on slides, not in reality
💠and architectures designed for stability, not learning

What struck me while reading this article is how often AI is treated as a capability to “add”, rather than a force that reshapes how architecture decisions are made.

If your architecture cannot answer simple questions like:
💠Where does trusted data actually live?
💠Who owns model decisions and risk?
💠How feedback from AI usage flows back into design?
💠What can be reused and what must be rebuilt?

Then AI doesn’t fail.
Architecture fails first.

This is why I increasingly believe that AI readiness is not a technology milestone, but an architectural maturity signal.

Strong Enterprise Architecture doesn’t try to predict every AI use case.
It creates conditions where experimentation is safe, reuse is natural, and governance is embedded not enforced.

And that’s the uncomfortable part.
Because it means AI success depends less on tools, and more on decisions we postponed for years.

That’s probably why this topic feels so urgent right now.

𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘈𝘐 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯? 𝘋𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘈𝘐 𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘥𝘥-𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦?

#EnterpriseArchitecture #AIReadiness #ArchitectureDebt #DigitalTransformation

𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗜 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘆 𝗖𝗮𝗹𝗺 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗗𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝗠𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲
Architectural decisions are rarely made in calm conditions. They are made when timelines are tight, information is incomplete, and the cost of a mistake is high.

Over time, I’ve learned that staying effective under pressure is not about being fearless. It’s about having internal structure when external structure is missing.

Here is what genuinely helps me.

𝚂𝚝𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚜 𝚐𝚛𝚘𝚠𝚜 𝚠𝚑𝚎𝚗 𝚍𝚎𝚌𝚒𝚜𝚒𝚘𝚗𝚜 𝚏𝚎𝚎𝚕 𝚕𝚊𝚛𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚊𝚛𝚎
Under pressure, everything starts to look irreversible. That’s dangerous.

𝘼𝙙𝙫𝙞𝙘𝙚 1 — 𝙍𝙚𝙙𝙪𝙘𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙤 𝙞𝙩𝙨 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙡 𝙨𝙘𝙤𝙥𝙚
I always ask myself: Is this reversible or not? Most architectural decisions are directional, not final. Treating every choice as permanent creates unnecessary stress and slows thinking.
Jeff Bezos popularized this idea with “Type 1 vs Type 2 decisions,” and it applies extremely well to architecture.

𝙲𝚕𝚊𝚛𝚒𝚝𝚢 𝚋𝚎𝚊𝚝𝚜 𝚜𝚙𝚎𝚎𝚍 𝚠𝚑𝚎𝚗 𝚙𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚞𝚛𝚎 𝚒𝚜 𝚑𝚒𝚐𝚑
Rushing does not save time if clarity is missing.

𝘼𝙙𝙫𝙞𝙘𝙚 2 — 𝙒𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙚 𝙙𝙤𝙬𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙞𝙣 𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚
If I can’t explain the decision simply, I’m not ready to make it. Writing forces structure and removes emotional noise.

𝘼𝙙𝙫𝙞𝙘𝙚 3 — 𝙉𝙖𝙢𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙙𝙚-𝙤𝙛𝙛𝙨 𝙚𝙭𝙥𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙩𝙡𝙮
Stress increases when trade-offs stay implicit. I deliberately state what we gain and what we consciously accept as risk. This turns anxiety into reasoning.
Gartner consistently highlights that decision quality degrades under ambiguity, not workload.

𝙲𝚊𝚕𝚖 𝚒𝚜 𝚊 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚒𝚙𝚕𝚒𝚗𝚎, 𝚗𝚘𝚝 𝚊 𝚙𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚘𝚗𝚊𝚕𝚒𝚝𝚢 𝚝𝚛𝚊𝚒𝚝
Some people look calm under pressure. Most people train it.

𝘼𝙙𝙫𝙞𝙘𝙚 4 — 𝙎𝙡𝙤𝙬 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩, 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙮
Even under urgency, I create a short pause. Ten minutes. One walk. One reset. This prevents reactive decisions that later require correction.

𝘼𝙙𝙫𝙞𝙘𝙚 5 — 𝙎𝙚𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙥𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙞𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙚𝙢𝙤𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙤𝙬𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙝𝙞𝙥
I care deeply about outcomes, but I don’t personalize pressure. Stress becomes destructive when decisions turn into identity tests.

In complex systems, perfect choices don’t exist. Responsible ones do.

Calm decision-making is not about control. It’s about maintaining perspective when complexity is loud.

𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘱𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘺 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳-𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘵? 𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵?

#EnterpriseArchitecture #DecisionMaking #LeadershipUnderPressure #TechLeadership

𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗧𝗲𝗮𝗺 𝗜𝘀 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗱. 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗕𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗜𝘁 𝗜𝘀 𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿
From my experience as an architect and technology leader, building a strong team is rarely the hardest part. The real challenge is keeping that team healthy once the pressure starts.

I’ve seen highly capable teams lose momentum not because people were “wrong”, but because expectations were never made explicit. Culture, much like architecture, is designed over time, but it can collapse very quickly.

𝗧𝗮𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗮 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗺
When hiring, we often ask a familiar question: do we need someone brilliant, or someone who fits the team?
In reality, this is a false choice.

The real risk appears when people join without a shared understanding of how decisions are made, how conflict is handled, and what “good” looks like. Google’s Project Aristotle showed years ago that psychological safety matters more than individual brilliance. Without it, even the smartest teams fragment.

𝗧𝗲𝗮𝗺𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗮𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝘆 𝗯𝗮𝗱 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲
In most struggling teams I’ve observed, there are three common “team breakers”:
🔵 people who overstep because boundaries were never defined
🔵people who disengage because success criteria are unclear
🔵people who resist change because they were never invited into the intent

None of these are character flaws. They are design gaps.
Just like in architecture, when interfaces are unclear, systems fail. Teams are no different.

𝗖𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘁
We often talk about culture as something organic. In practice, culture is shaped by repeated signals: what gets rewarded, what gets ignored, and what is tolerated under pressure.

McKinsey and MIT Sloan research consistently show that teams break not during calm periods, but during moments of ambiguity and stress. That is when leadership intent or lack of it becomes visible.

Strong teams are not maintained by charisma. They are maintained by clarity.
Building a good team requires skill.
Not breaking it requires design.

𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘪𝘧 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘳, 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘪𝘨𝘨𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘮 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘯? 𝘋𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘮 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘸𝘯?

#Leadership #TeamDesign #WorkCulture #TechLeadership

𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗼𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗹 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗹𝘀, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀
Over the years, I keep seeing the same pattern across different companies.

There is always a list of systems. Sometimes it lives in Excel, sometimes in CMDB, sometimes in a very polished slide called “application landscape”. It often looks complete and well maintained. And yet, there is no architecture portfolio.

For a while, this doesn’t seem like a problem. Until the conversation shifts to strategy, investment priorities, or landscape simplification. That’s usually the moment when the limitations become obvious.

A system list answers one simple question: what do we have. An architecture portfolio answers much harder ones. What actually matters for the business. Where we invest on purpose. What we are ready to retire. And where we are quietly accumulating architecture debt, even if everything still works.

From my experience, portfolios don’t fail because of missing tools or bad data. They fail because they force decisions. As soon as a real portfolio appears, uncomfortable things become visible at the same time: multiple systems doing the same job, solutions without clear ownership, platforms that no longer make sense but still consume money and attention.

This is usually where resistance starts. Because an architecture portfolio is not about documentation. It’s about choice. And about accountability for that choice.

I often hear: “We’re not ready for a portfolio yet, we need to clean things up first.” I don’t fully agree with that. In practice, the portfolio is the mechanism that helps create order. Not a perfect one, not a fast one, but a very honest one.

Here is a slightly unpopular opinion. Without an architecture portfolio, strategy almost always remains a presentation. It has nothing solid to anchor real decisions to.

For me, an architecture portfolio is not an artefact. It’s a mirror. It shows how an organisation truly manages its architecture, not how it says it does.

𝘋𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘰, 𝘰𝘳 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘢 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮 𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵?
𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘰 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵?
𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘰, 𝘪𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘸𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴?

#EnterpriseArchitecture #ArchitecturePortfolio #TechnologyStrategy #ArchitectureDebt

𝗧𝗲𝗰𝗵𝗻𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆 𝗧𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝗔𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲, 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗧𝗼𝗼𝗹𝘀
When we talk about technology trends for 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲, the most interesting shift is not in new tools, but in how clearly organisations are being forced to confront their own structural limits.

Looking across research and outlooks from 𝗚𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗻𝗲𝗿, 𝗠𝗰𝗞𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗲𝘆, 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱 𝗘𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝘂𝗺, and 𝗠𝗜𝗧 𝗦𝗹𝗼𝗮𝗻, one pattern stands out: technology is accelerating faster than enterprises are able to absorb change.

First, 𝗔𝗜 𝗶𝗻 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗯𝘆 𝗶𝘁𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳.
Gartner consistently highlights that value is shifting from AI adoption to AI integration. Organisations that still run AI as pilots, labs, or isolated initiatives will struggle, while those embedding AI into workflows, platforms, and decision models will start seeing real impact.

Second, 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸 𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲.
McKinsey’s research shows that as systems become more autonomous, traditional control mechanisms break down. In 2026, accountability, traceability, and trust will increasingly depend on how systems are designed, not on how many policies exist. Architecture becomes the first line of risk management.

Third, 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝘁 𝘀𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗲.
WEF research points out that organisations built around reusable capabilities adapt faster and fail more gracefully. By 2026, enterprises still optimised for one-off projects will feel slower, more fragile, and more expensive to operate not because they lack talent, but because reuse was never designed in.

And finally, 𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗮 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁.
MIT Sloan research is clear: productivity gains from AI flatten when organisations ignore trust, learning curves, and cognitive load. In 2026, the gap between what technology can do and what people can sustainably absorb will be one of the biggest hidden risks and a major source of architecture debt.

My personal conclusion looking toward 2026 is simple:
technology trends are converging on architecture. Not as documentation, but as a discipline of long-term choices about reuse, responsibility, autonomy, and how much complexity we allow into the system.

Enterprises won’t fail because they chose the wrong tools.
They’ll fail because they designed systems that humans cannot operate sustainably.

𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺? 𝘐𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘣𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘣 𝘪𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘧𝘦𝘭𝘺?

#TechnologyTrends #EnterpriseArchitecture #AITransformation #FutureOfWork

𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗢𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗻 𝗦𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗧𝗮𝗹𝗸 𝘁𝗼 𝗨𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘀?
This question comes up surprisingly often. And the most common answer I hear is: “Not too often. That’s product or UX territory.”

From my experience as an enterprise architect, this assumption is one of the quiet reasons why well-designed architectures still fail in practice.

𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗶𝘀 𝟭: 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗱𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘀, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝗮𝗯𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀

Architects are not expected to replace product managers or UX designers.
But when architects are fully detached from user feedback, architecture slowly drifts away from reality.

What looks elegant on paper often breaks at the edges of real usage. Performance issues, workarounds, shadow IT these are not technical failures. They are signals that architectural assumptions were never validated.

Gartner and Nielsen Norman Group both consistently show that early exposure to user feedback reduces rework and long-term complexity, even at system and platform levels.

𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗶𝘀 𝟮: 𝗨𝘀𝗲𝗿 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗮𝗹, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮 𝘂𝘀𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗹

Architects often underestimate how much user behavior reveals structural problems.

Repeated workarounds point to missing capabilities. Manual steps highlight integration gaps. User frustration often signals architectural friction, not just UI issues.

You don’t need constant interviews. But you do need regular contact. Listening to users periodically helps architects distinguish between designed intent and actual behavior.

That gap is where architecture debt quietly grows.

𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗶𝘀 𝟯: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆

The goal is not to talk to users all the time. The goal is to talk to them often enough to recalibrate assumptions.

For most architects, this means:
🗨️ joining selected user sessions or demos
🗨️ reviewing feedback patterns with product teams
🗨️ validating key architectural decisions against real workflows

McKinsey research on digital transformations repeatedly highlights the same point: solutions fail not because teams lack expertise, but because they lose touch with how systems are actually used.

Architecture becomes effective when it is informed, not isolated.

𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘰𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘥𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬?
𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘢 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘳’𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘧𝘭𝘰𝘸?

#EnterpriseArchitecture #UserCentricDesign #ArchitectureValue #TechLeadership

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮 𝟯-𝗗𝗮𝘆 𝗦𝗔𝗙𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘀𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗚𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗠𝗲
I’ve just completed a three-day SAFe for Architects course, and now that the intensity has settled, I can finally reflect on what it actually gave me beyond slides, frameworks, and exam preparation.

𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁, what was genuinely good.

The course creates a shared language between architecture and delivery. It helps translate architectural decisions into things delivery organizations actually care about: flow, dependencies, PI outcomes, value streams, and economic impact. For architects working in large, scaled environments, this perspective matters. It reminds us that architecture doesn’t live in isolation, it lives inside a system that is constantly moving.

I also appreciated the focus on responsibility. Not authority, not control responsibility. The role of an architect as someone who shapes options, reduces systemic risk, and supports long-term sustainability while teams are under delivery pressure felt very real and very relevant.

Now, 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗶𝗱𝗻’𝘁 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗲.

At times, the framework felt heavy. Some concepts risk turning into rituals if applied mechanically. There were moments where I had to mentally pause and remind myself that frameworks are tools, not truths. Without strong architectural judgment and contextual thinking, SAFe can easily become process-first instead of outcome-first.

And this leads to my main takeaway.

The value of this course is not in “following SAFe correctly”. It’s in understanding how large-scale delivery models influence architectural decisions and how architecture can either support or silently block flow. The course reinforced something I already believed: good architects don’t defend diagrams, they defend movement, learning, and optionality.

Would I recommend this course?

Yes — 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝘅𝘁.

I would recommend it to architects who work closely with delivery organizations, value streams, and product leadership, and who want to engage in real conversations instead of architectural monologues. I would not recommend it as a recipe or a belief system. It’s most useful when approached critically, with experience and healthy skepticism.

For me, this course wasn’t about changing my architectural philosophy. It helped sharpen it. It reminded me that understanding a framework does not mean agreeing with it, but it does mean being able to influence decisions where it actually matters.

Sometimes learning is not about adoption.
It’s about expanding your range of choices.

𝘏𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘯 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘧𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘥 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴? 𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯?

#EnterpriseArchitecture #SAFe #ArchitectureAndDelivery

𝗠𝘆 𝗧𝘆𝗽𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗱𝗮𝘆: 𝟭𝟬𝟬% 𝗨𝗻𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 (𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝟬% 𝗕𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴)

𝟵:𝟬𝟬 — First meeting. 😀 Agenda looks calm. I trust it for exactly 3 minutes.
𝟵:𝟬𝟯 — “Quick question.” Everyone knows this is how disasters start.
𝟵:𝟭𝟬 — The quick question now has a diagram. And opinions.

𝟭𝟬:𝟭𝟱 — Something breaks. Not fully. Just enough to keep everyone alert.
𝟭𝟬:𝟯𝟬 — I explain the same architectural idea to five people. Five versions. Same meaning.
𝟭𝟭:𝟬𝟬 — I remember to breathe. Briefly.

𝟭𝟮:𝟬𝟬 — Lunch. Conceptually.
𝟭𝟮:𝟬𝟰 — Teams reminds me who’s really in charge. 😅

𝟭𝟯:𝟯𝟬 — A decision that was “already agreed” but somehow isn’t.
𝟭𝟰:𝟬𝟬 — I draw a diagram I did not plan to draw today. Or ever.
𝟭𝟱:𝟮𝟬 — Someone says “Ohhh, now I get it.”
This is why we do this.

𝟭𝟲:𝟰𝟱 — I’m added to a meeting because “you were probably involved anyway.”
I was. Apparently.

𝟭𝟳:𝟯𝟬 — Notes, follow-ups, mental bookmarks for tomorrow.
𝟭𝟴:𝟬𝟬 — I log off. The company still exists. Success. 😀

Architecture is not about calm days. It’s about staying calm inside chaotic ones.
If your day is fully predictable, you’re probably not close enough to reality.

𝘈𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 “𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘢𝘺” 𝘶𝘴𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘥? 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘷𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯?

#WorkLifeReality #EnterpriseArchitecture #TechHumor #BehindTheScenes

𝗚𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀 𝗿𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗹 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗲𝗰𝗵𝗻𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗹 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗹𝗶𝗳𝗲 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄𝘀 𝘂𝗽.
On 𝗝𝗮𝗻𝘂𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝟯𝟬, I’ll be speaking at the 𝗪𝗜𝗔 𝗠𝗲𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 about something I see again and again in large organisations:
the gap between designed architecture and how systems actually work under pressure.

In theory, everything is clear. In reality, decisions are rushed. Ownership is blurred. Governance exists on paper. And small “temporary” compromises quietly turn into structural problems.

This session is not about tools, frameworks, or perfect diagrams. It’s about the non-technical factors that break even well-designed architectures:
– unclear decision rights
– pressure-driven shortcuts
– invisible dependencies
– accumulated architecture debt

All examples come from real work, not slides. Because architecture doesn’t fail in design documents. It fails in organisations.

If you’ve ever wondered why “good” architecture doesn’t always deliver business outcomes, this conversation is for you.

📅 January 30
🕓 4:00–5:30 PM CET
📍 Online (WIA)

Would love to see you there and continue the discussion together.

𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘣𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦: 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦, 𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦?

WIA Meeting

Meet Nadzeya Stalbouskaya: an award-winning Technology Architect, prolific author, and recognized international conference speaker. She is widely regarded as one of the emerging voices shaping the future of enterprise architecture and digital transformation, with a strong focus on governance excellence, architecture debt, resilient systems, and business transformation.

Her approach?
Strategy. Architecture. Elegance of approach.

In this session, Nadzeya Stalbouskaya explores the gap between “designed” architecture and how systems actually work in organizations.
The talk focuses on the non-technical factors that most often cause failure:
 – unclear ownership
 – decision-making under pressure
 – governance gaps
 – small invisible issues that accumulate over time
Based on real experience rather than theory, the session shows why many well-designed architectures still fail to deliver business outcomes.

🗓️ 30th January
⏰ 10am EST | 3pm GMT | 4PM CET
🔗 Join WIA here: https://lnkd.in/ew79DmQg

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗛𝗶𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗻 𝗚𝗮𝗽 𝗕𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆
This visual perfectly captures a confusion I see again and again in organisations.
We often say “strategic planning” as if it were one thing. But in reality, 𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙮 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙛𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙖𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙙𝙞𝙛𝙛𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙚𝙨, serving different purposes, operating on different time horizons, and requiring different types of thinking.

And when we mix them, we don’t get strategy. We get busy plans with no future.

Let’s unpack this through an architecture lens.

𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 is operational by nature.
It answers questions like:
– What will we do next quarter?
– Who does what and when?
– How do we allocate budget and resources?

Planning is essential.
But it is inherently short-term and execution-focused.
It translates intent into action.

𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆, on the other hand, is about choices under uncertainty.
It answers very different questions:
– Where do we want to compete?
– What will we not do?
– What must we protect to remain relevant?

Strategy lives in the mid-term. It is not a roadmap. It is a set of priorities that guide all future decisions.

And above both sits something we talk about far too little:

𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁.
Foresight is not prediction. It’s the ability to sense weak signals, explore scenarios, and imagine futures that don’t yet exist.

This is where real enterprise architecture should begin.

Because without foresight:
– strategy becomes reactive
– planning becomes mechanical
– architecture becomes defensive

In my work, I see organisations jumping straight into planning, skipping strategy, and completely ignoring foresight, then wondering why transformations stall, platforms don’t scale, and AI initiatives feel risky instead of empowering.

Architecture plays a critical role here.

Good architecture connects:
• foresight to strategic intent
• strategy to structural decisions
• decisions to execution without locking the future

When architecture is absent from this chain, organisations accumulate 𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗯𝘁 not because teams are careless, but because decisions are made without a shared view of time, impact, and optionality.

So no, strategy is not a longer plan. And planning is not “making strategy real”.

They are different tools and they must be used in 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿.

Foresight → Strategy → Planning → Signaling.

When we respect this sequence, enterprises stop reacting and start shaping their future.

𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵, 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘨𝘺, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺?

#Strategy #EnterpriseArchitecture #Leadership #Foresight

I’ve just registered for 𝗪𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗧𝗲𝗰𝗵 (𝗦𝗽𝗼𝘁𝗸𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗼𝘄𝗲 𝗞𝗼𝗯𝗶𝗲𝘁 𝘄 𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗧𝗲𝗰𝗵) and honestly, this is exactly the kind of event I like to keep an eye on. https://lnkd.in/gqY45dED 
Not another conference.
Not another panel with perfect slides.
Just a space where technology meets creativity and where women actually talk to each other.
I really like the idea behind this meetup. It’s not about titles or seniority. It’s about sharing experiences, exchanging perspectives, and building real connections at the intersection of tech and creative work.
These kinds of conversations often matter more than any formal framework. They shape how we think, how we grow, and how we make decisions later at work.
If you’re in Warsaw and working somewhere between tech, design, data, architecture, or creative industries, this feels like a good place to be.
Sometimes the most valuable insights don’t come from stages.
 They come from people sitting next to you with a coffee in hand.
See you there.
#WomenInTech #CreativeTech #Community #Networking

𝗥𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗰 𝗖𝗮𝗽𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆
We often talk about strategy in terms of priorities, decisions, and execution speed. Much less often do we talk about the condition in which those decisions are made.

Over time, I’ve come to see rest not as a personal preference, but as a 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗰 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆. Energy, attention, and calm are not “soft” factors. They directly shape judgment, risk appetite, and the quality of choices we make especially in complex environments.

When rest is neglected, something subtle happens. People don’t stop working. Systems don’t collapse overnight. Instead, an invisible form of debt accumulates. Decisions become reactive. Short-term fixes replace thoughtful design. Noise replaces clarity. It looks like productivity, but it isn’t sustainable.

In architecture, we know that systems fail not because of a single bad decision, but because of many small compromises made under pressure. The same applies to organisations and individuals. Chronic exhaustion doesn’t announce itself as a problem. It quietly degrades the system from within.

What I find increasingly important is recognising rest as part of the operating model, not as a reward after delivery. Calm creates space for sense-making. Attention allows us to see dependencies instead of symptoms. Energy gives us the capacity to choose well, not just quickly.

Ignoring this doesn’t make organisations faster. It makes them fragile.

Rest, in this sense, is not the opposite of ambition. It’s what allows ambition to last.

𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘥𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘩𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘣𝘵? 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘪𝘧 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘭𝘶𝘹𝘶𝘳𝘺?

#LeadershipMindset #SustainablePerformance #InvisibleDebt #HumanSystems

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗧𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗣𝗵𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗘𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗝𝗮𝗻𝘂𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴
Early January has a very specific vibe.

𝗦𝘁𝗲𝗽 𝟭. We deeply analyze last year.
What worked. What didn’t. What “definitely should have worked but somehow didn’t.”

𝗦𝘁𝗲𝗽 𝟮. We plan the future.
Big ideas. Clean calendars. Fresh notebooks. Everything looks possible again.

𝗦𝘁𝗲𝗽 𝟯. We confidently explain how this year will be completely different.
Better decisions. Better focus. Better results.

And honestly? This ritual isn’t bad.
Reflection creates awareness. Planning creates direction. Optimism creates momentum.

The trick is not to over-engineer January. Real change usually happens later quietly, consistently, without fireworks.
But for now... I’ll allow myself a little structured optimism ☕🙂

𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘱𝘩𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘪𝘯 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦?

#JanuaryVibes #WorkLife #NewYearEnergy #LeadershipMindset

taplio

The Battle

Drew Fortin

Nadzeya Stalbouskaya

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreDrew Fortin's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreNadzeya Stalbouskaya's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Drew Fortin

Nadzeya Stalbouskaya

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Drew Fortin's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreNadzeya Stalbouskaya's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreDrew Fortin's LinkedIn Performance