Executive Summary: We will implement a federated architecture decision framework combining team autonomy with coordinated oversight, using Architecture Decision Records for documentation and a lightweight advisory process to eliminate decision-making ambiguity while maintaining engineering velocity.
Our policies for engineering architecture decision-making are:
- Team-Level Decisions: Product engineering teams have full authority over architecture decisions that affect only their services and don't create cross-team dependencies
- Cross-Team Decisions: Architecture changes affecting multiple teams require input from our Architecture Advisory Group (AAG) - composed of Staff+ engineers representing each major domain
- Organization-Level Decisions: Technology choices that impact company-wide standards (new programming languages, major infrastructure changes) require CTO approval with AAG recommendation
This policy directly addresses our diagnosed "Decision Authority Ambiguity" by creating clear decision rights at each organizational level, following Google's Technical Lead Network model.
- All significant architecture decisions must be documented using ADRs within 48 hours of the decision
- ADRs must include: context, options considered, decision made, and rationale
- ADRs are stored in a searchable, central repository accessible to all engineers
- Teams cannot proceed with implementation until the ADR is published and reviewed
This addresses our "Lack of Decision Documentation" constraint while providing the context transfer mechanism needed for onboarding and future decision-making.
- 30-minute weekly "Architecture Office Hours" where any engineer can present decisions for feedback
- AAG members rotate facilitation duties to prevent bottlenecks
- Non-binding advisory format: teams receive feedback but make final decisions
- Escalation trigger: If 2+ AAG members strongly disagree with a team's decision, it escalates to CTO review
This provides the coordination mechanism needed to prevent "Inconsistent Technical Standards" while maintaining team autonomy.
- Default technology stack approved for new projects (current: [specify your stack])
- Experimental technology trials require AAG approval and sunset review after 6 months
- New language/framework adoption requires demonstrable advantage over existing options and commitment to long-term support
- Exception requests require written justification addressing operational impact, team expertise, and migration costs
This prevents the "Technical Debt Accumulation" from inconsistent technology choices while allowing innovation.
- Monthly AAG retrospectives reviewing decision patterns and identifying process improvements
- Quarterly architecture decision audits assessing outcomes of major decisions
- Annual technology strategy review evaluating overall architectural direction and technology portfolio
- Metrics tracked: decision time-to-resolution, cross-team friction incidents, architectural debt accumulation
This creates the feedback loops necessary to evolve our decision-making process based on outcomes.
- Composition: 5-7 Staff+ engineers representing domains (Frontend, Backend, Infrastructure, Data, Security)
- Selection: Nominated by teams, confirmed by engineering leadership based on technical expertise and collaborative judgment
- Term limits: 18-month rotations to prevent entrenchment and distribute experience
- Time commitment: 2-3 hours/week (office hours, retrospectives, decision review)
- ADR Template: Standardized format stored in engineering repository
- Review mechanism: Automated Slack notifications when ADRs are published
- Search capability: ADRs tagged by technology, team, and decision type for discoverability
- Integration: ADRs linked to relevant pull requests and technical documentation
- Standard escalation path: Team → AAG feedback → CTO review if unresolved
- Emergency decisions: Can be made without full process but require retroactive ADR within 24 hours
- Appeals process: Teams can request CTO review of AAG recommendations they strongly disagree with
- External consultation: AAG can request input from external technical advisors for complex decisions
- Leading indicators: ADR completion rate, Architecture Office Hours attendance, escalation frequency
- Lagging indicators: Cross-team integration issues, technical debt metrics, engineer satisfaction with decision-making
- Review cycles: Monthly metrics review in AAG retrospectives, quarterly presentation to engineering leadership
- Success criteria: 90% ADR compliance, <5% decision escalation rate, improved engineering satisfaction scores
- Onboarding integration: New engineers receive ADR training and review recent architectural decisions
- Documentation maintenance: AAG maintains decision-making guidebook with examples and common patterns
- Process evolution: Quarterly updates to decision-making framework based on retrospective feedback
- Transparency: Monthly "Architecture Decisions" newsletter highlighting significant choices and their rationale
This strategy combines the team autonomy model successfully used at Netflix and Amazon with the coordinated oversight from Google's Technical Lead networks, while avoiding the bureaucratic overhead that makes traditional enterprise architecture governance ineffective. The federated approach directly addresses our diagnosed constraints while providing the documentation and coordination mechanisms necessary to scale architectural decision-making as the organization grows.