The Customs Deadline and the Requested Waiver
Northwind Logistics runs a monthly Architecture Board and an EA team of three. A customs-reporting regulation takes effect in ten weeks, and the delivery team proposes writing directly into the ERP instead of going through the canonical data model defined in the approved target architecture. The programme director wants a waiver so the build is not held up at the Phase G architecture compliance review; the Board has already cancelled its last two meetings. Two other projects are mid-build against that canonical model, and no Architecture Contract has been signed for this programme. The CTO asks the lead architect for a recommendation this week.
1. Should the Board grant a waiver? Give your recommendation and the reasoning behind it.
Read the worked answer
Recommendation: no blanket waiver; a narrow, time-boxed dispensation instead.
Reasoning chain:
Reframe the request. What is being asked for is a dispensation - a time-limited permission from the Architecture Board to depart from the agreed architecture for a defined scope, with a recorded rationale and a remediation path. It is not a waiver that suspends governance. If the CTO and the programme director hear 'we said yes', that is a communication failure to fix at once.
Test the impact, not the deadline. The deadline is real and the business cost of missing it is high, but the deviation is not local: two other projects are building against the canonical model. That cross-project dependency is precisely the class of decision the Board exists to arbitrate. A local architect cannot authorise it alone.
Scope the departure as tightly as possible. Grant: interface to customs only; duration to the regulatory date plus one quarter; mandatory mediation layer so that the ERP write is adapted to the canonical model and the model itself is not forked; named owner and a remediation date; entry in the dispensations register with a review point.
Refuse the thing that is actually dangerous. Making direct ERP writes the standing pattern for this solution would degrade the target architecture and undermine the two dependent projects. Refuse that explicitly.
Address the broken mechanism. A Board that has not met for two months cannot govern. Either restore the calendar with a quorum rule, or delegate emergency dispensation authority to the chair with the lead architect, minuted at the next sitting.
2. What must the EA team do in parallel during the ten weeks so that the dispensation does not become permanent drift?
Read the worked answer
The dispensation is only safe if it is managed as a change, not as an exception to be forgotten.
- Sign an Architecture Contract with the delivery team now. Its absence is the root cause of the current standoff: there is no agreed statement of what the programme must conform to, what it may decide locally, and what happens on non-compliance.
- Define the interim state as a Transition Architecture, so the adapter-mediated interface is an explicit, planned waypoint rather than an accident. The Transition Architecture also tells the two dependent projects what they can rely on and when.
- Raise a change request through Phase H (Architecture Change Management) so the deviation is assessed against the target architecture, the Architecture Roadmap is re-baselined if needed, and any simplification of the canonical model that is genuinely justified gets made deliberately.
- Schedule the compliance review touchpoints now - one at delivery mid-point and one at dispensation expiry - so closure is verified rather than assumed.
- Record everything in the Architecture Repository: compliance record, dispensation, contract, decision rationale. The repository is the audit trail if the regulator or internal audit asks why the target was departed from.
3. What does this situation reveal about Northwind's architecture governance capability, and what would you fix in the next quarter?
Read the worked answer
The symptom is a scheduling conflict; the disease is that governance is not operating as a capability.
Diagnosis
- The Architecture Board exists on paper but not in practice (two cancellations, no emergency route). A governance body without a reliable cadence and quorum rule has no authority in fact.
- Architecture Contracts are not standard, so compliance has no agreed basis and every review becomes a negotiation.
- A three-person EA team is attempting to govern a portfolio without a defined compliance review process, so reviews are ad hoc and adversarial.
- Dispensations are being requested informally before a register or process exists to hold them.
Fixes, in priority order
- Publish Board terms of reference: membership, quorum, cadence, escalation and emergency dispensation authority.
- Make an Architecture Contract mandatory for every funded change above an agreed threshold.
- Define and publish the compliance review process, with review points tied to delivery milestones rather than to calendar dates.
- Start the dispensations register and a decision log in the Architecture Repository.
- Only then consider scaling the EA team - process first, headcount second.