Architecture Reviews & Governance

9.7.1Definition

An architecture review is a formal evaluation of a proposed system's design against enterprise standards (9.3), security requirements (5.14), and integration patterns (9.2) — conducted before significant implementation begins. Architecture governance is the ongoing structure (a review board, defined approval gates) that makes this evaluation a routine, expected step rather than an occasional, inconsistent one.

9.7.2Why It Exists

Without a review checkpoint, individual teams make architecture decisions in isolation, and misalignment with enterprise standards is discovered only after significant implementation investment — when correcting it is far more expensive. Architecture reviews exist to catch that misalignment early, while a design change is still cheap, rather than after a system has already been built around a problematic decision.

9.7.3Elements of a Healthy Review Process

• Clear trigger criteria — a defined threshold (new system, major integration, significant data flow) for when review is required, avoiding either bottlenecking every small decision or missing genuinely significant ones.
• Timely turnaround — reviews conducted quickly enough not to become a project delay in themselves.
• Documented outcomes — review decisions captured, ideally as ADRs (9.6), for future reference.

9.7.4Common Mistakes

• Review required for every decision regardless of significance, turning governance into a universally-resented bottleneck rather than a targeted safeguard.
• No clear criteria for what requires review, leading to inconsistent application — some major systems bypass review entirely while minor ones get stuck in it.
• Review outcomes not documented, so the same design question gets relitigated in a future review with no memory of the earlier decision.

9.7.5Best Practices

• Define clear, proportionate criteria for what triggers a mandatory architecture review.
• Keep review turnaround fast enough that it doesn't become a bottleneck teams route around.
• Document every review outcome, ideally as an ADR (9.6), for future consistency.