Architecture Reviews Matter—But They’re Not Enough

Why good enterprise and solution architecture can’t rely on checkpoints alone

Aug 11, 2025

Enterprise architecture (EA) work involves a fair share of review sessions. Architecture reviews, solution reviews, design reviews, governance forums—the names vary, but the intent is often the same: ensure quality, consistency, and alignment.

And they do matter. Done well, a review can surface blind spots, challenge assumptions, and sharpen communication. But if I’ve learned anything from practice, it’s this:

By the time you need a review, it’s already a bit late.

Let me explain.

What Are Architecture Reviews?

The term “architecture review” can mean very different things depending on the context—but at its core, a review is a structured checkpoint for assessing architectural thinking and deliverables.

Architecture reviews may focus on:

Change proposals: Early-stage ideas or initiatives that could impact EA, before detailed planning begins.
Solution architectures: Typically tied to projects, focusing on how a proposed application, process, or integration is designed and how it fits into the broader landscape.
New or updated EA deliverables: Such as capability maps, layered diagrams, application and data flows, principles, or target state blueprints. These reviews often assess coherence, clarity, and alignment with enterprise-wide direction.
Current EA deliverables: Periodic reviews of existing EA documentation and models to ensure they remain current, consistent, and valuable to decision-makers and stakeholders.
Architecture in continuous agile development: In agile-at-scale frameworks like SAFe, architectural reviews may occur regularly (e.g. at each PI boundary) to assess whether the architectural runway, shared guidelines, and cross-team direction are fit for purpose and future increments.

Why to Do Architecture Reviews?

Regardless of the focus, the goals are often the same: To ensure quality, consistency, and alignment across architectural work—whether it’s tied to a single project, enterprise-wide models, or ongoing agile delivery.

Well-run reviews can:

Catch risks, inconsistencies, or misalignments early
Align solutions and models with strategic direction and evolving business needs
Improve clarity and communication of architectural intent—both within teams and across organizational silos
Support reuse, interoperability, and shared understanding across domains
Validate compliance with shared principles, modeling conventions, and architecture standards
Ensure that architectural runway and guidance support upcoming increments in agile development
Create traceability and transparency for decisions that affect architecture long-term

In short, architecture reviews help confirm whether what we’re building—or maintaining—is viable, understandable, and aligned. They clarify whether the direction is sound, before teams move too far ahead.

But as we’ll see next, reviews also have their limits. And relying on them alone isn’t enough.

Why Reviews Often Come Too Late

The trouble with architecture reviews is that they’re almost always retrospective. Something has already been created. People have invested hours in models and documentation. There’s often a deadline looming. Stakeholders are ready to move.

And at that point, meaningful changes are hard.

The feedback often becomes surface-level: improve a diagram, clarify a label, fix a typo. Even when deeper issues are spotted, it’s rarely the moment to go back to the drawing board. Too much momentum has already built up.

That’s why I always say:

Reviews don’t replace architecture.

They’re not a substitute for involvement when the direction is still being shaped.

Architecture Is a Process, Not a Gate

If you want architecture to have impact, it has to show up early.

In project work, that means being there when the need or problem is still being framed—not when the solution is already 80 % designed.

In EA work, it means having a clear purpose and alignment with the organization’s own planning rhythms—whether that’s annual strategy cycles, portfolio planning, or other recurring decision points. EA should feed into these with the right level of insight at the right time, not operate in a parallel track disconnected from how the organization actually steers itself. And to do that effectively, you need relevant and up-to-date current-state views and analyses—ready when they’re needed, not months later.

So yes, do the reviews. But don’t expect them to do the heavy lifting. Real influence happens long before anything is submitted for approval.

What Makes a Review Actually Useful?

Still, reviews aren’t going away—and that’s a good thing. They can be valuable checkpoints when done with the right mindset. Here’s what makes them effective:

Clear scope: Know what you’re reviewing and why. Are you evaluating feasibility, alignment, or communication quality? Don’t try to do everything at once.
Early involvement: Invite reviewers when change is still possible—not just as a box-ticking exercise.
Constructive tone: A good review clarifies, not criticizes. It encourages better thinking—not defensiveness.
Right level of detail: Don’t get stuck on formatting. Focus on decisions, assumptions, and implications.
Actionable outcomes: The best reviews don’t just critique. They help the team move forward with more clarity and confidence.
Inclusive process: Engage the right stakeholders, including business, technical, and architecture participants. A review is more valuable when it builds shared understanding across roles.
Integrated with broader governance: Don’t duplicate efforts. Align reviews with existing governance forums and processes to reduce friction and improve transparency. Architecture shouldn’t add layers—it should connect them.

Final Thoughts

Reviews serve a purpose—but they’re not the whole process. They aren’t steering tools. They’re control points.

Real steering happens earlier: through architectural guidance, shared design work, and continuous dialogue with the people doing the actual building. That’s where architecture earns its influence.

So if you’re shaping EA practices in your organization, don’t just design a better review template. Make sure you also enable what comes before it:

Timely architectural guidance, available at the earliest stages of planning and design.
Up-to-date source material, including clear principles, current state views, and real example solutions.
Practical instructions for architects, to support consistent thinking across teams.
Lightweight, well-scoped reviews, focused on the right questions at the right moments.
Integration with other governance, to avoid duplication and reduce overhead.

That’s when architecture starts to work as it should—not as a gate, but as an enabler of better decisions, smarter solutions, and more confident change.

💬 Coming Up Next

In the follow-up to this post, I’ll dig into how to run an effective architecture review in practice: what to include, how to frame it, and how to make the review genuinely useful—not just a formality. Stay tuned!