That’s at least three architecture team reorgs in recent years. Moving the same people into new titles isn't going to fix the core issues
9 replies (most recent on top)
For EA to be effective you need a strong leader and a clear vision…
@j9 the thing with data is that it’s everywhere across so many functions so the hire needs to be across everything. There aren’t that many folk in the industry that have the experience…
@hd Like in the CFO group.
@gn I wonder if changing the dynamic to Accenture will change any of that- at least at the lower levels. I would think they just do what they're told and wouldn't push back as much as Associates. But this is a great summary of architecture at T Rowe - some changes they run into full force, only to abruptly switch to something else. I think some of these initiatives they don't even give fair enough time to succeed.
They hired someone that would be in charge of firm data a while ago - that position was a revolving door for years. I have no idea if they are still going that route or if they abandoned that for something else. Same thing - trying to get people to take over or even share decisions regarding data is near impossible.
Look at all the bs “enablement” functions headed by random individuals with no real knowledge or experience. Talking heads
@gn Re# If the architects are consolidated, then they're considered "ivory tower" and "too disconnected". I would argue that perception is not driven by consolidation, rather by the op model of architects at the center - which for the most part is to stay at a very abstract and high level and push back when challenged to get into any specifics.
The role of architecture cannot be successful at T. Rowe Price due to organizational and corporate culture. If the architects are consolidated, then they're considered "ivory tower" and "too disconnected". If architects are embedded into departments, the business doesn't want to pay for them and engineering teams perceive them as competition or blockers. Being an architect at T. Rowe Price, with very few exceptions, is pretty much a futile experience. This is at least the 4th iteration of an Enterprise Architecture function at T. Rowe Price over the course of 20+ years and they've all been met with resistance by the business and within technology, fail through attrition, and eventually re-booted by some new outsider that's going to "make everything right". It never works.
@OP a big part of the problem is the organization having no clue of what architecture's value proposition should be vs how it is positioned right now (at least the last couple of years).. An ivory tower model.
I’ve been seeing a lot of things around here lately that I used to see in incompetent companies. Pointless reorganizations. You know, just changing the names of the departments. Nothing’s going to change unless you fire the rotten people. Cancer spreads. Even if you move them somewhere else, they’ll just rot that place too. The ability to spot rotten individuals and fire them is a mandatory skill that competent people in power must have. But those kinds of talented people either don't exist here, or they’re alienated and denied any real authority.