Architecture governance often fails not because of poor technical ideas, but because it is treated as a documentation or compliance exercise rather than a leadership system.
In many organizations, architecture decisions are made implicitly: through deadlines, heroics, or whoever speaks the loudest in a meeting. The result is fragmentation, inconsistent standards, and systems that are expensive to change. An Architecture Review Board (ARB), when done well, exists to change how decisions are made—not to centralize control.
The most effective ARBs I’ve seen are lightweight, opinionated, and grounded in real delivery constraints. They focus on clarifying trade-offs, surfacing long-term consequences, and creating shared understanding across teams. The goal is not approval, but alignment.
Critically, governance only works when leaders model the behavior they want to see. If senior leaders bypass architectural decisions when things get urgent, the process collapses. If they participate, ask hard questions, and respect outcomes, teams learn that architecture is part of how the organization thinks.
Good architecture governance scales leadership judgment. Bad governance creates process theater. The difference is almost never technical—it’s cultural.