Aspiring Architects - Episode 3: Political Architecture

Here’s a hard won lesson for all the aspiring architects out there – and maybe for some of you old-timers as well: technologies / solutions / products and vendors aren’t always chosen on their merits alone.  People tend to try and stick with what they are already comfortable with, so there’s always an agenda behind every decision, even if that agenda is benevolent.

Unless you’ve come down in the last shower of rain you’ll have some form of relevant history that guides you, whether it’s the natural love for Linux which you inherited from an esteemed role model or a bad BizTalk experience you had on some project.  All these experiences – like it or not - will influence your future decisions.

Well, surprise surprise, everyone has a history – but their experiences probably won’t be the same as yours; these people will be working on your projects with you and some will hold very influential positions.

Fear of the Unknown

First you have to understand the issues at hand:

“Do all men kill the things they do not love?”
- from Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice”.

I think the word fear could easily replace hate, in this quote.  Fear of the unknown is a very powerful driver, so it should be no surprise that people cling to what they do know.  This is closely related to our old friend: the “Not Invented here” syndrome:

Not Invented Here (NIH) is a term used to describe persistent social, corporate or institutional culture that avoids using or buying already existing products, research or knowledge because of their external origins.

As a social phenomenon, "Not Invented Here" syndrome is manifested as an unwillingness to adopt an idea or product because it originates from another culture, a form of nationalism [1].

Basically it’s about trust; over time people (and that includes you and me) build up a level of trust, and it’s far easier to go with something you trust rather than something unknown.

The classic RFP process is a great example of this, as Tony Byrne points out:

“…selection team members will emerge from the competition with favorites, and they frequently reverse-engineer the equations before entering scores to give their preferred vendor a high total. This seems sneaky, but it also signals a need to uncover and discuss why members possess "gut" instincts about particular vendors.”

As an aside – if you’re involved in the RFP process at all, you should read the whole article, other pitfalls Tony specifically discusses are:

• Creating a 1-dimensional selection team
• Becoming slaves to spreadsheets
• Failing to test the proposed solutions
• Focusing too much attention on the product -- and not enough on the vendor
• Negotiating a win-lose deal

On the vendor-side, check out some of my thoughts, based on actual experience.

Mitigations

Firstly there’s a variety of scenarios to consider:

1. Political influence: A politically entity driving or influencing technical direction (although they may or may not be technical themselves).
2. The squeaky wheel: someone whose voice is comparatively louder than everyone else and who therefore has a disproportionate degree of control.
3. Revolt from below: people at the coal face don’t want to change the status quo.
4. Group think: where everyone’s prior history is in alignment.

So what do you do? 

First you have to recognise situations where prior knowledge or experience is potentially skewing people’s allegiances.  As suggested above – that will be “always and everywhere”, however, it obviously more subtle than that.  Basically it’s a case of picking your battles.

Next: recognise that the battle isn’t a technical one; we’re not arguing about what’s best in this or that scenario – of course that will happen, but those sorts of discussion are the result – not the cause.  Approach the situation from a political / emotional perspective.

Change management strategies my be of help, although a lot of the change management material I’m thinking of deals more with organisational change – so this approach might be a bit like trying to apply Psychohistory to individuals.

Let’s look now at the specific scenarios listed above.

Political influence: There might not be much you can do here – it will depend on how accessible this political entity is to you.  Is there any way you can lobby your cause?

Before wading into the fray, make sure you understand the reasons behind the entities view.

As a general rule business people couldn’t careless about what technology is used – as long as the end result meets their needs and is within budget; if you have a political entity that has taken a specific technical view you need to understand that view very well before attempting to change it.

The squeaky wheel: the same rules apply here, but we’re assuming the squeaky wheel is someone closer to you and therefore more easily engaged (not that the engagement itself will necessarily be easier).

How you actually engage will depend on the situation; simply countering with an equally strong voice may be enough to spark some real debate or analysis, can you bring this person around to your view?  Directly engage with them to see if you can, after all, why extinguish a strong advocate when you can turn them to your side.

If the squeaky wheel can’t be turned, perhaps you need to marginalise them somehow – bring their squeaks down to a manageable size.

A particular issue you encounter in this scenario (or any of them, for that matter) is when that “knowledge” is out of date (legacy futures).  The advantage is that if the ‘knowledge’ Is particularly old you might be able to find some ‘mordern’ refute that actually works; the disadvantage is that the longer held the view – the harder it might be to change.

Finally, gain allies; if your one voice of reason can’t match the squeaks of doom, enlist some allies to your cause.

Revolt from below: this is where you’re up against a block of bio-resistance, probably from a group of people integral to the ultimate success of your venture (like – the developers).  You can’t lead a horse to water and make it drink – if you do it will drown.  Or kick.  So, as with the political entity and squeaky wheel, you need to understand why they take the stance they do and then figure out how to work that to your advantage.

Give people an opening (e.g.: let them take your idea as there own, or share credit) if there is someway for them to save face they’ll be more likely to come around to an alternative point of view, leave them no room to manoeuvre and you’ll only invoke stiffer resistance.

The most classic example of this was the demand for the ‘unconditional surrender’ of Germany in World War Two, a demand which was made public, and which directly contributed towards stiffening German resistance, prolonging the war and increasing casualties on both sides.

Again, Change Management theory / psychology will probably be relevant here.

Group think.  This one is very insidious; with the other cases we’ve assumed that we are the bearers of righteousness, however, we have to acknowledge that we ourselves might be to blame: and I don’t mean assuming that you’re the political entity or squeaky wheel (although that’s possible – stop it now!).  It’s possible that you and everyone else are similarly blinded by the same rose-tinted glasses that overlook prior experience.

So, in a nutshell:

• People stick with what they know / trust.
• People fear the unknown.
• People fear change.

Finally, Transactional Analysis might be a useful tool to keep in mind; Transactional analysis is an integrative approach to the theory of psychology and psychotherapy, and describes how people are structured psychologically.

Often it’s not actually what you’re saying that causes people to not hear your message of reason – it’s how you’er putting it across.

In conclusion, I’m not an expert at bending the wills of others – but if you can establish some form of dialog and involve a wider audience you stand a good chance of getting a decision made on appropriate grounds, or at least get an understanding of why the decision is what it is.