CEO of The Go! Agency (Digital Marketing), Author, Forbes Council Thought Leader, Entrepreneur Magazine Contributor, Biz Journals Leadership Trust, Fast Company Board Member, Podcast Host, National Business Mentor

Christopher Tompkins is the CEO and founder of The Go! Agency and an internationally renowned expert on digital marketing. With more than two decades of experience, Christopher has turned The Go! Agency into one of the top 10 marketing agencies in Florida, top 25 digital marketing agencies, and his podcast, Bulletproof Marketer, has earned praise as one of the top 10 digital marketing podcasts airing today. He’s written two books, The Go! Method and Is Social Media Right For Your Business, and is a frequent contributor to Forbes, Entrepreneur Magazine, Tampa Bay Business Journal, Fast Company, Yahoo Finance, The Wise Marketer, The Grit, Money Magazine, and other illustrious trades.

Christopher Tompkins

Most growth strategies prioritize doing more. More campaigns. More content. More platforms. Strategic growth strategies prioritize doing less, better.

Open article: Precision Beats Volume in Sustainable Growth by Christopher Tompkins • 1 min read

Precision Beats Volume in Sustainable Growth

When are your capacity constraints actually being addressed?

Team expansion after projects are committed. Skill development when gaps become critical. System upgrades when infrastructure breaks.

Leaders building capacity proactively create resilience. Leaders building capacity reactively create firefighting.

Strategic capacity management operates ahead of demand, not behind it.

#leadership #capacity #growth #workforce #scalability #strategicplanning #operations

No alternative text description for this image

Three signals your decision framework needs documentation:

1. Every tactical choice requires leadership approval - Teams wait for direction instead of executing within clear parameters.

2. Different departments make contradictory decisions - No shared criteria means conflicting approaches across functions.

3. New team members take months to make confident choices - Decision logic lives in individual heads, not accessible systems.

Documented frameworks increase velocity without sacrificing quality.

What percentage of decisions require your direct approval?

#leadership #decisionmaking #frameworks #velocity #execution #operations #efficiency #strategy

undefined undefined

Unpopular opinion: Competitive intelligence is not market research.

Market research tells you what exists. Competitive intelligence reveals what competitors are building before they announce it.

Most organizations conduct annual competitive reviews. Strategic operators monitor competitor hiring, technology investments, and partnership formations continuously.

How often does your competitive analysis actually update?

#leadership #competitiveintelligence #strategy #marketstrategy #businessintelligence #strategicplanning #competitiveadvantage

Strategic initiatives fail more from unclear ownership than from wrong strategy.

When everyone is responsible, no one is accountable. When ownership is ambiguous, progress requires constant coordination meetings instead of autonomous execution.

Organizations that document exactly who owns which outcomes move faster. Organizations that keep ownership implicit create bottlenecks at every decision point.

January planning sessions establish initiative lists. Strategic planning establishes who delivers each one with their name documented.

Who specifically owns your top three strategic priorities?

#leadership #accountability #ownership #strategy #execution #strategicplanning #clarity #performance

Interesting pattern emerging around Q1 budget allocation decisions.

Organizations consistently spread new budgets across multiple channels to "test everything," yet performance data from previous years clearly shows which channels historically convert and which consistently underperform.

The gap between available attribution data and actual allocation behavior is significant.

What are others observing in their planning processes?

Does a fresh budget really require re-testing known underperformers, or is this one of those annual rituals that feels strategic but ignores existing proof?

Strategic clarity established early costs less than clarity pursued under pressure.

The actual costs of delayed clarity: Teams debate direction instead of executing. Projects pivot mid-stream, wasting resources. Leadership credibility erodes through inconsistent messaging. Competitive positioning weakens during internal confusion.

Clarity before commitment eliminates these costs. Clarity during execution multiplies them.

What is an unclear strategy costing your organization?

#leadership #clarity #strategy #costs #execution #strategicclarity #performance #decisionmaking

Unpopular opinion: Advisory relationships need termination criteria, not just formation criteria.

Organizations carefully vet advisors before engagement, but rarely establish what ending the relationship looks like. Advisory boards persist beyond usefulness because no framework exists for a respectful conclusion.

Define contribution expectations. Establish review cadence. Document when the advisory value has been captured.

Does your organization have advisor exit frameworks?

#leadership #advisoryboard #governance #relationships #strategy #advisors #boardmanagement #clarity

Institutional knowledge creates organizational fragility.

When key people are unavailable, work pauses. When experienced members leave, capability disappears.

Organizations dependent on individual memory are one resignation away from disruption. Organizations with documented systems are resilient regardless of who is working.

Where does critical knowledge actually live in your organization?

#leadership #knowledge #documentation #systems #operations #organizationalresilience #institutionalknowledge #scalability

Q1 execution reveals what planning actually built:

- Weak planning: Vague objectives requiring interpretation. Success criteria debated during reviews. Ownership confusion across initiatives.
- Strong planning: Measurable outcomes defined precisely. Performance benchmarks established upfront. Clear accountability for each objective.

If Q1 launches generate confusion, planning was incomplete.

Strategic planning creates execution clarity, not directional suggestions.

#leadership #planning #execution #strategy #strategicplanning #clarity #performance #q1planning

The strategy-execution gap reveals itself in February.

January is when we define clarity. February is where organizational discipline either compounds or collapses.

The teams gaining momentum now?

They built execution frameworks in Q4: documented processes, clear ownership, measurable checkpoints.

They're not reinventing the wheel with every campaign launch.
The teams already struggling?

They're operating on institutional memory and improvisation. Every execution feels like a first attempt because there's no system to build on.

After 16 years, I've watched this pattern repeat: strategic thinking without operational infrastructure doesn't create growth. It creates expensive inconsistency.

The question isn't whether your team has ideas. It's whether you've built the systems that turn those ideas into repeatable performance.

How structured are your campaign launch processes, or is every execution still treated as a new experiment?
#MarketingStrategy #ExecutionExcellence #MarketingLeadership #B2BMarketing #CampaignManagement #MarketingOperations #DigitalMarketing #StrategicPlanning #MarketingExecution #BusinessStrategy

With extensive experience in IT Technology Leadership, Enterprise Architecture, and IT Management, I have committed my career to advancing innovation and driving impactful transformation. As a Technology Architect at IAG Transform, I play a critical role in shaping digital transformation, aligning technology strategies with business goals, and implementing innovative, scalable solutions.

My expertise lies in navigating the complexities of enterprise IT to deliver secure, maintainable, and future-ready systems that meet strategic objectives. I am passionate about harnessing digital capabilities to redefine business landscapes, fostering agility, innovation, and sustainable growth.

Beyond technical expertise, I excel at building strong relationships, influencing stakeholders, and promoting best practices to ensure excellence in digital solutions. My leadership is driven by a dedication to bridging the gap between technology and business, empowering organizations to achieve their strategic vision.

Nadzeya Stalbouskaya

𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗘𝘅𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗜𝘁𝘀 𝗩𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲 𝗜𝘀 𝗜𝗻𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲
I’ve worked in organizations with mature EA practices. Frameworks in place. Governance running. Diagrams approved.

And still, in leadership conversations, the same question comes back again and again: “𝘚𝘰... 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳?”

This is uncomfortable to admit, but important:
the problem is rarely the architecture itself.
It’s how we position it.

Over time, I’ve noticed three recurring patterns that quietly erase architectural value.

𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁. 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲.
Not intentionally. Not maliciously. But when architecture is invited to “review” instead of “shape,” it becomes commentary, not leadership. At that point, no diagram can save the outcome.

𝗦𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱. 𝗪𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 𝗶𝗻 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀.
Capabilities, layers, standards, target states.
All valid. All necessary. But business leaders don’t fund structures. They fund outcomes. Speed. Risk reduction. Optionality. Cost of delay.
When architecture can’t translate into these terms, it becomes invisible.

𝗧𝗵𝗶𝗿𝗱. 𝗪𝗲 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹.
Communication is often labelled as a “soft” competency.
In reality, it’s a core architectural capability. If an architect cannot explain why a decision matters, what risk it removes, or what future it enables, the architecture might be correct and still irrelevant.

What actually helps?

An outcome-driven mindset. Clear cause–effect narratives. Visuals that show trade-offs, not just structure. And metrics that connect architecture to decisions, not documentation.

Gartner has been saying this for years: architecture creates value only when it accelerates decision-making. McKinsey makes a similar point from another angle: organizations fail not from lack of strategy, but from decision paralysis caused by complexity.

Architecture is meant to reduce that complexity. If it doesn’t, we should be honest enough to ask why.

This is not a critique of architects. It’s a reminder of our responsibility.

Architecture is not about being right. It’s about being useful at the moment decisions are made.

𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯: 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮? 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘥?

#EnterpriseArchitecture #ArchitectureLeadership #DecisionMaking #ArchitectureValue

First, the idea that AI adoption would automatically lead to productivity gains.
Sources:
https://www.gartner.com/en/articles/ai-value-realization
https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/why-ai-doesnt-automatically-make-teams-more-productive

Second, predictions around “autonomous enterprises” proved overly optimistic.
Source:
https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/the-state-of-ai

Third, the expectation that governance would become lighter with smarter technology did not hold.
Source:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/ai-governance/

https://www.pcquest.com/tech-explained/is-your-enterprise-architecture-ready-for-ai-10944385

Technology Architect at IAG Transform | Architecture Debt Advocate | Enterprise Architecture | SAP | Data & AI & Innovation | Digital Transformation

I’ve just completed the SAFe® 6 Architect certification.
Not because I collect certificates. And not because every architect “must” have SAFe. I went for it for one very simple reason. I wanted to challenge my own position as an architect in a scaled, agile environment.

Over three very intensive days, I didn’t learn magic frameworks or perfect answers. What I did get was something more useful. A clearer view of where architecture really sits when delivery is fast, messy, and political. Where trade-offs are constant. And where alignment matters more than elegant diagrams.

What worked for me:
– Strong focus on collaboration between architects, product, and delivery
– Clear language for talking about intent, not just solutions
– Practical tension between long-term thinking and short-term execution

What didn’t fully land:
– Some patterns feel idealistic if the organisation isn’t ready
– SAFe doesn’t remove complexity. It just makes it visible faster

My main takeaway is simple.
SAFe is not a silver bullet. And it’s not for every organisation. But for architects working in large, distributed environments, it gives a shared vocabulary. And sometimes, shared language is the biggest enabler we have.

I’m glad I did it. Not because it gave me answers. But because it sharpened my questions.

#Architecture #SAFe #ContinuousLearning #EnterpriseArchitecture

I’m really excited to share this.
On January 30, I’ll be speaking at Women In Architecture (WIA) about something many of us have experienced first-hand:
why well-designed architectures still fail in real life.

This talk is not about frameworks or perfect diagrams.
It’s about what actually breaks architectures inside organizations: unclear ownership, decisions made under pressure, governance gaps, and small “invisible” issues that quietly accumulate until systems stop delivering value.

Everything in this session is based on real experience, not theory.
The gap between designed architecture and lived architecture is often where the real risks sit.

If you’ve ever wondered why good ideas don’t survive reality, this conversation is for you.

📅 January 30
🕓 10am EST | 3pm GMT | 4pm CET

Hope to see you there.

View company: Women In Architecture (WIA)

Upcoming Women In Architecture (WIA) meeting: Why Good Architectures Fail in Real Life with Nadzeya Stalbouskaya

This talk explores the gap between “designed” architecture and how systems actually work in organizations. It focuses on the non-technical factors that most often cause failure: unclear ownership, decision-making under pressure, governance gaps, and small invisible issues that accumulate over time. The session is based on real experience rather than theory, showing why many well-designed architectures still fail to deliver business outcomes.

🗓️ 30th January
⏰ 10am EST | 3pm GMT | 4PM CET
🔗 Join WIA here: https://lnkd.in/ew79DmQg

Preeti Ramdour (🅢🅗🅔/🅗🅔🅡)

I’m happy to share that I’ve obtained a new certification: 𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗟 𝟰 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿: 𝗗𝗶𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 & 𝗜𝗧 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆 from PeopleCert!
This one wasn’t about learning another framework or memorising terms. For me, it was about stepping back and looking at a question we don’t ask often enough: 𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘥𝘰 𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦?

What I appreciated most in this course was the focus on trade-offs.
 Not “best practices”, but real choices.
 Not tools, but direction.
 Not speed alone, but sustainability.

As architects and technology leaders, we often sit in the middle.
 Between strategy and execution.
 Between ambition and constraints.
 Between what the business wants now and what the organisation can survive later.

ITIL DITS gave me a useful lens to structure those conversations better. Not louder. Just clearer.
Learning never replaces experience. But sometimes it helps you name what you already feel and make it easier to explain to others.

𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘥 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸? 𝘋𝘰 𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘴 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘱 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘪𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘰𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵?

#ITIL4 #DigitalStrategy #TechnologyLeadership #EnterpriseArchitecture

𝗕𝘂𝘀𝘆 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗜𝘀 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗰 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲
Architecture without strategy is a very busy hobby.
You draw.
You align.
You review.
You redesign what was already redesigned last quarter.

And somehow, nothing really changes.

I’ve seen incredibly smart architects stuck in endless delivery loops, not because they lack skills, but because they lack strategic anchoring. Without strategy, architecture becomes reactive by default.

Here’s my honest take.

𝙒𝙞𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙮, 𝙖𝙧𝙘𝙝𝙞𝙩𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙨 𝙗𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙚 𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙜𝙧𝙖𝙢 𝙨𝙚𝙧𝙫𝙞𝙘𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙫𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙨
If there is no clear strategic direction, every request feels equally important. Everything looks urgent. Everything deserves a diagram.

You don’t design towards something.
You just design away from the last fire.

That’s not architecture. That’s survival with PowerPoint.

𝙎𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙮 𝙞𝙨 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙤𝙬𝙨 𝙖𝙧𝙘𝙝𝙞𝙩𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙨𝙖𝙮 “𝙣𝙤” 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙛𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮
Strategy gives architects something very powerful: a reason.
Not opinions.
Not personal preferences.
A reason.

When architecture decisions are tied to strategy, “no” stops sounding defensive and starts sounding responsible. Without it, architects either block everything or approve everything. Both are equally dangerous.

𝙎𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙮 𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙣𝙨 𝙖𝙧𝙘𝙝𝙞𝙩𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙚𝙛𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙩 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙤 𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙖𝙘𝙩
You can work very hard and still be irrelevant. Strategy is what connects architectural choices to outcomes. Speed. Risk. Cost. Optionality. Long-term viability.
Without that connection, architecture looks busy but feels invisible. With it, even small decisions suddenly matter.

𝗠𝘆 𝗳𝗮𝘃𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗶𝗿𝗼𝗻𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀:
People think strategy is abstract and architecture is practical.
In reality, strategy is what makes architecture practical.

𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘤 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯?
𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘭 𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨?

#EnterpriseArchitecture #ArchitectureStrategy #TechLeadership #ArchitectLife

I’m happy to share that I’ve obtained a new certification: Associate Certified Mentor from Guider!
And no, this post is not about another badge. It’s about why I decided to formalise something I’ve been doing for years anyway. Over time, I noticed a pattern. People rarely come to mentoring with technical questions only. They come with confusion. With overload. With too many options and not enough clarity.

What this certification helped me articulate more clearly are three things I already believed:

1. Mentoring is not about giving answers.
 It’s about helping someone see the real problem they are trying to solve. Often, that problem is not where they think it is.

2. Experience matters more than advice.
 Frameworks help, stories help more. Real cases, mistakes, trade-offs, and limits are what actually move people forward.

3. Good mentoring is a system, not a talent.
 Structure, boundaries, listening, and responsibility matter. Without them, mentoring becomes either therapy or motivation talk. Neither scales.

I work in architecture, governance, and complex systems. Mentoring fits naturally into that world. It’s still about clarity, ownership, and helping systems hold under pressure. The system here just happens to be a human one.
I’m glad I took the time to slow down and reflect on this properly.
If you mentor others, formally or informally, what part of it do you find the hardest? And if you’ve been mentored before, what actually helped you most?

#Mentorship  #LeadershipInPractice #ArchitectureMindset  #ProfessionalGrowth

Guider

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗦𝗲𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗠𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗸 𝗶𝗻 𝗟𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲 𝗘𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀
In large organizations, architecture rarely fails because it is too strict. It fails because it is either ignored or applied without context.

After working with enterprise architecture in complex, agile environments, I’ve learned one simple truth: architecture only works when it balances direction with adaptability.

Here is what actually makes architecture effective at scale.

𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗼𝗺, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗱𝗶𝘁𝘆
There is a common fear that architectural principles slow teams down, especially in Scrum or other agile setups. In practice, the opposite is true.
Clear architectural principles remove decision friction. They define what is not up for debate, so teams can move faster where choice actually matters.
Gartner and the Scaled Agile Framework both emphasize that architecture should provide guardrails, not detailed instructions. When principles are clear, teams don’t need constant approvals, they can act with confidence.

𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗮𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆
In many large companies, architecture works on a different timeline than delivery teams. That gap makes architecture irrelevant.
Effective architects engage early, work iteratively, and adjust intent as learning happens. This is fully compatible with Scrum, but only if architects focus on enabling decisions, not policing solutions.
Architecture that cannot keep pace with delivery will always be bypassed.

𝗜𝗻𝗳𝗹𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆
In big organizations, architects rarely succeed through formal power. They succeed through trust, clarity, and the ability to explain trade-offs.
McKinsey research on transformation failures repeatedly shows that initiatives stall when architectural intent is not understood by teams. Architects who can translate strategy into actionable guidance become partners. Those who cannot become obstacles.

Architecture at scale is not about control.
It is about alignment.

When principles are clear, engagement is continuous, and communication is strong, architecture stops being a blocker and becomes a multiplier.

𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘵 𝘴𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯? 𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘥𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘧𝘢𝘴𝘵-𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘮𝘴?

#EnterpriseArchitecture #AgileAtScale #ArchitectureLeadership #TechStrategy

𝗔𝗜 𝗗𝗼𝗲𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗕𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗸 𝗘𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀. 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗗𝗼𝗲𝘀
I keep seeing the same question everywhere lately: “𝙄𝙨 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙀𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙚 𝘼𝙧𝙘𝙝𝙞𝙩𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙙𝙮 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝘼𝙄?”

I recently read an article that framed this question very clearly and it resonated with me not because of the technology part, but because of what usually gets ignored in these discussions.

AI readiness is rarely about AI.

Most enterprises already have tools, platforms, pilots, PoCs, even “AI strategies”. What they often don’t have is an architecture that can absorb AI without breaking everything around it.

From my experience, AI exposes architectural weaknesses faster than any transformation programme ever did.

It exposes:
💠fragmented data ownership
💠unclear decision rights
💠invisible dependencies
💠governance that exists on slides, not in reality
💠and architectures designed for stability, not learning

What struck me while reading this article is how often AI is treated as a capability to “add”, rather than a force that reshapes how architecture decisions are made.

If your architecture cannot answer simple questions like:
💠Where does trusted data actually live?
💠Who owns model decisions and risk?
💠How feedback from AI usage flows back into design?
💠What can be reused and what must be rebuilt?

Then AI doesn’t fail.
Architecture fails first.

This is why I increasingly believe that AI readiness is not a technology milestone, but an architectural maturity signal.

Strong Enterprise Architecture doesn’t try to predict every AI use case.
It creates conditions where experimentation is safe, reuse is natural, and governance is embedded not enforced.

And that’s the uncomfortable part.
Because it means AI success depends less on tools, and more on decisions we postponed for years.

That’s probably why this topic feels so urgent right now.

𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘈𝘐 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯? 𝘋𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘈𝘐 𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘥𝘥-𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦?

#EnterpriseArchitecture #AIReadiness #ArchitectureDebt #DigitalTransformation

𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗜 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘆 𝗖𝗮𝗹𝗺 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗗𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝗠𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲
Architectural decisions are rarely made in calm conditions. They are made when timelines are tight, information is incomplete, and the cost of a mistake is high.

Over time, I’ve learned that staying effective under pressure is not about being fearless. It’s about having internal structure when external structure is missing.

Here is what genuinely helps me.

𝚂𝚝𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚜 𝚐𝚛𝚘𝚠𝚜 𝚠𝚑𝚎𝚗 𝚍𝚎𝚌𝚒𝚜𝚒𝚘𝚗𝚜 𝚏𝚎𝚎𝚕 𝚕𝚊𝚛𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚊𝚛𝚎
Under pressure, everything starts to look irreversible. That’s dangerous.

𝘼𝙙𝙫𝙞𝙘𝙚 1 — 𝙍𝙚𝙙𝙪𝙘𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙤 𝙞𝙩𝙨 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙡 𝙨𝙘𝙤𝙥𝙚
I always ask myself: Is this reversible or not? Most architectural decisions are directional, not final. Treating every choice as permanent creates unnecessary stress and slows thinking.
Jeff Bezos popularized this idea with “Type 1 vs Type 2 decisions,” and it applies extremely well to architecture.

𝙲𝚕𝚊𝚛𝚒𝚝𝚢 𝚋𝚎𝚊𝚝𝚜 𝚜𝚙𝚎𝚎𝚍 𝚠𝚑𝚎𝚗 𝚙𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚞𝚛𝚎 𝚒𝚜 𝚑𝚒𝚐𝚑
Rushing does not save time if clarity is missing.

𝘼𝙙𝙫𝙞𝙘𝙚 2 — 𝙒𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙚 𝙙𝙤𝙬𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙞𝙣 𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚
If I can’t explain the decision simply, I’m not ready to make it. Writing forces structure and removes emotional noise.

𝘼𝙙𝙫𝙞𝙘𝙚 3 — 𝙉𝙖𝙢𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙙𝙚-𝙤𝙛𝙛𝙨 𝙚𝙭𝙥𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙩𝙡𝙮
Stress increases when trade-offs stay implicit. I deliberately state what we gain and what we consciously accept as risk. This turns anxiety into reasoning.
Gartner consistently highlights that decision quality degrades under ambiguity, not workload.

𝙲𝚊𝚕𝚖 𝚒𝚜 𝚊 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚒𝚙𝚕𝚒𝚗𝚎, 𝚗𝚘𝚝 𝚊 𝚙𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚘𝚗𝚊𝚕𝚒𝚝𝚢 𝚝𝚛𝚊𝚒𝚝
Some people look calm under pressure. Most people train it.

𝘼𝙙𝙫𝙞𝙘𝙚 4 — 𝙎𝙡𝙤𝙬 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩, 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙮
Even under urgency, I create a short pause. Ten minutes. One walk. One reset. This prevents reactive decisions that later require correction.

𝘼𝙙𝙫𝙞𝙘𝙚 5 — 𝙎𝙚𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙥𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙞𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙚𝙢𝙤𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙤𝙬𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙝𝙞𝙥
I care deeply about outcomes, but I don’t personalize pressure. Stress becomes destructive when decisions turn into identity tests.

In complex systems, perfect choices don’t exist. Responsible ones do.

Calm decision-making is not about control. It’s about maintaining perspective when complexity is loud.

𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘱𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘺 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳-𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘵? 𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵?

#EnterpriseArchitecture #DecisionMaking #LeadershipUnderPressure #TechLeadership

𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗧𝗲𝗮𝗺 𝗜𝘀 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗱. 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗕𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗜𝘁 𝗜𝘀 𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿
From my experience as an architect and technology leader, building a strong team is rarely the hardest part. The real challenge is keeping that team healthy once the pressure starts.

I’ve seen highly capable teams lose momentum not because people were “wrong”, but because expectations were never made explicit. Culture, much like architecture, is designed over time, but it can collapse very quickly.

𝗧𝗮𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗮 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗺
When hiring, we often ask a familiar question: do we need someone brilliant, or someone who fits the team?
In reality, this is a false choice.

The real risk appears when people join without a shared understanding of how decisions are made, how conflict is handled, and what “good” looks like. Google’s Project Aristotle showed years ago that psychological safety matters more than individual brilliance. Without it, even the smartest teams fragment.

𝗧𝗲𝗮𝗺𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗮𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝘆 𝗯𝗮𝗱 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲
In most struggling teams I’ve observed, there are three common “team breakers”:
🔵 people who overstep because boundaries were never defined
🔵people who disengage because success criteria are unclear
🔵people who resist change because they were never invited into the intent

None of these are character flaws. They are design gaps.
Just like in architecture, when interfaces are unclear, systems fail. Teams are no different.

𝗖𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘁
We often talk about culture as something organic. In practice, culture is shaped by repeated signals: what gets rewarded, what gets ignored, and what is tolerated under pressure.

McKinsey and MIT Sloan research consistently show that teams break not during calm periods, but during moments of ambiguity and stress. That is when leadership intent or lack of it becomes visible.

Strong teams are not maintained by charisma. They are maintained by clarity.
Building a good team requires skill.
Not breaking it requires design.

𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘪𝘧 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘳, 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘪𝘨𝘨𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘮 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘯? 𝘋𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘮 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘸𝘯?

#Leadership #TeamDesign #WorkCulture #TechLeadership

𝗧𝗲𝗰𝗵𝗻𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆 𝗧𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝗔𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲, 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗧𝗼𝗼𝗹𝘀
When we talk about technology trends for 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲, the most interesting shift is not in new tools, but in how clearly organisations are being forced to confront their own structural limits.

Looking across research and outlooks from 𝗚𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗻𝗲𝗿, 𝗠𝗰𝗞𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗲𝘆, 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱 𝗘𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝘂𝗺, and 𝗠𝗜𝗧 𝗦𝗹𝗼𝗮𝗻, one pattern stands out: technology is accelerating faster than enterprises are able to absorb change.

First, 𝗔𝗜 𝗶𝗻 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗯𝘆 𝗶𝘁𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳.
Gartner consistently highlights that value is shifting from AI adoption to AI integration. Organisations that still run AI as pilots, labs, or isolated initiatives will struggle, while those embedding AI into workflows, platforms, and decision models will start seeing real impact.

Second, 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸 𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲.
McKinsey’s research shows that as systems become more autonomous, traditional control mechanisms break down. In 2026, accountability, traceability, and trust will increasingly depend on how systems are designed, not on how many policies exist. Architecture becomes the first line of risk management.

Third, 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝘁 𝘀𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗲.
WEF research points out that organisations built around reusable capabilities adapt faster and fail more gracefully. By 2026, enterprises still optimised for one-off projects will feel slower, more fragile, and more expensive to operate not because they lack talent, but because reuse was never designed in.

And finally, 𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗮 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁.
MIT Sloan research is clear: productivity gains from AI flatten when organisations ignore trust, learning curves, and cognitive load. In 2026, the gap between what technology can do and what people can sustainably absorb will be one of the biggest hidden risks and a major source of architecture debt.

My personal conclusion looking toward 2026 is simple:
technology trends are converging on architecture. Not as documentation, but as a discipline of long-term choices about reuse, responsibility, autonomy, and how much complexity we allow into the system.

Enterprises won’t fail because they chose the wrong tools.
They’ll fail because they designed systems that humans cannot operate sustainably.

𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺? 𝘐𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘣𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘣 𝘪𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘧𝘦𝘭𝘺?

#TechnologyTrends #EnterpriseArchitecture #AITransformation #FutureOfWork

𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗢𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗻 𝗦𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗧𝗮𝗹𝗸 𝘁𝗼 𝗨𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘀?
This question comes up surprisingly often. And the most common answer I hear is: “Not too often. That’s product or UX territory.”

From my experience as an enterprise architect, this assumption is one of the quiet reasons why well-designed architectures still fail in practice.

𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗶𝘀 𝟭: 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗱𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘀, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝗮𝗯𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀

Architects are not expected to replace product managers or UX designers.
But when architects are fully detached from user feedback, architecture slowly drifts away from reality.

What looks elegant on paper often breaks at the edges of real usage. Performance issues, workarounds, shadow IT these are not technical failures. They are signals that architectural assumptions were never validated.

Gartner and Nielsen Norman Group both consistently show that early exposure to user feedback reduces rework and long-term complexity, even at system and platform levels.

𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗶𝘀 𝟮: 𝗨𝘀𝗲𝗿 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗮𝗹, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮 𝘂𝘀𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗹

Architects often underestimate how much user behavior reveals structural problems.

Repeated workarounds point to missing capabilities. Manual steps highlight integration gaps. User frustration often signals architectural friction, not just UI issues.

You don’t need constant interviews. But you do need regular contact. Listening to users periodically helps architects distinguish between designed intent and actual behavior.

That gap is where architecture debt quietly grows.

𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗶𝘀 𝟯: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆

The goal is not to talk to users all the time. The goal is to talk to them often enough to recalibrate assumptions.

For most architects, this means:
🗨️ joining selected user sessions or demos
🗨️ reviewing feedback patterns with product teams
🗨️ validating key architectural decisions against real workflows

McKinsey research on digital transformations repeatedly highlights the same point: solutions fail not because teams lack expertise, but because they lose touch with how systems are actually used.

Architecture becomes effective when it is informed, not isolated.

𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘰𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘥𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬?
𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘢 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘳’𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘧𝘭𝘰𝘸?

#EnterpriseArchitecture #UserCentricDesign #ArchitectureValue #TechLeadership

“𝗡𝗲𝘄 𝗬𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀 (𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗙𝗮𝗶𝗹 𝗯𝘆 𝗙𝗲𝗯𝗿𝘂𝗮𝗿𝘆)”
Every January, I watch the same thing happen.
Not just with myself, but with teams, architects, managers.
Be more productive. Stay positive. Exercise regularly. Learn a new skill. Attend fewer meetings. Master time. Fix work–life balance... finally.”

I’ve made most of these promises myself. More than once.

And then reality happens. Meetings multiply. Deadlines accelerate. AI projects explode. And our resolutions... quietly downgrade from strategic objectives to nice-to-have ideas.

But maybe the problem isn’t motivation. Maybe the problem is that we set resolutions for individuals while living inside systems that are designed without them in mind.

Here’s what I’ve learned as an architect:
1️⃣ 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗶𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗮 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗹l, it’s an organisational architecture.
No one can “be more productive” in a chaotic environment.
Systems either amplify focus or destroy it.

2️⃣ 𝗧𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆. People don’t burn out because they’re weak. They burn out because the operating model is.

3️⃣ 𝗙𝗲𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗲𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗵𝗼𝗽𝗲. A meeting removed is a governance decision, not a calendar miracle.

4️⃣ 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻. Companies say “upskill!”, then schedule 14 calls a day.

5️⃣ 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗸–𝗹𝗶𝗳𝗲 𝗯𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 , it’s a design choice. 
If the system requires heroics, the system is wrong.

So this year, instead of making resolutions we can’t keep, maybe it’s time to redesign the environment we work in.

A good architecture isn’t only about systems. It’s about how humans thrive inside them.

Because the best resolution is simple:
𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝗮 𝗹𝗶𝗳𝗲 (𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲) 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳-𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗶𝗿.

And maybe this isn’t a popular opinion, but I believe this: if a workplace needs constant personal heroics, it’s not high-performance. It’s poorly designed.

𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘖𝘕𝘌 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘑𝘢𝘯𝘶𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘶𝘴𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘣𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘴 𝘪𝘵 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵?

#Leadership #NewYear #WorkplaceDesign #Productivity #WorkLifeBalance

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮 𝟯-𝗗𝗮𝘆 𝗦𝗔𝗙𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘀𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗚𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗠𝗲
I’ve just completed a three-day SAFe for Architects course, and now that the intensity has settled, I can finally reflect on what it actually gave me beyond slides, frameworks, and exam preparation.

𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁, what was genuinely good.

The course creates a shared language between architecture and delivery. It helps translate architectural decisions into things delivery organizations actually care about: flow, dependencies, PI outcomes, value streams, and economic impact. For architects working in large, scaled environments, this perspective matters. It reminds us that architecture doesn’t live in isolation, it lives inside a system that is constantly moving.

I also appreciated the focus on responsibility. Not authority, not control responsibility. The role of an architect as someone who shapes options, reduces systemic risk, and supports long-term sustainability while teams are under delivery pressure felt very real and very relevant.

Now, 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗶𝗱𝗻’𝘁 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗲.

At times, the framework felt heavy. Some concepts risk turning into rituals if applied mechanically. There were moments where I had to mentally pause and remind myself that frameworks are tools, not truths. Without strong architectural judgment and contextual thinking, SAFe can easily become process-first instead of outcome-first.

And this leads to my main takeaway.

The value of this course is not in “following SAFe correctly”. It’s in understanding how large-scale delivery models influence architectural decisions and how architecture can either support or silently block flow. The course reinforced something I already believed: good architects don’t defend diagrams, they defend movement, learning, and optionality.

Would I recommend this course?

Yes — 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝘅𝘁.

I would recommend it to architects who work closely with delivery organizations, value streams, and product leadership, and who want to engage in real conversations instead of architectural monologues. I would not recommend it as a recipe or a belief system. It’s most useful when approached critically, with experience and healthy skepticism.

For me, this course wasn’t about changing my architectural philosophy. It helped sharpen it. It reminded me that understanding a framework does not mean agreeing with it, but it does mean being able to influence decisions where it actually matters.

Sometimes learning is not about adoption.
It’s about expanding your range of choices.

𝘏𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘯 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘧𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘥 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴? 𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯?

#EnterpriseArchitecture #SAFe #ArchitectureAndDelivery

𝗠𝘆 𝗧𝘆𝗽𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗱𝗮𝘆: 𝟭𝟬𝟬% 𝗨𝗻𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 (𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝟬% 𝗕𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴)

𝟵:𝟬𝟬 — First meeting. 😀 Agenda looks calm. I trust it for exactly 3 minutes.
𝟵:𝟬𝟯 — “Quick question.” Everyone knows this is how disasters start.
𝟵:𝟭𝟬 — The quick question now has a diagram. And opinions.

𝟭𝟬:𝟭𝟱 — Something breaks. Not fully. Just enough to keep everyone alert.
𝟭𝟬:𝟯𝟬 — I explain the same architectural idea to five people. Five versions. Same meaning.
𝟭𝟭:𝟬𝟬 — I remember to breathe. Briefly.

𝟭𝟮:𝟬𝟬 — Lunch. Conceptually.
𝟭𝟮:𝟬𝟰 — Teams reminds me who’s really in charge. 😅

𝟭𝟯:𝟯𝟬 — A decision that was “already agreed” but somehow isn’t.
𝟭𝟰:𝟬𝟬 — I draw a diagram I did not plan to draw today. Or ever.
𝟭𝟱:𝟮𝟬 — Someone says “Ohhh, now I get it.”
This is why we do this.

𝟭𝟲:𝟰𝟱 — I’m added to a meeting because “you were probably involved anyway.”
I was. Apparently.

𝟭𝟳:𝟯𝟬 — Notes, follow-ups, mental bookmarks for tomorrow.
𝟭𝟴:𝟬𝟬 — I log off. The company still exists. Success. 😀

Architecture is not about calm days. It’s about staying calm inside chaotic ones.
If your day is fully predictable, you’re probably not close enough to reality.

𝘈𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 “𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘢𝘺” 𝘶𝘴𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘥? 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘷𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯?

#WorkLifeReality #EnterpriseArchitecture #TechHumor #BehindTheScenes

𝗚𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀 𝗿𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗹 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗲𝗰𝗵𝗻𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗹 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗹𝗶𝗳𝗲 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄𝘀 𝘂𝗽.
On 𝗝𝗮𝗻𝘂𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝟯𝟬, I’ll be speaking at the 𝗪𝗜𝗔 𝗠𝗲𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 about something I see again and again in large organisations:
the gap between designed architecture and how systems actually work under pressure.

In theory, everything is clear. In reality, decisions are rushed. Ownership is blurred. Governance exists on paper. And small “temporary” compromises quietly turn into structural problems.

This session is not about tools, frameworks, or perfect diagrams. It’s about the non-technical factors that break even well-designed architectures:
– unclear decision rights
– pressure-driven shortcuts
– invisible dependencies
– accumulated architecture debt

All examples come from real work, not slides. Because architecture doesn’t fail in design documents. It fails in organisations.

If you’ve ever wondered why “good” architecture doesn’t always deliver business outcomes, this conversation is for you.

📅 January 30
🕓 4:00–5:30 PM CET
📍 Online (WIA)

Would love to see you there and continue the discussion together.

𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘣𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦: 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦, 𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦?

Meet Nadzeya Stalbouskaya: an award-winning Technology Architect, prolific author, and recognized international conference speaker. She is widely regarded as one of the emerging voices shaping the future of enterprise architecture and digital transformation, with a strong focus on governance excellence, architecture debt, resilient systems, and business transformation.

Her approach?
Strategy. Architecture. Elegance of approach.

In this session, Nadzeya Stalbouskaya explores the gap between “designed” architecture and how systems actually work in organizations.
The talk focuses on the non-technical factors that most often cause failure:
 – unclear ownership
 – decision-making under pressure
 – governance gaps
 – small invisible issues that accumulate over time
Based on real experience rather than theory, the session shows why many well-designed architectures still fail to deliver business outcomes.

🗓️ 30th January
⏰ 10am EST | 3pm GMT | 4PM CET
🔗 Join WIA here: https://lnkd.in/ew79DmQg

WIA Meeting

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗛𝗶𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗻 𝗚𝗮𝗽 𝗕𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆
This visual perfectly captures a confusion I see again and again in organisations.
We often say “strategic planning” as if it were one thing. But in reality, 𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙮 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙛𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙖𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙙𝙞𝙛𝙛𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙚𝙨, serving different purposes, operating on different time horizons, and requiring different types of thinking.

And when we mix them, we don’t get strategy. We get busy plans with no future.

Let’s unpack this through an architecture lens.

𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 is operational by nature.
It answers questions like:
– What will we do next quarter?
– Who does what and when?
– How do we allocate budget and resources?

Planning is essential.
But it is inherently short-term and execution-focused.
It translates intent into action.

𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆, on the other hand, is about choices under uncertainty.
It answers very different questions:
– Where do we want to compete?
– What will we not do?
– What must we protect to remain relevant?

Strategy lives in the mid-term. It is not a roadmap. It is a set of priorities that guide all future decisions.

And above both sits something we talk about far too little:

𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁.
Foresight is not prediction. It’s the ability to sense weak signals, explore scenarios, and imagine futures that don’t yet exist.

This is where real enterprise architecture should begin.

Because without foresight:
– strategy becomes reactive
– planning becomes mechanical
– architecture becomes defensive

In my work, I see organisations jumping straight into planning, skipping strategy, and completely ignoring foresight, then wondering why transformations stall, platforms don’t scale, and AI initiatives feel risky instead of empowering.

Architecture plays a critical role here.

Good architecture connects:
• foresight to strategic intent
• strategy to structural decisions
• decisions to execution without locking the future

When architecture is absent from this chain, organisations accumulate 𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗯𝘁 not because teams are careless, but because decisions are made without a shared view of time, impact, and optionality.

So no, strategy is not a longer plan. And planning is not “making strategy real”.

They are different tools and they must be used in 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿.

Foresight → Strategy → Planning → Signaling.

When we respect this sequence, enterprises stop reacting and start shaping their future.

𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵, 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘨𝘺, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺?

#Strategy #EnterpriseArchitecture #Leadership #Foresight

I’ve just registered for 𝗪𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗧𝗲𝗰𝗵 (𝗦𝗽𝗼𝘁𝗸𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗼𝘄𝗲 𝗞𝗼𝗯𝗶𝗲𝘁 𝘄 𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗧𝗲𝗰𝗵) and honestly, this is exactly the kind of event I like to keep an eye on. https://lnkd.in/gqY45dED 
Not another conference.
Not another panel with perfect slides.
Just a space where technology meets creativity and where women actually talk to each other.
I really like the idea behind this meetup. It’s not about titles or seniority. It’s about sharing experiences, exchanging perspectives, and building real connections at the intersection of tech and creative work.
These kinds of conversations often matter more than any formal framework. They shape how we think, how we grow, and how we make decisions later at work.
If you’re in Warsaw and working somewhere between tech, design, data, architecture, or creative industries, this feels like a good place to be.
Sometimes the most valuable insights don’t come from stages.
 They come from people sitting next to you with a coffee in hand.
See you there.
#WomenInTech #CreativeTech #Community #Networking

𝗥𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗰 𝗖𝗮𝗽𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆
We often talk about strategy in terms of priorities, decisions, and execution speed. Much less often do we talk about the condition in which those decisions are made.

Over time, I’ve come to see rest not as a personal preference, but as a 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗰 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆. Energy, attention, and calm are not “soft” factors. They directly shape judgment, risk appetite, and the quality of choices we make especially in complex environments.

When rest is neglected, something subtle happens. People don’t stop working. Systems don’t collapse overnight. Instead, an invisible form of debt accumulates. Decisions become reactive. Short-term fixes replace thoughtful design. Noise replaces clarity. It looks like productivity, but it isn’t sustainable.

In architecture, we know that systems fail not because of a single bad decision, but because of many small compromises made under pressure. The same applies to organisations and individuals. Chronic exhaustion doesn’t announce itself as a problem. It quietly degrades the system from within.

What I find increasingly important is recognising rest as part of the operating model, not as a reward after delivery. Calm creates space for sense-making. Attention allows us to see dependencies instead of symptoms. Energy gives us the capacity to choose well, not just quickly.

Ignoring this doesn’t make organisations faster. It makes them fragile.

Rest, in this sense, is not the opposite of ambition. It’s what allows ambition to last.

𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘥𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘩𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘣𝘵? 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘪𝘧 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘭𝘶𝘹𝘶𝘳𝘺?

#LeadershipMindset #SustainablePerformance #InvisibleDebt #HumanSystems

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗧𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗣𝗵𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗘𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗝𝗮𝗻𝘂𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴
Early January has a very specific vibe.

𝗦𝘁𝗲𝗽 𝟭. We deeply analyze last year.
What worked. What didn’t. What “definitely should have worked but somehow didn’t.”

𝗦𝘁𝗲𝗽 𝟮. We plan the future.
Big ideas. Clean calendars. Fresh notebooks. Everything looks possible again.

𝗦𝘁𝗲𝗽 𝟯. We confidently explain how this year will be completely different.
Better decisions. Better focus. Better results.

And honestly? This ritual isn’t bad.
Reflection creates awareness. Planning creates direction. Optimism creates momentum.

The trick is not to over-engineer January. Real change usually happens later quietly, consistently, without fireworks.
But for now... I’ll allow myself a little structured optimism ☕🙂

𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘱𝘩𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘪𝘯 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦?

#JanuaryVibes #WorkLife #NewYearEnergy #LeadershipMindset

taplio

The Battle

Christopher Tompkins

Nadzeya Stalbouskaya

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreChristopher Tompkins's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreNadzeya Stalbouskaya's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Christopher Tompkins

Nadzeya Stalbouskaya

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Christopher Tompkins's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreNadzeya Stalbouskaya's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreChristopher Tompkins's LinkedIn Performance