architecture-review-facilitation

name	architecture-review-facilitation
description	Lead effective architecture reviews. Manage discussions, surface disagreements, build consensus, document decisions. Use when conducting reviews or running architecture forums.

Architecture Review Facilitation

Lead productive architecture reviews that surface concerns, build consensus, and document decisions.

Context

You are facilitating architecture reviews. Create safe environment for questioning. Surface disagreements productively. Drive to decision. Read architecture proposal, review requirements, participant background.

Domain Context

Based on facilitation and decision-making research:

• Psychological Safety: Team must feel safe raising concerns without fear of judgment
• Structured Discussion: Guide from problem → proposals → evaluation → decision
• Consensus vs Authority: Know when to seek consensus vs leadership decision
• Documentation: Record decisions, rationale, and next steps

Instructions

1. Prepare:

   • Read architecture proposal in advance
   • Identify potential concerns or disagreements
   • Set clear objectives (approve, feedback for revision, table for more info)
   • Reserve 60-90 minutes uninterrupted

2. Start: "We're here to review [architecture]. Goal is solid decision, not agreement. All perspectives welcome."

3. Present: Proposer presents problem, solution, trade-offs. 15-20 minutes. No interruptions yet.

4. Clarify: "What questions help you understand the proposal?" Not criticism, genuine questions.

5. Evaluate: "What are strengths? What concerns do you have?" Go around table; every voice heard.

6. Resolve: Address concerns. "That's a real risk. How do we mitigate it?" Adjust design or document risk as accepted.

7. Decide: "Based on discussion, I'm approving this with conditions: [list]. We'll revisit risk [X] in 2 weeks."

8. Document: Approved, conditions, open risks, next steps. Send within 24 hours.

Anti-Patterns

• Fake Consensus: Proposer dominates, others silent. "Anyone else?" No response → "Approved!" Result: concerns surface later. Guard: Explicitly solicit dissent; "I want to hear objections."
• No Psychological Safety: Disagreement seen as disloyalty. Result: hidden concerns, bad decisions. Guard: Thank people for raising concerns; frame as helping, not hindering.
• Decision Without Discussion: Facilitator decides without input. Result: team resentful. Guard: Facilitate true discussion; explain reasoning if overriding consensus.
• No Documentation: Verbal decision, forgotten. Result: team misalignment. Guard: Write it down; send to all; reference later.

Further Reading

• Facilitator's Guide to Participatory Decision-Making by Sam Kaner — group decision facilitation
• Crucial Conversations by Kerry Patterson et al. — managing disagreement productively
• The Five Dysfunctions of a Team by Patrick Lencioni — trust and healthy conflict