Understanding what platform architecture is and why it matters doesn’t help if you can’t operationalize it. This final piece in the series addresses the practical question: how do you build the platform function in your organization?
There’s no single template. The right approach depends on organizational size, maturity, industry, and existing capabilities. But there are principles that apply broadly and patterns that work across contexts.
Start With Scope
The first question is scope. What does the platform function own?
This question trips up many organizations because the answer feels like “everything.” Platform architecture spans domains by design. It touches enterprise architecture, cloud architecture, infrastructure, security, and operations. Defining boundaries feels artificial.
But without boundaries, the function becomes diffuse. A platform team that owns everything owns nothing. They become a consultancy within the organization, giving advice but not driving outcomes.
The right framing is integration, not ownership.
The platform function doesn’t own cloud architecture. It owns the integration of cloud decisions with infrastructure decisions, security requirements, and business objectives. It doesn’t own security architecture. It owns the integration of security controls into the platform foundation.
Each specialized domain retains ownership of their area. The platform function owns the connections between areas. This is a narrower scope than “everything” but a broader scope than any single domain.
Define this clearly before you build the team. What integration points matter most in your organization? Where are the gaps between domains creating the most friction? That’s where the platform function should focus.
Organizational Placement Matters
Where you place the platform function determines its effectiveness.
Too low in the organization and the function lacks authority. Platform architects can identify integration gaps but can’t drive resolution. They become advisors without influence, producing recommendations that get ignored.
Too siloed and the function lacks visibility. A platform team buried within infrastructure can’t see application portfolio decisions. A platform team within a single business unit can’t drive enterprise-wide integration.
Too isolated from delivery and the function loses credibility. Platform architects who don’t engage with real projects become theoretical. Their recommendations don’t account for operational reality.
The most effective placement balances authority, visibility, and practical engagement.
In smaller organizations, this might mean a senior platform architect who reports to technology leadership and participates in both strategic planning and delivery execution. One person with the right placement can be more effective than a team with the wrong placement.
In larger organizations, this typically means a platform team that sits alongside (not within) infrastructure, security, and application teams, with dotted-line relationships into delivery functions. The team has organizational independence to see across domains while maintaining engagement with practical implementation.
The specific structure matters less than the principles: authority to drive decisions, visibility across domains, and engagement with delivery reality.
Building Bridges, Not Walls
The platform function exists to integrate. This means building bridges between teams that might otherwise operate independently.
In practice, bridge-building looks like:
Cross-functional forums.
Establish regular touchpoints that bring together representatives from different domains. Not status meetings. Working sessions where platform decisions get made with input from infrastructure, security, applications, and operations.
These forums create the connective tissue that platform architecture requires. They surface integration gaps before they become problems. They build relationships that enable faster resolution when issues arise.
Shared artifacts.
Create documentation, diagrams, and decision records that span domains. A platform architecture document that shows how cloud decisions relate to security controls relate to operational procedures. A decision log that captures cross-domain tradeoffs.
Shared artifacts make integration visible. They create a common reference point that teams can align around. They also expose gaps - when something doesn’t fit the shared model, that’s a signal that integration work is needed.
Embedded engagement.
Platform architects should spend time embedded with delivery teams, not just advising from a distance. Participate in architecture reviews. Join troubleshooting sessions. See how platform decisions play out in practice.
This embedded engagement builds credibility and surfaces reality. The platform architect who has seen deployment friction firsthand makes better platform decisions than one who only hears about it in reports.
The Interdisciplinary Requirement
Platform architecture requires interdisciplinary thinking. This has implications for who can do this work.
The best platform architects I’ve worked with share certain characteristics:
Breadth over depth.
They know enough about multiple domains to engage meaningfully without being the deepest expert in any single domain. They can discuss networking with network engineers, security with security architects, and application patterns with developers - not at the deepest level, but at a level that enables productive integration.
Systems thinking.
They naturally see connections and second-order effects. When evaluating a decision, they instinctively ask “what else does this affect?” They think in terms of systems, not components.
Comfort with ambiguity.
Platform decisions often involve incomplete information and competing priorities. The best platform architects can make progress without perfect clarity. They’re comfortable with “good enough for now” when the alternative is paralysis.
Relationship orientation.
Bridge-building requires relationships. Platform architects who prefer working alone or struggle with cross-functional communication will find this role frustrating. The work is inherently collaborative.
These characteristics can be developed, but they take time. Organizations building a platform function should look for people who already demonstrate these traits, not assume the role will create them.
Starting From Scratch
If your organization has no platform function today, starting can feel overwhelming. Here’s a practical sequence:
Phase 1: Assessment.
Before building anything, understand the current state. Where are the integration gaps? Which domains operate most independently? What platform decisions have been deferred or made inconsistently?
This assessment provides focus. You can’t fix everything at once. Identify the integration gaps causing the most pain and start there.
Phase 2: Single point of accountability.
Assign one person to own platform architecture, even if they have other responsibilities. This person becomes the focal point for cross-domain integration questions. They don’t have to solve everything - they have to ensure nothing falls through the cracks.
This single point of accountability creates visibility. Issues that previously got lost between domains now have somewhere to go.
Phase 3: Quick wins.
Identify one or two integration improvements that can be delivered quickly. Standardize a deployment pattern. Document a cross-domain decision process. Resolve a long-standing friction point between teams.
Quick wins build credibility and demonstrate value. They create momentum for larger platform investments.
Phase 4: Formalization.
Once the value is demonstrated, formalize the function. Define scope clearly. Establish organizational placement. Build the team if scale requires it. Create the forums, artifacts, and engagement patterns that sustain platform architecture over time.
Formalization should follow demonstrated value, not precede it. Organizations that try to build elaborate platform functions before proving the concept often create bureaucracy without benefit.
Sustaining the Function
Building the platform function is the beginning, not the end. Sustaining it requires ongoing attention.
Measure platform health.
Define metrics that indicate platform strength. Integration friction (how long does cross-domain work take?). Consistency (how similar are implementations across teams?). Velocity (is the platform enabling speed or creating drag?).
What gets measured gets managed. Platform health metrics create accountability and surface degradation before it becomes severe.
Communicate value continuously.
The recognition problem discussed in Part 2 doesn’t go away. Platform architecture remains most visible when it fails. Combat this by communicating value proactively.
Share stories of integration gaps prevented. Quantify efficiency gains from platform standards. Connect platform investments to business outcomes. Make the invisible visible.
Evolve with the organization.
The platform function that fits your organization today may not fit in two years. As the organization grows, matures, and changes direction, the platform function must adapt.
Revisit scope regularly. Adjust organizational placement as needed. Expand or contract the team based on actual requirements. The platform function is itself a platform - it needs to remain solid as what’s built on it evolves.
The Platform Function in Practice
Let me make this concrete with an example.
A managed services organization serves multiple customers across different cloud environments. Each customer engagement involves pre-sales, project delivery, and ongoing operations. Without platform architecture, each function optimizes independently. Pre-sales commits to approaches that delivery struggles to implement. Delivery builds solutions that operations struggles to support. Customers experience inconsistency.
The platform function in this context integrates across the customer lifecycle. It establishes standards that pre-sales can confidently commit to. It defines patterns that delivery can reliably implement. It creates operational frameworks that support teams can maintain.
The platform architect in this organization participates in pre-sales to ensure commitments are achievable. They engage with delivery to ensure implementations follow patterns. They work with operations to ensure supportability. They see across the entire lifecycle and ensure the pieces fit together.
The same principle applies in enterprises, product companies, and other contexts. The specifics differ. The integration function remains constant.
The Foundation Complete
This series has covered what platform architecture is, why it matters, and how to build the function.
Part 1 established the definition: platform architecture is vision and enablement. It’s distinct from enterprise, cloud, infrastructure, and security architecture - not replacing those disciplines but integrating across them.
Part 2 explained the stakes: platform decisions compound over time. Strong platforms enable velocity, efficiency, and adaptability. Weak platforms create friction, fragmentation, and fragility.
Part 3 provided the operational guidance: scope the function around integration, place it for authority and visibility, build bridges between domains, and sustain it through measurement and communication.
The platform is the base. Everything else depends on getting it right.
If your organization lacks platform architecture today, start small. Assign accountability. Deliver quick wins. Build from proven value.
If your organization has platform architecture but it’s struggling, diagnose the gap. Is the scope unclear? Is the placement wrong? Are the bridges not being built? The principles in this series can guide correction.
The platform layer is foundational work. It’s often invisible, frequently undervalued, and absolutely essential. Organizations that invest in it build on solid ground. Organizations that neglect it build on sand.
Choose solid ground.
Series Complete
This concludes “The Platform Layer” series.
Related Reading:
- The “Decide or Drown” series covers technology decision-making for IT leaders
- The “Operational Change” series explores modern service management transformation
Photo by Miguel Picq on Unsplash
Comments