In brief:
- The cost of architectural non-governance: More than half of companies are spending more than a quarter of their technology budgets on remediation, much of it architectural. (link) This is money not spent on business enablement and alignment.
- AI is raising the stakes: The explosion of AI and other emerging technologies has dramatically increased the volume and complexity of architectural decisions, making architectural governance more critical than ever.
- ARB = Strategic advantage: A high-performing architecture review board (ARB) helps align technology with business strategy, reduce technical debt, and improve the ROI of tech investments.
The governance gap
In today’s disruptive business environment, architectural decisions are more important than they’ve ever been — they can make or break strategy. Yet, 93% of CIOs admit their organizations are not equipped to make fast and well-informed technology decisions. This is a staggering admission in an era of rapid innovation, AI disruption and mounting technical debt. And it’s a gap that CIOs need to address regardless of complexity.
Unless a company has an unlimited technology budget and is content with layers of historical redundancy, every technology decision is an architectural decision. Without strong governance, organizations risk bloated systems, redundant tools and spiraling costs. CIOs can’t do it alone. They need a mechanism to ensure architecture evolves with agility, supports innovation and avoids unnecessary technical debt.
What is an architecture review board?
An architecture review board (ARB) is a small, cross-functional group of representatives from the business, IT and the executive team that bridges the gap between business and technology. Through its high-level representations, the ARB ensures that technological decisions align with business strategy, technological standards and existing enterprise architecture, and that decisions are informed by multiple stakeholders and support future growth. ARBs are widely recognized as best practice and play a crucial role in reducing technical debt, controlling IT costs, and balancing technology risk with innovation.
Three reasons to consider an ARB
The importance of ARBs has increased in recent years due to rapid advancements in technology. Widespread use of cloud computing and AI require careful review of technology acquisitions to ensure not only architectural compatibility but compliance with internal and external guidelines and policies. AI adoption in particular has multiplied the number of architectural decisions that need to be made, along with the risks.
Technology leaders should consider establishing an ARB for three key reasons:
Strategic alignment: Without an ARB, technology choices are often made by the loudest voices in the room — not necessarily the most strategic voices, or the most representative of the enterprise’s needs. An ARB “corrects the signal” by driving a formalized process and an organized framework for evaluating initiatives and requests. It guarantees that technology choices are strategic and informed by the relevant, essential stakeholders with the necessary insights, expertise and authority to make significant architectural decisions. Articulating and documenting these decisions builds shared understanding, justifies next actions and drives long-term strategic alignment and clarity.
Strategic alignment is a core responsibility of the ARB. Organizations should articulate it as such and track its effectiveness using key performance indicators (KPIs). Examples of KPIs include percentage of initiatives pursued in alignment with the strategic vision, IT road map coverage of business objectives, and stakeholder satisfaction with technology decisions.
Technical debt management: Technical debt is a hidden tax that quietly drains millions from IT budgets, breaking trust with the business and slowing innovation. According to a 2025 research, the average enterprise loses $370 million a year due to technical debt — a cost spread across legacy systems maintenance, remediation, and failed or slowed transformation initiatives.
An ARB can slow down debt growth by reducing non-strategic investments. By reviewing each decision carefully in the context of the existing architecture and strategy, the ARB keeps tabs on technology “undergrowth,” reducing complexity, redundancy and deviation from standards, and increasing the ROI of approved investments.
To measure ARB effectiveness in technical debt reduction, organizations can establish KPIs such as technical debt ratio, code quality metrics, defect density, and architecture exceptions over time.
Effective change execution: Since ARBs are cross-functional committees representing multiple stakeholders, they can bridge the traditional gap of mistrust between business units and IT. Leveraging their cross-functional expertise, they can maximize investments and make informed recommendations about new acquisitions. When properly embedded within Agile practices and program management, ARBs can help streamline the development of new functionalities, enable new business capabilities, reduce friction and accelerate innovation. Reduced friction is the most valuable outcome within change execution. It can build trust in the technology process, eliminate “shadow IT” by reducing perceptions of red tape and improve technology compliance.
KPIs to measure the ARB’s effectiveness in business enablement and red tape reduction include the volume of projects delayed due to unplanned technology dependencies, new technology procurement vs. existing technology use, number of cycles and review time for submissions, technology alignment with business needs (verses technical fit), and number of products and platforms aligned with enterprise technology strategy and goals.
Low-performing vs. high-performing ARB: What’s the difference?
Not every architecture review board lives up to its intent or expectations. Underperforming ARBs can create even more red tape and increase technology risk if the business perceives them as obstacles to innovation. The three most common issues causing an ARB to fall short of its mission include:
- A lack of understanding, awareness and organizational buy-in to the objectives of the ARB
- Ineffective operating model for the ARB, where the ARB is not properly integrated with other technology processes, roles and responsibilities are unclear, or the board is missing the right competencies
- Overly burdensome processes and documentation requirements from the business
To ensure ARB success:
- Establish a clear charter for the ARB and articulate the decision-making standards.
- Ensure the ARB has the right skill sets and representation. A typical composition of the ARB includes enterprise/solution architects, CIO/CTO, CISO, a data officer, an operational executive, CFO or procurement officer, a legal and compliance officer, and business unit representatives.
- Define the roles and responsibilities of the members of the ARB. The two leading roles are the ARB lead (responsible for ARB’s day-to-day function and communication) and the CIO (executive sponsor who’s also accountable for technology team execution as well as architecture overall). The functional heads mentioned above provide the perspective and accountability of groups within their respective domains.
- Simplify the request process required of the business by creating clear, easy to follow documentation and process guidelines.
- Articulate and document each decision and its relationship to strategy ensuring that an appropriate balance is achieved between the level of effort required by the ARB and the significance of the architectural decision.
- Measure effectiveness using clear KPIs and communicate success in business terms.
The bottom line
The rapid advancement of AI and emerging technologies requires a laser focus on enterprise architecture to reduce ad hoc decisions and to clear paths to innovation. An effective ARB is more than governance — it improves user experience, reduces technical debt and maximizes the technology budget, while infusing the organization’s technology decisions with structure, purpose and a competitive edge.
How Protiviti can help
Protiviti’s Enterprise Architecture team specializes in optimizing the architecture function to ensure it aligns with your organization’s business goals, mitigates technology risks and fosters innovation. We can facilitate architectural discussions, establish architectural governance, and evaluate architecture review board effectiveness. Learn more on our website or reach out to the authors.
