When designing a blue-print for an infrastructure, which is the driving issue, the Business need, or the technical solution?
My Project Managers and IT MD insist that the Business need is primary and the technology is irrelevant. My opinion is that the technical solution is paramount and it is imperative that the solution provides the company with a future-proof design that is both effective and resilient.
If the Business need is concerned with Performance, Availability (ours is currently 99.9%) and TCO, which I am told it is, then the answer must be a technical one, as it is the effectiveness of the technologies implemented that will provide the Business with the solution to it?s ?need?.
I am sure that this dilemma is shared by many other Technical Architects involved in large and complex design projects. How can we provide a solution which is solely based on the Business need? Surely that ?need? is subjective and current? That need may change dramatically over time. Whereas, if I make my decisions based on technology I will provide the Business with an infrastructure that encompasses it?s ?need? now and over a required period of time.
When I put forward that view I am immediately told to stop ?solutionising?, that the technologies are not important, and that it is the Business ?need? that is my guide. I find this confusing and frustrating. How can I provide an infrastructure if I can?t solutionise and make my decisions on particular technologies?
I get very irritated by the response of my managers, and I feel that it is hindering my decision making processes. Right now I want to chuck a load of NT4 486 machines at them. After all, it would satisfy the current Business need and the non-functional requirements, and requires no solutionising or technical answers on my part.
Help I?m an Infrastructure Technical Architect, get me out of here!
