A retail group is launching three new digital initiatives at once, and each delivery team has independently chosen its own programming language, hosting model and integration style. A risk practitioner wants to use the enterprise architecture function to reduce the IT risk this autonomy creates. Which use of enterprise architecture would most directly reduce that risk?
- AAllow each team full freedom now and reconcile the differing technology choices into common patterns once all three initiatives have shipped
- BRequire every team to adopt one identical technology stack regardless of whether it suits the specific problem each initiative solves
- CPublish architecture principles and reference patterns that every initiative must justify any deviation against before build begins Correct
- DRecord each team's chosen technologies in the configuration management database so the differences are at least visible to operations
Why A is wrong: Reconciling after delivery is tempting because it avoids slowing teams, but rework is far costlier later and the divergent choices have already created the integration and support risk by then.
Why B is wrong: Mandating a single stack looks like strong standardisation, but forcing an unsuitable choice creates its own risk and ignores the fit-for-purpose judgement that architecture governance is meant to apply.
Why C is correct: Shared principles and reference patterns constrain technology choices up front, so divergence becomes a deliberate, reviewed exception rather than an unmanaged source of fragmentation and risk.
Why D is wrong: Recording choices improves visibility, which is useful, but it documents the fragmentation after the fact rather than steering the decisions that create the risk in the first place.