I would just reply the following:
youtu.be/7v2GDbEmjGE?...

Precisely. Often, the initial resistance against a decision is based on untested assumptions or internal friction, making the reasons for opposition "fictional" until proven. Even when a decision goes wrong, the AAP gives us an opportunity to improve the process when a decision has a bad outcome.

This is where leadership and management must step in to manage and facilitate the underlying conflict, not the process itself.

The AAP is a structural mechanism, but its success relies entirely on the quality of our collaboration and mutual trust.

highlighting a deeper issue: a fundamental misalignment or a cultural dynamic where one team's priorities override the health of the shared system. We must wonder why a team decides against advice from the team that must do the work for them?

The benefit of the AAP is not to guarantee consensus; it is to force transparency.

If the PET advises, "We cannot support this right now," and the SAT still proceeds and logs the advice in the ADR, the AAP has done its job. It provides a clear diagnosis,

But here is the critical distinction: If the SAT proceeds without genuinely seeking and weighing the PET's advice on capacity, timing, or existing solutions, it's not a healthy display of autonomy—it's a breach of the Trust Contract, and they are accountable for that breach as well!

A Stream-Aligned Team (SAT) wants new technology that the Platform Engineering Team (PET) must build and own. Should the PET own the ADR? Can the SAT decide against the PET's explicit advice? Theoretically, yes. The SAT holds the decision right and the accountability!

A big thank you to Frontify for the invitation. I really enjoyed the evening, the conversations and the second talk about ports and adapters and hope to be back soon in Switserland!

You can find the slides here: buff.ly/RiTyUJY

deep into what decisions are and skipped the rest. It was a great opportunity to not only talk about these concepts but also to show how they work in practice.

->

wanted to just listen, interact on Miro, or discuss with each other.

Now, I can already hear Evelyn saying, "Kenny, you used too many slides again!" But actually, I used a quick check-in to surface the audience's immediate needs, which helped me decide what content to focus on. We dived ->

of just talking about it, I used a live Miro board to demonstrate how sense-making can help a team make more sustainable architectural decisions. In this case, I used it to understand how the audience wanted to interact with my talk: whether they ->