What do you do if you disagree with feedback as a system architect?

When encountering feedback you disagree with, it's essential to grasp its origin and intent. Feedback may stem from peers, managers, users, or testers, each with unique perspectives and goals. Its purpose could be to enhance system design, align with project objectives, meet user needs, or identify flaws. Before reacting, comprehend the feedback's source and purpose, acknowledging its value and intention.

All feedback has some form of value. Make sure you understand the roots of the feedback you are receiving. Ask clarifying questions and probe deeper as necessary. Seek out opinions from people in similar roles to compare and contrast the feedback in order to determine if these are widely held views.

If I disagree with feedback as a system architect, I listen carefully, seek clarification, and objectively reflect on its validity. I evaluate alternatives and provide constructive input, emphasizing collaboration to find common ground. If necessary, I escalate the issue for further discussion, aiming for the best project outcome while maintaining professionalism.

When faced with feedback I disagree with as a system architect, I approach it by evaluating it objectively and critically. I consider factors such as its validity, clarity, consistency, and priority. I assess how accurate, specific, and compatible the feedback is with the system's requirements and objectives. Additionally, I evaluate its importance and impact on the system. By objectively analyzing the feedback, I ensure that any decisions made regarding its acceptance or rejection are based on its quality and significance in relation to the system's reality and standards.

Negative feedback for a proposed solution can rise due to different reasons, some are visible to us and some are not, but mainly it comes due to lack of transparency and understanding of the solution given. The art here is to know how to challenge the feedback professionally and respectfully, explain the solution using the right jargon relevant to that stakeholder, while connecting it to the concerns raised, and communicating openly the options to mitigate it. By coming openly prepared and understanding the concerns, you might decide to change the approach, or, if you can challenge the disagreement, and can effectively mitigate the cons in a reasonable and cost-effective way, hence reducing the concerns and avoiding the resistance.