Your team is at odds over software architecture choices. How can you navigate conflicts to reach a consensus?

Simply ask the teams to work upon small pocs of the most contradicting and painful points upon which the difference in opinion has occurred. Before that do evaluate the value of these conflicts either they are punitive or if they really are essential in building the base of the overall architect or just another delay tactics teams usually use to buy more time. Bottom line will be, where the changes needed and what are they intended to achieve, lastly how is the organization is benefitted.

Do everything with facts and reason and an eye on the goals of the company. It’s absurd to propose a huge architectural change if the company is only going to pay for small changes. Teach and socialize principles, but understand that you eat an elephant one bite at a time.

Navigating conflicts over software architecture requires a deep understanding of both the technical and organizational implications of each approach. Microservices offer scalability and flexibility, allowing teams to deploy changes independently, but they can introduce complexity in service management and inter-service communication. Conversely, a monolithic architecture simplifies deployment and can be easier to manage initially, but it may hinder scalability and agility as the application grows. It's crucial to align architectural decisions with business goals, team capabilities, and long-term maintenance considerations, ensuring that the chosen architecture not only meets current needs but also supports future growth and adaptability.

You need reasoned dialogue based by facts. Have each party present their side “case” based on the facts. Let them know that you respect all opinions as long as they are logically reasoned and well thought out. Don’t take bumper sticker or half thought out answers. That’s why I like Amazon’s “one pagers”.

I’m a POC fan and a “Missouri Manager”. Missouri is the “show me” state and that’s exactly how I work with my people. “Show me” how it will or won’t work on a sandbox system, help me extrapolate the savings or improvement to the whole system, but have it worked out first.

The best way to arrive at an architecture choice is to bring the most probable 2 to 3 choices and list the pros and cons of each with respect the the project constraints. This should be an open discussion where the relevant team members can participate who dispute over choices. The most optimal can be arrived based on the cost benefit analysis of each approach or evaluation of pros and cons.

Again reason and logic should dominate inside of the company budget. If you don’t have the budget then build the case to get the budget with a plan and a working demo.

Choose win win options. All parties should be on the winning side whether it is in terms of the customer, team member or organization. Respect each others viewpoints and rationalize theosr effective approach unanimously applying a collective thought.

Everything in software architecture comes to compromising, taken in account the requests, constraints, and the resources. So everything depends on some thing or some other, and of course the technical decision of technologies used also depends on management parts. On implementation side , after the decisions taken and specs finalised, there should be agreement from all, so that development goes smoothly.

The business budget will always drive your decisions. But do try to get everyone going in the same direction. The best boats are ones where all the rowers are following the caller, rather than just trying to stroke when they feel like it.