In today’s digital world, IT governance and enterprise architecture is no longer about control for control’s sake – it’s about speed, clarity and resilience. Dharani Pothula, a seasoned technology leader with expertise in enterprise architecture, Salesforce architecture and cloud computing knows this first hand. With years of experience of integrating Salesforce applications into complex IT landscapes, he has helped organisations modernise their architecture while keeping long term stability.
We had the opportunity to speak with Dharani about his approach, and one thing became clear: For Dharani, the key is to build frameworks that support innovation without sacrificing structure using guardrails that keep teams aligned, not roadblocks that slow them down.
1. How would you define effective IT governance and enterprise architecture in today’s fast-evolving digital landscape?
Effective IT governance today is about guiding decision making across the business with clear structures, accountability and flexibility. Enterprise architecture acts like a blueprint, aligning technology with business goals while staying adaptable. From experience what works best is a balance not over governing but ensuring every team has clarity on standards, integration paths and how their work fits into the bigger picture. It’s about creating guardrails not roadblocks. With technology changing so fast, both governance and architecture need to support change while managing risk and ensuring long term value. It’s more about enabling agility than enforcing control.
2. What are some common challenges organizations face in maintaining governance and architectural integrity during digital transformation?
One of the biggest challenges is keeping architectural alignment when multiple teams move at different speeds. Business pressure can lead to quick decisions that don’t always consider long term impact. I’ve seen cases where platforms like Salesforce are heavily customized in silos which later creates integration and performance issues. Another issue is the disconnect between architecture and delivery when governance feels too abstract or slow, teams bypass it. Staying aligned across strategy, process and tech is hard during change. What helps is having a shared vision, repeatable patterns and a clear process for decision making that adapts as the business evolves.
3. In your experience, what strategies help balance the need for architectural agility with regulatory compliance and governance controls?
What’s worked for us is embedding controls into delivery processes like automated checks, shared reference models and design patterns. These help teams move fast while staying aligned to policies and standards. It’s also important to tie architecture decisions to business value and risk not just technical preferences. Governance shouldn’t be a separate review step it needs to be part of how work gets done every day. Also clear roles and accountability help. When architects and product owners collaborate early decisions tend to support both agility and compliance without slowing things down.
4. How has cloud adoption and the shift toward decentralized systems impacted traditional enterprise architecture and governance frameworks?
Cloud and decentralization have changed how architecture and governance operate. Instead of centralized planning and control, we now focus more on defining principles, APIs, and reusable services. That gives teams a lot more freedom—and that empowerment is a good thing. But it also means governance has to get ahead of problems rather than just reacting to them. Security, cost and architecture reviews need to happen as you go—not after the fact. We’ve found success by moving away from those one-size-fits-all frameworks and creating flexible guidance that adapts to different delivery models. Governance needs to be continuous, embedded and scalable. It can’t just be a checklist.
5. What key metrics or indicators should organizations monitor to ensure IT governance remains strong during large-scale transformation initiatives?
To really understand if governance is working, I look at a mix of delivery models and the way teams are working in real time. What I see is whether they’re able to adapt and adjust as needed. What I look at is the feedback loops, the communication and the decision-making processes. If governance is working, those should be smooth and seamless.
Architecture drift is a big one how often teams go off pattern or make exceptions. Reuse of standard components tells me if architecture is enabling efficiency. From a governance perspective, things like compliance exceptions, review cycle time, and production incident rates help highlight gaps. Business alignment is key too. If solutions aren’t hitting strategic goals or adoption is low, governance may be too rigid or misaligned. The goal is to ensure speed with control, not just speed for the sake of it.
6. How can enterprise architects and IT leaders encourage innovation across teams without compromising governance or long-term architectural stability?
Encouraging innovation starts with trust. Teams need space to experiment but within boundaries. We set up innovation zones with Salesforce sandboxes or pilot projects where teams can try new things within basic architectural principles. Having a well communicated architecture vision helps too. When teams know what good looks like, they’re more likely to build in alignment. We support teams with playbooks, templates and coaching instead of just review gates. Innovation thrives when governance is seen as a partner not a blocker. And regular feedback loops help adjust frameworks as real use cases evolve.
7. Could you share how you’ve contributed to evolving enterprise architecture or IT governance practices in response to digital transformation?
I’ve played a key role in shifting our architecture practice from static documents to living frameworks. We built out shared component libraries, automated key reviews in our CI/CD pipeline and introduced light touch architecture check-ins that focus on value not process. This made governance more agile and relevant to delivery teams. I also helped lead alignment sessions with product, architecture and security to create shared ownership of design decisions. We focused on outcomes not just artifacts. It’s made our architecture practice more responsive to real world change without compromising long term maintainability or control.
8. What lessons or best practices have emerged from recent large-scale architecture or governance programs that successfully aligned innovation with control?
One big lesson is that architecture and governance must be co-created with the teams doing the work. When people feel heard, they’re more likely to follow standards. We also learned that automation is key governance needs to be part of the workflow, not a manual checkpoint. Clear principles work better than long documents simple, well-understood rules scale more quickly. Feedback loops matter. What looked great on paper often needed adjustment once in use. We made it okay to tweak and improve. That flexibility helped us keep both control and momentum during complex changes.
