Is it okay to have architects to work under the product owner as a part of scrum team?

Question

So, as an architect, I work across the ecosystem, defining solutions, defining the future roadmap, and making architectural changes, upgrades, etc., along with collaborating with third-party vendors to onboard features and services that align with the short—and long-term visions.

However, I am now placed under a product owner as a scrum team member with other dev team members. Now, the PO expects me to join every standup meeting, etc., and even though the updates are the same every day (most of my work is long-term), they make me repeat the same line every day for no reason.

I am also a part of many meetings that include making key decisions, working with procurement, licensing, costing, etc, with vendors, and making calls if the project can be taken up in-house, RFP, etc. But I am forced to needlessly route all of this via the product owner for no reason, so it delays everything, and the product owner, without knowing anything, expects me to explain everything and convince them to prioritize (even though most of the things I work as a must-have). But this is taking a toll on me, and I find it absurd in terms of any model of working.

Please let me know if this is fine? Or am I just being unfairly harassed?

Answer 1

Based on your description, it does seem like your work aligns closely with the System Architect and Solution Architect roles in SAFe. Because of this, I would not expect you to be working at the team level or as a developer, which includes attending individual team meetings. Instead, your role should be focused more on the Agile Release Train or Solution Train levels and focus on aligning the teams within the release train or the ARTs within the solution train.

From a management structure, I would also find it somewhat strange and somewhat concerning that someone in a technical role is reporting to someone in a product role. I find it more helpful to maintain three pillars of reporting - product, technical, and coaching. Each level in SAFe has someone from each of these pillars, and I would expect a collaborative relationship between each person. It sounds like these pillars, and therefore the perspectives and expertise that they offer, aren't well defined, and the relationship is more adversarial.

I can't address whether you are being harassed or whether SAFe is an appropriate framework for your organization. However, it doesn't sound like your organizational structure is conducive to implementing SAFe, as described.