In the day-to-day operations of companies, solution architecture and information security are two areas that inevitably intersect. Both play a key role in building robust, scalable, and reliable technology environments. However, one question lingers — though rarely openly discussed: what should the relationship between these two areas look like? Should architecture report to security? Or the other way around? Or should each follow its own path independently?
This reflection is not just theoretical. It directly impacts decision-making, the success of strategic projects, and even the digital maturity of organizations.
In this article, we’ll explore the possible structures for the relationship between architecture and security, analyze the pros and cons of each, and propose a collaborative model that promotes innovation without compromising information protection.
Models of the Relationship Between Architecture and Security
By observing different companies and industries, we can identify three main models of interaction between architecture and information security teams. Each one reflects a distinct way of thinking about IT governance and has direct implications for technical and strategic decision-making.
1. Security Subordinate to Architecture
In this model, the architecture team leads technology decisions and defines solution standards, while security acts as a support service. The goal is to ensure solutions are secure without hindering project agility. This model often appears in companies with a strong focus on innovation and speed.
The risk is clear: when security is treated merely as a final checkpoint, it’s often too late to mitigate relevant risks without rework or deadline impact.
2. Architecture Subordinate to Security
In this scenario, security defines the guidelines and technical permissions, and architecture must ensure compliance from the beginning. It’s common in environments with high regulatory demands, such as banks or public institutions.
While this model favors control and protection, it tends to limit the creative autonomy of architects. Solutions can become rigid, and innovation may stall due to excessive bureaucracy.
3. Independent but Collaborative Areas
Here, architecture and security operate as independent teams but maintain a high level of collaboration. They participate together in decision-making forums, share responsibilities, and retain technical autonomy. Architecture proposes technically sound solutions, and security evaluates risks, offers recommendations, and is actively involved from the early stages of a project.
This model is often the healthiest in mature environments. It balances innovation and protection, reduces friction, and fosters a culture of shared responsibility.
Critical Analysis of the Models
In practice, no company fits perfectly into a single model. What we usually see is an “organizational comfort zone” that evolves according to the maturity of the IT department and the level of trust between teams.
When security is subordinate to architecture, agility tends to take the lead, but real threats can be underestimated. Security is brought in only at the end of a project, often just to “rubber-stamp” an already-made decision. This compromises the effectiveness of protection and puts the security team in a tough spot: either approve what’s already done or be seen as the villain who delays everything.
On the other hand, when architecture is subordinate to security, progress tends to be slower. Security becomes a higher authority for approvals, and architecture loses its ability to explore new technological approaches. The result can be a resistant-to-change environment, with projects stuck in outdated standards and an excessive focus on compliance.
In the collaborative model, although it demands more maturity and trust between teams, the benefits are significant: more balanced decisions, technically strong and secure solutions, and a culture of shared responsibility. Security stops being an obstacle and becomes a competitive advantage.
Final Considerations
Architecture and information security are essential pillars in building modern technology environments. Treating these areas as rivals — or establishing a direct hierarchy between them—wastes the potential that collaboration can unlock.
Experience shows that the most effective model is one of autonomy with responsibility. Architecture must be free to propose innovative solutions, and security must have the space to identify risks and offer clear guidance from the start. The key lies in mutual trust and governance that encourages open communication.
Companies that align architecture and security from the solution design phase are more likely to innovate responsibly, reduce rework, accelerate delivery, and, most importantly, build a solid culture of technology and information protection.
More than defining who reports to whom, the focus should be on how these areas can evolve together. There is no one-size-fits-all answer — it depends on the company’s culture and stage of maturity. What matters most is that, regardless of the chosen model, security and architecture must walk side by side, with common goals and a shared understanding that collaboration is the true engine of innovation.
