what_is_the_difference_between_emergent_and_intentional_architecture
no way to compare when less than two revisions
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Previous revisionNext revision | |||
— | what_is_the_difference_between_emergent_and_intentional_architecture [2020/06/02 14:21] – external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | ====== What is the Difference Between Emergent and Intentional Design? ====== | ||
+ | Early implementations of agile often seem to hide the need for good design. Most of the time the assumption was that “if you have good people, with a good understanding of design principles then good design will follow.” The Agile Manifesto argued that | ||
+ | |||
+ | <WRAP Box> | ||
+ | |||
+ | This has proven to be true - there is a huge benefit in having the Teams do design as they do the work (assuming Teams with strong technical skills). And it has worked for many situations. But as you have more and more Teams contributing to the single solution, or as people started to apply agile into more and more existing IT situations, it became increasingly clear that something more was required. The question then became | ||
+ | |||
+ | <WRAP box> | ||
+ | |||
+ | SAFe in particular recognized the problem and developed the notion of intentional architecture in addition to emergent architecture. One of the key ideas was that for a Train program that the System Architect works with the Teams to build an “architectural runway” of new “enablers” that enables the Train to develop new capabilities better, faster, and cheaper. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The problem with this distinction is that, for many, the idea that we need " | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Lets say we are about to embark on a significant re-design / re-factor of an existing legacy, " | ||
+ | * Lets say we are about to select a foundation technology to build our new capability on. In this situation, if we don't have some degree of commonality, | ||
+ | |||
+ | From these example you can see that architects need to adopt a different approach. Part of the problem is caused by the traditional way architects try to address these issues. The mindset of command and control applies in this space as it does in many others. An architect will issue guidelines and demand reviews of designs, for example. From the perspective of the Teams, Architects are often perceived as providing guidelines that do not work in reality and as the place where innovation stops as architectural approval is required, and that is often slow in coming. It’s not that Architects want to be in this position; they are senior people working hard. But that is how it works out. | ||
+ | |||
+ | What we are trying to get to a more collaborative approach for this role, just like we are with any leadership role. Like all agile, there is a mindset shift required from Architects as they a work with agile Teams: | ||
+ | |||
+ | - Collaboration: | ||
+ | - Architecture as a Product or Service: We need to position Architects so that they are seen to provide a valuable service to trains and their “product” is the service of helping with good design etc. We have to encourage architects to ensure that their “products” are attractive to customers (Teams on Trains) so they want to use it, not required to use it “because we said so”. | ||
+ | |||
+ | And we are leverage key agile ideas to help us improve the result. From the examples above: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * De-centralized decision making: Understand when decisions need to be centralized versus de-centralized. | ||
+ | * Keeping options open: To maximize the data we have to make a decision and so reduce the risk of that decision. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{tag> |
/home/hpsamios/hanssamios.com/dokuwiki/data/pages/what_is_the_difference_between_emergent_and_intentional_architecture.txt · Last modified: 2022/07/21 08:52 by 127.0.0.1