An expert is ...

My definition of an expert in any field is a person who knows enough about what's really going on to be scared.
- PJ Plauger



Constantin K.
Firebrand Architect™
www.SoftwareArchitectures.com

Software Architecture is about people

At its core the software architecture discipline is about people and our obstacles are a figment of our imagination.

Constantin K.
Firebrand Architect™
www.SoftwareArchitectures.com

Frank Lloyd Wright

Frank Lloyd Wright, one of the most famous American [building] architects of all time, worked on over 500 structures and left a few notes of wisdom for us to consider. While the comparison between software and building architecture breaks down pretty quickly, the quotes below apply to both disciplines.

1. A great architect is not made by way of a brain nearly so much as he is made by way of a cultivated, enriched heart.
2. All fine architectural values are human vales, else not valuable.
3. An architect's most useful tools are an eraser at the drafting board, and a wrecking bar at the site.
4. Every great architect is - necessarily - a great poet. He must be a great original interpreter of his time, his day, his age.
5. Form follows function - that has been misunderstood. Form and function should be one, joined in a spiritual union.
6. Get the habit of analysis - analysis will in time enable synthesis to become your habit of mind.
7. Less is only more where more is no good.
8. The architect must be a prophet... a prophet in the true sense of the term... if he can't see at least ten years ahead don't call him an architect.
9. The architect should strive continually to simplify; the ensemble of the rooms should then be carefully considered that comfort and utility may go hand in hand with beauty.
10. The truth is more important than the facts.
11. "Think simple" as my old master used to say - meaning reduce the whole of its parts into the simplest terms, getting back to first principles.

Constantin K.
Firebrand Architect™
www.SoftwareArchitectures.com

Engineering elegance

I came across this quote on definition of engineering elegance by a French aviator and author Antoine de Saint- Exupéry: “A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.”

Is this statement applicable to software architecture? Aren’t architects constantly trying to add features that fulfill more and more functional and non-functional requirements? Aren’t multiple layers of security always good? Wouldn’t installing a .NET framework 3.5, for example, is better than .NET 3.0, because it has more features?

Perhaps those who see the power in this quote are the architects who are able to truly understand the essence of a business problem; it is those who can skillfully control the scope. But is this applicable to the software architecture domain as it stands now?

Constantin K.
Firebrand Architect™
www.SoftwareArchitectures.com

Software Architecture Conferences and Events

The Software Engineering Institute maintains a comprehensive list of "upcoming conferences, workshops, and calls for participation that explicitly include "software architecture" among their topics of interest." This is a good place to start if you're looking for an opportunity to share thoughts with like minded individuals outside of your immediate circle of software architecture contacts. Research each event with care, as different user communities look at architecture from a different lens.

Constantin K.
Firebrand Architect™
www.SoftwareArchitectures.com

Criteria For Failure

Every project team asks themselves, implicitly or explicitly, what are our criteria for success? Depending on the range of the stakeholders involved you’ll get answers from the superficial (e.g. “users of all skill level can use software”) to the goal oriented (e.g. “identify the safest and most viable customers who need car insurance”). It’s easy to talk about success – especially non-quantifiable success.

The Firebrand Architect philosophy encourages you take a step further and pose a question: “What are our criteria for failure?” In other words – when we look back a year from now how would we know for sure we have failed to achieve our objective? Depending on your relationship with the group of the stakeholders you may have to be diplomatic as to how you pose the question.

Let’s work through an example. A project aims at providing insight into the inventory stored in many warehouses. The goal is to keep the inventory as low as possible while providing quick response to product demand. This project has a budget of $2,000,000 and will require a purchase of expensive COTS software ($500,000). A team of stakeholders will let the technical team decide which of the vendors to select, but know that a mature COTS software package has solved a similar problem in other organizations.

A year goes by, hardware has been purchased, COTS software installed and linked to a data warehouse, insight for a few categories of inventory can be obtained. Is this project a success or a failure?

One may say that since the software has been installed and connected to a data source in the production environment it’s a success. If that’s the only claim to fame, then this project is a failure. It doesn’t produce the insight that a business needs.

Using the same example as above, if a project produces some level of insight, but not all what was envisioned was it a failure or success? This is a harder question. If the paradigm and the model of operation through which the limited insight has been developed can be naturally expanded to gain insight in all envisioned categories, then the project is a success despite not delivering everything what was planned. If the paradigm doesn’t scale to cover additional level of insight, then the project is a failure.

Knowing the definition of success is important. Knowing the definition of failure is paramount.

Constantin K.
Firebrand Architect™
www.SoftwareArchitectures.com

Listen. Observe. Think. Speak. When passion limits your potential.

This post is a reflection on the past behavior that landed this firebrand architect into a counterproductive situation and, temporally, put him in a penalty box. Let this be a warning to others.

Before joining this project on a full time basis I was invited to spend time evaluating the existing architecture and make recommendations before the development phase would commence. During the architecture review & analysis process I have identified a number of risks, in light of project constraints, including application’s laborious authentication and authorization requirements. To address this risk I proposed integration of a well known .NET compatible COTS software access control and authentication component.

Luckily the organization’s Enterprise Architecture (EA) has already authorized utilization of such component, and even already possessed an enterprise license for its use.

A large (eighteen person) meeting was called to discuss future placement of the solution in development, test, and production environments. Heads of various environments as well as select technical staff were present. Utilization of various EA resources, including the access control component, was on the agenda.

During the meeting the technical lead representing the component stated that only the authentication part of the component is usable within the enterprise. Naturally, I questioned why the wealth of authorization functionality is not available for the project’s use. The technical lead didn’t have a good answer and responded by saying that nobody is using it. I passionately pushed further explaining how much this project would benefit from such functionality, I went through the key features, and even volunteered to assist the tech lead with configuring the component to make the authorization functionality work.

After the meeting the product’s chief architect and I reflected on the stubbornness of the technical lead to even consider looking into utilization of the access control functionality of the component. We both felt that the technical lead took the stance of “if it’s not broken don’t touch it” and was afraid to look into our request.

Soon after the meeting the program manager requested that this firebrand architect not be taken to other “high level” meetings. It turns out that what I thought was a passionate appeal to utilize desired functionality was perceived as arrogance.

Reflecting back on this event, quite some time later, I see the obvious mistake. It’s not that the action of the appeal for desired functionality that was wrong; it’s the presentation and timing that was off. After receiving a mediocre answer from the technical lead I should have documented my case and presented it offline to the program manager who was also present at the meeting. Since this was my first meeting with these high level representatives I had no sense of the existing political situation and pre-existing issues. A smarter move would have been to listen, observe, think, and then speak – offline. This was not the first time I participated in such a high visibility meeting, but this was the first time I ran into a group of highly sensitive individuals.

Three months later, after I have regained full confidence of the program manager, I was placed into a leadership role that required me to participate in similar high visibility meetings.

The moral of the story is to listen, observe, think, and understand the environment and the political situation first; and only then to speak.

- Firebrand Architect on duty: CK