Introduction to Sociology Instructor:
Towards Agile Architecture Architecture provides the foundation from which systems are built and an architectural model defines the vision on which your architecture is based.
The scope of architecture can be that of a single application, of a family of applications, for an organization, or for an infrastructure such as the Internet that is shared by many organizations.
Regardless of the scope, my experience is that you can take an agile approach to the modeling, development, and evolution of an architecture. Here are a few ideas to get you thinking: There is nothing special about architecture. Agile Modeling's value of humility states that everyone has equal value on a project, therefore anyone in the role of architect and their efforts are just as important but no more so than the efforts of everyone else.
Yes, good architects have a specialized skillset appropriate to the task at hand and should have the experience to apply those skills effectively.
The exact same thing can be said, however, of good developers, of good coaches, of good senior managers, and so on. Humility is an important success factor for your architecture efforts because it is what you need to avoid the development of an ivory tower architecture and to avoid the animosity of your teammates.
The role of architect is valid for most projects, it just shouldn't be a role that is fulfilled by someone atop a pedestal. You should beware ivory tower architectures.
An ivory tower architecture is one that is often developed by an architect or architectural team in relative isolation to the day-to-day development activities of your project team s.
The mighty architectural guru s go off and develop one or more models describing the architecture that the minions on your team is to build to for the architect s know best. Ivory tower architectures are often beautiful things, usually well-documented with lots of fancy diagrams and wonderful vision statements proclaiming them to be your salvation.
In theory, which is typically what your architect s bases their work on, ivory tower architectures work perfectly. However, experience shows that ivory tower architectures suffer from significant problems. First, the "minion developers" are unlikely to accept the architecture because they had no say in its development.
Second, ivory tower architectures are often unproven, ivory tower architects rarely dirty their hands writing code, and as a result are a significant risk to your project until you know they actually work through the concrete feedback provided by a technical prototype. Third, ivory tower architectures will be incomplete if the architects did nothing else other than model because you can never think through everything your system needs.
Fourth, ivory tower architectures promote overbuilding of software because they typically reflect every feature ever required by any system that your architect s were ever involved with and not just the features that your system actually needs.
Every system has an architecture. BUT, it may not necessarily have architectural models describing that architecture. For example, a small team taking the XP approach that is working together in the same room may not find any need to model their system architecture because everyone on the team knows it well enough that having a model doesn't provide sufficient value to them.
Or, if an architectural model exists it will often be a few simple plain old whiteboard POW sketches potentially backed by a defined project metaphor.
This works because the communication aspects of XP, including pair programming and Collective Ownershipnegate the need for architecture model s that need to be developed and maintained throughout the project.
Other teams - teams not following XP, larger teams, teams where people are not co-located - will find that the greater communication challenges inherent in their environment requires them to go beyond word-of-mouth architecture. These teams will choose to create architectural models to provide guidance to developers as to how they should build their software.
Fundamentally, the reason why you perform architectural modeling is to address the risk of members of your development team not working to a common vision. This is true of traditional techniques as well.
Have a viable and accepted architecture strategy for a project is absolutely critical to your success, particularly in the complex situations which agile teams find themselves in at scale.
Scaling issues include team size, regulatory compliance, distributed teams, technical complexity, and so on see The Software Development Context Framework SDCF for details.
An effective approach to architecture enables you to address these scaling issues. During " iteration 0 ", the Inception phase in Disciplined Agile Delivery DADyou need to get your project organized and going in the right direction. Part of that effort is the initial requirements envisioning and architecture envisioning so that you are able to answer critical questions about the scope, cost, schedule, and technical strategy of your project.
From an architectural point of view, during iteration 0 the goal is identify a potential technical direction for your team as well as any technical risks which you will potentially face risks which should be addressed by proving it with code.
At this point you don't need a detailed architectural spec, in fact creating such a spec at the beginning of a software development project is a very big risk. Instead, the details are identified on a just-in-time JIT basis during iterations via initial iteration modeling at the beginning of each iteration or by modeling storming throughout the iteration.
The end result is that architecture emerges over time in increments, faster at first because of the greater need to set the foundation of a project, but still evolving over time to reflect the greater understanding and knowledge of the development team.
This follows the practice Model in Small Increments and reduces the technical risk of your project - you always have a firm and proven foundation from which to work.
In other words, you want to think about the future but wait to act. The DAD framework has all of the architecture strategies described in this article built right in.1.
Harold Wilensky put it baldly and succinctly: "Economic growth is the ultimate cause of welfare state development." Harold Wilensky, The Welfare State and Equality (Berkeley: University of California Press, ), p.
2. Thus, Flora and Alber find no correlation between levels of industrialization and social insurance programs of 12 European nations between the s and the s. NEC is a competition by The Entrepreneurship Cell of IIT Bombay in which participants are given tasks to promote the entrepreneurship spirit in their college community.
Hi Erin, Thank you for your essay.
I am so sorry for your loss and the loss that it represents to your discipline. In large part, I attribute the endless cycle of adjunct appointments that my partner went through (and is currently going through – going on 6 years) to the .
Scholarship directory listing for Artistic Ability Art - Drawing. Ah, but super-human AI is not the only way Moloch can bring our demise. How many such dangers can your global monarch identify in time? EMs, nanotechnology, memetic contamination, and all the other unknown ways we’re running to the bottom.
JUMP TO THE LATEST ENTRY IN THE INFINITE JEST LIVEBLOG TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction to the Liveblog Don’t Read the Foreword, pgs. xi — xvi Hamlet Sightings, pgs Wen, pg 4 Pot Head, pgs One Who Excels at Conversing, pgs The Entertainment, pgs Keep Reading, pgs Orin and Hal, pgs [ ].