Skip to main content

Design and architecture dimension

1 - Reactive

Description​

  • Software design and architecture are often ad-hoc and lack clear consistency across teams, with little to no formal documentation.
  • Design and architecture are mostly reactive and lack integration across different stages of the SDLC.
  • Decisions are made with little consideration for long-term impact or alignment with overall goals.
  • The tribe lacks a consistent approach, leading to frequently changing designs, lack of scalability, and software that's challenging to maintain or modify.
  • Limited or no consideration of vendor integrations.
  • Product feedback is infrequently used in refining design and architecture.

Improvement focus​

  • Start building foundational processes for smoother vendor integrations.
  • Initiate dialogue with vendors to understand integration challenges.
  • Enhance the architectural documentation and make it accessible.
  • Begin collecting feedback related to architectural and design challenges.

2 - Managed

Description​

  • Architecture diagrams and design considerations (security, performance, testability, etc) are transparent (standard format) and clearly align with the actual product requirements and long-term product vision.
  • Software Architecture and Design decisions are often documented, but there may be inconsistencies in the application of these standards across different teams/components.
  • Vendors work according to set specifications, but integrations may be challenging.
  • Peer reviews (including the entire tribe) start to occur but are not yet consistent.
  • Occasional use of product feedback to adjust design and architecture.

Improvement focus​

  • Embed regular peer reviews in the team’s workflow.
  • Enhance the feedback loop for product discovery to inform design and architecture.
  • Strengthen the guidelines for vendor integrations.
  • Increase the depth and detail of architectural documentation.

3 - Defined

Description​

  • Architectural Decision Record (ADR) are defined and documented, being regularly reviewed by the team.
  • Design and architecture are integrated into the entire SDLC, with regular architectural reviews in place (including the senior engineers).
  • Collaboration is frequent, and teams often sync on design and architectural decisions.
  • Vendor integrations are standardized, with ongoing consideration for design and architecture.
  • Product discoveries lead to periodic architectural and design revisions.
  • There is a clear Risk Management process for Design and Architecture, covering risk identification, assessment, and mitigation.

Improvement focus​

  • Enhance vendor integration processes, focusing on performance, usability, and security.
  • Utilize product feedback more dynamically to influence design and architectural decisions.

4 - Measured

Description​

  • Extensive documentation, reusable components, with a focus on scalability, maintainability and security.
  • Architectural decisions are made with the entire project's long-term viability in mind.
  • A clear and well-understood process for proposing and reviewing architectural changes is in place.
  • The documentation is robust, and there’s a clear understanding of interdependencies.
  • The tribe utilizes metrics and regular automated evaluations to ensure that the architecture is meeting both functional and non-functional requirements.
  • Vendor guidelines are clear and detailed, ensuring alignment with the tribe’s architectural principles.

Improvement focus​

  • Refine and expand the metrics used to evaluate design and architectural efficiency and effectiveness.
  • Foster deeper collaborations with vendors, ensuring seamless integrations.

5 - Optimized

Description​

  • State-of-the-art design and architecture practices, focusing on innovation, flexibility, and alignment with emerging technologies and market trends.
  • Vendor integrations are seamless and efficient, without affecting user experience or product performance.
  • Product discoveries are a constant, agile cycle feeding into architectural evolution.
  • The software architecture is effective both technically and in terms of operational cost efficiency.

Improvement focus​

  • Establish deep partnerships with vendors to anticipate and jointly address potential integration challenges.

Guiding questions​

  1. Alignment with Business Goals: How does our current architecture align with the business objectives, and what steps are we taking to continuously ensure this alignment?
  2. Scalability and Flexibility: In what ways is our architecture designed to be scalable and flexible to accommodate future changes and growth?
  3. Adherence to Standards and Best Practices: How closely are we following industry standards and best practices in our design and architecture, and how do we measure this adherence?
  4. Risk Management: What strategies have we implemented in our architecture to manage risks, such as security vulnerabilities and system failures?
  5. Efficiency and Performance: How do we evaluate and optimize the efficiency and performance of our systems at the architecture level?
  6. Collaboration and Knowledge Sharing: What mechanisms are in place to ensure effective collaboration and knowledge sharing about architectural decisions and changes among team members?
  7. Technology Stack and Integration: How well do our technology stack and integration strategies support our architecture, and what improvements are necessary for optimal performance?
  8. How is design and architecture documentation maintained, and are there standardized practices in place?
  9. How is collaboration within the tribe and integration with vendors managed in the design and architecture processes?