The Role of Software Architecture
We are here to solve complex business problems through software solutions. The enterprise software we design is not just about meeting business requirements—it's about creating software that drives value with precision and efficiency.
To achieve this, we must deeply understand the dynamic environment we operate in. In the constant pursuit of growth and revenue, companies continuously shift their priorities. This ongoing adaptability demands that our software design be equally agile. Software is never static; it evolves, continuously building new features atop the existing ones. The ability to adapt swiftly isn't just an advantage—it's a necessity.
Yet, this rapid evolution must be sustainable. We must think several steps ahead, anticipating future needs and challenges. Without this foresight, the software's initial value can be overshadowed by escalating maintenance costs, dooming it to become obsolete legacy software.
Recognising this intricate balance and the necessity for sustainable evolution leads us to an essential concept: the foundational role of robust software architecture. Only through thoughtful, forward-thinking design we can ensure our software remains a powerful asset, driving business success now and into the future.
The Multidimensional Nature of Software Architecture
When I think about software architecture, I think of all the decisions that impact the structure, organisation, and interactions of the software components within a system. Unlike traditional architecture, we deal with abstract concepts such as boundaries, processes, and systems rather than tangible objects. The similarities we often draw with traditional architecture might skew our perspective, making "software architecture" an overloaded term.
There are many viewpoints from which we can describe software architecture, and the 4+1 software architecture model illustrates this well.
Without going into too much detail (which I encourage you to explore in your spare time), we can consider the system’s runtime behaviour, physical topology (showing components after deployment and their communication flow), user flows, logical partitioning around domain behaviour and dependencies, and the development perspective (describing repositories, packages, or modules).
That’s not all though. We can go further. For instance, due to the implications of Conway’s Law on architecture and organisational structure, we might consider development team boundaries and communication lines as additional viewpoints. All these factors make software architecture multidimensional.
Key Goals of Software Architecture
Thinking of architecture as something that organises all moving pieces within a software system from many dimensions and glues everything together, and considering the goals of enterprise software systems, we can view architecture as an enabler for creating a model that represents the real world. This model ultimately brings value to the business and accelerates its progress toward achieving its goals.
As with any model, it doesn’t need to encapsulate every single detail of the real world—nor is that really feasible, in my opinion. Instead, it must represent the real world to a level of detail that is useful for fulfilling business goals effectively and efficiently. However, it cannot be oversimplified to the extent that it fails to withstand the complexities and challenges encountered in reality.
There are several key goals of this model enabled by software architecture, each crucial for the success of enterprise software systems:
Defining the optimal structure and interactions of system components to meet both functional requirements (what the software should do) and non-functional requirements (how well it should perform). This requires understanding the business domain and the criticality of business objectives as well as all financial constraints to infer what level of scalability or reliability we should aim for.
Ensuring a shared understanding of system design to promote alignment and communication among everyone involved in building a software system. Architectural Decision Records (ADRs), design documents, architecture reviews, and diagrams are examples of artefacts and practices that help achieve this. These tools allow for a better understanding of the system landscape and hide complexity through simpler constructs, similar to how abstractions are used in code.
Enabling evolvability to quickly accommodate changes in requirements or the business environment involves applying architectural patterns that decouple software components, thereby empowering development teams with autonomy. This removal of unnecessary dependencies allows teams to iterate quickly and experiment with new ideas, technologies, and approaches, fostering innovation and continuous improvement. This approach also improves time to market and increases a sense of ownership and accountability. Overall, autonomy serves as a powerful enabler for sustained evolvability, allowing software systems to adapt, grow, and succeed in an increasingly complex and competitive landscape.
Summary
Defining software architecture is not a trivial task. Its multidimensional nature complicates matters but also allows us to see its role from many different angles. While we are only scratching the surface, I hope I have whetted your appetite for more on this topic.
Software architecture is the art of making trade-offs and is highly context specific, but there is one bothersome question we always ask ourselves: how do we achieve optimal design? I will discuss certain topics that may bring us closer to answering this question soon. Stay tuned!
