After working as a senior designer and/or a software architect in three sub-continents, I came across to a kind of phenomenon in Australia! I call it a phenomenon because first of all, terms such as ‘solution architect’, ‘software architect’ and/or ‘enterprise architect’ are used interchangeably and sometimes incorrectly. Second, architecture is often ignored and contractors or consultants usually start doing the detailed design as soon as they receive a requirements document.
This leaves the client (the owner of the project) with a whole bunch of documents which are not understandable to them so that they have to hand them over to a development team without even knowing if the design is what they really wanted.
This happens because such a crucial role is assigned to a senior developer or a designer who thinks purely technical whilst an Architect must be able to look at the problem from different aspects (This happens because in Australia titles are given away for free, just ask for one!).
What is Architecture?
Architecture is the fundamental organization of a system embodied in its components, their relationships to each other, and to the environment, and the principles guiding its design and evolution (IEEE 1471).
The definition suggested by IEEE (above) refers to a solution architect and/or software architect. However, as Microsoft suggests there are other kinds of architects such as a Business Strategy Architect.
There are basically six types of Architects:
· Business Strategy Architect
The purpose of this role is to change business focus and define the enterprise’s to-be status. This role, he says, is about the long view and about forecasting.
· Business Architect
The mission of business architects is to improve the functionality of the business. Their job isn’t to architect software but to architect the business itself and the way it is run.
· Solution Architect
Solution architect is a relatively new term, and it should refer also to an equally new concept. Sometimes, however, it doesn’t; it tends to be used as a synonym for application architect.
· Software Architect
Software architecture is about architecting software meant to support, automate, or even totally change the business and the business architecture.
· Infrastructure Architect
The technical infrastructure exists for deployment of the solutions of the solution architect, which means that the solution architect and the technical infrastructure architect should work together to ensure safe and productive deployment and operation of the system
· Enterprise Architect
Enterprise Architecture is the practice of applying a comprehensive and rigorous method for describing a current and/or future structure and behaviour for an organization’s processes, information systems, personnel and organizational subunits, so that they align with the organization’s core goals and strategic direction. Although often associated strictly with information technology, it relates more broadly to the practice of business optimization in that it addresses business architecture, performance management, and process architecture as well (Wikipedia).
As we are techies let’s focus on Solution Architect role:
It tends to be used as a synonym for application architect. In an application-centric world, each application is created to solve a specific business problem, or a specific set of business problems. All parts of the application are tightly knit together, each integral part being owned by the application. An application architect designs the structure of the entire application, a job that’s rather technical in nature. Typically, the application architect doesn’t create, or even help create, the application requirements; other people, often called business analysts, less technically and more business-oriented than the typical application architect, do that.
So if you are asked to get on board and architecture a system based on a whole bunch of requirements, you are very likely to be asked to do solution architecture.
How to do that?
A while back a person who does not have a technical background, but he has money so he is the boss, was lecturing that in an ideal world no team member has to talk to other team members. At that time I was thinking that in my ideal world, which is very close to the Agile world, everybody can (or should) speak to everybody else. This points out that how you architecture a system is strongly tight to your methodology. It does not really make a big difference that which methodology you follow as long as you stick to the correct concepts. Likewise, he was saying that the Software Architecture Document is part of the BRD (Business Requirement Document) as if it was technical a business person (e.g. the stake holders) would not understand it. And I was thinking to me that: mate! There are different views being analyzed in a SAD. Some of them are technical, some of them are not.
What the above story points out to me is that solution architecture is the art of mapping the business stuff to technical stuff, or in the other words, it’s actually speaking about technical things in a language which is understandable to business people.
A very good way to do this is to putting yourself in the stakeholders’ shoes. There are several types of stakeholders in each project who have their own views and their own concerns. This is the biggest difference between the design and the architecture. A designer thinks very technically while an architect can think broadly and can look at a problem from different views. Designers usually make a huge mistake, which happens a lot in Australia: They put everything in one document. Where I am doing a solution architecture job now, I was given a 21-mega-byte MS Word document which included everything, from requirements to detailed class and database design. Such a document is very unlikely to be understandable by the stakeholders and very hard to use by developers. I reckon that this happens because firstly designers don’t consider the separation of stake holders and developers concerns. Second, because it’s easier to write down everything in a document. But I have to say that this is wrong as SAD and design document (e.g. TSD) are built for different purposes and for different audiences (and in different phases if you are following a phase-based methodology such as RUP). If you put everything in a document, it’s like you are cooking dinner and you put the ingredients along with the utensils in a pot and boil them!!
A very good approach for looking at the problem from the stakeholder’s point of view is the 4+1 approach. At this model, scenarios (or Use Cases) are the base and we look at them from a logical view (what are the building blocks of the system), Process view (processes such as asynchronous operations), Development (aka Implementation) view and Physical (aka Deployment) view. There are also optional views such as Data View that you can use if you need to. Some of the views are technical and some of them are not, however they must match and there must be a consistency in the architecture so that technical views can cover business views (e.g. demonstration of a business process with a UML Activity Diagram and/or State Diagram).
I believe that each software project is like a spectrum that each stakeholder sees a limited part of it. The role of an architect is to see the entire spectrum. A good approach to do so (that I use a lot) is to include a business vision (this might not be a good term) in your SAD. It can be a billeted list, a diagram or both, which shows what the application looks like from a business perspective. Label each part of the business vision with a letter or a number. Then add an architectural overview and then map it to the items of business vision indicating that which part of the architecture is meant to address which part of the business vision.
In a nutshell, Architecture is early design decisions, it is not the design.
What to put in an SAD?
There are a whole bunch of SAD templates on the internet, such as the template offered by RUP. However the following items seem to be necessary for each architecture document:
- Introduction. This can include Purpose, Glossary, Background of the project, Assumptions, References etc. I personally suggest that you explain that what kind of methodology you are following? This will avoid lots of debates, I promise!
It is very important to clear the scope of the document. Without a clear scope not only you will never know that when you are finished, you won’t be able to convince the stakeholder that the architecture is comprehensive enough and addresses all their needs.
- Architectural goals and constraints: This can include the goals, as well as your business and architectural visions. Also explain the constraints (e.g. if the business has decided to develop the software system with Microsoft .NET, it is a constraint). I would suggest that you mention the components (or modules) of the system when you mention your architectural vision. For example say that it will include Identity Management, Reporting etc. And explain what your strategy to address them is. As this section is intended to help the business people to understand your architecture, try to include clear and well-organised diagrams.
A very important item that you want to mention is the architectural principles that you are following. This is even more important when the client organization maintains a set of architectural principles.
- Quality of service requirements: Quality of service requirements address the quality attributes of the system, such as performance, scalability, security etc. These items must not be mentioned in a technical language and must not contain any details (e.g. the use of Microsoft Enterprise Library 5).
- Use Case View: Views basically come from 4+1 model so if you follow a different model you might not have it. However, it is very important that you detect key scenarios (or Use Cases) and mention them in a high-level. Again, diagrams, such as Use Case Diagram, help.
- Logical View: Logical view demonstrates the logical decomposition of the system, such as packages the build it. It will help the business people and the designers to understand the system better.
- Process View: Use activity diagrams as well as state diagrams (if necessary) to explain the key processes of the system (e.g. the process of approving a leave request).
- Deployment View: Deployment view demonstrates that how the system will work in a real production environment. I suggest that you put 2 types of diagrams: one (normal) human understandable diagram, such a Visio Diagram that shows the network, firewall, application server, database, etc. Also a UML deployment diagram that demonstrates the nodes and dependencies. This will again helps the business and technical people have same understanding of the physical structure of the system.
- Implementation View: This part is the most interesting section of the techies. I like to include the implementation options (e.g. Java and .NET) and provide a list of pros and cons for each of them. Again, technical pros and cons don’t make much sense to business people. They are mostly interested in Cost of Ownership and availability of the resources and so on. If you suggest a technology or if it has already been selected, list the products and services that are needed on a production environment (e.g. IIS 7, SQL Server 2008). Also it’ll be good to include a very high-level diagram of the system.
Also I like to explain the architectural patterns that I’m going to use. If you are including this section in the Implementation View, explain them enough so that a business person can quite understand what that pattern is for. For instance if you are using Lazy Loading patter, explain that what problem does it solve and why you are using it.
Needless to say that you have to also decide which kind of Architecture style you are suggesting, such as 3-Tier and N-Tier, Client-Server etc. Once you have declared that, explain the components of the system (Layers, Tiers and their relationships) by diagrams.
This part also must include your implementation strategy for addressing the Quality of Service Requirements, such as how will you address scaling out.
- Data View: If the application is data centric, explain the overall solution of data management (never put a database design in this part), your backup and restore strategy as well as disaster recovery strategy.
It is suggested that the architecture (and in result the Software Architecture Document) be developed through two or more iterations. It’s impossible to build a comprehensive architecture document in one iteration as not only Architecture has an impact on the requirements, but also architecture begins in an early stage and many of the scenarios are likely to change.
How to prove that?
Now that after doing lots of endeavor you have prepared your SAD, how will you prove it to the stakeholders? I assume that many of business people do not have any idea about the content and structure of an SAD and the amount of information that you must include in it.
A good approach is to prepare a presentation about the mission of the system, scope, goals, visions and your approach. Invite the stakeholders to a meeting and present the architecture to them and explain that how the architecture covers their business needs. If they are not satisfied, your architecture is very likely to be incomplete.