Sacrificial architecture

Martin Fowler defined a sacrificial architecture as one designed to throw away. Many companies need to build simple versions initially to investigate a market or prove viability. Once proven, they can build the real architecture to support the characteristics that have manifested.

Many companies do this strategically. Often, companies build this type of architecture when creating a minimum viable product to test a market, anticipating building a more robust architecture if the market approves. Building a sacrificial architecture implies that architects aren’t going to try to evolve it but rather replace it at the appropriate time with something more permanent. Cloud offerings make this an attractive option for companies experimenting with the viability of a new market or offering.

Planning on closing the business soon

Evolutionary architecture helps businesses adapt to changing ecosystem forces. If a company doesn’t plan to be in business in a year, there’s no reason to build evolvability into their architecture.

Some companies are in this position; they just don’t realize it yet. Convincing Others

Architects and developers struggle to make nontechnical managers and coworkers understand the benefits of something like evolutionary architecture. This is especially true of parts of the organization most disrupted by some of the necessary changes. For example, developers who lecture the operations group about doing their job incorrectly will generally find resistance.

We introduced the best solution to this problem in Chapter 6. Rather than try to convince reticent parts of the organization, demonstrate how these ideas improve their practices.

 
Source
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >