Agile projects, above all those with multiple Scrum teams, need a moderated architecture process, in order to facilitate architectural decisions. It is advantageous to decide as late as possible, nevertheless the correct point in time should be chosen intentionally. If not, important architecture decisions could be overlooked or made too late.
In the ideal agile world, architecture grows by evolution (“no big upfront design”). An architecture will not be sketched out with great detail before development starts, but it will be created instead step by step during the work in the sprints. Decisions will be taken when triggered by work on a current user story. Until then, the team has time to gather know-how which will come in handy for evaluating architectural decisions. Since the “big upfront design” doesn’t have to be adjusted along the way, requirements can be accepted more easily und can be integrated into development more quickly. As a consequence, risk will be lower and efforts will decrease – that’s the hope, at least. Even the quality should increase, because decisions can be made with more experience. All this is based on the implicit assumption, that all knowledge needed to take the decision will be accessible for all persons involved at the correct point in time.
This assumption is – as we will see – incorrect, which leads to some negative effects. Some preliminary work on the architecture already helps with the beginning of an agile project. The question, which part of the system the scrum team should work on can only be addressed sensibly, when there is a rough breakdown of the “system”.
Basically, it’s not so bad an idea to decide late. In fact, there are many architecture questions which can be postponed. E.g. you don’t need to decide on a browser, when you don’t work with browser specific functions. You don’t need to talk about implementation details of microservices, which will be accessed via webservice API. To decide late indeed means to decide with greater knowledge and therefore, to decide with greater quality. Thus, the focus can be shifted to the current and immediate problems.
Picture 1: Sleeping beauty phase
Yet, this also is the catch: the “immediate” problems tend to push the postponed decisions from the agenda. They enter a “sleeping beauty” mode, and waking them up is hard. Somewhere in the project wiki they are documented, but who keeps track? All of a sudden the team faces the problem, that a new component has to be implemented in the next sprint – but the decision about its interior technology has not been taken. Important business information and conceptual information is missing, which is necessary to make the decision, but which does take some time to acquire. As we see, the assumption of the “always available information” is not true.
Due to the „sleeping beauty“ effect, the project gets late and misses its schedule – which could be prevented by some preliminary work. The same effect also casts its shadow on the hopes for better quality, since decisions taken under time pressure tend to be suboptimal. Furthermore, non-functional requirements also fall prey to that effect, which can lead to even more ugly consequences.
But there is an effective method against the „sleeping beauty“-effect: somebody has to watch the “sleeping” decisions and has to ensure, that necessary knowledge is acquire early enough. To that end, architecture decisions must be moderated with regard to all teams on the project. The moderating instance has to take care for postponed decisions and is responsible to get them up on the agenda right on time. That’s early enough, to carry out important preliminary work, e.g. to clarify business relevant questions. Some decisions even shouldn’t be postponed at all (e.g. because there are dependencies to other topics). This weighing-up should also be done by the architecture instance (you might call it a “guild”).
Sometimes, there are dependencies between various decisions, which may even apply to different teams at first sight. Those overarching dependencies must be identified, tracked and resolved, in order to achieve overall consistency. Experience shows, that it’s a good idea to transfer that responsibility to a dedicated group of people. This enables evolutionary development of the architecture without taking the risk of the “sleeping beauty” effect.