How do you conduct effective architecture reviews and assessments?

Define Goals and Objectives: Clearly outline the main objectives and desired outcomes of the review or assessment. Identify Key Attributes and Requirements: Determine the key quality attributes and non-functional requirements to evaluate. Set Boundaries and Constraints: Establish the boundaries and constraints of the system under review or assessment. Identify Stakeholders and Participants: Identify all relevant stakeholders and participants involved in the activity. Clarify Purpose and Scope: Use these questions to clarify the purpose, scope, and expectations of the architecture review or assessment.

I start by defining the architectural review goals in terms of business outcomes. For instance, if the business is looking to enter new markets, I ensure the architecture can handle the expected increase in traffic and the integration of new services. The scope is then defined to focus the review on components that directly impact these business goals, such as global distribution and service scalability

The goals of the review should be based on pure technical aspect and functional aspect. Both have to ensure current efficiency and effeciency in the future (related to functional evolution). I start with an architechture audit to evaluate it in its current state. This leads to the these questions: - does the architecture suits to the current technical needs to maintain tje prod and non prod up and running with an optimal configuration? - is the arch up to date in terms of technology and does it follow a continuity plan Besides to the current state being based on a technical audit, the review has the future goals related to functional evolution and budget optmization. Does our architecture support the new features? Is the cost optimized)

To establish objectives and boundaries for architecture reviews, follow these steps: 1. Define the purpose and scope, focusing on performance, scalability, or security. 2. Engage the proper stakeholders, ensuring they understand their roles. 3. Set measurable success criteria aligned with business outcomes and establish timeframes and milestones. 4. Prioritize identifying and addressing critical risks using appropriate tools or frameworks 5. Document actionable recommendations relevant to review objectives.

You need to answer below que to find scope & goals. Is Architecture provide solution to Key requirements & Risks ? Is Architecture Implemented correctly ?

Before starting an architecture review, define goals and scope based on business outcomes. For example, if expanding into new markets, focus on aspects like global distribution and service scalability. Clarifying these upfront ensures alignment with business needs.

The goal and scope definitely requires to be considering the ASR- Architecturally Significant Requirements either part of to non-functional requirements or additions to it. Its just not the key quality attributes but all 12 quality attributes to be addressed. Some of them can be marked not applicable but its important not to lose sight of all attributes. An attention also required for ATAM Architecture-Trade-off Analysis Method which is used for weighing the measures for different attributes and balancing through a trade-ff.

Various methods and tools are available for conducting architectural reviews or evaluations, depending on the objectives and scope of the activity. These include reviewing documentation, conducting architecture reviews, analyzing using measures or tests, and evaluating with frameworks like ATAM, SAAM, or ARID. These approaches help assess architecture completeness, coherence, strengths, weaknesses, and risks. I recommend tailoring the approach to match specific goals and constraints for gaining valuable insights into architecture effectiveness.

Documentation Review Examine artifacts such as diagrams, models, patterns, principles, and decisions to assess the architecture Walkthroughs:Conduct detailed walkthroughs of the architecture with reviewers or assessors for a thorough understanding Analytical Methods:Use metrics, scenarios simulations, or testing to analyze the architecture's effectiveness and performance. Evaluation Frameworks: Employ frameworks like ATAM Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method,SAAM Software Architecture Analysis Method, or ARID Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs to evaluate various aspects of the architecture Assess Key Factors:Through these methods, check the architecture's completeness, consistency, clarity, strengths, weaknesses, tradeoffs, and risks

To select the proper methods and tools for architecture review aligned with specific objectives such as performance, security, or compliance, follow these steps: 1. Select suitable methodologies concerning architecture type, system complexity, and scale. 2. Choose tools that promote collaboration, integrate well with existing processes, and automate assessments. 3. Use industry standards and best practices for consistency and regulatory compliance. 4. Balance cost, complexity, team expertise, and available resources, allowing for iterative and continuous reviews.

Choose Scenario based Review in Elaboration & Mid of Software Construction phase. Choose Experienced base Review (Industry Std practice) in Mid to End of Software Construction phase. ATAM/SAAM are Scenario based review. Active Design Review(ADID) is mixed of Scenario/Experience. ADR is effective and do detail analysis in Elaboration & Early construction phase.

The methods and tools selected must align with the defined goals. If the business priority is improving user experience through performance, I might choose load testing tools and application performance monitoring (APM) software. This ensures that the review is tailored to measure and improve aspects that will deliver the most business value, like reducing page load times for a better customer conversion rate.

There are many tools available for reviews and the overall toolkit be defined. For Enterprise Architecture, there are many tools like Sparx, LeanIX and many more. The tools always provide a typical approach and helps to standardize the process. They also assist in training the team and help them to prepare the essential artifacts, views and models. One more method CBAM- Cost benefit Analysis method shall also be considered.

Update Documentation: Ensure architecture documentation is current and aligns with the review or assessment goals. Create or update views, diagrams, models, and descriptions as needed. Collect and Analyze Data: Gather relevant data to measure and demonstrate architecture quality, performance, and maintainability. This may include metrics, benchmarks, test results, logs, and feedback from users or developers. Prepare Presentation Materials: Develop a clear and concise presentation to communicate the architecture to reviewers or assessors. Include key points and visual aids to enhance understanding. Create Demonstrative Artifacts: Prepare demos, prototypes, or videos to illustrate architecture functionality and behavior effectively.

To prepare artifacts and data for architecture reviews, follow these steps: 1. Keep updated architectural, design documentation, and system context diagrams. 2. Compile performance metrics, scalability plans, security assessments, and relevant historical data such as change logs or incident reports. 3. Provide documentation that explains the alignment of the architecture with business goals and user requirements. 4. Provide governance, compliance, and regulatory documentation. 5. Ensure that reviewers have access to necessary tools, environments, and reports. 6. Document any known constraints and assumptions that may impact the architecture.

Based on Arch review. You need artifacts. for ADR(ARID) you need Detailed design documents and Designer provide Questionnaire to be answered by Reviewer. Industry std Practice Architecture analysis need Design Document, Code , Software/App workflow , Test results & Interview Dev Team , Architect & stakeholder.

Preparation involves gathering current architectural diagrams, codebase snapshots, and performance data. These artifacts provide a baseline for assessing the architecture’s effectiveness in meeting business needs. For example, if the business aims to accelerate product delivery, I ensure that the CI/CD pipeline is well-documented and that deployment processes are clear and efficient.

The artifacts shall include template/s to begin with. The input and output of review process shall be well defined and standardized so that there is consistency followed. Based on architecture grouping e.g. enterprise Architecture, technology Architecture, Solution Architecture the different views of architecture shall be established as mandatory. especially the 4+1 view is critical.

To conduct an architecture review, follow these steps: 1. Define the scope and objectives of the review and assemble a multidisciplinary team. 2. Review artifacts, interview stakeholders, and perform in-depth analysis. 3. Identify risks, prioritize issues, and facilitate collaborative discussions. 4. Create a report including findings and actionable recommendations, then present it to stakeholders. 5. Follow up on implementation and schedule future reviews for continuous improvement.

Plan Agenda and Logistics: Define date, time, duration, location, format, roles, and responsibilities. Communicate this information to participants and stakeholders in advance. Engagement Techniques: Use various techniques such as presentations, discussions, Q&A, brainstorming, and voting to ensure active participation. Document Outcomes: Record session outcomes including feedback, issues, recommendations, and action items. Follow-Up and Close: Analyze session outcomes, resolve issues, implement recommendations, and complete action items. Communicate results and outcomes to participants and stakeholders to ensure transparency and closure.

To conduct an effective architectural review or evaluation, ensure that documentation is current and aligned with the review's objectives and scope. Collect and analyze relevant data to measure architecture quality, performance, and maintainability, using metrics, benchmarks, and feedback. Prepare a clear presentation, possibly including demonstrations, to communicate the architecture's functionality. Tailor these steps to meet the specific goals of the review or evaluation.

Not seeing much discussion about end users or, in the case of apps, at least functional and exploratory testers prior to release and process review (for services). Since they are your primary stakeholders, in my opinion, the beginning of an effective review should come from them. As such, any review that originates from them should undergo the full review and assessment process, which includes additional research, analysis, recommendation, and correction. I would like to think the main objectives of reviews and assessments are often for sustainability, growth, and improvement, all of which can only be attained through continuous innovation. Innovative product or process release should mark the conclusion of an effective review or assessment

The review involves a thorough analysis of how well the current architecture supports the business’s strategic direction. For businesses looking to improve agility, I would assess the modularity of the system and its ability to support rapid iterations. I also involve stakeholders from both business and technical teams to ensure that the review encompasses diverse perspectives and the architecture is scrutinized against real-world business scenarios.

The outcomes, recommendations and allied action items can be captured through a standardized template. If tools are used then they will emit the outcomes in standard format any way. the standard format can be designed in such a way that the details can be imported in the SDLC software like JIRA or Azure DevOps so the action items are automatically translated into user stories or tasks thereof.

Yes, a retrospective exercise is a good idea to architecture review process and assessment discussions. There are differing viewpoints, background and contexts which will make the discussions turn into debates but that's the part of the process provided the debates are healthy & objective. With a emphasize on continuously learning & improving, the review process can be refined and made more suitable to particular teams. As the overall technology and practices thereof are continuously evolving , the architecture review process can't be an exception to being always evolving. With Gen AI mind-blowing capabilities in general, the use case for employing Gen AI in the process can be identified.

Evaluate Successes and Challenges: Identify what went well and what didn't during the review or assessment. Main Findings: Summarize the key findings and their impact on quality, performance, and maintainability. Design and Implementation Improvements: Consider how to enhance design, implementation, and evolution based on the review or assessment outcomes. Process Improvement: Reflect on how to improve the review or assessment process, methods, and tools for future activities. Continuous Learning: Use insights from the reflection to foster continuous improvement and better outcomes in subsequent reviews or assessments.

To improve after an architecture review, follow these steps: 1. Gather feedback and evaluate the review process. 2. Track the implementation of recommendations and measure the outcomes. 3. Identify recurring issues and apply lessons learned. 4. Refine review processes, automate where possible, and keep the team informed. 5. Establish continuous feedback loops with regular reviews. 6. Foster a culture of continuous architectural improvement.

Arch review result has Design Errors/Fault & Weakness or Not address extending future requirement, identify Risks. Also identify Strength , Good about Design, Opportunities.

The review’s findings are used to chart a path for improvements that will bring the most business benefit. If the review uncovers that the architecture does not support the required scalability for market expansion, I plan a phased approach to adopt more scalable technologies such as cloud-based services or microservices architecture, ensuring that each step aligns with the company’s strategic growth plan.

Architecture is continuously evolving in modern agile engineering and hence assessment is also becoming more of continuous and collaborative process. Enterprises adopting gated architecture review process (like ARB) has to guard against heavy process which quickly turns in to bit of punishment for the teams. One thing I find working is the EA teams focus on putting in place Principles, Guidelines and other guardrails which will act as enablers for developing new solutions. Individual teams start to build and govern solutions in a federated model. Teams (Business & IT) who own the product / system should have the flexibility to experiment, make architecture decisions within the guardrails.

In my experience, our team's success hinged on documentation and knowledge sharing. During architecture reviews, we meticulously documented everything, treating it like a project's roadmap. But what set us apart was our dedication to sharing that knowledge across the organization. Our documentation wasn't just dry manuals; it was a living narrative. During our regular review meetings, we discussed not just the architecture but also how to improve our documentation for future projects. This commitment fostered collaboration, broke down silos, and accelerated learning, making each project a step toward a brighter, more informed future.

The effective architecture reviews can not be completed with out quality architecture decision record (ADR). ADR is the record where designing team fill out required information for architects to review. The ADR can have several sections but typically it consists of business problem, constraints, assumptions, back of the envelope calculations, designs, & decision. This is followed by recommendations by architecture review board which should be tracked through tools like JIRA for accountability.

Create and document Software Architecture principles and guidelines which are measurable and easy to follow. This makes it easier to evaluate if design decisions meet organizational standards.

While technical considerations are important, the human element is also crucial. How will changes affect the current workforce, and what training will be required? How will system changes be communicated to stakeholders? Additionally, I consider the operational impact of the proposed changes to ensure that the transition to a new architecture does not disrupt existing business operations.