Dorin Baba’s Post

Unearthing the Unwritten: Why Architects Deal with Nonrequirements ️✨ It's a common misconception that developers handle functional requirements, while architects focus solely on non-functional ones (scalability, security, etc.) But the reality is far more nuanced. In my experience, architects spend a significant amount of time dealing with nonrequirements. This doesn't mean "not required," but rather aspects crucial to the project's success that haven't been explicitly stated. Think of it as the unspoken: context, underlying assumptions, hidden dependencies – all the pieces that haven't been formally documented. **An architect's true value lies in uncovering these implicit requirements and bringing them to light. This applies across all architectural levels, from enterprise to software – it's the ability to connect the dots that matters. ** **Still, the 'ilities' are powerful! ** #architecture #nonrequirements #communication #projectmanagement Let's discuss! What are your experiences with nonrequirements in your architectural projects?

🏢 Architects: Someone less qualified than you is doing what you want to do because they took action. Stop spending time complaining about what others have done or taken from you. Stop procrastinating when you could simply start. Here are three ways you can position your firm for greater success: 1️⃣ Stay Current with Technology: Continuously update your knowledge and tools to leverage the latest advancements in architecture and design software. Integrating cutting-edge technology can streamline workflows, enhance design quality, and improve project outcomes. 2️⃣ Develop Forward-Thinking Client Relationships: Build strong, long-lasting relationships with clients open to exploring new lines of service with you. Engage them in conversations about innovative solutions and additional services that can add value to their projects. By positioning yourself as a trusted advisor and partner, you can uncover new opportunities for collaboration and growth. 3️⃣ Innovate Your Business Model: Think beyond traditional architectural services. Explore new revenue streams, such as consulting, offering educational workshops, or developing products related to your expertise. Diversifying your offerings can open up new opportunities and reduce risk. Let this year be the year where YOU act to build something better. Start today. #ArchitectureInnovation #BusinessGrowth #ArchitectsTakeAction _____________________ Hi, 👋🏻 I'm Evelyn Lee, FAIA | NOMA I've been on the client side for over a decade and have spent the last five years in tech, helping create exceptional employee experiences while growing the business. Now, I help architects: ⇒ Think Differently ⇒ Increase Productivity ⇒ Create Opportunities

The Architect Conundrum: Necessary or Nice to Have? As I sifted through the latest musings on the value of heads of architecture and solution architects, I couldn’t help but think: are we solving a problem that doesn’t exist? If your engineering team is already delivering, do you truly need an additional layer of architectural oversight? In many cases, I’d argue the answer is a resounding ‘no’. The added bureaucracy can stifle the very innovation it’s meant to enable. The Real Question: What Problems Are You Trying to Solve? Rather than blindly following the org chart du jour, take a step back and assess your team’s pain points. Are there genuine architectural complexities that require dedicated expertise? Or are you merely checking a box to appease some perceived industry standard? Be honest with yourselves, if the engineering team is humming along, perhaps the resources allocated to an architect role could be better spent on, say, hiring another skilled engineer or investing in meaningful professional development. Empower Your Engineers, Not Your Org Chart! When I’ve built engineering teams, I’ve always prioritised a flat, autonomous structure. By trusting our engineers to make informed, architecture driven decisions, we’ve avoided the unnecessary overhead of redundant roles. So, I’ll pose the question to you: are you seeking an architect to genuinely enhance your technical capabilities, or simply to bolster your organisational hierarchy? Choose wisely, your team’s agility (and sanity) depend on it.

Architecture Review Boards (ARBs) I've been a member or an observer of various ARBs at multiple companies throughout my career. In the "before times", they were almost always in-person. The Solution Architect would appear before the board and present their architecture. There would be lots of questions, some discussion, and then the board would decide. Sometimes they would send the architect away and discuss in private (I always had mixed feelings about that). Maybe this is still the case for some orgs, but for me, nowadays it's all by Zoom, either with or without video. I've also come across a purely "online" model (or should that be "offline"?), where the Solution Architecture Document is submitted online, and then distributed to all the board members for independent review, and any discussion or feedback is captured as comments. This has the significant advantage of dealing with resources spread across time zones with varying degrees of availability, but at the cost of person-to-person discussion. I can't think of any other basic models besides in person, on Zoom, or online/offline, except a hybrid e.g. initial online review, and then an in-person discussion if needed.

Trying to maximise the amount of work NOT done is how I spend a good chunk of my #solutionsarchitect time these days. I find re-imagining the Problem Space often delivers the best results. There are always plenty of imposters masquerading as immutable 'business requirements' that would otherwise translate to unnecessary work. Be aware of problems being introduced by 'solutions' and you will discover further opportunities to improve. Superficial understanding limits effectiveness. Work proactively and acquire the right knowledge to inform. I find good engineers can pretty much make any approach/solution work so don't overly sweat the tech-stuff. Use your time wisely to deliver the most value. IT Business Alignment is a two-way street. I often see problems that 'tech' are trying to tackle that are better addressed as 'business' problems. It takes the right environment for everyone to do their best work. If you find yourself in a good one, treasure it. Stay well folks. #lazyarchitect

🏛️ Systems Engineering: Architecting vs. Designing 🏛️ 🔧 Architecting - It is about defining what the system will be. - It focuses on the high-level structure, key elements, interactions, constraints, and trade-offs. - When you architect a system, you establish the foundational principles and the overall blueprint that guides how components come together to meet requirements and achieve desired outcomes. - It’s like creating the big-picture vision, considering the what, why, and where of the system. 🛠️ Designing - It is more about the how. Once the architecture is established, designing addresses the details of how each component and subsystem will be implemented. - It involves creating detailed plans, specifications, and models to ensure that every element works as intended and integrates seamlessly. - It emphasizes the specific technical methods, materials, and processes required to realize the architecture. #SystemsEngineering #Architecting #Design #Engineering #STEM

It makes me sad to run into architecture people whether leader or IC who believe that architecture is handed down from the ivory tower to the rest of the org like the commandments. Worse are the people who think it’s done in isolation whether in a group of architects or one makes no difference. These architect groups are ones that should be routed out of the organization. They kill innovation, and they slow the organization down with unnecessary cycles of non-impactful “work.” The disconnect with engineering, PM, and other parts of the org is so great that it’s not possible to solve the problem effectively. In fact the architecture team may not even know what problem they’re solving at all. Besides, there is nothing more boring that writing some doc to hand down for people to blindly follow.

Architects with a robust background in design and coding, having hands-on experience in product development, are adept at deploying their code to production environments and resolving persistent issues. Those, who are good in drawing minimalist purpose-driven architecture diagrams and in crafting concise, bulleted instructions for running and maintaining their code, similar to README.md files. They're good in figuring out solutions for tricky problems in-hand and they can provide multiple alternatives for addressing the same problem statement. vs. Architects, who hold esteemed certifications and can develop good-looking exhaustive architecture diagrams by referencing/leveraging already established models. They depend a lot upon working code samples, elaborate documentations and, more than often, hands-on people around them to carryout the proofs of concept in a lab-like environment. Your enterprise requires both types of architects: one instills confidence in taking high-risk opportunities (which can lead to greater returns), while the other facilitates rapid scaling. Take a balanced view... 🤨 🤔

I see many architects shying away from adopting new technology. Resistance to change is holding them back. Why is that? Architects are reluctant to integrate new technology because they have been getting results with their old methods for years. More often than not, architects are afraid of changing their workflow. Even if that means an increase in productivity and better ways of collaboration. Some architects are unwilling to invest in upgrading their skills and getting technology to streamline their design process. ________ What’s your take? ♻️ Reshare if you find this useful.