Home > A Practical Guide using UML > Traps and Pitfalls Associated with the Role of Software Architect

Traps and Pitfalls Associated with the Role of Software Architect

Many organizational issues can have a significant impact on the ability of the software architect to function effectively. As much as possible, the architect should focus on the definition of an effective architecture that meets the requirements. Distractions caused by a poorly defined or misaligned development organization can detract from this focus. A few of these issues and their

potential remedies are discussed below.

Clear definition of leadership

Description: In the organization, the definition of clear leads is critical in many key areas. These include software systems engineering, development leads, test leads, and potentially the software architect or chief software engineer. Often, especially if there are two diverse geographical development centers, management will create two or more co-leads with equal roles and responsibilities.

The degenerate case of this is the ‘self-managed team.’ This is a clear sign of trouble on the horizon, as these two leads will seldom be able to act as one and an inevitable set of conflicts will occur.

Remedy: Encourage management to establish a clear leader and offer an equitable solution. For example, the lead of one type of team (for example, the test team) could be established at one site and the lead of another team (for example, the process team) at another site. Another approach we have seen to be successful is to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the two individuals so that there is no overlap and to have a common manager or technical leader that arbitrates conflicts. Of course, this approach works best when the two individuals are located at the same site and can easily coordinate with one another.

Reporting structure for the software architect

Description: The software architect should report directly to the overall software development manager. Any attempt to create a software architect from one of the lower level technical leads and leave that lead reporting to the same manager will fail. In order to garner the respect required for the job of software architect and to effect change and arbitrate management disagreements, the reporting level of the software architect must be at the appropriate level. In addition, a software architect reporting to a manager at too high a level is often seen as an outsider by the entire development organization.

Remedy: Key individuals should usually report to the top-level software development manager. These individuals include the software architect, chief software engineer, software systems engineering lead, and data architect. The network architect and hardware architect often report to a project hardware management lead. An example of an organization chart based on this approach is shown in Figure 1. The key technical positions are shown as staff positions reporting to a manager. Another approach we have seen to be effective is to have all these key technical individuals, with the exception of the subsystem technical leads, report to the chief engineer.

Figure 1. Organization chart example

Geographical location of software architect and technical leads

Description: In geographically distributed development organizations, the software architect must either be located with the majority of the development leads, or plan on commuting frequently to the other site in order to communicate with these leads.

Remedy: The technical focus will shift early in the program to one primary site, usually the one where the top-level development manager spends most of his or her time. Select the software architect from the qualified technical leads at the site where technical focus will most likely result, or plan on having the software architect travel for a significant amount of the time.

Architecture team size and composition

Description: Managers will often try to get themselves or other non-technical individuals added to the architecture team, or convince the software architect’s manager to have them added to the team. In addition, individuals who are not technical leaders but who may consider themselves to be technical leaders may request to be added to the team.

Remedy: The software architect should closely control the size and composition of the architecture team from the start. This means that the architect should define the guidelines for the structure and composition of the team and communicate these guidelines to the project managers early in the process. The effectiveness of the software architecture team will be compromised if the team is too large or if anyone who is not one of the key technical individuals is on the team.

To prevent unreasonable requests for additions to the team, the software architect must be sure to clearly communicate to all interested individuals the minutes of the architecture team meetings, the decisions made by that team, and the architecture that is defined by the team. The software architect should keep several mailing lists to keep information flowing.

One related problem that occurs frequently is that effective individuals are often overlooked when the team is first structured and individuals might be added who are not effective. One approach for adding to the team is to start very small (3–4 key individuals) and then determine if others have emerged as technical leaders in the organization. Removing people from the team is very difficult, so the initial selection must be done carefully.

Software architect lifecycle participation

Description: The software architect is frequently moved on to the next project in advance of the final delivery of the system. This may be due to the perception that the software architecture task ends before the final build or due to the needs of the new project. This should be avoided, as the architect will not be able to evaluate the true effectiveness of the architecture and will not learn from architecture flaws that existed in the system, but were not noticed until the end users interacted with the software over an extended period. This could potentially introduce the same flaws in the software architecture of the new system.

Remedy: The software architect should participate in the development effort, 36 Roles of the Software Architect either in the role of software architect or as the technical lead of the final software build. If the architect remains in the architecture role, this will have the added benefit of ensuring the documentation of the software architecture accurately represents the final state of the software. If the architect is filling the technical lead role, then this will result in a closer involvement with the end users and a better understanding of the weaknesses in the architecture.

Figure 1 shows an example of the relative level of effort for each workflow over a series of three example iterations. In addition, it shows some typical architecture-related artifacts that would be produced by the workflows in each iteration. In this diagram, we have shown top-level architecture development as a separate workflow from subsystem design. This sort of tailoring is often needed in RUP to deal with multiple levels of architecture and design.

  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: