What are effective ways to evaluate software architecture?

It is extremely important to adapt the goals to the specific context and needs of the current project, whether we need something new or improve an old one. Often, it is unlikely that a fairly large system will be able to be rewritten, so we have to consider the compatibility of technologies, a migration plan, etc.

Setting clear evaluation goals is the compass for a purposeful software architecture assessment. It aligns efforts with strategic objectives, guides decision-making by predefined criteria, focuses on critical aspects, and fosters transparent communication. Well-defined goals not only mitigate risks but also establish measurable metrics, enabling a quantitative evaluation. This approach ensures efficiency, strategic alignment, and continuous improvement, making the assessment a targeted and impactful endeavor.

Among the various criteria for assessing software architecture, accessibility emerges as a critical element, highlighting its importance in creating inclusive and universally usable systems.

Selecting the right evaluation method is pivotal, and contingent on goals, context, and resources. Architecture reviews offer qualitative insights through scrutinizing documentation, code, or models, facilitated by frameworks like ATAM or SAAM. Prototyping, a quantitative approach, tests a simplified architecture for feasibility and performance, utilizing platforms like AWS or Azure. Simulations, also quantitative, predict behavior under varied conditions using tools like MATLAB or Python. Choosing the appropriate method aligns evaluation with objectives, ensuring a tailored and effective analysis based on the unique needs of the software architecture.

Effectively evaluate software architecture by collecting and analyzing data. Conduct performance testing to assess scalability and response times. For instance, in an e-commerce platform, simulate varied user loads to analyze system performance under stress. Utilize code analysis tools to assess code quality and identify potential vulnerabilities. Regularly monitor system metrics, such as CPU usage and memory consumption, to gauge overall health. Analyzing real-time data provides valuable insights, ensuring continuous improvement and robust software architecture.

Modern systems consist of many components. If the behavior of one system can be described from the experience of a specific person, then he will be able to evaluate a separate software complex, but when we are talking about the interaction of dozens of components, it is difficult to understand how they will behave. This is precisely why analysis is needed. The analysis can be performed in several stages: - initially, we start from our experience - basic selection (based on set goals) - test benches- collect more detailed information and try them. Then we move on to specific numbers and indicators.

Highlighting the necessity of justifying software architecture evaluation results is vital. It ensures that decision-makers grasp the value behind these decisions. Clear, concise communication tailored to the audience's understanding is essential, linking technical outcomes directly to business benefits.

I happened to involve on numerous acquisitions where I need to analyze the architecture and team that implemented it. Even above methods promise ways of doing this, it is also very important to consider the business. Sometimes even it looks like a good architecture which uses all the necessary components and practices. Considering just enough architecture would provide better cost management and maintainability.

Is not uncommon that an architectural assessment will also analyze software development process and enterprise process. From Conway's Law the software architecture reflect the communication pattern. Also these kind of review/assessment will point out the lack (or miss) communication between IT and business side of the enterprise.

Backward compatibility is a key factor in evaluating software architecture as it directly impacts the user experience, system stability, and the long-term viability of the software. A well-designed architecture takes into account the need for backward compatibility to ensure a smooth evolution of the software system over time.