How can you effectively incorporate peer review into software architecture evaluation?

Though peer review usually resonates with code review, architecture and design should also be peer reviewed. Architecture and design expertise is built over several years of experience in deploying and managing applications in production, having an experienced peer review the architecture will ensure that the system designed can withstand the demands of a real world production application.

Incorporating peer review into software architecture evaluation is crucial for ensuring the quality, reliability, and maintainability of the software architecture.

I usually structure the peer reviews in a phased process starting with the requirements and information about existing systems and platforms which the new development will interface. The next phase involves the high level architecture that documents a detailed approach for the implementation and covers the following: ? Information and business flows ? Key application algorithms ? Impact on existing systems and organization ? SW Development Infrastructure/Processes ? SW Deployment ? Cutover to integrate new system ? Non-Functional Requirements The next round of review is an in depth design level of elements that go to API specs, DB Schema, etc. Changes at the higher level can impact the work done at this round.

Choosing the right reviewers is essential. Consider individuals with diverse skill sets and experience levels. For instance, involving both senior and junior developers ensures a balanced perspective. In one project, we involved team members from different departments, such as QA testers and product managers, in the peer review process. Their varied viewpoints often led to valuable insights and suggestions.

In my experience it was crucial to have a wide range of expertise involved in such reviews, but obviously adjusted to the complexity and criticality of the developed system.

Use the RfC (Request for Comment) format to both document your decision making process and allow for asynchronous reviews. By documenting the initial ideas of an architecture teams are able to understand how systems came to be and why certain decisions were made. Reviewers use the RfC to ask questions and provide suggestions. Any outcomes are then documented in ADRs (Architecture Decision Records). An ADR provides the status, context, final decision, and consequences. By linking the ADR to the RfC, the resulting architecture documentation has high traceability.

Continuous improvement is key. Encourage open communication and constructive feedback among reviewers and developers. Conduct retrospective meetings to discuss what worked well and what could be improved in the review process. At a startup I was part of, we regularly refined our review process based on feedback from team members, making it more efficient and effective over time.

Integrating peer review into architectural technical reference reviews ensures robust solutions. Establish a structured process where architects collaboratively assess design decisions, code samples, and documentation. Encourage open communication, constructive feedback, and knowledge sharing to enhance the overall quality and coherence of the architectural reference. I would schedule regular review meetings to discuss findings, address concerns, and share insights. This iterative process not only ensures the identification and resolution of potential issues but also promotes knowledge sharing among team members - encourage constructive feedback, emphasizing continuous improvement. (Workbench "Always on the Job!"? is a good choice)