What do you do if your system architecture team is facing a critical decision?

When facing critical decisions, begin by reviewing relevant documentation like system specifications and performance reports to grasp the existing framework. Consulting stakeholders such as project managers and end-users is vital to uncover essential insights into requirements and constraints. Utilize risk analysis methods like SWOT and scenario-based analyses to evaluate potential impacts on system performance and security. Employ tools like ArchiMate for visualizing changes in architecture, and gather real-time performance data using tools like Prometheus, and frameworks like TOGAF for structured decision-making. Additionally, benchmarking against similar solutions can offer perspectives on industry best practices and trends.

If everyone more or less knows what to do, I'll tell what you don't. You should never make hurry decisions; such hectic decisions always very expencive to your employer. On the one hand, we should use helicopter view to look at the problem from the outside and make the most balanced decision, on the other hand, there is no need to look for an ideal solution where just a good one is enough. The principle of Okama's razor has not been canceled.

Duck and hide ?? Seriously now, go back to requirements and make sure you define and understand the problem properly. Whatever else you do, do not jump into solutionizing before you do the before

When critical decision regarding system architecture to be made. It's pertinent to review all pros and cons. Measures to be taken to mitigate undesirable outcome and potential risks.

It is crucial to adopt approaches that provide best possible outcome: 1. Gather information applicable to current challenge. Identify constraints; seek input. 2. Engage all stakeholders, SMEs, project owners. Seek other perspectives. 3. Define clear design goals/objectives. 4. Identify solution with alternate technologies, architecture & design for 'best fit.' 5. Evaluate options for practicality, costs, risks, & alignment. 6. Make informed decisions; choose best-aligned options. 7. Communicate Findings: Adopt effective channels for feedback & address all stakeholder concerns. 8. Implement & Monitor: Once finalized, implement & continue to monitor for outliers. 9. Learn From Feedback: Reflect on entire process & feedback for improvements.

When it comes to system design. There are always trade offs. There is no perfect system. As CAP theorem says. You can only only take 2 out of three of Consistency, Availability, Partition tolerance. Another ingredient is the budget. You can design the technically the most sophisticated system. But what will be the cost. What's our Budget. So we have analyze the requirements and make decisions.

When facing critical system architecture decisions, perform a cost-benefit analysis to weigh financial implications against expected benefits, including long-term costs. Utilize a decision matrix to compare options against key criteria like cost, scalability, and maintainability, assigning importance weights. Scenario analysis helps foresee each option's future impact, while team brainstorming fosters innovation. Seek external expert advice for broader insights. Use tools like MATLAB or Simulink and ArchiMate for modeling and simulation to predict solution behaviors. Ensure choices align with the project's long-term vision and immediate needs for a strategically sound decision.

Architecture decisions usually impact different aspects of software. I usually like to classify these into four areas to help me work through them more easily: - Reliability (or the quality of user-percieved software performance during BAU) - Scalability (or the cost curve on over growth of business variables like user or transaction count) - Defensibility (or how the software helps at mitigating security and compliance-violation risks) - Mantainability (or how easy will be to evolve the software while avoiding negative impact on the other properties) And can impact very differently short-term, mid-term and long-term.

I think too few firms consider the option of self developed resources and end up locked-in by technology vendors. Every organization should at the very least leave self-developed resources on the table, especially those who already have existing talent pipelines that can do the development work

Sometimes, architects have their golden hammer/silver bullet and try to use it everywhere. It's good to evaluate every option to make sure it's not an automatic reflex solution.

In KLA we are working in agile. We are working in sprints of two weeks and by the end of the sprint we are mapping the issues raised and mapping the main gaps. In some cases, when possible and we have a good beta customer, we are letting him know he is our beta customer and working with him on a solution. The goal here is not developing something that will fit only to this customer but to develop something that will fit to the majority of the customers.

In preparing a risk assessment, it's essential to thoroughly understand the context, including objectives, requirements, and constraints, and to identify key stakeholders. Risk identification involves brainstorming with the architecture team and stakeholders to pinpoint potential issues, such as technical debt and security vulnerabilities, while analyzing dependencies that could pose risks. Assessing the probability and impact of each risk through methods like risk matrices and employing in-depth analysis techniques such as FMEA or Fault Tree Analysis is crucial. For critical risks, develop specific mitigation strategies and establish contingency plans for unmitigable risks. Utilize risk assessment tools and frameworks like ISO 31000.

In my experience, using a risk board to categorize risks using "ROAMing Risks" has been a great approach. Risk will be categorized as Resolved, Owned, Accepted, or Mitigated. This has the effect of hearing risks while also not being paralyzed by them.

When a critical decision looms over your system architecture team, 'Risk Assessment' is a vital step. It’s like checking the weather before sailing out—it prepares you for what’s ahead. We recently faced a major decision about choosing a new technology stack. By conducting a thorough risk assessment, we not only anticipated potential issues but also prepared mitigation strategies, ensuring our project stayed on course even in rough seas. It’s a step that transforms uncertainty into clarity and confidence.

Time-box the decision! Allocate time to make the decision based on your risk assessment. A “Two-Way Door” low-risk decision should be made quickly. Chronic over-investment in decision making is just as detrimental as under-investment.

Making critical decisions concerning system architecture suggests there is a set of defined criteria based on which decision is to be made. By adopting a decision making framework choises are converted from educated guesses (based on experience), to detailed and efficiently evaluated decisions.

Gaining an accurate understanding of the real conditions (e.g., real as-is architecture) of the problem is crucial. This involves gathering information directly from the operational systems rather than relying on outdated documentation. Typically, this process alters the decision/problem itself or at the very least elucidates the underlying causes rather than just addressing the symptoms. This is where semi-automatic information gathering proves to be invaluable.

To make critical system architecture decisions, employ a decision matrix for a systematic comparison and a cost-benefit analysis for financial insights, ensuring each option's merits are objectively assessed. Define evaluation criteria based on data collection and risk assessment, including cost, time, integration, performance, and security, while aligning with strategic goals. This structured approach promotes unified decision-making and transparency, documenting the rationale for choices made. Utilizing decision-making software and project management frameworks like TOGAF or PMBOK further guides and quantifies the decision process, enhancing clarity and strategic alignment. Tools like Decision Lens and Expert Choice can be invaluable.

1- Understand implications. 2- Evaluate trade-offs. 3- Involve all relevant parties. 4- Predict results. 5- Align with goals. 6- Articulate rationale. 7- Execute the chosen path. Remember, these decisions shape both the project and the business.

You can never reach consensus. Aim for an agreement, a compromise of the majority. Minority concerns should be documented for if the agreed upon path fails. Write down as much as you possibly can, so that when it is time to transform ideas into action items you can refer to the documents at hand. This makes sure the entire team knows the 3 Ws: why, what and when.

The emphasis on encouraging open discussion and ensuring that all voices are heard is crucial. In software architecture decisions, different team members may have unique perspectives, expertise, and concerns based on their roles and responsibilities. By fostering an inclusive environment, you tap into the collective wisdom of the team, reducing the risk of overlooking critical factors or making decisions based on limited viewpoints. By addressing concerns or objections during the consensus-building process, the team can identify and mitigate risks early. It helps in avoiding potential pitfalls that might not be evident to a single individual, no matter how experienced.

Make really sure you are clear on the stakeholders and their respective roles. RAPID or RACI models are good initial models to work through the problem of defining stakeholder roles.

Achieving consensus within your system architecture team is essential for a unified approach to the critical decision at hand. Encouraging open discussion and ensuring that all voices are heard is crucial during this process. It's important to address any concerns or objections that team members may have, as this can help uncover potential issues or alternative perspectives that should be considered. Building consensus might require compromise or revisiting certain assumptions. However, this collaborative approach leads to stronger team cohesion and commitment to the chosen path. When the entire team is aligned and supportive of the decision, the implementation and execution of the chosen solution are more likely to be successful.

Facing a critical decision on your system architecture team can be a challenging time, but it's also an opportunity to showcase strong leadership, collaboration, and decision-making skills. Once the decision has been made, the implementation of the chosen solution must be carefully planned. Assign specific tasks to team members, establish clear objectives and develop a detailed plan to ensure the decision is implemented effectively and timely. After the implementation of the decision, one must carefully monitor the results and evaluate the effectiveness of the adopted solution. If necessary, make changes or adjustments to the plan based on feedback and lessons learned during the implementation process.

One thing I have found helpful is to continue and challenge the decision during implementation. We all know the cost equation that shows what is the exponential cost increase of changing the architecture as we get closer to production and beyond. The implementation process should consider the fact that even though we made a decision, we might have made the wrong decision and now as we get smarter regarding our decision we should continue to learn and improve taking that into account

During the implementation phase it is important to understand time line needed, map the risk, high level tasks and also understand what is on the critical path ( people, system resource ect). During the implementation need to monitor and adjust the plan if one of the key assumption is changed. In order to build a reliable plan need getting commitments from all stakeholders, construct the plan that we are all commited to. As long as we all commited to the plan, it's sucess probability is high. Need to break resistance of people and keep buffer at the end. If no buffer left, need to map less critical items that can be removed in case of need.

I have been invited to this topic. But honestly I have no idea what the purpose of this really is. The steps here should be followed in every decision making process! Perhaps #5 is not that vital in "smaller" decisions. But even this can be part of it, if the approach is agile. Addition: What I am really missing here might be the only step in a process for critical decisions: Define check-points and rules for quality checks. This aims to help you to evaluate it and might lead to a fast fail.

Systems Architecture is an advanced skill set. Assign a lead Architect who knows what they're doing. Run a serious design exercise, including requirements analysis, concept of operations, technology assessment, analysis of alternative approaches, architectural design, top-level design & program plan. Include extensive design review at each stage. It's all about putting an experienced team to work, and letting them do their jobs. As with building design, or surgery - systems Architecture & Project Engineering are both Art & Craft - not bureaucratic exercises.

I have seen many examples where two or more options are available, and there is no good way of telling which is better. Either they are similar from most angles, or we have no sufficient data to tell which is better. Some times, this leads the stagnation, the organisation is frozen in indecision. My solution is to toss a coin and proceed. It seems extreme, but: 1. Waiting also has a price 2. If there were one solution obviously better, we would have found it. 3. We can probably win with either answer, otherwise see item 2. 4. Lousy management of an amazing solution is alot more damaging than reasonable management of a reasonable solution.