The key to designing for change is to avoid decomposing based on functionality. Instead, decompose based on volatility. This approach leads to a technical decomposition rather than a functional one. When functionality changes, decomposing according to it often results in components that either need frequent changes or become too tightly coupled, making modifications costly. In contrast, technical decomposition allows for easier adjustments by simply rewiring the components when the scope changes. The effects of change are isolated.

prioritize a modular design approach and adhere to core architecture principles. Frequent reviews and clear documentation help adapt to changes without compromising the overall structure. Collaborating closely with stakeholders ensures alignment on priorities, while version control and testing safeguard stability during iterations

Maintaining cohesion in software design amidst constant scope changes requires a disciplined approach. One strategy that’s proven effective in my experience is adopting a modular design. In a recent project with shifting requirements, breaking the system into smaller, flexible modules allowed us to isolate changes and minimize disruptions. Coupled with thorough documentation and strong version control, this approach helped maintain consistency and ensured seamless collaboration across teams.

To maintain cohesion amid constant scope changes, use modular design, adhere to SOLID principles, and implement clear documentation. Regularly refactor code to align with updated requirements, employ thorough testing, and maintain consistent communication among stakeholders for clarity.

Na minha experiência quando o escopo muda constantemente, manter um controle de vers?o e prioridade clara contribuem para o sucesso e disponibilidade de uma arquitetura