How can you measure the success of software architecture evolution efforts?

To gauge the success of software architecture evolution, employ architecture quality metrics. These quantitative indicators, including modularity, cohesion, coupling, complexity, maintainability, and scalability, reveal architecture properties. Track these metrics across different versions to assess changes over time. Examples include modularity ratio for separation of concerns, coupling density for communication efficiency, and cyclomatic complexity for testability. Consistent improvement in these metrics indicates successful software architecture evolution.

Architecture Quality Metrics: Maintainability: Evaluate the ease with which the software architecture can be maintained and modified. Metrics can include the time and effort required for changes, the number of defects introduced during modifications, and the stability of the system after changes. Scalability: Assess the ability of the architecture to handle increased workload or user demand. Metrics may include performance under varying loads, response times, and resource utilization. Reliability: Measure the system's ability to perform as expected over time. Metrics might involve the frequency of system failures, mean time between failures (MTBF), and overall system availability.

Architecture Compliance Metrics: Adherence to Standards: Evaluate how well the architecture complies with industry standards and best practices. Metrics could include the percentage of code following coding standards, architecture documentation compliance, and conformity to regulatory requirements. Consistency: Measure the uniformity and coherence of the architecture across different components and modules. Consistency metrics may involve code style, naming conventions, and design patterns. Interoperability: Assess the ability of the architecture to interact with other systems or components. Metrics might include the number of successful integrations, adherence to interoperability standards, and ease of system integration.

To assess the success of software architecture evolution, leverage architecture compliance metrics. These metrics gauge the alignment between the implemented software system and the intended architecture design. Identifying inconsistencies, deviations, or violations during development is crucial. Metrics like architectural drift, erosion, or conformance checking quantify the extent to which the software system deviates from the original or updated architecture specifications. Monitoring and addressing these metrics ensure that the software aligns with the desired architectural goals, enhancing overall success.

Some aspects have been omitted : 1.Scalability in terms of migrating key S/W components to the Cloud 2.Resources not allocated ie. on bench 3.Recoding requirements eg changing from SQL to DB2 4.Staffing for expansion needs.

To gauge the success of software architecture evolution, incorporate architecture value metrics. These metrics establish a connection between the software architecture and the business goals and stakeholder needs. They aid in justifying and communicating the value of architectural decisions. Metrics like return on architecture investment, architecture contribution ratio, or architecture satisfaction index estimate the impact of the software architecture on revenue, cost, and satisfaction. Monitoring these metrics provides insights into how effectively the architecture contributes to overall business success, enhancing decision-making and communication.

Architecture Value Metrics: Return on Investment (ROI): Evaluate the financial impact of architecture evolution efforts. Metrics can include the cost of development and maintenance versus the benefits derived from improved performance, reduced defects, and increased user satisfaction. User Satisfaction: Measure the satisfaction of end-users with the software system. Metrics may involve user feedback, system usability scores, and user-reported issues. Time-to-Market: Assess how quickly new features or updates can be delivered to users. Metrics could include the time taken from concept to deployment, release cycles, and time saved in development efforts.

I was looking for what could best describe the needs of an organization, that, could be fulfilling these, and, here it is : "Saas on the Cloud" Saas --> Software as a Service

Use fitness functions to protect architectural characteristics as change occurs over time. Fitness function measures the outcome to see whether it's closer or further away from an optimal solution. Fitness function is any mechanism that provides an objective integrity assessment of architecture characteristics. The assessment may include a variety of mechanisms such as metrics, unit tests, chaos engineering etc depending on the context. For example, the architect may identify page load time as an important characteristic. Subsequently, the architect should build a fitness function to test page load time and run the test as part of continuous integration.

Architecture Governance: in order to gather any of these metrics the Architecture principles needs to be defined and each principle is assigned a compliance or weighted value (EXPECTED). The Governance process would not only help to enforce compliance but it will also help to identify deviances as well as any anti-pattern lapses. These compliance or lapses (The good and the bad) will also weighted values (OBSERVED). This will allow differences between the EXPECTED and the (OBSERVED) metrics which gives a quantifiable value to all these metrics.