How do you handle software architecture uncertainties?

Continuous validation is crucial in iterative software development. Use test cases to ensure that changes meet requirements. Gather feedback from stakeholders and monitor key metrics such as North Pole and guardrails to assess performance and alignment with goals.

Creating small prototypes with few team members always helps to identify early issues in the project, being them technology or business related.

I think in that scenario i normally used to do brainstorming and think about the impact. Think about the long term scope of it and design the solution accordingly.

You should also consider that playing with your architecture must have a desired outcome. Are you going to make costs lower, add some performance capability, or make it more automated and faster in develop. Almost every architectural decision you have to make will be always with drawbacks, and you have to decide what you willing to sacrifice to archive your specific goals. As for the uncertainties, nowadays almost all approaches you can create is already was created (like 99% sure), tested, and described in the internet. Just make sure you google it well, it might save a lot of time and money to test it by yourself. And if you designed something new, start with a MVP, make some tests, then do the math calculating is it worth to use this...

Iterative might sometimes lead to unecessary or combersome refactoring. Decoupling a complex system then approaching it's design incrementally could lead to better outcomes. It would help implement POCs, validate hypiotheses and gather feedback.

Common and most famour design pattern always help you clean code architecture. But if you get new requirement or change in requirement then i would not suggest you to take decision on change the architecture design patern. It may impact the complete project productivity. Instead of that i would say keep a TODO list where you will do change in design pattern beased on upcoming change and slowly starts to make change in architecture.

I agree on that following a certain architectural principles could help for uncertainties in software design. However still you cannot be sure fully if the selected architectural principles would help to clarify the uncertainties totally. Should be kept in mind that always there is a limitation.

It seems to me that both architectural patterns and architecture principles go hand-in-hand with each other. For example, you might be a smaller company with limited money and resources. In that case, you might not be able to support a micro-services based architecture. You might opt to build some monolithic server application instead. However, if your monolith has strongly defined interfaces, good boundaries between components, and adheres to the SOLID principles, we can easily break it out into micro-services later when budget allows for it. Following good design principles will help you add new pieces seamlessly, decommission old portions easily, and make modifications without too much headache.

In my experience, I have found that Microservices provide a robust architectural approach to handle software architecture uncertainties. Microservices encourage the development of small, self-contained services. Each service can be designed, developed, tested, and deployed independently. This modularity allows teams to work on separate services without affecting others, reducing the impact of uncertainties on the entire system. As each service is isolated, making changes or introducing new features becomes less complex and risky. With microservices, each service can be built using different technologies that suit its specific needs.

All architectural decisions (ADs) should be recorded, ideally alongside the code they relate to. Decisions need to include include their status, the context in which they were made, the decision and it's consequences. They also need to be clearly communicated to the those whom they impact.

Using lightweight Architecture Decision Records provides an ongoing history of the decisions made, the context in which they were made, alternatives considered, and current status. These should be source controlled along with the code or system they relate to.

Building consensus through trade-off analysis, proofs of concept, and open discussion leads to stronger architectures. Depending on the size of the organization an architecture review board can provide an enterprise wide view on specific challenges.

To ensure smooth and efficient software development, it's essential to prioritize the implementation of robust error handling. The dynamic nature and continuous improvements of individual modules in an overall software architecture make failures inevitable. Pinpointing the exact location of such failures becomes challenging, especially when small errors go unnoticed initially and later manifest as significant issues. Hence, even though it may seem to impede initial progress, incorporating automated tests for defined interfaces right from the beginning is crucial. This proactive approach ensures that any changes made subsequently do not go unnoticed, leading to more stable and reliable software in the long run.

To understand the final specifications , risk factors and application from it. To prepare high and low level design of each small model and mention dependent parameters in each flow model.

Also ensure that your team has the appropriate skills to handle the architectural challenges. This could mean investing in training or bringing in outside experts as needed.

Decomposing problems into smaller parts can offer an opportunity to remove uncertainty. Sometimes a solution is obfuscated by the sheer size of the initial problem statement

There exist multiple approaches to addressing uncertainties in software architecture. One such approach is architecture validation, which entails ensuring alignment between the code and the architecture throughout the development process. This involves identifying discrepancies between the existing code and the specified architecture, comprehending the implications of code modifications on the application, facilitating communication between the existing architecture and code base, and establishing guidelines for developers to adhere to in order to maintain compliance with the desired architecture during code development.