So How’s It with Architecture - Up-Front Design or Evolutionary Architecture?

Where does architecture currently stand? We can say that there are two classic approaches:

• The classical approach, which requires carefully planning as many details as possible (up-front);
• The agile approach, which dictates making decisions as late as possible and developing architecture through refactoring.

How does this usually happen in projects? In many cases, a more or less detailed project is created in the up-front style and remains that way. On the other hand, relying solely on organic development of good architecture through natural evolution usually also fails. In large projects, it is extremely risky as it often leads to local solutions that should be rewritten at some stage (which usually does not happen).

In practice, a mixed approach works best. At the beginning of a project, release, or iteration, a concept and design of a solution is created, which serves as the basis and reference point for project work. This project does not have to be, and even should not be, exceedingly detailed. On the other hand, we should not assume that what was devised at the outset will be a perfect solution. Consequently, during the project work, we make ongoing local modifications to the design assumptions through refactoring.

By doing so, we obtain a natural process of architectural development. Initially, it is pre-designed, which prevents us from wasting time and resources on evolutionary wandering. We use evolution to improve the original design. If we link this with the process of Natural Order refactoring, we are in luck! More on that in future posts.

The process sketch looks as follows:

(Sketch image removed)

(Text translated and moved from original old blog automatically by AI. May contain inaccuracies.)