My last session at the SPA 2008 Conference was a workshop to explore the approach to describing a software architecture.
Nick Rozanski, Eoin Woods and Andy Longshaw asserted that any architecture requires a lot of selling with many different stakeholders and customers interested in the architecture. Communicating the architecture is obviously key and a group session explored what should be produced in an architectural description document. The varied experience of the groups produced a diverse set of content, with the more experienced architects recognising the importance of a clear baseline of requirements from which the architecture can be derived and confirming an understanding of how the delivered system is to be used. Clearly, the project size and life cycle approach has an impact on the production of the architecture; projects following a traditional waterfall life cycle (tending to be part of larger programmes) placed a increased emphasis on the requirements whereas the more agile projects placed much less emphasis on this and were keen to start producing some tangible software. This discrepancy also appeared in another SPA 2008 session that I attended.
There was also an interesting exploration in the tools and techniques used to produce the content of an architecture document. A recurring message was that the document must be in a format suitable for all of the readership, so clear preference for using a variety of standard office based tools such as MS-Word, Powerpoint or web pages on an Intranet rather than specific architecture tools e.g. modelling tools for UML which may not be available to all readers (one solution to mitigate this would be to ensure that such content is exported into one of the more accessible formats e.g. HTML). There was the recommendation that the tools used in the architecture should form part of a integrated toolset with good traceability between the requirements, architecture and design being available. The availability and use of such integrated toolsets appeared to be limited to larger programmes, particularly where the software was only a part of the eventual solution.
Once an architecture is produced, it needs to be publicised and communicated to everyone who is impacted or interested in the architecture. While there was general agreement that the architecture must be peer-reviewed before this wider communication is performed, the approach to communicating (or socialising, as Andy called it) the architecture varied from simple 1-1 chats to major presentations. What was clear was that the architecture must continue to live and that it needs to be actively maintained, remembering that the original approach of selling the architecture also applies to any subsequent changes.
Overall, I felt the workshop confirmed that the approach to software architecture that I follow continues to be appropriate and picked up some good ideas for trying on a future architectures.
A summary of the output produced by the workshop is available on the SPA 2008 Conference wiki.