Common software architecture mistakes

They can become oblivious to the influence that workflow has on other business factors. Use a data-driven strategy to prevent missing any significant organizational drivers. IT teams often make the error of focusing too much on adhering to a standard of how they believe a project should develop and modeling with great precision.

This leads to very complicated organizational models that, while accurate, are unusable. Being adaptable is the name of the game with enterprise architecture service. Give yourself the best opportunity to be dynamic with shifting company goals through different tools and a minor culture adjustment.

This can result in flaws in your business model that jeopardize other aspects of the company. Issues such as squandered funds to blatant compliance concerns can arise. The takeaway here is simple. Communicate better within your firm when coming up with a solid enterprise architecture strategy. Top Ten Software Architecture Mistakes. Like Print Bookmarks. Oct 12, 3 min read by Niclas Nilsson.

Brief excerpts of the ten points are below: Scoping Woes. It is really true that no security is needed beyond simple login? Once logged into the system can users really perform any system operation? You need to be really precise about the specific versions and configurations of each part in order to ensure that you get what you need. If you can also estimate the probability of the scenarios occurring then you can use these two figures to convince people that DR is important and to justify a certain level of budget to implement it.

Author Contacted. This content is in the Architecture topic. Related Editorial. Soulful Socio-Technical Architecture. Microservices — the Letter and the Spirit. Building Quality in for Blockchain Systems. Data Mesh: an Architectural Deep Dive. Building Tech at Presidential Scale. Consistency, Coupling, and Complexity at the Edge. Security and the Language of Intent. Turning Microservices Inside-Out.

Implement standard security algorithm and not custom made. No Disaster Recovery — Many systems reach production without major mishap and manage to run successfully there for years, without any significant interruption to service. Unnecessary complexity — For example — The customer wants a cup of tea, and we build a system that can boil the ocean.

Share this: Twitter Facebook. Like this: Like Loading This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. January 7, at pm. Leave a Reply Cancel reply Enter your comment here Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:.

Email required Address never made public. Name required. One of the paramount goals of any architectural design effort is to mitigate risk to the project. Architects attempt to work out the complexities on paper first before considerable cost is sunk into the development effort. I teach this very thing in my developer to architect course and I stand by it now. So with that said, is the user interface a risky part of the solution?

Is it architecturally significant? I believe the answer is yes. I would even go so far as to say that the user interface is one of the most important aspect of the solution. It should be considered a first class citizen when designing a solution and here is why. Our customers always judged our solutions by what they look like first. There are other factors but the most highly weighted criteria to our customer is the user interface. Performance is important but only secondarily so.

If you show a poorly designed user interface, even with the best back-end design, your customers will naturally assume the rest of your application is poorly designed. I would even go as far as saying that if you were to offer your customer a choice of a flashy, well designed user interface with a horribly designed back-end versus a well-designed solution with a lackluster UI, they would pick the flashy interface every time.

Let me say that again because it is that important. No matter how great a solution you have designed, if it looks bad, your customers will think it is poorly designed. Perception is reality, do not underestimate this. The user interface is what our end users can see, what they interact with, it is one of the few things that our customers understand and can use to evaluate our solution. I believe the answer to both questions is a resounding yes. Now to be clear, I am not saying that we should abandon common design concerns for user interface design.