No requirements means no start architecture
Today during lunch I caught myself saying, the following proposition “no requirements means no start architecture”. I gave this some thought on my way home wondering what led to this thinking… I remembered the chapter “Bringing the strategy together” in DDD, Evans. This is what I’ve come up with thus far.
The existence of a start architecture plan alienates its users. The users of the start architecture plan can have little impact on the future shape of their architecture because most of the important decisions have already been made.
Instead advocate a set of architecture principles to apply to every act of piecemeal growth, so that “organic order” emerges, well adapted to circumstances.
A lot of architects evangelize reference architecture to come to a start architecture. My idea of this reference architecture is that it is a resource containing a set of architectural best practices learned by experience. I would rather see a resource containing a set of principles in context that are adaptable.
Ok, so I got a little carried away :D