|
Home | Login | Recent Changes | Search | All Pages | Help
ArchSessionDiscussionNextYearSee also SessionOne035 In my small architecture team I see several things being produced, mostly in the form of documents and diagrams. And in discussiing these trade artefacts I have found confusing about what their purpose may be or should be... Maybe that experience is more general and I feel it might be a topic for a session at AYE 2002 where we do a discovery of Architecture artefacts. And their relationships. The kind of artefacts I think of that might be discovered are:
At this point I have no ideas how to design an interactive session to this kind of archeology... --EduardDeJong I have some vague ideas of how we might make an experiential session, but I'd like to start some public discussion. At the very least, we could conduct a show-and-tell session, in which participants bring artifacts from their actual work and we set up a gallery. We discuss, modify, suggest, correct, improve, ... This is what real (i.e. civil) architects do with their work, and it puts people in contact with the artifacts. --JerryWeinberg I like the gallery idea. We would ask people to bring artifacts from their work with a short write up of why it is significant to them. Then, on Sunday or Monday night, we would have a place for people to exhibit these. We could have an opening celebration where people could look at them and discuss them with the artists. BobKing I would love an Art Exposition of Architectural Artifacts with opening reception -discussing their purpose and usefulness with the owners- on Sunday or Monday night. I would enter a piece. I remember a similar idea from discussions we had last year? And XP "prefers artifacts that can execute to prove their validity, rather than artifacts that can not be proved valid like the usual design documents"? What would our processes look like if we were to attach wider meaning to the word "executable"? Like "transformable" (for a purpose)? --NynkeFokma I have a couple of artifact suggestions:
I've been reading up on software architecture, doing a remote interview for Technical Seminar Presenter. I ran across 2 books by Eberhardt Rechtin: Systems Architechting - Creating & Building Complex Systems and [with Mark W. Maier] The Art of Systems Architecting. Note the word Systems by which he means a wider scope than software architecture. He asserts that all forms of architecture exercise the same approaches, facilitating the customer in shaping great requirements to allow the engineering to engage. Great architecture is recognized by substantially outliving or outperforming its initial requirements. Rechtin lists the following as great architects & products:
I think that the above all capture that feeling of architectures that exceeded all reasonable expectations. Any other nominations? Unix, Internet... I find Rechtin interesting because at USC, he was able to interview many of the above and sound out how their approaches to architecting converge. He claims that architects use heuristics rather than engineering disciplines to bound and partition the problem until it exhibits the "best feel" - satisfies the most heuristics. Heuristics are rules of the thumb like Jerry's books are loaded with. [any volume will do] Rechtin has a beautiful short test for a good heuristic:
BobLee 2002.04.21 Bob, I found Rechtin's books helpful for the novice and they serve as a good introduction to the concept of systems architecture. I thought I was the only one who knew about his works! At the time when I read them I was studying Systems Engineering and System Architecture and very few people had written formally about that specific topic. I had the chance about 10 years ago to hear him speak on the topic at a ICOSE (Int. Council on Systems Engineering) seminar on systems engineering. I believe Rechtin was still at the Aerospace Corporation and still leading a group of system engineers. I thought he had a very large and diverse view of architecture which I appreciate more today. I still enjoy his heuristics that he published in the books. Today there are a number of books on software architecture (Bass, Mead, etc.) but they are very narrowly focused when I compare them to Rechtin's books. The concept of an Architectural Fair sounds wonderful. This sounds like the old science fairs we use to have in grade school. It's great to walk around (and possibly touch the exhibits) and see first hand what others are doing. Not sure why they don't have these type of fairs in college. JohnSuzuki 4/21/02 It's funny how the artifacts that I've found so durable have a way of being lent to younger friends coming into the profession, and often stay there unless I firmly ask for them back: My K&R 1st edition, my last stashed "Green Card", etc. Does anyone else measure the strength of the product by how much you remember but miss the artifacts? BobLee 2002.04.22 I love the idea of an architecture fair! Many of us have also been involved in the architecture of organizations. My artefacts here are often plan documents, maps, pictures and meeting notes. I also have lots of photos of people working to make the plans happen. There must be lots of architected entities to consider: web sites, this wiki!, AYE itself, a test organization, a small company, your personal computer. It would be interesting to see what surfaces as common threads. - BeckyWinant 4-23-2002
Updated: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 |
