Agile architecture methodology: long term strategy interleaved with short term tactics

ABSTRACT

Tactical agile development and strategic architectural evolution are viewed as opposite ends of the development spectrum, with the long-term value of applying an architecture-centric approach seemingly at odds with rapid development, featuring its informal documentation activities. The value of a long-term vision, or ar-chitecture, is particularly high in the context of product integra-tion and research. However, there is also benefit in rapid and early feedback on incremental deliverables, as featured in agile development.

To extract the main benefits of both worlds we introduce the CA Agile Architecture (C3A) method, targeted for the architec-ture and design phases of the development life cycle. Its founda-tion is the Reference and Implementation Architecture, which features a lean one-page per component contract, as well as sev-eral abstraction levels. The C3A artifacts are governed by a cyclic process of architectural evaluation and evolution, with accompa-nying coaching and training activities.

This work-in-progress is being prototyped with three product teams, varying in team size, product maturity and complexity, and geographical location. C3A features a common tactical-focused agenda for the functional and system architectures, with mini-mally overlapping strategic views.

REFERENCES

• 1: Ian Alexander , Kent Beck, Point/Counterpoint, IEEE Software, v.24 n.2, p.62-65, March 2007 [doi>10.1109/MS.2007.50]
• 2: Stephen Albin, The Art of Software Architecture: Design Methods and Techniques, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 2003
• 3: Grady Booch, The Economics of Architecture-First, IEEE Software, v.24 n.5, p.18-20, September 2007 [doi>10.1109/MS.2007.146]
• 4: Grady Booch, The Irrelevance of Architecture, IEEE Software, v.24 n.3, p.10-11, May 2007 [doi>10.1109/MS.2007.93]
• 5: Paul Clements , David Garlan , Len Bass , Judith Stafford , Robert Nord , James Ivers , Reed Little, Documenting Software Architectures: Views and Beyond, Pearson Education, 2002
• 6: Ethan Hadar , Irit Hadar, Effective preparation for design review: using UML arrow checklist leveraged on the Gurus' knowledge, Companion to the 22nd ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object oriented programming systems and applications companion, October 21-25, 2007, Montreal, Quebec, Canada [doi>10.1145/1297846.1297963]
• 7: Hadar E. and Perreira M., "Web Services Variation Façade -- Domain Specific Reference Architecture for Increasing Integration Usability", IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS 2007), Salt--Lake City, July 2007
• 8: Northrop L.M., Clements P.C., A Framework for Software Product Line Practice, Version 5.0, from http://www.sei.cmu.edu/productlines/framework.html, extracted on March 17, 2007.
• 9: Magic Draw Modeling tool, No Magic software company, http://magicdraw.com/, referenced on July 27, 2008.
• 10: Structure 101 Modeling tool, headways software, http://www.headwaysoftware.com/products/structure101/index.php, referenced on July 27, 2008.
• 11: Reporting tool from business objects, an SAP company, http://www.businessobjects.com/ referenced on July 27, 2008.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
        D.2.10 Design**
            Subjects: Methodologies**

Additional Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
        D.2.10 Design**
            Subjects: Representation**
        D.2.11 Software Architectures
            Subjects: Domain-specific architectures

  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.6 SIMULATION AND MODELING
      I.6.5 Model Development
          Subjects: Modeling methodologies

General Terms:
Design, Documentation, Management

Keywords:
UML, architecture centric evolution, design reviews, reference architecture