I love change when it fuels positive growth and innovation. It excites me because I can see ideas that once lived only in my head transform into real products. I enjoy crafting solutions that people can hold, use, and benefit from. That moment, when vision becomes reality, is deeply rewarding to me. The creativity offered by software architecture, user interface design, and backend engineering hits the sweet spot for me.
But in my journey, I’ve often come across software architectures that didn’t start with a vision. They simply “evolved out of need.” Sometimes teams “end up” with architectures that just happened to them, patch by patch, release by release. Other times, projects begin with a neatly sketched design, but even those evolve under the weight of deadlines, tradeoffs, and shifting requirements: Technical Debt.
And that’s not necessarily a failure. Every architecture tells a story of its context.
When speaking to decision makers, I often use analogies. Think about it like buildings. You might look at a structure and think, “Wow, that looks ugly.” But to the contractor, it may be a lucrative project. To the people living inside, the aesthetics may not matter at all. They may say if it ain't broken don't fix it. Architecture, whether in concrete or code, is always a balance between risks, non-risks, tradeoffs, and sensitivity points. I learned that at Carnegie Mellon's Software Engineering Institute. These aren’t just abstract concepts; they are the risk themes that give us the clarity to make informed design decisions.
As a seasoned IT Architect, here's what I believe: no architecture is inherently good or bad. It only becomes meaningful when evaluated through the lens of context and risk. Once risks are surfaced, explained, and understood, the decision shifts from being “good versus bad” to “fit for purpose.”
No comments:
Post a Comment