Note: Architects are not PMs or Business Analysts however
While architects should be competent with requirements definition, they probably won’t do this as a primary function of their role
Agile argues that there should be no plan but the one for the immediate iteration, and even that is under debate
Before we determine whether or not plans or useful, lets lay out what the plans encompass
Note: These differences may be attributable to Agile’s perspective on the Architect and Strategy in general
For Agilists, the Architect is more of a technical lead
This explains, in part, why the Architect involvement is more constant
Could it be that Agile is tactical by nature with less concern for strategy?
e.g. More responsive systems take longer, cost more, and tend to be more complex
- e.g. use of layering, principles on dependency management, cohesion, coupling, the “abilities”, data management, use of open standards
For example
Q1: Negotiated rates for high volume customers
Q3: Advanced cross-sell options
Q4: Closed-loop marketing campaigns
Exhibit restraint
Don’t try to get all data types or relationships just right
Don’t try to show relationships in ways that they’ll be implemented on target platform
Exhibit restraint
Don’t try to get all data types or relationships just right
Don’t try to show relationships in ways that they’ll be implemented on target platform
This, along with the layering approach and deployment architecture, is what many people think architecture is about
However, this may not be done by the architect
Again, much of this may not be done by the architect
Persuasion
Depends on the strength of your arguments, but also influenced by relationships, trust, culture, and private agendas of those who you would persuade
Must know when to let others drive the ideas