When you’re a software architect, you have an important role in planning design, systems, and delivering custom-coded systems. You’re a key decision-maker when it comes to functional design, technologies, and code structure. Such a role comes with responsibilities.
Even though you deliver great designs, down the line – sometimes in a matter of months – the system created can differ wildly from the one you architected. Rarely is this the fault of individual developers. So how can you get a clear visual on what’s going wrong? And what can you do to ensure your design will be followed and implemented?
Be inspired by real estate architects
As any software architects knows, when you have multiple devs working on different parts of the same system, they have to understand the bigger picture. They may code in isolation, but at some point they’ll need to connect their work with work from other engineers. For this, well-designed architecture is key.
It’s like constructing – or renovating – a building. An architect designs it and contractors build it. The new features of the building need to be connected to existing infrastructure, facilities like water, electric, and phone lines – otherwise it won’t be fit for purpose. If contractors or builders don’t follow the blueprints of the architect who designed the building, a lot of people will notice, and when reputations are at stake, you may even expect an architect to even take legal action against a builder. That’s how serious architects take their responsibilities.
Healthy and maintainable software systems have the same need for design and connectivity as a new building. But there’s a key difference. In software development, the structure is almost invisible and can easily deviate from the original design, with or without the architect’s knowledge.
It’s not the developers’ fault
Most developers want to do a good job (techies are typically motivated people, and their reputation is at stake). So when they’re asked to make a modification or add a new component at short notice or within a limited timeframe, they’re going to do it – preferably within the software design as they know it. But if the needed modification is not supported by the architecture, and time pressure is high, they may decide to take a shortcut to satisfy the customer, and start drifting away from the original design. The overall system can easily evolve into a less organized structure when the original code structure isn’t followed.
Irrespective of size, a tidier system is much easier and faster to navigate – and therefore maintain – than a messy one. It’s the difference between navigating the numbered street grid system of New York City compared with the urban sprawl of a city like Houston, Texas. Order brings clarity for your engineers.
Architectural governance
Back to the architects of real estate. Software architects may have more flexibility, but they don’t always have (or aspire to have) the same level of control as building designers. While undoubtedly useful, the flexibility afforded by software engineers means it’s possible to change direction on the fly. And this increases the chances of design deviation (aka technical debt).
What software systems need is architectural governance to ensure individual components combine to deliver the code structure designed from the start. They also require software architects who want to take responsibility for actually checking what’s being built, architects who actually help manage that the code structure reflects the software architecture as it has been designed.
Optimize code structure for operational stability
The best way to understand the structure – and the maintainability – of your codebase is to perform a technical review in the form of a software assessment. For many organizations with custom-coded systems, it’s the gateway to healthy, maintainable, and future-proof systems.
BonCode’s consultancy-based solution for software assessment enables you to surface key metrics on the architecture of your custom-coded software and visualize it. Measurements of things like ‘decoupling’ and ‘decomposition’ are key indicators for the maintainability of software architecture or code structure.
If the code follows the design, it has a cleaner structure. This makes it much easier for engineers to navigate and faster for them to repair. That means less time spent on fixing bugs and errors and more time available for innovating new features. In other words, what you gain is operational stability. And the business benefits of that are huge.
Discover how to gain actionable insights into your software architecture and code structure, with tooling and expertise from BonCode. Book a demo
