#iso42010 — Public Fediverse posts

@kenny_baas There are already popular definitions (in #ISO42010, for example), but they're frequently dismissed because seen as overly complex, too demanding given the organization's limited resources, too theoretical or difficult to really understand, etc. But, they're simply reflecting a complexity people are not ready for (but will have to face in the end). Instead of dismissing definitions and frameworks, we could better recognize their merits, admit it's a long journey, and take a phased approach. So, instead of asking "What does software architecture mean in your organization", we could ask "What part of software architecture is your organization good / not good at." It's a personal assessment that can yield interesting discussions and move the needle without taking the step back to first agree on what is software architecture. There is a good chance this reveals expectations towards architecture formulated in a less architecture-centric manner.

@kenny_baas There are already popular definitions (in #ISO42010, for example), but they're frequently dismissed because seen as overly complex, too demanding given the organization's limited resources, too theoretical or difficult to really understand, etc. But, they're simply reflecting a complexity people are not ready for (but will have to face in the end). Instead of dismissing definitions and frameworks, we could better recognize their merits, admit it's a long journey, and take a phased approach. So, instead of asking "What does software architecture mean in your organization", we could ask "What part of software architecture is your organization good / not good at." It's a personal assessment that can yield interesting discussions and move the needle without taking the step back to first agree on what is software architecture. There is a good chance this reveals expectations towards architecture formulated in a less architecture-centric manner.

@kenny_baas There are already popular definitions (in #ISO42010, for example), but they're frequently dismissed because seen as overly complex, too demanding given the organization's limited resources, too theoretical or difficult to really understand, etc. But, they're simply reflecting a complexity people are not ready for (but will have to face in the end). Instead of dismissing definitions and frameworks, we could better recognize their merits, admit it's a long journey, and take a phased approach. So, instead of asking "What does software architecture mean in your organization", we could ask "What part of software architecture is your organization good / not good at." It's a personal assessment that can yield interesting discussions and move the needle without taking the step back to first agree on what is software architecture. There is a good chance this reveals expectations towards architecture formulated in a less architecture-centric manner.

@kenny_baas There are already popular definitions (in #ISO42010, for example), but they're frequently dismissed because seen as overly complex, too demanding given the organization's limited resources, too theoretical or difficult to really understand, etc. But, they're simply reflecting a complexity people are not ready for (but will have to face in the end). Instead of dismissing definitions and frameworks, we could better recognize their merits, admit it's a long journey, and take a phased approach. So, instead of asking "What does software architecture mean in your organization", we could ask "What part of software architecture is your organization good / not good at." It's a personal assessment that can yield interesting discussions and move the needle without taking the step back to first agree on what is software architecture. There is a good chance this reveals expectations towards architecture formulated in a less architecture-centric manner.

@kenny_baas There are already popular definitions (in #ISO42010, for example), but they're frequently dismissed because seen as overly complex, too demanding given the organization's limited resources, too theoretical or difficult to really understand, etc. But, they're simply reflecting a complexity people are not ready for (but will have to face in the end). Instead of dismissing definitions and frameworks, we could better recognize their merits, admit it's a long journey, and take a phased approach. So, instead of asking "What does software architecture mean in your organization", we could ask "What part of software architecture is your organization good / not good at." It's a personal assessment that can yield interesting discussions and move the needle without taking the step back to first agree on what is software architecture. There is a good chance this reveals expectations towards architecture formulated in a less architecture-centric manner.