How Less Viable Solutions Solve Common Architectural Challenges

Deciding on an Architecture

The important thing when setting architectural direction is to always implement the smallest viable solution. Most people tend to get themselves into a sandbox where they look for the perfect architecture to solve all of their problems.

The key thing here is to take the inverse approach. First, I recommend analyzing the problems, noting which ones are most critical and which ones are least critical. After that, it’s about designing a step of architecture that is the least viable solution for the most critical problem. The reasoning behind this is that while you’re shaping the architectural direction, features teams and innovation don’t stop.

By the time you’ve spent weeks building the perfect architectural vision, the product is at a new version, and things have changed. The essential part of architectural design is to identify problems quickly and work to the least feasible solution.

An Introduction to Flexibility:

By using less viable solutions, teams are able to be more flexible with the architecture. Without planning the ultimate end result, architecture can solve the first problem and be iterated upon in the future.

Architecture is often thought of as the foundation that everything is built – but it’s not. If you use this model, you’ll improve your technology for some time until you find yourself back in the same position. The best architectural model is iterative, just like any product or feature you’re delivering.

Trade-Offs:

The answer to any architectural question is: it depends. Don’t evaluate and pick tools based on best practices in the industry. Just because you see a lot of chatter about a specific type of solution doesn’t mean it will be right for your company. Look at the bounds in which you’re working and come to an architectural decision with that in mind.