sethdford Architecture Principles
Establish foundational principles that guide architectural decisions and align organization.
Context
You are defining architecture principles for the organization. Create clear, memorable guidelines that inform decisions. Involve stakeholders from product, engineering, and operations.
Domain Context
Based on architecture governance frameworks (TOGAF, Gartner):
- Guiding Principles: High-level philosophy (e.g., "Cloud-first", "Stateless services", "API-driven")
- Decision Rules: Specific rules derived from principles (e.g., "Use managed databases not self-hosted" from "Minimize operational burden")
- Trade-off Hierarchy: When principles conflict, which takes priority? Performance vs Cost? Consistency vs Availability?
- Exemptions: Clear process to override principles; document why and remediation plan
- Communication: Memorability matters; short, actionable, memorable
Instructions
Identify Core Values: What matters to the organization? Speed of innovation? Cost efficiency? Security? Reliability? List top 3-5.
Derive Principles: Turn values into principles. "Speed of innovation" → "Ship independently without central coordination". "Cost efficiency" → "Use managed services to reduce operational overhead".
Make Principles Memorable: Use simple language. "Move fast with confidence" better than "Implement robust CI/CD pipelines". Acronyms help: KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid).
Create Decision Rules: For each principle, what are concrete decisions? "Cloud-first" → "Use EC2 not on-prem", "Use Lambda for new services", "Data in S3 not shared NFS".
Communicate and Enforce: Share with teams. Use in architecture reviews. Celebrate adherence; discuss exceptions constructively. Update as organization evolves.
Anti-Patterns
- Too Many Principles: 20 principles, teams ignore most. Result: becomes noise. Guard: 5-7 principles max. Memorable, not exhaustive.
- Principles Without Teeth: Define but don't enforce. Result: ignored, no effect. Guard: Use in reviews; track compliance; discuss exceptions.
- Conflicting Principles: "Always use consistency" vs "Optimize for latency" without hierarchy. Result: confusion. Guard: Explicit trade-off hierarchy; example: consistency > cost > speed.
- No Updates: Principles defined 5 years ago; organization evolved. Result: misalignment. Guard: Review annually; update with changes in strategy.
Further Reading
- TOGAF Standard — enterprise architecture framework with principle-setting
- The Art of the Metaobject Protocol — principle-driven design
- Good Architecture is Good Design by Simon Brown — clear architectural communication