Representation Options |
The Architectural Proof-of-Concept may take many forms, for example:
-
a list of known technologies (frameworks, patterns, executable architectures) which seem appropriate to the
solution
-
a sketch of a conceptual model of a solution using a notation such as UML
-
a simulation of a solution
-
an executable prototype
The decision about whether or not an Architectural Proof-of-Concept is required and what form it should take depends
on:
-
how well the domain is understood - if the domain is unfamiliar, the Architectural Proof-of-Concept may not only
explore possible solutions, but may also help the customer and development organizations understand and clarify
requirements
-
the novelty of the system - if the development organization has constructed many such systems previously then it
should not be necessary to build a proof-of-concept - it should be possible to base a determination of feasibility
on existing reference architectures and technologies
-
whether or not, even though the domain is familiar and the system is precedented, any of the requirements are
judged to be particularly onerous; for example, ultra-high transaction rates or extreme reliability are required
The higher the risk, the more effort needs to be put into this architectural synthesis activity in Inception (with the
expectation of more realistic results from the models produced and assessed), so that all stakeholders can be convinced
that the basis for committing funds and continuing into Elaboration is credible. However, it has to be recognized that
all risks cannot be eliminated in this phase. The Inception phase should not be distorted into a de-facto Elaboration
phase.
|