Random Acts of Architecture

Tales of an architect trying to bring order to the chaos that is modern information technology.

Tag Archives: Documentation

Big Design Up Front versus Emergent Design

BDUF vs Emergent Design(This post is in response to Hayim Makabee’s posts on emergent design and adaptable design along with some of the follow-up discussions, such as the thread in the “97 Things Every Software Architect Should Know” Linkedin Group and Gene Hughson’s post on emergence vs evolution.)

One argument software architects regularly encounter is that time spent designing systems is wasted. Many say that “big design up front” is not the agile way and “emergent design” is more effective. This cuts straight to the value proposition of an architect. If up front design has no place in the Agile world, are architects redundant?

To most people, “big design up front” (BDUF), sometimes called “big up front design” (BUFD), means a lengthy, detailed design created at the start of a project. It works on three assumptions. First, one can create requirements for a project. Second, one can create a design to meet those requirements. Third, the design’s suitability for meeting the requirements can be evaluated without implementing it. In other words, there can be good designs and bad designs.

Meanwhile, emergent design means minimal or no design up front (NDUF). It works on the assumption both the requirements and design must be deduced so the team starts developing the product and iterates as they learn more about the problem and the solution. The process finishes at a predetermined time or when “good enough” requirements and design “emerge”.

By inference, emergent design assumes designs are often highly problem/solution specific. Adapting existing designs may create more work than they save. It also removes the focus from providing value to following the design.

Emergent design is quite popular among Agile and Lean practitioners. They argue emergent design reduces some waste (unnecessary work) by not creating lengthy documents that people may never read. Of the read design documents, few are updated as changes are made. Many developers are so cynical they refuse to read documentation and jump straight to the code to answer questions.

Big design up front may encourage over design. Unnecessary features may be added (violating the YAGNI principle) or the system may be unnecessarily complex (violating the KISS principal). Emergent design, particularly when coupled with Test Driven Design (TDD), can produce the minimum code required to meet a requirement and no more.

Big design up front may create an illusion the team knows more than they do. This may prompt decisions when the team knows the least about the problem, meaning big design up front can become big commitment up front. Meanwhile, a team that delays making decisions until necessary may discover different features are needed.

Big design up front’s assumptions are also not always true. Every project has a goal but it may not be clear how to get there. Most startups do not have quantifiable requirements, for example, where coding is more experimenting than implementing. New technologies may supersede old techniques or require new ones, meaning designs are either too difficult to create or cannot be evaluated without implementation.

However, proponents of big design up front point out that designing is often more useful than design documents. The design exercise validates and challenges requirements, explores edge cases and discovers mistakes. Without it, developers often dive straight into low level details and even a short time thinking about the problem can expose assumptions or alternate solutions they would otherwise miss.

Emergent design assumes change is cheap. A lot of effort and attention has been directed to this. Continuous integration and continuous delivery aim to make releasing easy. Test Driven Design (TDD) and automated testing aim to find regressions quickly. Agile methodologies like Scrum provide visibility and guidance on how to manage change.

However, not every change is cheap. Hardware can be difficult or impossible to change once manufactured. Network infrastructure changes need to be scheduled to minimize impact to others. Engaging external vendors may require lengthy contract negotiations. Legacy code may lack sufficient automated unit test coverage. Aspects like security, compliance and scalability are difficult to retrofit.

Similarly, software development must be accountable to the organization. Required skills and teams must be hired or contracted. Budgets must be determined. Progress is usually tracked against milestones and must be approved based on return on investment (ROI) estimations. Risks must be identified and mitigated. Early designs (as part of architectures) can help drive all of this.

Designs present abstracted views of the system, emphasizing important decisions and removing noise. This means designs can also be reviewed by others before the more expensive and time consuming implementation to find weaknesses or suggest improvements. Designs of notable projects can teach others, either by following or avoiding them.

The problem with comparing big design up front against emergent design is it usually devolves into straw man arguments. Neither are absolutes. Good big design up front recognizes some design and details are filled in during development. Good emergent design must start with some idea of how the system will work.

Both big design up front and emergent design can be done badly. Poor big design up front can miss important factors, provide a poor solution or communicate good ideas badly. Poor emergent design can waste time rewriting code, introduce regressions and impede governance. Both can create a big ball of mud. However, big design up front need not be change averse. Emergent design need not be chaotic and unpredictable.

Big design up front and emergent design are process agnostic. Big design up front originated in waterfall processes. As mentioned above, emergent design is common with agile development methodologies. However, emergent design can be used within a waterfall design phase (prototyping) or for defined components during development (spikes). A team using agile development methodologies may do some design inside, outside or between iterations.

Both approaches can be combined. For example, adaptable design is a technique where parts of the system that anticipate change,such as unknown or changing requirements, are designed to accommodate them.

Looking at the comparison from a different angle, what does “design” mean? Is it thinking about how to approach the system or is it documenting and communicating it? A small system may be something a developer can completely understand and describe in a few sentences. It has an implicit, undocumented design and can be iterated over time using emergent design. However, a large or complex system using a mix of legacy and new components whose development is split across different teams may need a different approach. In other words, the benefit of up front design increases as the system complexity increases.

Different approaches require different skills. Big design up front requires thinking about a system in abstract terms. It is skill that not every developer has, requiring breadth rather than depth, and is often why democratizing design fails. By contrast, emergent design embraces a detail and code focus, particularly with the focus on unit testing and small, incremental changes. This is one reason emergent design is more attractive to software developers.

Both big design up front and emergent design are tools a software development team can use. Rather than being excluded, software architects are in a unique position. They can help determine which approach is best for a situation. The real challenge for a software architect is knowing the right amount of design for a system and when to do it.

In Defense of Documentation

Anyone who has spent a modicum of time working with software developers learns that developers hate creating designs, use cases, “readmes”, code samples and similar technical documentation. Agile proponents point to the “working software over comprehensive documentation” principle and Lean proponents claim documentation is “waste” since it does not directly contribute to the finished product or customer value.

They have a point. Writing clear, understandable documents is hard and it takes time away from coding. Keeping them up-to-date when inevitable changes occur is similarly time-consuming, particularly large changes or redesigns. Consequently, many stop asking for documentation, exacerbating poor or absent documentation. Many developers argue “code is documentation”. It is always up to date and developers had to work to understand it. Why shouldn’t everyone else?

However, saying “code is the only documentation” is a fallacy. Well written and designed code and indicative automated tests can be good documentation but every project includes code the developers are not proud of. Software developers often think of themselves coding like athletes lining up for a race at the Olympics. They have spent years training and are lining up to compete under perfect conditions. However, frequently code is written when developers are tired, stressed or unfamiliar with the problem or tools and this produces less correct and readable code.

Also, and arguably more important, developers are not the only audience for technical documentation. QA (testers), localization, management and documentation writers (those that write the manuals and non-technical documentation) all need technical information about the product and usually cannot read code, at least not well enough to get the information they need time efficiently. Developers new to the product also need a starting point.

Part of the problem is that documentation, particularly in larger organizations, consists of word processed documents or E-mail. E-mail in particular is a poor choice since it is only available to the recipients and often gets lost. An internal Wiki is a better choice, since most maintain a change history, have centralized storage making the latest version easier to find, support access control, provide auditing and can notify users of changes. Wikis are not perfect, however, since their storage formats are often proprietary and they often lack features of modern word pressing tools.

Wikis also encourage splitting documentation from large, monolithic documents into smaller sections. Care must be taken to ensure consistency and information is easy to find but most Wikis support free text searches. This fits better into the Agile and Lean methodologies, where smaller documents are delivered when needed rather than complete documentation delivered up front.

Writing documentation forces developers to identify and empathize with their customers or other developers, encouraging them to simplify the product’s design, user interface, installation and/or configuration. Some techniques, such as Documentation Drive Development and Readme Driven Development, encourage starting from the documentation for this reason.

It seems that literacy has become a skill in the software development industry. We have fooled ourselves into thinking that developers are only productive if they are writing code and poor documentation is acceptable. As Albert Einstein said “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” Writing documentation forces developers out of their warm, cosy technical silos and back into the user world, reaquainting themselves with the problems the software is trying to solve.

%d bloggers like this: