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.
|