Myth: Architecture is a deductive process; Architects are deductive thinkers

Leave a comment

27 Mar 2017 by mallyanitin

A deductive process is top-down. It’s data driven. It’s logical. It’s rational. It’s normative. Most architects connect their priorities to a business vision or a customer use-case. They would collect data about use-cases and current state of problems to deduce a new target state. An execution plan is built to reach this target state.

Alternatively, an inductive process is bottom-up. It’s heuristic. It’s collaborative. An inductive process is one where patterns emerge and induce architecture decisions. The assumption in such a process is that use-cases are known but not understood, and architecture decisions should not be finalized until “rubber hits the road”. Action-biased & fail-fast, & change acceptance culture.

Example: Deductive

  • We analyzed all potential use-cases. We need to create Service-X, Service-Y and Service-Z; as deduced from the use-cases. These services shall be compliant to the SOA architecture style. The implementation shall use this as guidance and architecture will govern non-compliance to this guidance.

Example: Inductive.

  •  We will start with use-case-1; We will implement a thin slice of use-case-1, and this process creates Service-A. We continue this process for use-case-2. To meet use-case-1 and use-case-2, we need to modify Service-A to Service-A1 and create new Service-B. This process leads to (induces) services A1 & B. Continuing this approach, when we are done, we will have services A5, B2, C3 and D1.

Some agile practices, also use the term “intentional architecture” for deductive and “emergent design” for inductive; and recommend a little bit of both to evolve architecture.

Architecture is a process of planning. Planning is deductive by design. Therefore, architecture is a deductive process; and architects architecting architecture are deductive thinkers. This statement is an error in deductive reasoning.

A modern architect needs to embrace both deductive and inductive thinking in architecture. The architect has to create a reference target & plan, but also modify from feedback. The architect needs to understand the perils of each type of thinking and adapt

  • Deductive could be time consuming (analysis-paralysis)
  • Inductive could create a mess (architectural debt)

Both methods could lead to waste. Balance is critical.

Personally, my natural bias is deductive. My adapted style is inductive. I do get stressed out when I am pure inductive. I have not yet found my balance; but have realized that balance is critical.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

mallyanitin

mallyanitin

A leader! Attracted to creativity and innovation. Inspired by simplicity.

View Full Profile →

Architecture Quotes

"Practicing Architects are consultants. Empower them to make them Architects"

"Architecture is the art of keeping things simple. This can get complex"

"Good architecture can be seen, great architecture does not even get in the way of eyes"

"Sometimes a great architecture choice, is not to do anything"

"A good architecture, is great enough, if simple enough to build"

Archives

%d bloggers like this: