Since 2010, the SEI and IEEE have been conferring two attendee-selected awards at SATURN. The IEEE Software SATURN Architecture in Practice Presentation Award is given to the presentation that best describes experiences, methods, and lessons learned from the implementation of architecture-centric practices. This year’s award winners were Jochem Schulenklopper and Eelco Rommes of inspearit for their presentation titled Why They Just Don’t Get It: Communicating Architecture to Business Stakeholders.
The second award, the IEEE Software SATURN New Directions Presentation Award, is given to the presentation that best describes innovative new approaches and thought leadership in the application of architecture-centric practices. This year’s award winners were Rebecca Wirfs-Brock of Wirfs-Brock Associates and Joseph Yoder of The Refactory, Inc. for their presentation titled QA to AQ: Shifting from Quality Assurance to Agile Quality.
In addition to reflecting the high regard of SATURN attendees, these awards also contribute to the maturation of the practice of software architecture by recognizing sound and innovative practices.
Posted in Architecture and Agile, Architecture-Centric Engineering, Architecture-Centric Practices, SATURN Conference
Tagged agile, business architecture, quality assurance, SATURN 2015, software architecture, software design, software engineering, Software Engineering Institute
Notes by Ziyad Alsaeed, edited by Tamara Marshall-Keim
Under N: Acceptance to Delivery in N Hours
Umashankar Velusamy, Verizon Communications, Inc.
Umashankar started the presentation with a simple question: Are all deliveries the same? Humans take about 9 months to “deliver” babies. Cats and dogs take about 2 months to do so. So not all deliveries are the same. In the software industry, the same thing applies—different deliveries take different amounts of time. However, we tend to apply a one-size-fits-all solution to everything. Umashankar asked another question: Does it make since to wait 2 weeks or even 2 months for something to deliver, when it takes only 12 hours to deliver? It’s definitely doesn’t make sense, Umashankar answers.
Notes by Scott Shipp, edited by Tamara Marshall-Keim
CORBA to Web Services Migration Using Model-Driven Approaches and Offshoring
Georg Huettenegger, Credit Suisse
Huettenegger discussed challenges and lessons learned from migrating one of the world’s largest and most successful CORBA SOAs to a web services SOA.
Credit Suisse is an integrated global bank. It delivers all the possible services that a bank could offer. Credit Suisse employs more than 45,000 people from 160 nations.
The current Credit Suisse SOA is “nice, yet limited.” Where it is headed is not good. It has over 2,500 CORBA service operations, there are 20–30 Mill CORBA calls per day, and there are about 400 consuming applications. With such a large scale and with such widely distributed employees, maybe Agile is not the way to go.
Posted in Architecture-Centric Engineering, Architecture-Centric Practices, SATURN Conference
Tagged business architecture, EA, enterprise architecture, SATURN 2014, SATURN Conference, software architecture, software design, software development, software engineering
Start down the path to using architecture-centric practice more effectively. Join SEI researchers on February 28 at 1:00 pm ET for a FREE webinar, Architecting Software the SEI Way: Essential Steps Toward Mastery.
Get an expert perspective on three key areas in this webinar:
- Fundamentals: Learn what software architecture is and why it is important
- Improved Practice: Get a quick look at architecture evaluation guidelines
- Bridging Technical and Business Goals: See how to use architecture methods to analyze and evaluate enterprise architectures
Posted in Architecture-Centric Engineering, Architecture-Centric Practices, Conferences and Events
Tagged architecture evaluation, architecture review, Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method, ATAM, business architecture, enterprise architecture, SEI, software architecture, software architecture evaluation, software architecture requirements, software architecture review, software design, software development, software engineering, Software Engineering Institute
Managing Architecture for Value
John Favaro, Associate Editor in Chief, IEEE Software
Abstract and presentation materials
These are notes from John Favaro’s IEEE Software plenary talk on May 19, 2011 at SATURN 2011.
Elephant in the room metaphor—deliberately ignoring an impending issue. Everyone knows it’s there, no one talks about it.
One such elephant is business value. Mentioned everywhere, not clearly defined or is pushed onto others to resolve.
A truism in the software development business is that systems exist to support business goals. Any system design decisions that does not support business goals should not be made, and system design decisions that do support the business goals should be prioritized based on the particular goals.
The assumptions made in the above statement are that the business goals for a system are explicit and agreed upon by all stakeholders. Unfortunately, these assumptions are rarely true. More frequently, different stakeholders have different business goals for a particular system (often conflicting), some business goals are implicit and unstated, and still other business goals are not realizable.
Last month I attended the Joint Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture and European Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA/ECSA 2009).
This was the eighth WICSA offering in a series of conferences beginning in 1999. Continue reading
Posted in Architecture-Centric Engineering, Conferences and Events
Tagged business architecture, design, documentation, EA, enterprise architecture, SATURN Conference, software architecture, software design, software development, software engineering, system architecture, systems architecture
Just heard the very interesting keynote from Zachman at the conference, and there is one thought I cannot get out of my mind.
The Zachman framework is about architecting the enterprise in terms of What?, How?, Where?, Who?, When?, and Why? from several different perspectives, such as the owners, architects, engineers, etc.
I see several similarities that software architecture tries to answer, therefore would it make sense to use the Zachman framework for software only products? I could see for example to structure the architecture documentation in this way. It might help to easily extract the information needed for the different stakeholders, such as the management, the developers, etc.
Any one with experience in this topic? Any thoughts?
– Felix Bachmann, SEI
As we kick-off the fifth annual SATURN conference, we’re also excited to announce a new effort to engage architecture experts and practitioners: the SATURN Network Blog.
Posted in SATURN Conference
Tagged business architecture, Carnegie Mellon, EA, enterprise architecture, IT architecture, SATURN Conference, SATURN Network, software architecture, software engineering, Software Engineering Institute, system architecture