Ana içeriğe atla

Data Mesh Principles and Logical Architecture

 Data Mesh Principles and Logical Architecture The great divide of data What do we really mean by data? The answer depends on whom you ask. Today’s landscape is divided into  operational data  and  analytical data . Operational data sits in databases behind business capabilities served with microservices, has a transactional nature, keeps the current state and serves the needs of the applications running the business. Analytical data is a temporal and aggregated view of the facts of the business over time, often modeled to provide retrospective or future-perspective insights; it trains the ML models or feeds the analytical reports. The current state of technology, architecture and organization design is reflective of the divergence of these two data planes - two levels of existence, integrated yet separate. This divergence has led to a fragile architecture. Continuously failing ETL (Extract, Transform, Load) jobs and ever growing complexity of labyrinth of data pipel...

Large Agile Projects

 Large Agile Projects

A common question is whether large projects can be done with agile techniques. After all many agile approaches are designed for smaller projects and the heavyweight ideas that they resist are more needed on bigger projects.

One of the main reasons that this is a question is because we don't know yet. New techniques tend to be tried on smaller projects first. Only when they work on a smaller scale do people try them on a larger scale, and even then it takes time to ramp up. With any technique or technology I wouldn't recommend using it on anything larger than twice the size of something you've used it successfully already.

Despite this much of what goes with agility has a background in larger systems, depending on what you call large. For software projects I think the primary measure of large is number of people. The people there are, the more the communication issues rise. XP's sweet spot is up to twenty team members. FDD looks to be more, more in the mid tens. Talking to Phillipe Kruchten, the lead designer of RUP, RUP at its essence is very much an agile approach and Phillipe has primarily worked with projects of over 200 people.

Scaling Agile methods is the last thing you should do

I used this phrase recently at the Canadian Agile Network. I meant it literally. I'm not saying that you shouldn't do large projects, I'm saying that trying to scale agile techniques up to big projects, while often necessary, shouldn't be your first choice.

A better approach is to try to scale down your project. At that workshop an unscientific straw poll revealed that most projects could lose about half the people of the project without making things go slower. Time and time again I hear of success occurring when a team is cut significantly in size. Large teams carry a big overhead in communication and management. Using smaller teams staffed with more able people is usually faster and cheaper, even if the everyone is more individually expensive.

Yorumlar

Bu blogdaki popüler yayınlar

ActivityOriented

  ActivityOriented Any significant software development effort requires several different activities to occur: analysis, user experience design, development, testing, etc. Activity-oriented teams organize around these activities, so that you have dedicated teams for user-experience design, development, testing etc. Activity-orientation promises many benefits, but software development is usually better done with   OutcomeOriented   teams. Traditionally, big businesses with large IT departments (Enterprise IT) have tended to execute IT development projects with a bunch of activity-oriented teams drawn from a matrix IT organization (functional organization). The solid-lined arms of the matrix (headed by a VP of development, testing and so on) are usually along activity boundaries and they loan out “resources” to dotted-lined project or program organizations. Common justifications for doing so include: It helps standardization of conventions and techniques in development if a...

Out come Oriented

 Out come Oriented  effort, better sales conversion, greater customer satisfaction, i.e business outcomes. Outcome-oriented teams are those that are mandated and equipped to deliver business outcomes, such teams have people with the capability to carry out all necessary activities to realize the outcome.. By contrast,  ActivityOriented  teams are neither equipped nor mandated to do so. They can only perform one of several activities required to realize an outcome. A mandate to deliver a business outcome is very different from a mandate to deliver a certain amount of scope. Scope delivery is easy, relatively speaking. Outcome realization requires real collaboration between those who understand the problem and those who can fashion various levels of solution for it. Initial attempts at solution lead to a better understanding of the problem which leads to further attempts at better solutions. This doesn’t work where the product management organization is separate from t...

AlignmentMap

  Alignment maps are organizational information radiators that help visualize the alignment of ongoing work with business outcomes. The work may be regular functionality addition or technical work such as re-architecting or repaying technical debt or improving the build and deployment pipeline. Team members use alignment maps to understand what business outcomes their day-to-day work is meant to improve. Business and IT sponsors use them to understand how ongoing work relates to the business outcomes they care about. Here’s an example scenario (inspired by real life) that illustrates how these maps may be useful. A team of developers had inefficiently implemented a catalog search function as N+1 calls. The first call to the catalog index returned a set of SKU IDs. For each ID returned, a query was then made to retrieve product detail. The implementation came to the attention of an architect when it failed performance tests. He advised the team to get rid of the N+1 implementation. ...