Option appraisal pragmatic guide #392
Conversation
lhancock-scottlogic
left a comment
lhancock-scottlogic
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Great read, I learned some stuff about architecture decision-making today!
As a more general suggestion, you could capitalise the important words on your main title, section titles, quick checklists, etc., i.e. Options appraisal: a pragmatic guide for architecture decisions ->
Options Appraisal: A pragmatic guide for Architecture Decisions
| - success is multi-dimensional (*cost* AND *speed* AND *risk* AND *operability*...) | ||
| - I can already see future-me asking "why did we choose this again?" | ||
|
|
||
| If it's a low-risk choice or you're still exploring, a quick spike, PoC, or desk-based research is often enough. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It may be worth writing out "proof of concept" just for the first time it's written in this post, I had to rack my brain a bit for the acronym's meaning, as it's not one I see every day 😁
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fair enough, I have changed it to proof of concept :)
|
|
||
| Exploring options tends to surface new requirements, constraints, or stakeholder feedback, which in turn makes you revisit earlier assumptions and refine the problem you're trying to solve. | ||
|
|
||
|  |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It may be worth spacing the "no"s a little further from their arrows and adding the "yes"es in?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good point - I will space the "no" labels more! 😃
Re: the “yes” paths, I will probably keep it as-is. In this diagram the main vertical flow represents the “no” case, which is why it’s labelled. The “yes” paths are already visually distinct, so I would prefer to avoid cluttering the diagram.
| - the decision is hard to reverse (or expensive to change later) | ||
| - it cuts across different stakeholder groups, each with their own priorities | ||
| - success is multi-dimensional (*cost* AND *speed* AND *risk* AND *operability*...) | ||
| - I can already see future-me asking "why did we choose this again?" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Capitalising the first letters of each point would keep it consistent with the other lists :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess that's more of a style choice? Because the bullets continue the lead-in sentence and don’t use punctuation, I have kept them lower-case. It is consistent throughout the post as well, so unless it’s an absolute eyesore for anyone, I’d prefer to keep it this way 🙂
| | -------- | -------------------- | ------------- | ---------------- | ----- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | ||
| | Baseline | 5 → 15 | 1 → 5 | 4 → 8 | 28 | Known and operable, but weakest security posture | | ||
| | Option A | 3 → 9 | 3 → 15 | 4 → 8 | 32 | Balanced improvement with manageable operational cost | | ||
| | Option B | 1 → 3 | 5 → 25 | 1 → 2 | 30 | Pushes security to the maximum, but is the hardest option to live with day to day | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure if it's intentional, but the column separator line between Operability and Total is thicker than the other lines
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It wasn’t intentional, no... You have eagle eyes! 👀😄
This looks like a quirk of markdown table rendering, but it actually works quite nicely here as it separates the criteria from the total. I’m inclined to leave it unless it’s distracting?
Co-authored-by: lhancock-scottlogic <110816543+lhancock-scottlogic@users.noreply.github.com>
2 participants
Please add a direct link to your post here:
https://.github.io/blog/
Have you (please tick each box to show completion):
npm installfollowed bynpx mdspell "**/{FILE_NAME}.md" --en-gb -a -n -x -tif that's your thing)Posts are reviewed / approved by your Regional Tech Lead.