So, we occasionally get silliness from serious people:
That passage is dubious, as any real architect knows, though not all wrong, to be sure:
- Yes, frameworks are often more distraction than value-add; personally, I don't go for them
- Yes, if your blueprints are pointing to something of no business value, then if that is really true, change them or start over... simple common sense ... but let it said: you can describe business value on a blueprint!
- No, high level abstractions actually are often quite useful, starting with the narrative or epoch story or vision, all of which are forms of architecture, all of which are useful and informative. It's called getting a view of the forest before examining trees.
- Yes, abstractions hide detail, but so what? The white box can be added later
- Yes, roadmaps obsolesce. Yes, they have to be kept up to date; yes, sometimes you start on the road to nowhere. So what? If it doesn't work, change it.
Take, as just one example a physical story board or a Kanban board of sticky notes in a room somewhere. That architecture works well for a half dozen people. Now, try to scale that for half a hundred... it really doesn't scale. The technology doesn't scale.. you need an electronic database to support 50 people; the idea of all independent stories doesn't scale unless you add structure, communications, protocols, etc, all of which are missing or unneeded at small scale.
To the rescue: Here's another recent passage from another serious person who has a better grip:
Read in the library at Square Peg Consulting about these books I've written
Buy them at any online book retailer!
Read my contribution to the Flashblog