Graeme
Kevlin HenneyI have found myself teaching and encouraging teams to use ADRs more and more in recent years.
I am, however, constantly surprised by the failure modes that people find themselves in, typically through no fault of their own.
For example, rather than keep ADRs low ceremony and next to the code, a surprising number of companies end up using MS Office, Sharepoint, etc., thereby defeating most of the stated aim, benefits and affordances of ADRs as intended.
Rather than eliminating bureaucracy and lowering the barrier to entry, they do precisely the opposite.
Instead of treating these as easy-to-write items that can be written during a meeting, alongside a conversation, as part of the code-and-test cycle, in a review, many developers treat ADRs as a separate work item.
They then put them as tasks to be tracked (way to go to make more work!) or, even worse (one I came across today), they put them in the backlog (way to go to get valuable work deprioritised!).
ADRs should be integrated into the flow of development work, not separated from it.
A very common problem I see is that many ADRs do not succinctly record or focus on the actual decision. Instead, they waffle around the decision and describe all the alternatives that were not taken.
This not only makes the individual ADR less concise and harder to read, but also makes the decision look generic.
You see this vagueness in ADR titles like "Database decision". The title is not supposed to be *about* the decision; it *is* the decision.
I.e., "SQL Server adoption" is a decision, "MongoDB adoption" is a different decision, etc.
That means, each alternative is a separate decision, so "SQL Server adoption" is one decision and "MongoDB adoption" is a different decision written up in a different ADR. You decide to accept one of these and reject the other, but both are recorded.
Importantly, should you reverse or otherwise revise your design decision later, you deprecate one and adopt the other, and this is reflected in their version controlled status. You don't edit and retcon one big uber-ADR.
A lot of what you need to know about how to write ADRs well, such as this separation of concerns, describing consequences well, naming them, etc. comes from the patterns community.
We spent a significant portion of POSA5 describing these concepts and points of style in some detail.
Given how poorly most people document and communicate design rationale, there is a strong case for me to reboot my pattern writing workshops and just rebrand them ADR writing workshops 😄
Based on some of the discussions and suggestions, my slightly playful/flippant suggestion seems to warrant follow through: I now plan to start doing some talks and workshops on ADRs, what they're for, who they're for, how to write them, common failure modes, common adaptations, etc.
Tamir Bahar
Nolan
Ryan Adams@kevlin How would you respond to the argument that keeping ADRs alongside code is intimidating to non-programmer stakeholders? And has a negative impact on collaboration and discoverability?
Johannes Brodwall@ryangadams @kevlin To be flippant, I don't think non-programmer stakeholders need to participate in architectural decisions
(Simplified and crude, but essentially true)
@ryangadams @kevlin Indeed! There are many architectural decisions that probably aren't appropriate for ADRs
Perhaps the most fundamental architectural decisions of many projects is "native app or web". Every stakeholder cares about this. But its probably never suited for an ADR-like process
@ryangadams @kevlin using the same tools for different processes with different people doesn't usually give a simpler outcome
@ryangadams @kevlin One important oversimplification of this statement: this mostly only apply to those architectural decisions where ADRs are suitable
@ryangadams I would respond that this sounds like a strawman argument rather than one with any real substance. It is best to focus on real problems rather than imagined ones.
If the presence of ADRs was demonstrated to have a demoralising or disenfranchising effect on non-programmer stakeholders, that would be worth addressing. But if such an effect was not demonstrated, then there is no problem to solve.
@kevlin it came up when I discussed this on the instil slack... I think some of us have started putting architecture docs on confluence so moving to a plain text git solution is the concern rather than noon-programming stakeholders being a strawman for ADRs
@ryangadams That puts a slightly different complexion on it. As a fan of the Wiki way, this is very much in the spirit of ADRs: although there is separation, there is low-friction access to editing and there is versioning. That others can also easily access it is a collateral benefit, but not necessarily a primary motivator.
Andy Longshaw@kevlin agree with this as well. Although it’s not a pattern I find the discipline of drawing out forces and clearly defining the problem to be solved to be really useful disciplines for anything like this.
darkflibDo it, any way you can encourage good practice...
mfriedenhagen@kevlin so a process, where you write an ADR which has to be approved via a ticket by a "real" architect before it may be presented in two meetings, the second of which might include the CTO sounds like too much ceremony, right?
@mfriedenhagen Yeah... right 😱
@kevlin to be fair: maybe we abuse the form of ADRs here a bit maybe. The process and number of steps depend on the number of other systems affected by the decision *and* the potential risk for the company, so the flight-level is very divergent ☺️
@mfriedenhagen One of the important things about ADRs is you don't just document what many people think of as 'big' architecture, because you don't always know in advance what will become big; you document any design decision that involved alternatives and discussion and change.
The idea of adding friction to the process works against the goals of ADRs and, if done fully, means you would need clearance for many small decisions. This would have a braking and breaking effect on development.
@kevlin as said (but maybe expressed poorly by me), things affecting only one piece of software without interaction to systems of other teams/squads do not require any process, there we just write down the decision. If others do you use a central system, you need some kind of stakeholder management and to not forget anyone there is this process.
@kevlin 💯
Not sure why people don’t instinctively get this but maybe it’s only if you’ve been exposed to event-based systems.
Not sure why people don’t instinctively get this but maybe it’s only if you’ve been exposed to event-based systems.
Daniel has moved@kevlin Indeed, and I go further. The ADR title should be an active statement: “Adopt SQL Server as primary RDB”
𝚃𝚘𝚖 𝙷𝚘𝚠𝚊𝚛𝚍@kevlin, I agree. It's handy for the decision to be skimmable, by the title to be a succinct summary of the decision (e.g. "Use JSON in REST API responses" not "Dataformat for REST API responses")
Emily Bache@kevlin i wonder if @tekiegirl agrees? We were discussing this very topic recently in the context of an architectural competition we were both judges of.
Jacqui Read@emilybache @kevlin very important points!
All methods and processes eventually come down to people. If they are hard to do then people won't do them, or at least won't prioritize them.
Store ADRs where they are easy to access and edit. Make them part of the workflow and expected.
They do need to contain more than just the decision, but there is a balance between information and fluff.
My upcoming book, #CommunicationPatterns, has a section on creating effective ADRs 😉
Matej Završnik@kevlin I convinced my team that there is value in also documenting why some decisions were not made, not just why the chosen one was made. My rationale was that over time you forget why seemingly superior option wasn't selected and then you might invest again into it, or the context around that option might have changed and it has now become feasible, or many other outcomes. You think that it was a mistake convincing the team to do that?
@matejpp This is a good idea. Document these as ADRs as well, simply tagged as 'Rejected'/'Proposed'/'Not Adopted' depending on the style of your ADRs. This is sometimes a better place to document alternatives than in the ADR that was accepted. It is also possible that the status may change in future, i.e., the decision is changed to accept something previously rejected.
@kevlin Could you talk about his good places to put ADRs? I've seen md-files in Git, but perhaps not optimal for new folks to get an overview
@jhannes As ADRs are intended to be low-ceremony (i.e., text or light mark-up/down) and version controlled, the VCS is their natural home.
However, there is more that can be done to structure them in terms of hierarchy/directory, naming, tagging, etc. And using them as source, a set of easily navigable web pages could be generated from them to make them more accessible.
@kevlin would you consider e.g. GitHub issues? Tagging, status, voting and searching built in
@jhannes Yes, that could work.
Whatever a team can make work for them and whatever feels like the thing that they are most likely to continue doing is what I would recommend.
The main challenge of ADRs is not the tech but creating the habit. Anything that lowers that barrier to entry is worth considering and experimenting with.
Paulo Koch@kevlin MOAR TICKETS! FEED THE MOLOCH!
Anton Stöckl ✅@kevlin No surprise, sadly. We know that those types of people (managers) exist and they are very reluctant to move an inch away from „this is how we have always done it“.
So documentation must be buried inside some data kraken because „documentation is for everyone“ and „code is for developers“. Which is wrong on so many levels.
Alternative opinion: It‘s easier for Elmo to find that to decide whom to fire tomorrow. :-/
@kevlin in some cases is this is (a misguided effort) to make the storage and use of decision records consistent across things orgs code and things orgs buy?
Reinhard Lackner@kevlin
Are you talking about "Architectural Decision Records (ADRs)"?
If yes, then here's a link for those, like myself, who didn't know what it is: https://adr.github.io/
Architectural Decision Records (ADRs)
An Architectural Decision (AD) is a justified design choice that addresses a functional or non-functional requirement that is architecturally significant. An Architecturally Significant Requirement (ASR) is a requirement that has a measurable effect on the architecture and quality of a software and/or hardware system. An Architectural Decision Record (ADR) captures a single AD and its rationale; the collection of ADRs created and maintained in a project constitute its decision log. All these are within the topic of Architectural Knowledge Management (AKM), but ADR usage can be extended to design and other decisions (“any decision record”).
@macf00bar Yes, I am. Thanks for adding the link to the conversation 👍
@kevlin you're welcome
Tim is wearing a mask 🌈@kevlin Architectural Decision Record?
Kyle Brown@kevlin I keep saying this and will keep repeating it. ADR's go in Github with your code. ADR's go in Github with your code. https://medium.com/@kylegenebrown/gitarchitecture-a-better-way-to-capture-architectural-decisions-b3574a3d604
Marco Bresciani@kgb1001001
Done: https://codeberg.org/marco.bresciani/TKCompanionApp/src/branch/master/docs/architecture
Even though I'm deciding everything by myself, it's a good exercise for improving in collaboration and code architecture documentation.
@kevlin
Done: https://codeberg.org/marco.bresciani/TKCompanionApp/src/branch/master/docs/architecture
Even though I'm deciding everything by myself, it's a good exercise for improving in collaboration and code architecture documentation.
@kevlin
Mike Gasparelli@kevlin We're looking to get started with ADRs, but no one on the team has written any before. Do you have any good links for reading material that will set us up for success?
@mgasparelli There's a lot out there, some material better than others. I tend to start with Michael Nygard's original piece:
https://cognitect.com/blog/2011/11/15/documenting-architecture-decisions
And often recommend people follow with this from Spotify:
https://engineering.atspotify.com/2020/04/when-should-i-write-an-architecture-decision-record/
And then there's Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture, Volume 5, much of which is understanding how to write patterns, on which ADRs are based and share DNA.
@kevlin Much appreciated!
@kevlin hey kevlin, can you maybe a definition of what ADR stands for? so the people less hip and groovy can understand too
Jeff Grigg@kevlin "Architectural Decision Records", I presume.
As I come from an XP perspective, I have to be skeptical of external technical documentation.
But with my traditional background, I have a much stronger commitment to persistent *summary* doc of the overall system and its architecture (including ERDs).
But documenting every "big" decision? I'm having a hard time seeing that work well, and would like to know more.
...
@kevlin I suspect that many "big decision documents" are full of B.S. because the actual decision was "Because the boss says so." or some other similarly arbitrary and irrational thing. And you'd get fired for telling the truth. So you have to fill The Official Document with a bunch of meaningless B.S.
@kevlin Why did we *really* adopt this 3rd party service? Well, a certain VP had a conflict of interest, and forced us to fund his side hustle. We're ripping it out now that they left. So how could you document that honestly, when the VP was still there?