System rigidity in software development

What if everything you know about software architecture conflicts with how the real world actually works? Listen to my conversation with Barry O'Reilly as we explore a radical rethinking of software architecture, one that embraces uncertainty and complexity. This is one of those truly intriguing conversations that reshapes my perspectives on software architecture. I was deeply immersed in the research and preparation for this episode, especially when reading Barry's thought-provoking books. Key topics we cover in this episode: ⤷ 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁’𝘀 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗼𝘅: Why rigid logic fails when applied to human systems and business complexity. ⤷ 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲: Why requirements engineering and rigid models often fall short in practice. ⤷ 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗼𝗿𝘆: A revolutionary approach focused on how systems collapse and adapt over time. ⤷ 𝗖𝗼𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘃𝘀. 𝗖𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆: Designing architectures that survive off-spec scenarios rather than aiming for perfection. ⤷ 𝗣𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗼𝗽𝗵𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲: Unpacking hidden ��default” philosophies that shape how we build software – and why they need to change. ⤷ 𝗘𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘀𝗲𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀: Humility, pessimism, and embracing uncertainty as tools for success.  Whether you’re a developer, architect, or business leader, this episode will challenge your assumptions and inspire new ways of thinking about software architecture!

The Single Worst Mistake New Agile Teams Make The worst mistake new Agile teams make isn’t about specific tools, roles, practices, or frameworks. It’s clinging to those initial tools, roles, practices, and frameworks too closely, at the expense of adaptability. Teams understand Agile is about creating and responding to change but may not realize that "change" doesn’t just apply to priorities and requirements; it also applies to processes. The Problem with Rigidity New teams pour significant energy into selecting tools, defining roles, and implementing frameworks. These are important starting points, but many teams treat them as permanent. They might lock themselves into an unsuitable tool, follow a framework without adapting it, or refuse to reconsider earlier choices. Rigidity undermines agility. Some teams also try to anticipate and solve every problem at the outset, assuming every decision must be made immediately to avoid uncertainty. This leads to poorly informed choices. Many decisions are best deferred until the team gains experience. Waiting until the last responsible moment grounds choices in real-world lessons instead of premature assumptions. Why Teams Fall Into This Trap Some teams mistake consistency for discipline. For others, rigidity stems from fear. Fear of looking disorganized, fear of instability, or fear of failure. Teams may misunderstand Agile, treating frameworks like rulebooks instead of flexible systems. New teams may confuse planning with foresight, even though locking in decisions too soon creates waste and inflexibility. Costs of Over-Adherence When teams don’t adapt, they miss opportunities to innovate as tools and processes grow misaligned. Frustration builds as inefficiencies mount, but nothing changes. The focus shifts from delivering value to following processes. Front-loading decisions makes things worse. Teams waste time regretting choices they didn’t need to make so early. The illusion of control unravels when real-world challenges demand adjustments that a flexible approach could handle better. Avoid the Rigidity Trap Every sprint, retro, and review is an opportunity to inspect and adapt what’s working and what isn’t. Deferring decisions until the last responsible moment lets teams act on insights instead of assumptions. Flexibility drives growth, continuous improvement, and value delivery. Initial tools, roles, and frameworks should be sails, not anchors; hypotheses to test, not commitments to keep. Focus on delivering outcomes, not following processes. Retros are great for identifying what isn’t working and brainstorming improvements. Revisit past decisions regularly to ensure they still meet needs. Defer decisions until necessary to reduce complexity and keep processes aligned with team context, maintaining focus on value. Nothing is sacred except the commitment to improve. Success doesn’t come from getting it right at the start but from continuously inspecting, adapting, and improving.

We've all encountered it, or perhaps even inherited it: the Salesforce org that's become an unmanageable "Big Ball of Mud." It's easy to blame sloppy coding, but often the root cause is deeper—a gradual decay of architectural integrity over time. Think of it as the second law of thermodynamics applied to software. Every change, every quick fix, every workaround adds a tiny bit of disorder. Without active counter-measures, this disorder, or entropy, accumulates. The solution isn't just to "clean up the code" once in a while. It's about embedding continuous architectural attention into your development process. This means: • 𝗥𝗲𝗴𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗿 𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄𝘀: Not just code reviews, but assessments that specifically evaluate the overall system structure and dependencies. • 𝗥𝗲𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗵𝗮𝗯𝗶𝘁: Make refactoring a continuous activity, not a "big bang" project that happens once a year (or never). • 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗲𝗰𝗵𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲: Establish clear architectural guidelines and enforce them consistently. • 𝗙𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗽: Every new feature request should be evaluated not just for its business value, but also for its impact on overall system complexity. Architectural entropy is inevitable, but it's manageable. The key is to be proactive, not reactive. Want to learn more about preventing architectural decay and other common Salesforce pitfalls? Check out "Salesforce Anti-Patterns" for practical strategies and real-world examples. 

The Hidden Trap in "You Aren't Gonna Need It" I've noticed a concerning pattern with software teams who rigidly apply YAGNI (You Aren't Gonna Need It): They're building systems that can't evolve. The issue isn't with YAGNI itself - it's a valuable principle. The problem is how it's often misinterpreted as "don't think about tomorrow at all." This creates a false conflict that many developers struggle with daily: • Implement only what's needed today (and risk painting yourself into a corner) • OR build for every possible future (and create bloated, overengineered systems) But here's the secret skilled architects know: This is a false dichotomy. The real skill isn't avoiding thinking about the future - it's understanding which architectural decisions permanently close doors. I call this "strategic flexibility" - designing systems where the right doors remain open without overengineering. I've seen this repeatedly in my 18+ years in software architecture: Teams proudly declare they follow YAGNI, yet create tightly coupled systems with hardcoded business rules. When partnership opportunities arise or regulations change, what should be simple adaptations become major rewrites. Here's a real example from one of my projects: We were getting all data from a single provider. A strict YAGNI approach might suggest "just call their API directly wherever needed." Instead, we created a simple abstraction layer - not an overly complex, configurable solution, but enough separation that when we later needed to add a second provider, we could do so without rewriting the entire system. That's keeping the right doors open. Requirements WILL change. Domains WILL evolve. That's not speculation - it's the nature of software development. Working with uncertainty doesn't mean building for every possibility. It means: 1. Identifying which constraints are truly necessary today 2. Recognizing which decisions will be costly to reverse later 3. Creating clean boundaries that allow for future adaptation Yes, YAGNI is valuable as a check against implementation complexity. But it should never be an excuse to avoid thoughtful design. As developers and architects, our job isn't to predict the future - it's to create systems that can gracefully adapt when the inevitable changes come. What's your experience with balancing immediate needs versus keeping the right doors open? Have you seen YAGNI misapplied in ways that created long-term problems? #SoftwareArchitecture #YAGNI #StrategicFlexibility #SoftwareDevelopment