<\/p>\n
Like for the first two pillars, the process covering the final say in finalizing ADRs and what decisions are considered major enough to require an ADR would be different for every organization. ADRs are typically stored in a centralized repository or documentation tool and are accessible to all relevant teams. They should include information such as the problem being solved, the alternatives considered, the decision made, and the reasoning behind it. An ADR should be created by the team responsible for making the architectural decision. Technology Radar captures techniques, platforms, tools, languages and frameworks, and their level of adoption across an organization. The Radar helps teams to understand the technology landscape and make informed decisions about which technologies to use.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Storing them in a product repository won’t work for ADRs that cover a broader ecosystem than a single code base. We can use a build task to publish them to a product team’s website. Firstly they act as a record of decisions, allowing people months or years later to understand why the system is constructed in the way that it is.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Architectural decision making is a core responsibility of software architects; additional motivation for\/of the importance of architectural decisions as a first-class concept in software architecture can be found online. Good architectural decisions are context-aware, well-reasoned, and clearly communicated. Here\u2019s a five step process that helps technical teams not only make better decisions, but make them stick. Are there areas or people or teams that can have more influence than others regarding an ADR, such as being able to approve it, or vote on it, or veto it? The challenge is that architectural decisions are usually made under conditions of uncertainty. To avoid duplication, you may use ADRs to agree on particular design choices for building a new major system change while agreeing on a broader usage of languages, tools, and practices using the Radar and Standards.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Some teams much prefer the name “decisions” over the abbreviation “ADRs”. For example, decision records are a way for teams to think smarter and communicate better; decision records are not valuable if they’re just an after-the-fact forced paperwork requirement. If you’re considering using decision records with your team, then here’s some advice that we’ve learned by working with many teams. An architecture decision record (ADR) is a document that captures an important architectural decision made along with its context and consequences. See which trade-offs it surfaced that your team hadn\u2019t fully articulated. \u201cAnalyze these three options against my criteria.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
C4 is a set of hierarchical diagrams for context, containers, components, code, plus supporting diagrams for system landscape, dynamic, and deployment. Arc42 includes architecture decision records plus guidance on goals, constraints, contexts, quality, risks, and more. Are all relevant stakeholders involved? Have the alternatives been considered? Consider areas such as acceptance criteria for an ADR, meaning how do you know it’s good enough to progress from one lifecycle step to the next? Consider areas such as the creation process, research process, decisioning process, implementation process, and sunsetting process.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n