Maximizing Flexibility with Minimal Modular Architecture
Written on
Understanding the Need for Modularity
In the realm of technology, trends often overshadow practical business requirements, resulting in convoluted architectures that may hinder rather than help. Microservices, while trendy, are frequently implemented without a thorough comprehension of their ramifications.
To compete effectively in a rapidly changing landscape, organizations must adopt software architectures that ensure both present and future adaptability. While modularity can reduce complexity, it is Minimal Modular Architecture (MMA) that truly refines this concept into a just-in-time model.
MMA provides a structured, incremental approach to distributing services, considering not only the complexities of business but also the architectural implications and the capabilities of the organization. This enables sustainable growth.
MMA’s Definition and Purpose
At its essence, MMA delineates the minimal necessary architecture to segregate the complexities of specific software services, factoring in both organizational and technical constraints.
The goal of MMA is to strike a balance between the benefits of modularity and the associated costs and complexities of developing and managing services. Rather than advocating for a one-size-fits-all modular approach, MMA promotes an incremental distribution model that evolves with the complexity of services and the readiness of supporting software systems.
One of the fundamental principles of MMA is to require functional and code modularity independent of downstream technical layers such as deployment or infrastructure. A poorly designed software component, regardless of the technology stack, will struggle to meet business needs.
MMA offers a common framework for understanding various modularity models, including the often-misunderstood concept of "Microservices." Definitions vary widely: for some, microservices are standalone functions; for others, they are services that are easy to conceptualize, or even collections of independent services within an application. This lack of clarity compounds the complexities surrounding architecture.
MMA categorizes complexity distribution into five levels:
- Functions: Small, straightforward code snippets that accomplish specific tasks, isolating particular complexities.
- Modules: Larger software units that can be integrated or removed from the system, abstracting functions with a single data store.
- Macroservices: Combinations of modules that can be deployed and scaled together, often representing critical domain aspects.
- Miniservices: Targeted services that execute specific business functions and interact with others via well-defined interfaces.
- Microservices: Small, deployable services that collaborate to create a larger system, where delineating application boundaries is essential.
While granular solutions may seem appealing for early-stage separation of concerns, they necessitate significant industrialization and data reconciliation. The MMA model acknowledges that microservices are not universally applicable, and the ideal modularity level varies based on each organization's unique requirements and capabilities.
MMA and Business Complexity
The growing complexity and unpredictability of business processes present substantial challenges for contemporary software engineering. Organizations must manage these complexities effectively, especially in certain system areas, while ensuring scalability across the board.
To maintain agility, teams should focus on specific modules rather than the entire system. Achieving functional decoupling through minimal service distribution is critical for success.
Functional decoupling involves the separation of concerns, breaking down intricate systems into smaller, independent components that can be developed, tested, and deployed individually. This method has gained traction in software engineering, enhancing flexibility and maintainability.
In the context of MMA, emphasizing functional decoupling is vital for creating independent, reusable services. While these services should work harmoniously, they must also be replaceable without disrupting the system's overall functionality.
MMA and Architectural Impact
A significant aspect of MMA is its holistic view on service distribution and granularity levels. While some architects may have a comprehensive understanding of the entire system, most stakeholders possess only partial insights. To make informed decisions, it is essential to maintain a big-picture perspective.
MMA's service distribution model addresses modularity across all architectural layers—from enterprise to functional to infrastructure—and throughout the software pipeline, including design, coding, testing, deployment, operations, and observability.
This comprehensive view aids organizations in evaluating the implications of adopting a more granular architecture. Transitioning from Modules to Macroservices necessitates careful planning for service communication, data distribution, and deployment strategies to ensure success.
By clarifying business drivers and architecture impacts, organizations can pinpoint the most suitable MMA level. For instance, a startup might thrive using Functions or Modules to facilitate rapid iteration while adapting its core product as its value proposition evolves.
However, the organizational framework required to build and sustain services at each MMA level is a crucial consideration. Businesses must avoid hastily implementing microservices, as not all organizations possess the same resources or require such advanced capabilities.
MMA and Organizational Capacity
The efficacy of MMA is heavily reliant on an organization's ability to implement and sustain it over time. To evaluate this capability, we can utilize the MAMOS model of Quality Engineering, which encompasses five critical components: Methods, Architecture, Management, Organization, and Skills.
MAMOS organizes five levels of software socio-technological ecosystems that cater to diverse business needs and architectural styles. It is not a maturity model; rather, it aims to match the appropriate level with specific objectives.
Each component of MAMOS is defined as follows:
- Methods: The development and testing practices that underpin MMA, including methodologies from requirements to operational retrospectives.
- Architecture: The end-to-end software layers supporting business functions, encompassing technological choices and organizational structures.
- Management: Aligning stakeholders and leadership to facilitate company transformation and achieve business goals through effective MMA.
- Organization: Structuring roles, boundaries, and interactions to best meet business needs and enable MMA adoption.
- Skills: Strategies for acquiring, retaining, and developing competencies necessary for supporting the socio-technological ecosystem.
MMA leverages MAMOS to outline a blueprint for software production systems that align with specific architectural styles. For example, an MMA based on Macroservices aligns well with MAMOS III but can also begin at MAMOS II and expand with advanced elements from MAMOS IV.
Choosing a MAMOS framework must align with the MMA structure to effectively support business needs. A technology-driven approach that prioritizes microservices could recommend specific MAMOS levels, whereas a simpler need for Modules would benefit from a more streamlined MAMOS system.
MMA for Sustainable Growth
Recently, an AWS team’s transition back to a modular architecture has garnered attention in the industry. This case highlights the importance of making informed decisions in context, weighing trade-offs effectively.
MMA offers a framework for businesses to balance their needs, complexities, and capabilities for sustainable growth. This defined model allows teams to focus their energy on the most effective solutions rather than getting bogged down in terminological disputes.
Following the MMA framework is essential for value generation. First, functional decoupling isolates business complexity; then, modularity models clarify end-to-end impacts; and finally, MAMOS organizes the software production system required for the chosen architecture.
MMA should serve as a guiding model for decision-making and articulating architectural trade-offs. The aim is to maximize value creation through a minimalist software production system that harmonizes business and technological drivers.
Adopting MMA necessitates a paradigm shift to thrive in today’s fast-paced business environment, aligning socio-technological systems with sustainable growth. This mindset transition involves moving from traditional Software Engineering to a focus on Quality Engineering.
This video explores the differences between full, semi, and non-modular power supplies, guiding viewers on how to choose the right option for their needs.
This video provides a clear explanation of how to correctly pronounce "modularity," enhancing your understanding of the term.
References
Antoine Craske (2022), Zalando Quality Engineering's Journey — From Monolith to Microservices. QE Unit.
Uwe Friedrichsen (2021), The microservices fallacy — Part 9. Ufried.