Tag Archives: Adaptive Products

Before DevOps: Delivering more by delivering less

Undesired complexity give undesired deliveries

There are many aspects to consider related to DevOps and delivery, many strategies and (in the right context and the right approach) there are also some very useful tools. It is a complex issue and last thing that we want is to make that even harder because of undesired complexity. A poor and an un-appropriate design is the main cause of the problems.

Suppose that the main aspects of a product functionalities and design are the followings:

  • Functionalities: f1, f2, f3
  • Business rules: r1, r2
  • External frameworks, technologies, and drivers (APIs, hardware interfaces, others) e1, e2
  • External interfaces: i1, i2,
  • Technical mechanisms: t1, t2, t3..

Should stay together only what it changes and should be deliver together.

As generic rule, if one of this aspects it is changed, we do not want to affect, change and deliver others aspects. Below are some examples of anti-patterns.

Anti-pattern: Lack of functional cohesion

Just a start example: If was requested to deliver a change for the functionality f1, it is highly undesired to change also functionalities f3 and f4 only because f1, f3 and f4 are unnecessary coupled in the implementation. This coupling could mean: same function, same class or same package as opposite of using distinct design elements.

Anti-pattern: Non-DRY business rules

If the business rule r1 it is used in more functionalities (that have dedicated components) and that rule implementation is duplicated (multiplied) in every functionality, then a change in r1 will require change and delivery for all those functionalities and components.

Anti-pattern: Mixing functionalities with external communication

Suppose that f1 and f2 are using TCP sockets for communication with some external systems and we need to replace this type of communication, if the f1, f2 implementation is mixed with socket management aspects, then we need to change and deliver also f1 and f2.

Anti-pattern: Mixing functionalities with external interfaces

External interfaces could suppose handling of some specific external data structures and/or of some specific communication protocol. If we are mixing these parts with internal functionalities, with any change in the interface, we should change and deliver also some not related internal parts, .

Anti-pattern: Mixing functionalities with technical aspects

You need to protect the representation of the business inside the product from the changes related to technology. Where is the technology involved? Any I/O aspect that wrap the hardware: GUI, network, databases, file systems is strongly related to technologies and platforms. If, for example, you have a lot of functionality and business representation in the design of the GUI elements, any change in GUI technologies will affect the business representation inside the product, that should also massively changed and then delivered.

Anti-pattern: “Utils”

A symptom of a poor design that could cause undesired supplementary work on development and delivery are the “utils” packages, especially without clearly dedicated sub-packages. Examples:

  • “utils” package that mix together classes belong to different functional aspects
  • “utils” package that mix various technical aspects without having dedicated sub-packages

This kind of design suppose that we need to change, test and deliver the “utils” almost with any change of the product.

Anti-pattern: Dirty code

Breaking simplest Clean Code rules (similar with the ones that are used in refactoring) could cause undesired coupling and undesired increase of delivery scope. Some examples that could induce such problems:

  • Any duplicate/multiplied code
  • Breaking SRP principle
  • Global context data, global variables (breaking Law of Demeter)

Minimizing the need of change and delivery

We need to reduce the need of change and delivery only to the required ones. There are several practices and approaches that could avoid that problem (the examples presented above or similar ones):

  • Keep the code clean by writhing Clean Code first and refactor and pay the technical debt whenever it is necessary
  • Use functional cohesion as the main criteria of creating components and packages
  • Use Clean Architecture that propose a default, strategic separation of concerns
  • Extend XP engineering practices (Simple Design, Refactoring, TDD) with the ones from Agile Modeling and DAD
  • Respect Law of Demeter on any level of the design – do not use any global context
  • Make the products adaptive by keeping up-to-date with target business by often and early injection of feedback from that business.

You can argue that I already write about all these in a previous post “Roadmap to an Agile Design”. Yes, indeed, in order to deliver just what it is needed and avoid waste you must have an Adaptive Design, the main characteristic of an Agile Design.

In order to that you should be open  to all outstanding agile practices for design and do not be closed in the smaller universe of some very lightweight Agile methods. And remember that those lightweight methods are not created as full process methodologies, but as indications to build a customized process.

Imagine that all these problems are far worse if we have multiple variations and variants of the same product. The massive effort for any change and delivery will block the overall agility and responsiveness of the development team and massively reduce the overall economics for both development and customer side.

Use a strategic separation of concerns

Do not use any reference to any global context

A product it is … not a product.

What does MVP really mean…? (MVP – Minimal Viable Product)

That is a very interesting question. A first idea is to thing to the customer business needs: what are the minimal set of features that are needed and have relevance to be deployed first.
In fact, with this first delivery, we are initiating an ecosystem, where:

  • a business relationship with the customer(s) it is born, where the development side mus be able to follow the customer needs on short, medium and long term with good enough cost, quality, responsiveness and other possible attributes
  • the economics of this business relationship must be good enough for both sides
  • the development side must be able to find continuously effective and efficient technical solutions
  • the development side must form and maintain a product team with enough skills, maturity and availability to serve the customer needs
  • the process approach must make sure that enough business side feedback it is included in the product in order to make this product fit for the target business. Also the product must have such properties and included support in order to be  a consumable solution (DAD – Disciplined Agile Delivery concept)
  • the initiated approach must produce repeatable results (DAD principle)


A Minimum Viable Product it is in fact a Minimum Viable Product Ecosystem that could include:

  • Minimum Viable Consumable Product
  • Minimum Viable Product Economics
  • Minimum Viable Product Architecture / Design approach
  • Minimum Viable Team
  • Minimum Viable Process

It is not a product …. it is an endeavor, an enterprise, an initiated path to follow, a vision.

… yes, you first need some opportunities in the market, but you can blow up any opportunity without  considering above mentioned aspects.

A product is not …. (just) a product, it is an ecosystem that need to born, adapt and survive.

Reactive & Adaptive Products: built-in feedback

Reactive Manifesto

The Reactive Manifesto, initiated by Jonas Bonér, want to respond to the new context with “with multicore and cloud computing architectures […] with tighter SLAs in terms of lower latency, higher throughput, availability and close to linear scalability”

See more at: https://typesafe.com/blog/why_do_we_need_a_reactive_manifesto%3F#sthash.gP9WznCO.dpuf

Some default (software) systems requirements should be in such case these ones (quote, from below mentioned source):

  • react to events: the event-driven nature enables the following qualities
  • react to load: focus on scalability rather than single-user performance
  • react to failure: build resilient systems with the ability to recover at all levels
  • react to users: combine the above traits for an interactive user experience

See more at: https://typesafe.com/blog/why_do_we_need_a_reactive_manifesto%3F#sthash.gP9WznCO.dpuf


Requirements to be reactive

Well, that sound very interesting, but when it is transformed in the Manifesto (http://www.reactivemanifesto.org/), the resulted thing is a combination of requirements and solutions, because “message-driven”, async messages it is a solution, for example. My personal taste is to keep first the requirements, that seems to be more generic:

  • react to events, react to load, react to failure, react to users



I have some start questions

  • Before production: how could I know that I will build a system that will “enough reactive”, that will react enough to the load?
  • During production: how could I know that the real loading it is not bigger than estimated loading, for example, and what are the exact numbers in case of incidents?


 Traditional answers and beyond

The “traditional answer” is : “ok…we will do the needed performance tests“. Right! What about second type of questions, real loading and incident (or needed) analysis ? The next answer is that we will need also data gathering tools  built-in in the product, not (only) in offline tests.


 Adaptive products: built-in feedback

If we need to follow REACT types of requirement or similar, in an adaptive context (read Agile), we need to follow the principles of Adaptive Products and make sure that will not miss the link related to the early and continuous feedback from business/production back to the products. In such cases, the product itself should have the above mentioned data gathering tools  built-in in the product, not (only) in offline tests  (with a possible smarter option of self assessment).


Consumable Solutions: Measurable!

Reactive and similar properties of the software systems cannot be claimed if are not measurable in production and in tests. Using this feedback, the system could be configured or adapted by adequate changes.  Such capabilities of the products must be part of of the criteria for consumable solutions (concept used and introduced by DAD – Disciplined Agile Delivery). If the real capability of the system is not known, if there are incidents and if the needed information to adjust according to the needs  it is not available just-in-time, then it is not a consumable solution.

Some simple examples:

  • Events most be registered with occurring timestamp , start and end processing timestamps,  type of response
  • Details sub-processing data must be gathered if are significant
  • Number of events/processings should be registered if are bigger then and estimated threshold
  • System internal availability of various resources should be available for monitoring
  • More info should be “dumped” on incidents and fails


Update – Critical versus Important

(After a discussion thread with Martin Thompson on Reactive Systems Google group)

There are 2 kind of cases:

  • Systems where REACT capability is critical (such some financial systems) – the “elite
  • Systems where REACT capability it is important, but not critical – the “majority

The critical cases (the “elite“) need a complex approach with external and internal measurements, with specific care for high amount of non-linear data/events and accuracy of measurements in such context. In many cases, these are domains with specific regulation that request a mature approach for measurement.

The “majority” instead have rather an insufficient support for measurement. Also, in such cases, the cost of measurements could be important.  The best approach should consider smart, opportunistic  solutions, that will maximize the return of investment with less effort.  The built-in support for feedback could offer such solutions because have access to the “intimate knowledge” of the system, that mean most effective/efficient measurements..

The lesson is: Even if you know exactly what is going on in your system, measure performance, don’t speculate. You’ll learn something, and nine times out of ten, it won’t be that you were right!” – Ron Jeffries – “It Takes Awhile to Create Nothing” (from <Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code>)

Roadmap to an agile design

“You can’t have a culture without practices; and the practices you follow identify your culture.”  
(Robert C. Martin) 


Eng versus practiceThere is a huge imbalance between the Agile promise and what it is obtained with the usual set of Agile engineering practices.


The common approach is to use the Agile methods such Scrum and XP as recipes or as a “closed universes”, by using only the engineering practices prescribed by the methods. Any other proven and outstanding practices are rather rarely used.

The standard set of practices – Simple Design, Refactoring, TDD – does not cover some significant problems:

  • Refactoring is not effective & efficient if the first code is too dirty.
  • None of these practices specify how to protect the business representation inside the software system against the changes related to technologies
  • None of these practices can guarantee that changes in the customer business could be introduced in the software product with high efficiency/effectiveness

We need to go outside the methods and discover what the industry could offer for an Agile Design in order to keep that promise.



generic, specific Introduction – we need to go outside the recipes to put together all the industry strength, in order to fix the imbalance between the used practices and the Agile promise.

AGILE PROMISE – an Agile approach should offer good (sustainable, available, effective, efficient) results for adaptive problems/adaptive context (quick, often, even late) (See Agile Manifesto).

Engineering support – usually, in the best cases, this support does not go further than these three practices: simple design, refactoring and TDD.

What is missing – good enough support for efficiency/effectiveness on: keeping a clean code, business changes or technology changes. We need to define this support for gettting/maintaining an AGILE DESIGN.

The roadmap to an Agile Design – we need to find the minimal set of indispensable, context agnostic, design related practices to get/maintain an Adaptive Design and an Adaptive Product.

The “recipe” problem – the usual tendency is to use only the “inside methods” design practices and to ignore any other useful practices.

Aspects to be considered – the selected practices must cover capability of being adaptive:

  • For design level and architecture level aspects;
  • For process aspects that support envisioning of the initial design, cleanup of technical debt, quick quality check and adherence to business needs and their changes.
  • For realizing the design principles that support building of adaptive products.

Indispensable practices for an Agile Design – by levels:

    • Clean Code, Refactoring, Applying Law Of Demeter, Programming Style
    • Clean Architecture, Applying Law Of Demeter
    • Architecture Envisioning, Look Ahead Modeling, Model Storming,  Refactoring, TDD, Simple Design, Non-Solo Development, Product Backlog, Continuous Integration

Indispensable principles for an Agile Design – Single Responsibility (of a design element), Separation of Concerns (in enhanced mode, with Dependency Inversion), Functional Cohesion, Law of Demeter.

Final thoughts: Any of these principles and practices are pillars on getting and maintained an Agile/Adaptive Design Even some of them are rarely used, are already defined and proved by major contributors to Agile knowledge and software industry. Also, my personal experience found the selected practices and principles very useful.



 The promise – Good and Adaptive

Agile approach main promise is to be always ready to respond quick, effective and efficient to often changes, even late, in customer business needs. Thant mean we have two kinds of promises:

  • GENERIC – good results
    • always – sustainable and available
    • effective
    • efficient
  • SPECIFIC – adaptive
      • quick
      • often
      • even late

If you have any doubts about these things, please review the Agile Manifesto (see [B-AM]) and the main original Agile methods as XP-Extreme Programming and Scrum. Can be easy observed that all the engineering and management practices are especially selected (in the principles and methods) to get good results, but for rather adaptive problems (Scrum explicitly declare that).

Engineering support

In order to keep that promise, the used engineering practices must be aligned to the declared goal. In my previous post, I have notified the necessity to build and maintain the software products as Adaptive Product in order to have and maintain the Agile capability. A significant aspect in getting this kind of product is to select and use all necessary design practices to get/maintain this capability: we need an Agile Design as an Adaptive Design.

If an Agile practitioner it is asked about this engineering support, the most probable answer is: “we are successfully using refactoring, test driven development and simple design”. All these are great practices and an engineering process that use them could be also great. The question is: if we are using all these practices we could still have significant problems with adaptability?

Unfortunately, the answer it is “yes” (See “Broken Promise”)

Another question: there are other agile practices that could solve these kinds of problems? The answer is “yes”, but are rarely used.

What is missing to keep the promise?

All the mandatory design practices necessary to keep the promise must be put together in a coherent set. Now, only XP have a set of core design practices, but is incomplete and does not cover all aspects of an adaptive design.



The roadmap – restoring the balance

restore balanceWe need to restore the balance – to find an Agile Design as an Adaptive Design that keep the Agile Promise. For that we need to find good enough set of design practices that could provide and cover the main design aspects.

praticesWe are looking for design related practices that:

  • Are generic, not context dependent
  • Indispensable for the “adaptive” property of the resulted software system
  • Part of the industry knowledge and experience

Some comments about context dependency: a practice is generic if should be always used and considered and the only context-depended question is “how”.

The problem – methods as recipes

Among the known practices for an Agile design, just a subset are “inside methods” practices, that mean explicitly specified in the Agile methods as XP, Scrum, DAD (Disciplined Agile Delivery). Many other very interesting practices are described by the main contributors to the Agile knowledge, but not as part of some methods.

Practice Proposed by Inside method Degree of usage*
Refactoring XP XP Rather often
Simple Design XP XP Rather often
TDD XP, Scrum XP Sometime
Clean Code Robert C. Martin Rather rare
Clean Architecture Robert C. Martin Rather very rare
Non-Solo Development Scott W. Ambler DAD Rather rare

Note (*) – Degree of usage is based on published statistics and by the observable number of references to these practices.

Unfortunately, in most cases, only “inside methods” have a larger adoption, because the Agile methods are used as “recipes” (… not in thein intention of the authors) or “closed universes”, where the practitioners avoid to assuming process responsibilities outside the methods border.

The consequence: some fundamental practices are rarely used and the resulted products are less adaptive because of their less adaptive design. The Agile promise is broken.


SOLUTION – defining a set of indispensables practices

coverageWe need to find the set of indispensable practices for an Agile Design, but we need to be sure that we have enough coverage for all significant design-related aspects that will help us to keep the promise to be adaptive.


  • Design principles
    • DPs that contribute to an adaptive design
  • Design level
    • Design context agnostic best practices to keep the product adaptive
    • Architecture context agnostic best practices to keep the product adaptive
  • Design process
    • Cleanup of the technical debt
    • Fast quality checks
    • Adherence to business needs and changes (efficient and effective)
    • Knowledge management in adaptive context
    • Evolving solution and effects on project definition

INDISPENSABLE PRACTICES PER ASPECT – Then, for each aspect, we need to find the sine-qua-non (indispensable) practices to deal with that aspect. This is the proposed list:

Aspects category Aspects Practices
Design level Adaptive design support Clean Code, Refactoring,Programming Style, Law of Demeter (applying)
Architecture level Adaptive design support Clean Architecture, Law of Demeter (applying)
Process level Pay the technical debt Refactoring
Fast quality check TDD
Adherence to business needs Simple Design, Product Backlog, Clean Architecture
Knowledge management Non-Solo Development, Product Backlog
Evolving solution, Project Definition Architecture Envisioning, Look Ahead Modeling, Model Storming, Continuous integration


  • From similar practices are selected the ones with higher coverage.
  • Practices are inter-dependent and each of them will contribute to all the aspects and will enhance the results of the others
  • The selected practices must realize the selected design principles

INDISPENSABLE PRINCIPLES FOR AN ADAPTIVE DESIGN – These principles are part of the industry proven experience and are in the top recommendations for a good design a technical excellence. The other reason for including them in an agile related list is the contribution to the “adaptive” property of design.

Single Responsibility (of a design element): isolating responsibilities in functions, classes, components, services, sub-systems will make the system easy to build, change and maintain (… where the reasons are already part of the industry experience).

Separation of Concerns: that it is a higher level aspect of SR principle, where separation is rather considered at architectural level (layers, sub-systems) and the concerns are also high-level responsibilities (presentation, business, persistence, hardware interfaces, cross-cutting concerns). Each of these concerns could independently change and without decoupling them, the system will not be adaptive.

Functional Cohesion – that it is starting architectural/design decision that declares as main subjects of separation and decoupling:

  • Business concerns from technological concerns
  • Business concerns parts/functions from each other
  • Could be applied at any design level sub-systems, components, classes, functions

Law of Demeter – See “Practice – Applying Law of Demeter”

It is impossible to explain that you have an Adaptive Design and you will keep the Agile promise and also do not respect these principles.


PRACTICE – XP practices: this is how Agile works

The good part is that XP (see [B-XP]) it is an wonderful representation about how Agile fundaments are working. Here we will talk just about Simple Design, Refactoring and TDD. These practices are helping to keep the toughest agile promises from the Agile Manifesto:

  • “…satisfy the customer through early and continuous delivery of valuable software.”
  • Welcome changing requirements, even late in development

Each of these practices will have its fundamental role:

Simple design – XP: “always do the simplest thing that could possibly work next”.

  • Request to focus only to current requirements, without trying to extrapolate the future ones. After a sequence of small releases, we will have a design properly adapted only to current business needs, not to hypothetically or obsolete ones (“junk stories”). Simple design means to be both focused and clean.

INDISPENSABLE – If Simple Design it is not used, then:

  • Increasing technical debt and waste caused by guessing future needs instead of waiting the new business context to be relieved. Increasing amount of implemented junk stories

Refactoring – Martin Fowler: “Improving the design of an existing code” by “applying a series of small behavior-preserving transformations

INDISPENSABLE – If Refactoring it is not used, then:

  • The technical debt is accumulating in high amounts and the code will NOT be cleaned, easy to read, to understand and change. The productivity will decrease and the product will be more fragile until becoming completely unstable
  • The previous simple design must be adapted to new requirements, and refactoring it is one of the most effective techniques

TDD – automatic tests, with high coverage at unit test level; the tests should be writing first.

INDISPENSABLE – If TDD it is not used, then:

  • There is no other technique to support QA/QC concerns in dealing with changes that occur “late in development” and that could offer quick, effective and efficient safety net for refactoring necessary regression tests
  • There is less separation of concerns


PRACTICE – Non-Solo Development (DAD)

XP introduce Pair Programming as essential Agile practices. The main meaning is to have “cooperative programming”. Unfortunately, this practice it is used too literally, only for direct coding activities. Yes, Agile has restored the importance of the coding in the overall development, but let think a little: what is the meaning of “Programming” from XP name? In fact, it is “Development”, where the effective programming/coding has fundamental importance. An XP programmer it is, in fact a multi-role developer involved also in planning, requirements, architecture, and design, coding and testing.

In DAD, Scott W. Ambler has introduced the term “Non-Solo Development” for a cooperative development approach that combines various kind of pair-development with solo-development.

INDISPENSABLE – If cooperative development it is not used, then:

  • All the needed design practices cannot be applied coherently and consistent
  • The needed design decisions will be rather under a minimum threshold of effectiveness and efficiency
  • The skills and the knowledge of the team will not match to the necessities
  • Agile process will not be enabled


PRACTICE – Product Backlog (Scrum)

The Product Backlog it is a very used practice, but its impact in the design is less known.

Note: An enhanced variant of the Product Backlog is the (Product) “Work Item List” from DAD.

INDISPENSABLE – If Product Backlog it is not used, then:

  • The work will not be serialized and refined in clear increments before starting the main development effort (iteration level)
    • Consequence: Not enough support for realizing a Simple Design,
    • Consequence: Paying the Technical Debt (using Refactoring or other techniques) has poor support on planning and visibility;
    • Consequence: less support to effectively connect to change requests and customer feedback in order to get and maintain Adaptive Products.


PRACTICE – Architecture Envisioning (AM, DAD)

AM (Agile Modeling) make explicit the architectural concern that should be addressed early in the development as Architecture Envisioning. This is the place where should be taken also the initial decision about Clean Architecture and most significant decisions related to Refactoring and TDD. (See [B-SWA])

INDISPENSABLE – If is not used, then:

  • The main technical risks will not be addressed early with all the resulted consequences
  • The planning will have no real support , because the necessary work it is mostly unclear.
  • The Clean Architecture rules cannot be applied (in the envisioning must be clarified how will be applied)
  • Decisions related to significant refactoring and to high level decoupling needs related to TDD cannot be taken at the appropriator time


PRACTICE – Look Ahead Modeling (AM, DAD)

AM (Agile Modeling) make explicit the design risks and complexity concerns that should be in advance in the development (as a refining of Architecture Envisioning) , as Look Ahead Modeling. This is the place where should be taken also tin significant decisions related to necessary  Refactoring  and TDD . (See [B-SWA])

INDISPENSABLE – If is not used, then:

  • The undesired complexity of the design will increase in the most sensible places
  • The plan updates and progress tracking are affected because of not updated information about solution
  • The TDD, Refactoring and Clean Code significant decisions will be affected


PRACTICE – Model Storming (AM, DAD)

AM (Agile Modeling) make explicit the design complexity concern that should be addressed JIT (Just-In-Time) in the development, when is needed,  as Model Storming . This is the place where should be taken also the possible decisions related to necessary  Refactoring  and TDD . (See [B-SWA])

INDISPENSABLE – If is not used, then:

  • The undesired complexity of the design will increase in the most sensible places
  • The TDD, Refactoring and Clean Code decisions will be affected


PRACTICE – Clean Code

The clean code rules are introduced by Robert C. Martin (see [B–CC]). Of course, there is an intersection and similarity with the refactoring rules introduced by Martin Fowler. The difference is rather at process level: Clean Code supposed also to write the proper code from the first time, combining with continuous cleaning and refactoring. In fact, we can combine Clean Code, Refactoring and other similar rules in a one single set where:

  • Clean Code is what we can want to obtain as code state/attribute
  • The first time code must be clean enough
  • Refactoring is the operation to pay some technical debts and get closer to the Clean Code state

Clean Code as a practice should represent all the small design and design level best practices that are generic, context agnostic and address most generic causes of producing the technical debt.

Examples of subjects for clean code rules: meaningful names, functions and class creations, comments, unit tests, building systems, simple emerging design and others. Example of generic rules and (solved) problems: avoid feature envy, misplaced responsibility, make logical dependency physical.

INDISPENSABLE – If clean code rules are not used, then:

  • Will be activated the causes that produce the most amount of technical debt – the code mess is systematically produced in huge amount.
  • The code will be hard and very expensive to read, change and fix


PRACTICE – Clean Architecture

The Robert C. Martin concept of Clean Architecture (see [B–CA]) suppose that according to the fundamental design principle of Separation of Concerns we will take from the start some architectural decisions (because it is always useful and it is context agnostic):

  • Functional cohesion – the system functions must be visible in its design: various business concerns are separated by design and the technological concerns from the business concerns. The non-functional aspects must be isolated and should be considered as details (!), because things as the used technologies could always change, but the representation of the core business must survive.
  • Dependency injection – main way used to separate the various concerns

Alistair Cockburn proposes the similar concept of Hexagonal Architecture (see [B-HA]), as opposite to un-balanced architectures where only user-interface and persistence are driving the architecture, beyond the business part: “application communicates over ‘’ports’’ to external agencies”.

Koni Buhrer proposes the Universal Design Pattern (see [B-UDP]),, which gives little more details than the Hexagonal Architecture and could be a good approach to implement a Clean Architecture.

INDISPENSABLE – If clean architecture rules are not used, then:

  • the core business is NOT protected from technological changes, because it is NOT decoupled from those aspects
  • the core business is NOT realized using functional cohesion, the product will NOT have the “business DNA”, and cannot be an Adaptive Product (see my previous post), cannot be changed quick, efficient, effective and sustainable with customer business changes
  • Successive changes related to business change will produce design and architectural level technical debt – affect the overall productivity and quality
  • Similar undesired effects for successive changes caused by technologies aspects
  • (dramatically) Decrease the effectiveness of TDD, because best criteria of decoupling are not applied and both code and tests will be change too often on business and technological changes.


PRACTICE – Applying Law of Demeter

The Law of Demeter (LoD) or principle of least knowledge – “The fundamental notion is that a given object should assume as little as possible about the structure or properties of anything else (including its sub-components), in accordance with the principle of “information hiding”.”

It was also subject of more research and has influence development of more patterns. For Demeter project, Karl Lieberherr created a so called “Adaptive Programming” based on this principle (see [B-AP]).

In our days, the Google Talks presentations bring back into public attention the significant advantages of this principle. Using this principle should be a specific way to create objects and functions, a specific way to share and distribute data and information between them: in any part of our code we should not use references to a global context.

Respect of this principle it is fundamental to make possible all other best practices: concerns decoupling and functional cohesion.

INDISPENSABLE – If Law of Demeter is not used, then:

  • Separation of concerns, functional cohesion, clean code, and clean architecture are severely affected by breaking this rule. Consequences:
    • High amount of severe technical debt it is introduced (by using global context anywhere in the code)
    • The code fragility could dramatically increase (any change and fix could produce many new defects)



I have selected these practices and principles for an Agile design from the intersection from what I know  from the industry experience and my personal experience. The starting point was that no Agile process method has included (from what I know) the Clean Code and Clean Architecture practices and, also, the principles aspect was ignored (exception: the above mentioned Adaptive Programming) .

When I tried to categorize the Refactoring and  Non-Solo Development,  I have added also the process aspect. Later, thanks to a feedback from Scott W. Ambler were added the missing Architecture Envisioning and design modeling practices.

I have tried to find past endeavors about:

  • defining some practices as indispensable, where only Adaptive Programming have used a such logic
  • unifying these indispensable practices for an Agile Design

I have found almost nothing, and the searches about “Adaptive Design”  found results only in furniture domain and was similar for “Agile Design.

Better late than never… just yesterday (September 28) I have discovered a previous definition of an Agile Design:


That it is part of Agile Modeling method (Scott W. Ambler) and contain: Architecture Envisioning, Iteration Modeling, Model Storming, Test First Design, Refactoring and Continuous Integration. Some comments: I think that Iteration Modeling is a sub-practice of Look Ahead Modeling (but indispensable by itself) and that Continuous Integration is also indispensable.



[B- HA] –Hexagonal Architecture, Alistair Cockburn

[B- UDP] –Universal Design Patterns

[B- AP] – Using Law of Demeter. Adaptive Programming. Brad Appleton

[B- AM]- Agile Manifesto

[B –XP] – Extreme Programming

[B – CA] – Robert C. Martin (Uncle Bob) – Clean Architecture and Design-2012 COHAA The Path to Agility Conference

[B – CC] – Robert C. Martin – Clean Code: A Handbook of Agile Software Craftsmanship, Prentice Hall, 2008

[B – SWA] – Scott W. Ambler – Agile Modeling

Motto – The True corruption of Agile – Robert C. Martin

%d bloggers like this: