Agile Architecture

Correct Answer: Build a walking skeleton that tackles the riskiest areas first and gradually expand it.

The recommended approach for an Agile project to manage technical risks is to build a walking skeleton that addresses the riskiest areas first and then progressively expand it. By using this approach, the team can assess problems earlier, enabling quicker mitigation and lesser impact on the larger project. The answer suggesting we build the entire system in one go is incorrect as it contradicts the principles of iteratively building and testing in Agile methodology. Also, overlooking risks as Agile architecture promotes solutions through continuous iterations is not recommended. It is critical to identify and manage risks proactively in any project. The idea to focus solely on high-risk areas and ignore other parts until those risks are handled does not follow the Agile principle of constantly reassessing and adjusting the project's direction. Short iterations and adaptability ensure all parts of the project are given due attention.

Correct Answer: Ask the team to halt the release, identify the root cause of performance degradation, fix it and validate the fix before proceeding with the release.

In Agile methodology, quality assurance is crucial and it's vital to maintain user experiences at a high standard. Employee the following step-by-step thought process: When the architectural review suggests performance degradation after a new release, it's important not to ignore the degradation and push with the deployment in expectations that it won't impact the user experience. Hence, the suggestion to 'ignore the degradation and proceed with the deployment, hoping it won't impact user experience' is not the correct pathway since it can harm the user experience and trust in the software Waiting indefinitely until the issue is fixed isn't a practical solution and can delay important updates from reaching the end users. It also isn't the agile way of operating since it doesn't facilitate learning through experimentation and iteration. Therefore, ' delaying the release indefinitely until the issue is fixed' is not the correct move to follow Similarly, blaming team members for the architectural changes isn't constructive or beneficial. Agile is about collaboration and learning from mistakes not pointing fingers. Thus, the approach to 'assign blame to the team members responsible for the architectural changes' is incorrect too The best approach is indeed to ask the team to halt the release, identify the root cause of this performance degradation, fix it and validate the fixes before proceeding with the release. Agile emphasizes on 'failing fast' and learning from these failures. This approach allows the team to understand the source of the problem and how to prevent similar performance degradations in the future. Thus, the correct answer is to 'ask the team to halt the release, identify the root cause of performance degradation, fix it and validate the fix before proceeding with the release.'

Correct Answer: Provide only necessary documentation, focusing on conversation over comprehensive documents.

In Agile project management, extensive documentation of software is avoided. The Agile Manifesto, which is the guiding philosophy of Agile project management, emphasizes 'working software over comprehensive documentation'. Thus, the Agile architect would offer to provide only necessary documentation and prefer face-to-face interaction for knowledge transfer. An important point to note is that 'Working software over comprehensive documentation' does not mean no documentation, but it indicates that producing working software and collaborating with stakeholders is given higher priority. Comparison to other options: Refusing to provide any documentation is incorrect because Agile does not totally eradicate documentation; it recommends 'just enough' documentation. Delivering an extensive and detailed documentation contradicts the Agile philosophy of minimizing documentation. Lastly, delegating documentation task to less experienced team members is also not the best practice; documentation should be done by those who best understand the system, which is often the more experienced team members or architects.