Utility Tree - Architecturally Significan Requirement
In the Utility Tree the use cases can be evaluated from the business relevancy versus the architectural complexity reasoning to accomplish the benefit.
Here the place to organize the use cases given its classification from the Architectural Quality Attribute Perspective.
(WIP)
Evaluation Matrix - Architectural Quality Attributes
| 1 | Alternative/Evaluation Vector | agilab.com | alchemy.com | revvity.com | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Technical Debts | Paid | |||
| Added | |||||
| 3 | Major Work Block | ||||
| 4 | Scalability | By leveraging microservice and event-driven architecture in a cloud native platform, scalability can be achieved more effectively | |||
| 5 | Resource - Cost Efficiency | By leveraging SaaS components in the most of infrastructure, the Cost Efficiency can achieved more effectively - fine-tuning each application context capacity given the specific demand on it. | |||
| 6 | Deployability | By leveraging SaaS components in the most of infrastructure, the highest degree of deployability can be achieved at platform level via Infrastructure as Code (IaC), across multiple zones and in a well defined capacity. | |||
| 7 | Legal/Compliance | Since the solution operates mainly in SaaS mode, some concerns from procurement and regional/legal perspectives can potentially | |||
| 8 | Interoperability | ||||
| 9 | User Experience | UI identity is close to the status-quo solution and it has a great experience for administrative operations. Also by leveraging microservice backend architecture, a better responsiveness can be achieved. | |||
| 10 | Maintainability/Operability | ||||
| 11 | Extensibility | Although the solution is API-First oriented for transactional and batch data layers, customize or adapt existing feature demands considerable effort for change management. | |||
| 12 | Auditability | ||||
High:
Medium:
Low:
References