Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
The recorded history of classical architecting, began in Egypt with the pyramids, the
complexity of which has been overwhelming designers and builders alike. From the lack of
tools for civil works came classical or civil architecture. Millennia later, technological
advances in shipbuilding created the new and complementary fields of marine engineering
and naval architecture. In this century, rapid advances in aerodynamics, chemistry,
materials, electrical energy, communications, surveillance, information processing, and
software have resulted in systems whose complexity is again overwhelming past methods
and paradigms.
A system Approach.
A system approach is one that focuses on the systems as a whole, specifically linking
value judgments (what is desired) and design decisions (what is feasible). A true system
approach means that the design process includes the “problem” as well as the solution. At
the most fundamental level, systems are collections of different things that together
produce results unachievable by the elements alone. System are interesting because they
achieve results, and achieving those results requires different to interact.Taking a systems
approach means paying close attention to results, the reasons we build a system.
Architecture is not just about the structure of components. One of the essential features of
architectures of architectural design versus other sorts of engineering design is the degree
to which architectural design embraces results from the perspective of the
client/user/customer.
It is responsilibity of the architect to know and concentrate on the critical few details and
interfaces that really matter and not to become overloaded with the rest. To the extent that
the architect must be concerned with component design and construction, it is with those
specific details that critically affect the system as a whole. Some loaded question often
posed by builders, project managers is “How deeply should the architect delve into each
discipline into each discipline and each subsystems?”, also another question, “How can
the architect possibly know before there is a detailed system design, much less before
system test, what details of what subsystem are critical?”. A quick answer is: only through
experience, through encouraging open dialog with subsystem specialists; and by being a
quick, selective, tactful, and effective student of the system and its needs. Architecting is a
continuing day-to-day learning process.
Critical details aside, the architect’s greatest concerns and leverage are still, and should
be, with the systems’ connections and interfaces: First, because they distinguish a system
from its components; second, interest of the systems architect; and third,because
subsystem specialists are likely to concentrate most on the core and least on the periphery
of their subsystems.
A purpose Orientation
When a system fails to achieve a useful purpose, it is doomed. When it achieves some
purpose but at an unfavorable costs, its survival is in doubt, but it may survive. Curiously,
the end use of a system is not always what was originally proposed as its purpose. An
Example, The ARPANET-INTERNET communication network originated as a government-
furnished computer-to-computer linkage in support of university research; it is now the
most used, and pair for, by individuals for e-mail and information accessing. Why?
Because, as circumstances changed, providers and users redefined the meaning of
useful, affordable, and acceptable.
A modeling Methodology
Ultraquality Implementation
Certification
Is a formal statement by the architect to the client or user that the system, as built, meets
the criteria both for client acceptance and for builder receipt of payment, that is, it is ready
for user (to fulfill its purposes). Is the “final exams” of system test and evaluation. To be
accepted, it must be well supported, objective, and fair to client and builder alike.
1.- A disciplines avoidance of value judgments. As a matter of principle, the client should
judge on desirability and the architect should decide (only) on feasibility. It may make the
architect famous, but the client will feel used.
2.-A clear avoidance of perceived conflict of interest through participation in research and
development, including ownership or participation in organizations that can be, or are,
building the system.
3.-An arms-length relationship with project management. The primary reason for this
arrangement is the overload and distraction of the architect created by the time-consuming
responsibilities of project management. A second conflict, similar to that of participating in
research and development, is created whenever architects give project work to
themselves.
The wisdom that distinguishes the great architect from the rest is the insight and the
inspiration, that combined with well-chosen methods and guidelines and fortunate
circumstances, creates masterworks. Unfortunately, wisdom does not come easily. As one
conundrum puts it:
• Success comes from wisdom.
• Wisdom comes from Experience.
• Experience comes from mistakes.
•
The required mistakes and experience and wisdom gained from them can be those of
one’s predecessors, not necessarily one’s own.