Chances are the architecture looks fuzzy: Pitch it right!
Dominique Luzeaux, Thierry Morlaye, Jean‐Luc Wippler · 2015
Steven Spielberg once said: “I like ideas, especially movie ideas, that you can hold in your hand. If a person can tell me the idea in twenty-five words or less, it's going to make a pretty good movie” [20]. If you replace `idea' with `architecture' (at a certain point a synonym ... almost), and `movie' with `system', does the updated Spielberg's heuristic still resonate? Current practices and formalized state-of-art in architecting tends to favor an analytical, extensional descriptive approach (through views and point of views organized into frameworks) to `explain' or to define an architecture. However some given purposes (e.g. sharing and aligning an entire team on a common target, defining and checking architecture integrity) or some specific key moments (e.g. a `go/no go' decision gate, contractual agreement between an ordering institution and a prime contractor) invite to grasp its core essence in an instant for an architectural `pitch'. Sometimes also, even if standard architecture frameworks provide a quite heavy set of different views, they lack in exhibiting some striking and salient aspects of the architecture.