We were receiving new functionalities continually, but the pace wasn’t the same for all services. It created a sense of chaos. We had already spent a lot of effort just clarifying the requirements, yet after almost every build, another change request arrived. It was unclear why things kept changing so often, but the team was under pressure to deliver on time—especially before each release.
It became frustrating to modify the same modules repeatedly. I kept asking myself, Why? But there was no clear answer. Over time, the requirements had grown far beyond what we had three months earlier. Still, as often happens, delivery came first—at any cost. (Not from my view)
We found ourselves patching more than designing. That’s when a heated debate started within the team: should we keep patching or redesign the system? I proposed a new design that could serve us better and provide more flexibility based on the resources we had.
On the contrary, others argued that we should focus on cleaning the existing code instead of redesigning. From their point of view, the main issue wasn’t the architecture but the code quality itself. I understood their reasoning—but to me, it felt like changing the interior design of the living room while the apartment itself no longer fit our needs.
The structure had already lost its integrity; logic was scattered across multiple places where it didn’t belong. That was the moment I realized our architecture had reached its limit. Continuing to patch or cosmetically clean the code might offer temporary relief, but it wouldn’t solve the fundamental problem.
…
Every project lives in a closed loop of functionality requirements, architecture, implementation, and delivery. From day one, we constantly revisit these elements. ( You can extend the list. just trying to keep it short)
At the start, we usually begin with just enough architecture—a preliminary structure informed by the requirements and the broader context. This gives us a foundation, some boundaries, and a way to start coding new features, services, and applications.
In the early phase, development often feels like a honeymoon: the code is fresh, the obstacles are few, and progress feels smooth. But as the system grows, complexity creeps in. The architecture that once worked well may no longer support new requirements. At this point, two paths usually appear:
- Forcing new code into the existing architecture.
This often leads to messy compromises, higher maintenance costs, and slower development. It feels safe, but becomes a trap. - Rethinking the architecture.
Instead of bending implementation to fit outdated structures, we step back and evolve the architecture itself. This may take effort, but in the long run, it makes development easier, cleaner, and more sustainable.
The real challenge is recognizing when the architecture has reached its limits. Extending it may work for a while, but without refactoring or redesign, the system becomes fragile. Successful teams embrace this closed loop, adapting architecture as requirements evolve—rather than clinging to the comfort of the old structure.
