does a software architect need UML skills?

  • Thread starter Thread starter not_a_commie
  • Start date Start date
Jon said:
But what advantage does UML have in deployment terms over ad hoc
diagrams? Yes, I'll use the appropriate symbol for a database etc - but
very few of my diagrams are strictly UML conformant, and I don't think
it hurts communication at all.
Click to expand...

A common symbol set requires less explanation.

Arne
 
Jon said:
I wouldn't claim to "know" UML. I know enough to understand other
people's diagrams, and I'm perfectly capable of communicating with
other people through ad hoc diagrams with enough UML-ness where
necessary.

Am I completely out of touch with the industry? Would you throw my CV
out because it doesn't list UML as one of my core skills?

Personally, I think it's most important that architects are able to
come up with appropriate solutions and communicate them effectively to
their teams and managers. The nature of that communications is
relatively unimportant, IMO.
Click to expand...

You place your UML skills a bit in the gray zone, so I don't know
if I would throw your CV out of it, but I would be worried and
probably want to check industry standard knowledge rather detailed.

Architects produce diagrams. UML is the standard (or if you prefer
another wording: the most widely used) for that.

An applicant for an architect position that does not know UML
would be handicapped in the race for the job compared with those
that do. Why has he/she not bothered to learn UML ? What else
standard concepts/technologies/tools does he/she not know about ?

Arne
 
If you were going to hire a software architect / functional lead for
your project (written exclusively in C# including WPF, WCF) would you
require that they have UML skills?

Is being able to draw the standard UML diagrams in a notebook
sufficient, or would you require that they have some experience with
some UML program or another? Which program?
Click to expand...

UML is a standard, not something required. I find that being able to
express your ideas in the form of drawing is important, but the means
that you do it should reflect what your group best understands. Even
the inventors say it should only be used if the people you work with
can benefit from it.

This really comes down to whether you company communicates via UML. If
no one does, then it is not very important. Remember, there have been
ERDs for decades and they still aren't totally agreed upon. Does you
company need someone to know UML (it doesn't take long to learn it).
 
Arne Vajhøj said:
A common symbol set requires less explanation.
Click to expand...

But to fully know UML there's an awful lot of symbols that aren't
really necessary. For instance, when drawing a web service as part of a
deployment diagram, I'm perfectly happy to use a plain rectangle and
put "Authentication WS" in the box. From the context, it's always been
absolutely obvious to *everyone* (whether or not they know UML) what
"WS" means. Why learn a special symbol for it?
 
Arne Vajhøj said:
You place your UML skills a bit in the gray zone, so I don't know
if I would throw your CV out of it, but I would be worried and
probably want to check industry standard knowledge rather detailed.

Architects produce diagrams. UML is the standard (or if you prefer
another wording: the most widely used) for that.
Click to expand...

Architects produce architecture, designs. That's the most important
thing - how reasonable their designs are, and whether or not they can
communicate them. Given the choice of someone who communicates well in
the interview but doesn't know UML, or someone who can draw UML but not
actually *talk* about it, I know I'd always go for the former.
An applicant for an architect position that does not know UML
would be handicapped in the race for the job compared with those
that do. Why has he/she not bothered to learn UML ? What else
standard concepts/technologies/tools does he/she not know about ?
Click to expand...

I look at it a different way: there are *so* many technologies,
methodologies etc that one might spend their time learning, that by the
time you can communicate effectively without precise UML, your time is
better spent on other things.
 
Jon said:
But to fully know UML there's an awful lot of symbols that aren't
really necessary. For instance, when drawing a web service as part of a
deployment diagram, I'm perfectly happy to use a plain rectangle and
put "Authentication WS" in the box. From the context, it's always been
absolutely obvious to *everyone* (whether or not they know UML) what
"WS" means. Why learn a special symbol for it?
Click to expand...

There are no special symbol. You would use a stereotype.

If you used standard deployment diagram you would communicate
what is deployable units.

Boxes are much more fuzzy than a UML component symbol.

Arne

PS: I am neither super good in UML or super strict in the way I use
UML, but I use it if possible.
 
Jon said:
Architects produce architecture, designs.
Click to expand...

Diagrams is the concrete incarnation (artifact) of that.
That's the most important
thing - how reasonable their designs are, and whether or not they can
communicate them. Given the choice of someone who communicates well in
the interview but doesn't know UML, or someone who can draw UML but not
actually *talk* about it, I know I'd always go for the former.
Click to expand...

The ability to communicate verbally is absolutely a plus as well.

But that does not make UML skills less valuable.

Besides most companies prefer to have their architecture in
writing.
I look at it a different way: there are *so* many technologies,
methodologies etc that one might spend their time learning, that by the
time you can communicate effectively without precise UML, your time is
better spent on other things.
Click to expand...

Somehow I don't quite understand the last part.

It takes some time to follow what is going on in the IT industry, but
it is part of an architects job to know something about what is out
there that could be useful.

Arne
 
<snip>

I think we're going to have to agree to differ.

While I certainly wouldn't say that having UML is a negative attribute,
I would prefer to work with someone who was just a bit better at
talking about designs (and writing about them in plain words) than
someone who could do better UML. In other words, its value is pretty
low to me.
 
Back
Top