Why system architecture breaks down in practice
Most teams struggle with the same fundamental issues: architecture documentation that doesn't match reality, implicit interfaces that break silently, and models that become outdated. Here's why this happens and what it costs teams.
Architecture lives in documents
Architecture diagrams and specifications sit in documents, presentations, or wikis. They're separate from the code, making it easy for implementation to drift from the intended design. When engineers need to understand the system, they read code, not documents.
Interfaces are implicit
The contracts between components—what data flows where, what protocols are used, what assumptions each part makes—are often only documented in comments or not at all. When someone changes an interface, there's no way to know what breaks downstream.
Models become outdated
As the product evolves, architecture documents fall behind. Updating them feels like overhead, so they become historical artifacts rather than living specifications. Engineers learn not to trust what's written.
Engineers stop trusting architecture
When architecture documentation doesn't match reality, engineers stop consulting it. They rely on code reviews, tribal knowledge, and trial and error. Architecture becomes a theoretical exercise rather than a practical guide.