Software Architecture Validation and Verification

Best Practices for Long-Term Success

If you've been following our series on software architecture, you already understand its foundational importance to successful development. But creating a solid architecture is only half the battle. The real challenge? Ensuring your software actually adheres to that architecture throughout its lifecycle.

As we explored in our Crafting Robust Foundations With Architecture, architecture erosion and technical debt can quickly undermine even the most thoughtfully designed systems. This is precisely why software validation and verification (V&V) aren't just bureaucratic checkboxes. Rather, they're essential practices for maintaining architectural integrity over time.

What is the Difference Between Validation and Verification?

While often mentioned together, verification and validation serve distinct purposes. Let´s have a look at verification vs. validation:

Verification answers the question: "Are we building the system right?" It confirms that the implementation correctly follows the architectural design and specifications.

Validation tackles a different concern: "Are we building the right system?" It ensures the architecture actually meets stakeholder needs and business requirements.

Both practices align with the ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010 standard's emphasis on ensuring that architectural decisions serve the system's purpose within its environment. You can learn more about the hidden risks of not utilizing architecture verification in our webinar.

Let's explore how to implement both - software validation and verification - effectively.

Best Practices for Architecture Verification

Use Formal Modeling and Views

Architecture shouldn't live solely in developers' minds or sparse documentation. Formal modeling provides clarity and precision:

• Implement architectural description languages or UML diagrams to visualize system structure
• Create multiple views that represent different aspects of the system (structural, behavioral, deployment)
• Map components and interfaces explicitly to avoid ambiguity
• Document constraints and non-functional requirements clearly

These software architecture artifacts become the basis for verification, providing a clear reference against which implementation can be checked.

Perform Automated Architecture Conformance Checks

Manual verification doesn't scale with complex systems. Automated checks provide continuous feedback:

• Deploy tools that analyze codebases for architectural violations
• Set up architecture-focused static code analysis to detect structural issues
• Integrate dependency analysis to prevent unauthorized component connections
• Establish automated metrics for architectural qualities like modularity and coupling

Automated checks make architectural conformance an everyday concern rather than an afterthought.

Emphasize Requirement Traceability

Verification should ensure that each architectural element exists for a reason:

• Create traceability matrices linking requirements to architectural components
• Conduct regular audits to identify "orphaned" components that don't support core features
• Verify that non-functional requirements (performance, security, reliability) are properly addressed
• Use bidirectional traceability to understand the impact of requirement changes on architecture

This practice prevents architectural bloat while ensuring nothing important gets overlooked.

Version Control for Software Architecture

Treat architectural artifacts with the same discipline as source code:

• Document architectural decisions with clear rationales
• Implement peer reviews for architectural changes
• Maintain versioned architectural documentation alongside code
• Create architectural changelogs to track evolution over time
• Test architectural changes for backwards compatibility

Versioning prevents knowledge loss and provides accountability for architectural evolution.

Best Practices for Architecture Validation

Scenario-based Validation

Abstract designs only prove their worth when confronted with real-world needs:

• Develop comprehensive usage scenarios representing different stakeholder concerns
• Validate that the architecture supports each scenario (performance under load, integration cases, etc.)
• Use the "views and viewpoints" approach to evaluate architecture from different perspectives
• Identify edge cases and stress test the architecture against them

Scenario-based validation reveals practical limitations before they become expensive problems.

Early Prototyping and Simulation

Particularly critical for embedded systems, prototyping validates architectural assumptions:

• Create lightweight proofs-of-concept for high-risk architectural decisions
• Simulate performance characteristics before full implementation
• Test integration points with simplified implementations
• Validate hardware/software interfaces early in development

These techniques provide early feedback when changes are least expensive.

Peer Reviews and Architecture Decision Records (ADRs)

Cross-functional validation brings diverse perspectives to architectural evaluation:

• Conduct formal architectural reviews with stakeholders from different disciplines
• Document architectural decisions with clear context, constraints, and alternatives considered
• Make architectural decisions transparent and subject to feedback
• Revisit past decisions when requirements or constraints change

This collaborative approach prevents architectural blind spots that single individuals might miss.

Overcoming Common Challenges

Avoiding Architecture Erosion

Architecture isn't a "set-and-forget" artifact. It requires ongoing maintenance. Successful teams implement regular architectural health checks throughout the development lifecycle, treating architecture conformance as a continuous process rather than a one-time evaluation. When new team members join, thorough training on architectural principles and constraints helps prevent unintentional violations that can gradually erode the system's structure.

Equally important is addressing violations promptly rather than allowing exceptions to accumulate. What starts as "just this once" exceptions can quickly become the norm, gradually undermining architectural integrity. Effective teams also utilize visualizations to make architectural drift visible to everyone involved, creating shared accountability for maintaining the intended structure. These combined practices help maintain architectural integrity despite team changes and evolving requirements, preventing the slow decay that often happens when architecture becomes an afterthought.

Reducing Technical Debt with Continuous Architecture Verification

As we explored in our guide, technical debt can significantly undermine software quality when left unchecked. 
Continuous architecture verification can serve as an early warning system, helping teams identify precisely where issues are accumulating before they spread throughout the system. By quantifying the impact of architectural violations on system quality, teams can make data-driven decisions about when intervention is necessary.

Effective teams allocate regular time for architectural refactoring based on verification findings and treat architectural maintenance as an essential part of the development process rather than an optional luxury. 
This approach requires prioritizing architectural debt alongside feature development—acknowledging that both are crucial for long-term product health. Through continuous verification and architecture testing, architectural debt becomes visible before it grows unmanageable. This enables teams to address issues while they're still contained and before they compromise the entire system's integrity.

Embedding C into the Dev Workflow

For maximum effectiveness, software validation and verification should be integrated into everyday development:

• Architecture testing / analyses should be performed regularly using the latest model versions within the Continuous Integration (CI) environment - similar to standard code quality checks - serving as a “quality gate” in the pipeline.
• The results of these analyses should be easily accessible to developers. For example, violations of architectural constraints can be directly linked to the relevant code sections within the developer’s IDE or made available through a user-friendly web interface.
• For reviews and assessments, it is helpful to generate focused reports that highlight only the architectural verification issues that have appeared or been resolved within a defined time frame (e.g., a single sprint). This allows teams to track progress and address issues more effectively. 
  
  

Need More Information?

Learn more about how Axivion enables continuous architecture verification throughout the development lifecycle.

Contact us to request a demo or speak to one of our automotive experts.