The life of a software architect is a long (and sometimes painful) succession of suboptimal decisions made partly in the dark.One corollary conclusion I make from this is:
The significant benefit of a software architecture is that it exists, not that it optimally fulfills the prerequisistes.If the purpose of an architecture is to guide and control subsequent developement the fact that it actually provides some guidance is more important than the guidance have exactly the right bearing. I have a gut feeling that this is intimately related to if the system has any conceptual integrity or not.
Could I write some kind of position paper on this? What arguments could I use? Is such a paper already published?