![[image]](http://mowser.com/img?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.codingthearchitecture.com%2F2007%2F02%2F09%2Fimages%2Fsbrown.jpg)
Simon is a hands-on software architect and has a BSc (Hons) in Computer Science from the University of Reading. Over the past 12 years, he’s been involved in projects ranging from rich desktop clients and web applications through to highly scalable distributed systems and service-oriented architectures; predominantly within the finance industry. He's also undertaken consulting and training roles with a broader focus on people, process and technology.
![[image]](http://mowser.com/img?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.codingthearchitecture.com%2F2007%2F02%2F09%2Fimages%2Fskillsmatter.gif)
Upselling your architecture
(also known as The BS Factor)
You've probably noticed this yourself but never really given it much thought. How many times have you looked at a new piece of technology, framework or project and thought, "wow, that looks complicated, I wonder how they've done that"? Then, when you do look under the covers, what you thought would be complicated is actually fairly straightforward. It may be really clever, but it's more straightforward than you thought. Here you have an example of people "upselling" their architecture.
Let's take an example. Imagine an architect presents their web application, which itself includes the ability to deal with XML-RPC requests. You might hear one of the following statements.
Both statements describe the same thing at different levels, bringing with them different levels of complexity and mystique. The first is very factual and the second has a definite sales spin on it.
I think that both are valid approaches and each creates a different perception of yourself. As an architect, you'll probably need to present to different audiences at different levels. When you do, it's worth thinking about whether you need to upsell your architecture or not.
Re: Upselling your architecture
Interesting that you'd use the word "clever" for something that turns out to be straightforward. I usually reserve "clever" for things that I think are a bad idea, as in "it's all a bit too clever".
"Neat", "simple" and even "elegant" are words I guess I use for upselling instead. Now you've got me thinking that I'm actually downplaying the amount of effort that goes into turning something complex into something simple. Perhaps I should get into some shameless bigging-up by changing to "integrated", "streamlined" and, err, "amazing" (?).
