Feedback on AM (the Avancier Method) See testimonials below Email to send feedback on AM, or the web site on which parts of AM are published.
Conditions of use….FAQS….Feedback….Community….Value proposition….Training for Architects….Certificates for Architects….News….				Site map
Feedback	Continuous improvement		Editor responsibilities		Ownership and maintenance
In Feb 2007, maintenance was moved to a more “open source” style enabling contributions from any registered user. All feedback is welcome. Your contribution will be credited if you wish.	Improvement is continuous. The version number is advanced to show a noticeable change has been made. Most updates are minor.	Maintain the end-to-end consistency of the content. Maintain AM in alignment with industry standards promoted by the BCS/ISEB and The Open Group. Maintain AM in alignment with the Atos Origin architecture standards. Contribute to and mine from international discussion groups.		The organisation responsible for maintaining the web site and AM is Avancier Limited. Maintenance is paid for through the fees for training and business use.
Testimonials received in unsolicited feedback
Useful checklist - every heading relevant (though some proved unhelpful, since detailed data models existed, and we copied from earlier documentation - notably the major business process flow diagram.). The effort (estimated and actual) was perhaps 5% of project. We followed the structure rigidly - TA wanted to merge IS and Technology architecture documents, but Analyst didn’t. The customer didn’t want all the detail we did, so we had to produce a summary.” Feedback from a systems integration project. “I've completed the Technical Architecture document for the Design Stage of Products… reviewed and accepted by XXX and YYY. To create the document I relied heavily on the [architecture guides]. I've just reviewed these with the finished Architecture document and my first conclusion is that there are no major gaps in the [guides]. Also, I'm not sure what the next step might be in terms of improving them further. I did, however, write two supplementary documents, on Application Performance Logging and Error Handling, which may be of interest.” Feedback from a systems integration project. “I do really like your new framework, and as you know I'm not one to throw praise around without due cause” Feedback on the changes at version 8. “We in XXX are using the [guides] to document the architecture of our managed service. They seem to be working well. We can use the IS Architecture to document the overall context of the system, deployment of software across the estate, third party packages, customised bespoke, and their interactions etc. And use the Technology architecture to document the environments (Development, Test, Production etc). And to document the coding standards for our customisation and bespoke, which are very important, to gain consistency, when team members are not full time developers.” Feedback from an IT operations project. “For the last seven months I've been working as an architect on the XXX project. [We were] brought in to manage the Web Application aspects of the project, since [Operations] doesn’t have expertise in bespoke application development. One of my major tasks was to produce an Architecture Definition for the Web Application. This was a combination of the Business, IS and Software architecture. I circulated this document to the customer, and to each of the project leads in the [Operations] parts of the project. I received a very positive response. They were very impressed by the structure of the document, and asked if they could use it as a template for their own architecture documents. Of course I agreed! They were very impressed with the standard documents they found, and used them to develop part of the overall project solution. The [Operations] people were very impressed with the standards, and it looks like at least some of them will use these standards in the future.” Just thought I would let you know! :-) Feedback from an apps project within IT operations.