Why Software Frameworks Must Be Used Flexibly

There is little question of the importance of software frameworks. Used appropriately, they provide great value to organizations who seek to perform better at scale. Unfortunately, all too often organizations fail to realize this value. The framework becomes an inflexible structure within which teams must work together following pre-defined roles that do not fit the organization. It is easy to see why this happens: it greatly simplifies the adoption effort. But as H L Mencken said, “For every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, neat, and wrong.” Frameworks can be very powerful and many companies have benefited from their use; the danger comes when the intention of a software framework is conflated with that of a physical framework.

One definition of a framework is, “an essential supporting structure of a building, vehicle or object.” This is a physical framework. It is a solid, set structure within which things fit. Clearly, this is necessary in physical structures such as buildings and yet, even so each building has a framework that must be unique to its own context. Unless you are building the exact same building every time, there is no one-size-fits-all framework for buildings.

In the same way, each organization is different. In fact, each part of an organization is different. Why would we think that a single framework should apply as-is to every organization (or even to every sub-part of an organization)? There is no one-size-fits-all approach for software development.

The answer is not to abandon software frameworks but rather to rethink their intention. Software frameworks should not be seen as a set collection of invariable practices all pre-glued together; instead, they should be viewed as a set of relationships between structure, roles, and workflows. And the set of practices included in the framework should be seen as starting points and guides. When other practices are found that fit the organization better, they should be substituted.

Taking this approach avoids the “framework dogma” that is often seen in framework adoption. Instead of looking at the framework as a source for solutions, the framework becomes a source for ideas.

While every organization is unique, there are patterns of solutions that are fairly common between organizations and this is the power of frameworks: they represent good starting points that bring issues into focus. The patterns of challenge are seen when the framework is followed without adapting it to local contexts.

To enjoy success with a framework, honestly look at where you are and what you need, create a roadmap for adoption, and then use the framework as a guide and adapt as you go. This approach does require someone with experience to lead it. The cost of engaging someone with experience is easily offset by the benefits you will see in this effort.