Menú

Fundamentals of Software Architecture

21 February, 2020 | 35 min 24 sec
Podcast Host Rebecca Parsons | Podcast Guest Neal Ford and Mark Richards
Listen on these platforms

Brief Summary

Rebecca Parsons talks to Neal Ford and Mark Richards about their new book that promises to become the definitive guide to software architecture. The book provides a concise overview on what's needed to become a software architect.

Podcast Transcript


Rebecca Parsons:

Welcome to the ThoughtWorks Tech Podcast. I'm here today with the authors of a new book called Fundamentals of Software Architecture. Neal and Mark, would you please introduce yourselves?


Mark Richards:

Sure. Hi, Rebecca. My name is Mark Richards. I'm an independent consultant and a hands-on software architect. I've been in the industry for almost 35 years now, 25 of those as a software architect. I'm the founder of developertoarchitect.com, a website I created several years ago as a giveback website to host a lot of references, books, videos, and lessons about software architecture.


Neal Ford:

You may recognize my voice. I'm one of the regular hosts of the ThoughtWorks Technology Podcast, but I've figuratively moved over to the guest chair today because I'm also one of the co-authors of the Fundamentals of Software Architecture book. I'm Neal Ford, and I work at ThoughtWorks as doing software architecture and a variety of other things within ThoughtWorks.


Rebecca Parsons:

My name is Rebecca Parsons. I am one of the regular hosts, and I am the chief technology officer for ThoughtWorks. Now, let's get started. The book is called Fundamentals of Software Architecture. Does the world really need another book on software architecture?


Neal Ford:

That's a really good question. We actually broached this question several years ago, almost exactly to the month, because he and I both realized we had a lot of material that overlap, that covered some interesting parts of the software architecture ecosystem, but we didn't have a really good idea at the time what a fundamentals book or even course would look like. Then we started putting together a training course and then Mark started iterating on that a lot and we both started working on it. You know this as well as we do that anytime you take some ideas like that and start iterating on them, just like in software, you can refine and hone those things and make them better and better over time.


Neal Ford:

Over time, we actually have carved this material down where we think we have a reasonably good idea of what the scope of a Fundamentals Book of Software Architecture would be. Certainly software architecture is a big, huge, sprawling topic, but there are some things that we think most software architects should have some good context for and those are the things that made it into our book.


Mark Richards:

Well, and also both Neal and I agree that the journey from developer to software architect is actually a very difficult one. Largely architecture is a multidisciplinary type of thing, I guess you would say. What we have found almost close to what, six years ago, Neal, I think it was that there really wasn't a concise guide out there for knowing how to become a software architect. We started to put our heads together because both Neal and I had a lot of material, disjointed but a lot of material, on software architecture. We kind of thought a good comprehensive book that really dealt more with our experiences in the industry rather than kind of theoretical ideas was really kind of the crux of saying, we should write this book for the industry.


Neal Ford:

And so we do.


Mark Richards:

But another reason, Rebecca, to your point about why yet another software architecture book, there's so many out there. Neal and I both observed quite a bit of change, especially in the past 10 years or the past decade, but even further in terms of where software architecture is going. A lot of the books still kind of hold onto some of these old axioms that we see basically becoming invalid. Another reason for why yet another software architecture book was not only to relay both Neal and I's pragmatic experience within architecture hands-on, but also to invalidate some of those old axioms and also bring it to kind of today's world.


Neal Ford:

Well, as you are very familiar, Rebecca, being the co-author of Building Evolutionary Architectures book. Building Evolutionary Architectures' my most recent book that we co-authored together, the software development ecosystem is in constant flux and it's constantly changing. It changes in these little tiny ways, but the accumulated effect of all those tiny changes is an entirely new world every so often. We make these assumptions in software architecture, but then those assumptions slowly become invalid and go away. I think microservices really brought that to everyone's attention because for a couple of decades the attitude in the industry was, well, software architecture is the stuff that's hard to change later.


Neal Ford:

But then you start building architectures where the notion of change is built into it and then suddenly it's like, well, no, that assumption is long no longer valid. We started looking at what other of these kind of overarching assumptions that you just carry around with you, what we're calling as axioms, how many of these other ones can you kind of cast aside because the modern ecosystem has gradually chipped them away until they don't exist anymore? Can you rethink some fundamental things about software architecture because the ecosystem has gradually changed and is a brand new place from the last time people made assumptions about these parts of software architecture?


Rebecca Parsons:

Before we delve into the specifics, more of these axioms that have been invalidated, what do you think is really behind the change that we've had in architecture? What has caused those axioms to be invalidated? What do you think is behind this dynamic ecosystem that we live in now?


Mark Richards:

Yeah, I think it's multifaceted actually. I think there's certainly... We can talk about two major facets of that, Rebecca, the first being business change, change within the business landscape, but also a significant change in the technical landscape as well. You want to talk about one of those?


Neal Ford:

Sure. Let's talk about the technology landscape. Five years ago, nobody knew what Kubernetes was, but now there are multiple conferences around the world with thousands of people dedicated to Kubernetes. But it would've been impossible five years ago to predict exactly something like Kubernetes because just the fundamental nature of the software development ecosystem is one tiny change triggers another tiny change which triggers another tiny change. It's a very chaotic kind of relationship where it's impossible to predict what sort of long-term implication, something like, oh, containerization, well, that sounds like a pretty small evolutionary staff beyond the virtual machine.


Neal Ford:

But then suddenly when that appears, a whole new landscape open up and all of these new possibilities and ways of thinking about solving problems, including some really nasty problems that we... On demand scalability is a great example of one of those things that some of us on this call have sweated bullets trying to build architectures to build those kinds of capabilities, and now it's a configuration setting on your cloud provider. That's very frustrating to those of us who sweated blood and shed tears trying to get those things to work that, oh yeah, I misconfigured my cloud. Hold on, I'll fix our scalability.


Neal Ford:

That's a great example of just how fundamental the ecosystem changes, but also how unpredictable it is because each of those changes is this tiny little incremental thing, but the cumulative effect can be massive.


Mark Richards:

That's right. Within that, the business landscape itself, change is so prevalent and also remaining competitive in today's marketplace is extremely difficult. Businesses are finding, at least this is in my experience, keeping current or even keeping competitive in this landscape is extremely difficult. If you take any kind of the large type of industries, banking, insurance, trading, any of these things that used to be so stable, small boutique banks and towns are showing up everywhere. Large banks are not only competing against other large banks for customers, but also now against smaller banks that are able to offer better rates on money market, CDs, and even checking.


Mark Richards:

Trading firms are competing against each other, brick and mortars, whereas a day trader, why would I spend 12.99 on a trade when I can online probably with the same broker spend 1.99. Even insurance is experiencing significant change and competitive advantage. Insurance companies not only are competing against each other, but small boutique insurance firms are opening up everywhere, especially in the Midwest here in the United States. This competition becomes very fierce. We won't even talk about retail. It's like all podcasts. But the point is, companies these days to survive have to be more agile. We can't turn a large ship for several years. It has to turn within a matter of months now. The problem is our architectures are not easy to change in a lot of these companies.


Mark Richards:

That agility within business trickles down to the actual ability to change an architecture itself to maybe sometimes even redirect that business. Yeah, these two changes combined are really the precipice for this.


Neal Ford:

Well, I think even within ThoughtWorks 10 years ago, we used to really have to sell a lot of companies on this idea that agile was not this crazy idea, that it was actually a smart thing to do. We have to sell this idea a lot less often because the world has changed enough to make companies realize that we have to be more responsive. This is the shift that we talk about from viewing software as overhead and a cost center versus being strategic. That's a fundamental shift. But if you're in a business where you treat and all your other business' competitor is treated overhead and then somebody moves in to strategic, suddenly they have a huge advantage and it changes the kind of business landscape you're in.


Neal Ford:

That's another huge driver that, again, is unpredictable and the pace of which it's speeding up at least as fast as the pace of the technology landscape.


Mark Richards:

I mean, even DevOps, CI/CD, these are environmental changes cloud that directly impacts our architectures.


Rebecca Parsons:

Okay. Those axioms that I used to hold so dear, give me an example of one that you think is invalidated to the point where how we used to think about architecture is simply no longer valid.


Neal Ford:

We'll give you a couple of examples because that's really one of the... When we set out to write the book, we were really hunting for what are some fundamental assumptions that people have made that have led them to make less good decisions in architecture or delay decisions longer than they necessarily need to within an architecture. One of the things that we realized was something actually related to this measure that we created in the Evolution Architecture book around this idea of an architecture quantum because we realized as we started rethinking architecture characteristics, which is our name for nonfunctional requirements or system quality attributes, we have all-


Mark Richards:

Abilities.


Neal Ford:

Yeah. The reasons we like that name better. But when you really start thinking about those, the kind of base assumption was that those are at the system level. Because when we first started thinking about those, most architectures are monolithic. But now when you look at things like microservices, one of the magic powers of microservices is the different services can have different sets of architecture characteristics. The scope of how we think about architecture characteristics has now changed and is much smaller around service in a microservice architecture. If you go into the analysis of architecture characteristics with that in mind, it gives you a better decision criteria of deciding should I choose a monolithic architecture style or should I choose a distributed architecture style?


Neal Ford:

If we're in a distributed architecture, where should the boundaries of those architecture characteristics be? In other words, where's the scope of those things? Once I've established that, now I can figure out where data should live in a distributed architecture and then I can figure out things like communication techniques. Rethinking where the scope of those characteristics live give you a lot better analysis techniques for figuring out sooner what is the most appropriate kind of architectural style to solve this problem.


Mark Richards:

Right. That's a good example of a structural aspect. I want to talk about a process aspect of an axiom and that is that software architecture is really separate from software development. As a matter of fact, we invalidate that axiom. As a matter of fact, an entire part three of the book, we invalidate that axiom and really maintain that software architecture is actually part of the software development process and that this tight collaboration between architects and developers in today's world is absolutely necessary to get architecture to work. We've been kind of saying this for some time, just not knowing actually how to accomplish it.


Mark Richards:

Based on a lot of the experiences that both Neal and I have had, we conveyed some of those tips and techniques within the book, not only to state and demonstrate exactly why this tight collaboration, not communication, but collaboration, really has to exist between architects and software development teams, but also how to actually accomplish that as a software architect. That's another process related kind of axiom that we also invalidated within the book.


Rebecca Parsons:

Tell me a little bit about the structure of the book, what's in and what's out. I mean, I will point out that you've used carve down and concise, which are not normally descriptors of a book that's over 400 pages long. What's in? What's out? How's it laid out? What motivated the structure of this book?


Mark Richards:

Sure, Rebecca. Let me tell you about a little bit of the overall structure and have Neal dive into some of those aspects about our decision-making about including certain things. The book is really divided into kind of three main parts in which when we started to kind of organize the material into a narrative arc to actually give the reader a journey from developer to architect essentially. Part one really deals with a lot of the foundational aspects of software architecture. We provide a lot of definitions within there, lay kind of the groundwork for the follow-on sections in parts. Part two, it really focuses on the structural elements of architecture, the architecture styles.


Mark Richards:

As a matter of fact, I think we cover eight of them if I'm not mistaken, Neal, including things like microservices, microkernel, space-based architecture, service-based architecture, a whole host of others. We dive pretty deep into those patterns and styles of architecture, show a lot of examples of those architecture styles when they're used and when to use them. Then part three of the book is also dedicated then to the soft skills of software architect. Really focusing on those leadership and negotiation aspects. Very similar, Rebecca, to what I just talked about with that need to collaborate and be part of a development team. Part three is devoted entirely to that piece.


Neal Ford:

Yeah. One of the nice roles I get to play is the conference co-chair for the O'Reilly Software Architecture Conference. One of the things that we try to focus on in that conference are these talks that focus on soft skills like how to conduct a meeting and how to negotiate and how to resolve differences and how to sell your ideas to management. When a lot of architects come to us after the conference and say, "Those are the things that were really most valuable to me because you can learn technical stuff by reading online, but it's really hard to get a lot of those things.


Neal Ford:

We wanted to really make sure the substantial part of the book focused on those kinds of skills that frankly most developers don't focus on in their ascension toward becoming a software architecture because you're mostly focusing on technical skills and showing expertise in those areas. We wanted to have a strong part of it focused on presentation writing, have document things in architecture, but we also... The subtitle of our book is actually an engineering approach. We want to take a very engineering eye toward this, using a lot of agile engineering practices.


Neal Ford:

This is, again, toward that idea of taking all the things that exist in the modern landscape, taking a snapshot right now of what kind of capabilities we have in software development and architecture and operations, and apply those things as aggressively as we can to get better at designing and assessing and analyzing software architecture. We actually take several older metrics from the structure design and the object oriented design world and show architects how they can use it to analyze existing architectures to learn the 20,000 foot view of quality of some key metrics in the code base. We tried very hard as much as we could to focus on how much can we push software development toward an engineering discipline.


Neal Ford:

The other thing that we focus really heavily on is everything is a trade-off. In fact, we have some laws of software architecture that talk about trade-offs and how to assess trade-offs. We try to couch everything not as this is a best solution. We never use the term the best anywhere in the entire book. It's always this is one set of trade-offs, but there's a counter set of trade-offs. We try to focus very diligently on objectively looking at everything we could and seeing what the real trade-offs are.


Mark Richards:

As a matter of fact, Rebecca, that was one of the things that Neal and I did attempt to and I think accomplished in the book were these overarching themes that ran across every chapter and every section and sometimes every paragraph specifically again about that first law of software architecture that everything is a trade-off. One of the things that we do in the book when we mention something is to also drive home what is the trade-off of this. Rebecca, you probably know this after also writing many books that once you start writing, you keep writing and writing and you go deeper and deeper and deeper. One of the challenges that we did face, which I'm sure most authors face, is how deep to go in a particular topic. We have gone pretty deep on topics.


Mark Richards:

However, that was really the challenge point about what to include and not to include. Rather than removing entire sections, there are parts of the book where quite simply we weren't able to go as deep as we would have liked to. This would've been a six to 800 page tome if we had done that, but fortunately we do have another book which we are embarking on as kind of a follow-on for the hard parts of software architecture, which we actually can then go deeper into some of those aspects.


Mark Richards:

There were times is my point where we could have taken the opportunity to go much deeper in some areas, but would have lengthened the book to the point where we would have had to have skipped out a lot of really important foundational concepts that are important for newly minted architects, as well as experienced architects and even developers.


Neal Ford:

A great example of something that we left out just because we didn't have a great expertise and it would have greatly expanded the scope of the book is a lot about data architecture. That's a huge rich area that we just didn't have space to address, but we are going to try to address that in our next book, which focuses on some of those difficult problems around data architecture. But it's always a tricky thing when you have a big sprawling topic like this is where do you draw the line? A lot of pages got pushed off to another repository over time to figure out exactly what's the scope for this one.


Mark Richards:

Yup. Yup.


Rebecca Parsons:

Well, particularly with a topic that's as nuanced as software architecture, I mean, every question you get asked about software architecture, the answer always starts with, well, it depends on blah, and then you lay out all of the 17 different pieces of context you need in order to answer the question. For a topic this nuanced, I'm sure scoping was a significant problem for you.


Neal Ford:

It was a challenge.


Rebecca Parsons:

We've covered this a little bit, but what is your elevator pitch for how this book is different from other software architecture books, particularly those that are not aimed at describing a particular architecture, but as Mark has said multiple times about this journey to architecture and what does it really mean to be an architect?


Neal Ford:

Well, actually I believe that every 15 or 20 years somebody should do exactly what we've done because the ecosystem changes so much. I mean, if you tried to build an architecture with all the things that we only knew 15 years ago, you wouldn't have much of a useful system anymore. But the books that we rely on sometimes are 10 or 15 years old about this. I think that software architecture is one of those things that so fundamentally changes one little piece at a time that you really should take another stab at it, looking at can we take it in the context of all the new stuff, the modern stuff that's around? I think that's one thing that I don't think we'll be the last ones to do this. In fact, we shouldn't be the last ones to do this.


Mark Richards:

I hope not.


Neal Ford:

Somebody else should pick this up in another 10 years and do the exact same thing with all the other brand new toys that we have laid around.


Mark Richards:

I also think, Rebecca, there are, as you noted, several books on software architecture out in the world there. One of the things I think that differentiates our book from a lot of those is that within a single book we have brought together both the foundational aspects, structural aspects, process aspects, and probably more important, the soft skills of architecture, and have put those together in a cohesive fashion so that it actually does paint a whole journey as opposed to just a bunch of separate sections in a book. I guess that holistic view of software architecture I think is one of the things that differentiates our book from a lot of others that focus on either just the soft skills or the structural aspects.


Mark Richards:

One thing Neal and I noticed as we were spending many, many, many years writing this book was that these different sections all interrelate and all connect as callbacks to one another, part one the foundations, part two with the structural aspects, and part three with the soft skills and process piece. Any one of those parts really can't live separately either as a separate book or a separate kind of topic. One of the things that we did do through this book was to tie those together and continue to weave different sections in as one cohesive unit.


Neal Ford:

That was the other thing that helped us limit the scope. The things that didn't fit as well into that overarching narrative ended up getting pushed aside because we really were trying to make it all coherent and contextualized for someone who's in that role.


Mark Richards:

Another thing that I think, Rebecca, really differentiates this book, one of the things I was actually very excited about when writing this book was that there is a... What don't you think, Neal? 70 years of collective experience that went sent into this book, but the point is it's highly pragmatic. There's very little theory within the book, most of it. If we do have theory, we talk about the trade-offs associated with any given kind of approach or solution or technique. Those trade-offs, Rebecca, really came from our collective experience in software architecture for the 30 to 35 years each and for each of us.


Mark Richards:

I think this also differentiates it in that we've got two really good architects that are able to work together really well, put our heads together, and pretty seamlessly come up with the cohesive ideas for this book.


Rebecca Parsons:

Let me expand on that a little bit. How often were those trade-offs coming out of your different experiences with some of the things that maybe you both approached what on the surface looked like a similar problem when in fact it really wasn't because item nine on the contacts list completely different. I mean, did you find your experiences complimented, contradicted, overlapped, probably all of the above? Tell me a little bit about that.


Neal Ford:

Well, very much all of the above, but it was interesting to see the way we approached several different problems. Some of the discussions we had about different nuances of reliability and microservices is a great example of this because being a distributed architecture, generally distributed architectures take a reliability hit because you have to have network communications, you have files distributed computing.


Mark Richards:

Oh, but wait, the network is reliable.


Neal Ford:

There's the problem that you have, but you can use things like redundancy to give more instances in service discovery. There are a bunch of different ways to solve that particular problem. In fact, that led to what we ended up codifying, is what we call the first law of software architecture, which is everything in software architectures are trade-off. The first corollary to that law was if you think you've found something that isn't a trade-off, you just haven't discovered what that trade-off is yet. That's what we ended up doing a lot between the two of us is, "Oh, here's a thing that's good. Wait a minute. Now, if it's good, there has to be a bad. Where is the bad side of this?"


Neal Ford:

That was actually a really good process I thought because pretty much everything that we came up with, we tried to question and find what's the counter to that. If it was a bad thing, we tried to find the good and vice versa. But I think that's really ultimately the skill software architects should hone the most. It's not the collection of facts that you get out of a book like this, but rather given any circumstance, how can I become better at objectively assessing what the real trade-offs are so that I can make the better informed decision in this instance? Because you're never going to find a book that has your situation in it. But if you get better and better at trying to identify what the real trade-offs are, you've got a better shot at making good decisions.


Mark Richards:

Any architect will know the answer to any given question in architecture, of course, is it depends. That gets rather cumbersome and irritating at times. We were very careful in the book. Of course, if you search on it depends, you will see hundreds of, well, which one is better? It depends. But one of the things that we were careful about doing in the book was to say it depends on what. That's where we would branch out and say it depends on factors or facets of A and B and C and D and then we would dive into A, B, C and D to actually kind of not give somebody an answer, but rather help the reader with the thought process behind how do I analyze whether I should use a traditional layered architecture or microkernel.


Mark Richards:

That's one specific example, as a matter of fact, we do have in the book. We go through that kind of trade-off analysis in there to kind of answer it depends on what. Rebecca, that's too easy of a cop out answer I think. Architects can just wave their hands and say, "Yeah, it depends." Well, give me an answer. Well, it depends.


Rebecca Parsons:

That to me is one of the things that I like about this book is that it tells you the why's and it tells you the questions to ask and what to look for. In my experience, that's the hardest thing for developers to learn is there isn't the same kind of right answer. We can all pretty much agree on what clean code looks like, but what a good architecture looks like, that definition does not exist. If you think it does, then you haven't thought about the problem enough.


Mark Richards:

That's right. Rebecca, you hit the nail on the head. You said the magic word, which points to our second law of software architecture, which is that the why is more important than the how. You hit the nail on the head on that one. Yes. That we had coined as the second law of architecture. Yes.


Neal Ford:

We discovered that because one of the things that we do when we do like a hands-on workshop is we have people design architectures and we have them draw lines and boxes and the designs they come up with. We thought at one point, hey, we should keep those and build a catalog of all these designs that we very quickly discovered that if you don't also force them to write up why they made those decisions, then the diagrams are pretty much useless because you can see how they solved it, but you don't know why they made this decision versus this other one. That really led us to realize that, wow, the why of this is way more interesting than the how, which is really just a detail.


Rebecca Parsons:

You've talked a little bit about, so what comes next?


Neal Ford:

Well, so we've taken a lot of the ideas. This is actually a Mark's name. You're familiar with the book and the meme that came out a few years ago, JavaScript: The Good Parts. Well, we've coined to name Architecture: The Hart Parts because it turns out that... Why do you write a book about something like software architecture or an API? Well, you figured out some best practices for things and you want to write them down. Well, what happens when there are no best practices? A lot of things in software architecture, we don't really have best practices. We have two crummy sets of alternatives to choose from. Now, which is the least crummy alternative is the real key.


Neal Ford:

That's what our next book is going to focus on is a whole bunch of these really difficult problems like what is the correct granularity for your microservices? Wow, okay. There is no correct answer, but man, there's a lot of currently trade-offs that you have to assess doing that. Our next book is really going to focus on what happens to all of those problems where we have it and may never build best practices, and yet we still have to make decisions around those things in architecture. Communication, synchronous versus asynchronous? What's the proper granularity in distributed architectures? How do you manage data in distributed architectures, transactions, and all those things? That's what we're currently working on now is the book called Architecture: The Hard Parts?


Neal Ford:

We're starting to do some workshops around this. There's going to be a two day training at the O'Reilly Software Architecture Conference coming up in New York in February and in Santa Clara in June and in Berlin in November. We're going to do a two day version of that. Zhamak is another one of the podcast hosts and I are doing a one day version of that at the DDD Europe Conference coming up in early February this year. That's the new stuff that we're working on. We're actually very excited about that because we've been working on this book so long. We've literally just within the last two hours finish the copy, edit, review on this book. It is almost done, and we're very excited to move on for the juicy bits in the next book.


Mark Richards:

Exactly. As matter of fact, Rebecca, we're really excited about this new material. We are taking the same process on this new book approach as we did on the Fundamentals of Software Architecture. That book, if somebody were to ask us, "Well, how long did you work on that book?" The answer would be around seven years total, two years writing, but seven years because one of the things that we like to do is to create the material, vent out that material and iterates over that material in conferences, trainings, workshops, so that we can hone it to the point where by the time we get to writing the book, we've already figured out the structure and what things we want to write about.


Mark Richards:

The writing process becomes more an after effect of developing and honing the material. That's the approach we're going to be taking with the hard part stuff as well.


Rebecca Parsons:

Yet it still took two years of actual writing after five years of honing.


Mark Richards:

Yes.


Neal Ford:

It's funny that number because one of the things I like to do is read books by writers about writing, which is an interesting little sub genre in and of itself. There's a great book by Annie Dillard called The Writer's Life. One of the things she said in that book was every book takes two years. It's like, hey, she's right. No matter how much you try to hurry, it seems like they all end up taking two years to write. She's like a poet. I was really shocked to find out that my experience with most technical books end up finding a way to take about two years. The writing of this one ended up doing that. I fully anticipate the next one will probably take at least two years to write that.


Mark Richards:

Well, let's see. I bet it will.


Rebecca Parsons:

That's after you finish the honing.


Neal Ford:

Exactly.


Mark Richards:

Exactly. Yes.


Rebecca Parsons:

Well, thank you, Mark, thank you, Neal, for taking the time to talk about the book and best of luck with the honing process. I'm looking forward to seeing those juicy topics of what is the right granularity for a microservice.


Neal Ford:

We are too.


Mark Richards:

Yes.


Neal Ford:

Thanks a lot.


Mark Richards:

Thanks, Rebecca.


Neal Ford:

We'll talk soon.


Rebecca Parsons:

Next time on the ThoughtWorks Podcast, I will be joined by David Farley and Jez Humble, the authors of the book, Continuous Delivery. They'll be chatting about how the term is being used, misused, and what things might look like in the future. Please join us. Thank you.

Check out the latest edition of the Technology Radar