Top-Down, Middle-Out, Bottom-up

http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/are_all_six_sigma_deployment_models_equal.html

IFaP : Middle Out Architecture

There is some discussion these days about "middle out" architecture. The key idea in "middle out" is that it is neither top down nor bottom up. So what does that mean?

Top down architecture means to take the entire enterprise and create a model with large, vague, blocks of functionality. The architect then drills down on each block, adding details and fleshing out the design, until a sufficiently detailed design is created. It's basically Functional Decomposition 101.

Bottom up architecture means to allow different teams to create whatever services they want, set up an infrastructure for sharing them, and then stepping back, hoping magic will happen. Sometimes it does. Usually, it's just chaos.

You cannot craft a work of art by pouring a bucket of sand on the street, and you cannot craft an efficient enterprise by endorsing services and then standing back to 'watch things happen.'

Middle out architecture starts at the center. The goal of middle out architecture is to create a stable 'center' as an abstract combination of Identifier standard, Format standard and Protocol standard (an IFaP). This abstract combination is something that allows variation both in the business uncertainties (where a business would consume a service in a composable manner) and in technology uncertainties or variations (where the technologies to be consumed could be widely different). This is often illustrated as an Hourglass shape, with the narrow waist being the IFaP.

http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik/archive/2007/02/08/ifap-middle-out-architecture.aspx

Bρήκα αυτό το σχεδιάγραμμα, το οποίο αναφέρεται σε ένα επιχειρηματικό μοντέλο, θα μπορούσε να υπάρξει μια αντιστοιχία με την αρχιτεκτονική πρακτική;
Αν θέλετε μπορείτε να το σχολιάσετε.
Αν δεν είστε εξοικειωμένοι με το blog μπορείτε να τα στείλετε με mail στο pegyzali@yahoo.gr και να τα ανεβάσω εγώ.