My co-authors and I became interested in patterns after earlier work in "best practices." We had been working for a client to capture them, but we realized that just because a practice works in one organization, does not necessarily mean it will work in another. The approach we took focused on both the effective practices that we found, but also the context in which they were practiced, i.e. we wanted "best fit" practices not just "best" practices. We found that the pattern format was a good way to capture and communicate these kinds of organizational insights because of the explicit concern for both the problem to be solved and the context in which it occurs. Of course, as the earlier post in this thread suggests, the problem and context are lost on some readers:+)
Your critique on the OO/Design Patterns is interesting, I am not sure that it addresses how patterns were used in the book to communicate ideas on how organizations behave. I mentioned in one of the other posts that the chapter on rhythm is availble online. That chapter includes several patterns that are typical of the style and substance of the others in the book.
Amazon also has about 44 pages from the book on their site including all of chapter 1 (Introduction), some of chapter 2 (Reference Model), the index, and table of contents.
Only one successful case study? Design Patterns cites several per pattern.
The book has a much stronger evidence base than that. There are 18 different organization at which we conducted structured studies. We interviewed over 125 people from architects to software engineers to managers. We also drew from our own experiences as practitioners and from other published work. All of the patterns and antipatterns in the book include real examples as well.
Slashdot Mirror
My co-authors and I became interested in patterns after earlier work in "best practices." We had been working for a client to capture them, but we realized that just because a practice works in one organization, does not necessarily mean it will work in another. The approach we took focused on both the effective practices that we found, but also the context in which they were practiced, i.e. we wanted "best fit" practices not just "best" practices. We found that the pattern format was a good way to capture and communicate these kinds of organizational insights because of the explicit concern for both the problem to be solved and the context in which it occurs. Of course, as the earlier post in this thread suggests, the problem and context are lost on some readers :+)
Your critique on the OO/Design Patterns is interesting, I am not sure that it addresses how patterns were used in the book to communicate ideas on how organizations behave. I mentioned in one of the other posts that the chapter on rhythm is availble online. That chapter includes several patterns that are typical of the style and substance of the others in the book.
If you want to review the book for yourself, portions of the book are available online.
The preface and the rhythm chapter can be found on Dana Bredemeyer's software architecture site: http://www.bredemeyer.com/papers.htm
Amazon also has about 44 pages from the book on their site including all of chapter 1 (Introduction), some of chapter 2 (Reference Model), the index, and table of contents.