What is the purpose of the solution context

Domain, Subdomain, Bounded Context, Problem/Solution Space in DDD: Clearly Defined

Domain-Driven Design is an approach to designing systems, usually software, that emphasises creating a common language between domain experts and system builders. Famous DDD principles include Use a Ubiquitous Language and Make The Implicit Explicit.

If you like this article, you may like another article I’ve written: What is a Domain?

I would also highly recommend Why I Don’t Need a Bounded Context by Herman Peeren.

However, some concepts in DDD do not have a clear definition and are highly implicit. Everybody has their own definition of Domain, Subdomain, Problem Space and Solution space. In this article, I’m going to provide working definitions of those concepts and clear them up.

It’s also worth keeping in mind that DDD was published in 2004 at a time when empowered, cross-functional product teams were rare. At that time IT was a separate department from “the business”.

This post is based on a long conversation on github involving many people from the DDD community.

Fuzzy But Not Ambiguous

Before defining each term, I want to emphasise an important point that Kenny Baas-Schwegler makes. He argues that DDD should be fuzzy. By having fuzziness in DDD, we can explore, model and solve new and novel problems because the existing patterns and principles don’t over-constrain our thinking.

By fuzzy I mean that a word can be used to describe different things that are similar in some way but not identical. The word “few” is a good example. In some scenarios it might imply a low range like 2 — 3 and in others it could imply a different range like 5–10. In others it can mean £100s of pounds “can you lend me a few quid?”. The key thing is that the fuzziness should be easily inferred from context (if different people interpret it in significantly different ways, that’s too ambiguous).

If I say a word and I expect that you have the same definition, but you actually have a very different definition, we have false alignment. We think we’re talking about the same thing but we’re not.

With DDD, we want to embrace fuzzy, but with shared understanding of how fuzzy each concept can be.

The following definitions are fuzzy, however, we should all be highly-aligned when using these words.

Domains

Domain-Driven Design sticks closely to the Cambridge Dictionary definition of a domain:

This definition of a domain is very fuzzy. What is an area of interest? It can be anything. A domain is effectively an arbitrary boundary around some subset of concepts in the universe.

Domains are subjective and they are not mutually exclusive. The same concepts can exist in many different domains. Here’s an example I use in talks and workshops:

If the coloured shapes in the image above represent concepts, how would they be grouped into domains? As you can guess, there are a number of ways to do this.

We can group the square shapes into the Squares domain, and the circles in the Circles domain. But the blue square and the blue circle could also belong to the Blue domain.

When modelling systems we have to choose the most appropriate domain boundaries with which to align our software and organisational boundaries. Even if we align we align by ‘colour’ the shape domain is still a domain that exists.

Every domain I model and every modelling workshop I run, different people like to slice up systems across different domain boundaries. This is normal, embrace the fuzziness and apply design thinking.

Subdomains

What’s the difference between a domain and a subdomain? This one is easy — subdomain is not a word that exists in the dictionary. The word subdomain is used prominently in the world of web hosting, but what does it mean in DDD?

In DDD, a subdomain is a relative term. Domain and subdomain can be used interchangeably. When we use the word subdomain, we are emphasising that the domain we are talking about is a child of another higher-level domain which we have identified.

Every subdomain is, therefore, a domain, and most domains are a subdomain. The only time I wouldn’t say a domain is also a subdomain is when our model does not contain a higher-level parent domain.

Core, Generic, Supporting (Sub)Domains

People are often confused when they hear that a core domain is actually a subdomain. In his DDD books, Eric Evans refers to them as Core Domains, but he also refers to them as subdomains. Confusing much?

When you view domains and subdomains as fuzzy, and subdomains also as domains, using core domain and core subdomain interchangeably doesn’t really matter. It’s fuzzy but not ambiguous.

Core Domain sounds better, Core Subdomain emphasises that there is a higher-level domain to which this belongs.

Subdomains vs Bounded Contexts

Perhaps the most confusing and controversial topic of all is subdomains vs bounded contexts. Two types of boundaries.

Some people suggest that subdomains are part of the problem space an chosen by “The Business” whereas bounded contexts are software boundaries defined engineers.

To me this has a very antiquated feel about it. And it makes sense. DDD was published 20 years ago, at a time when there was a split between the business and the separate IT department. There was a big gap between business boundaries and software boundaries.

But in modern, product-led organizations, this no longer makes sense. IT is embedded in “the business”. There is no separate IT team. Empowered engineering teams own the products they are building, and they shape their own team topologies. The business, organizational, domain, and software boundaries are all defined by the same people.

Problem Space vs Solution Space: Proposing a Better Model For DDD

The most confusing terms are problem space and solution space. Everybody has a different view on what lives in the problem space and what lives in the solution space in the context of Domain-Driven Design.

I think the problem/solution space model is too simplified for what DDD is trying to express. It is too ambiguous and more precision is needed. The elements in Simon Wardley’s Strategy cycle are much more usable in my opinion.

In Wardley’s Strategy Cycle, there are the following elements (with my simplified definitions):

Are Domains/Subdomains Problem or Solution Space?

This question can’t really be answered unless we have a clear definition of problem or solution space. But I’ll have a go anyway.

User needs and problems exist in a (sub)domain(s), the current state of the world has (sub)domains, the solution will involve multiple (sub)domains and it will alter the state of the world (which has domains). Therefore, (sub)domains logically exist in all spaces.

How can a subdomain only exist in the problem space when the design determines which subdomains we need to build solutions in? Ergo, some domains are only relevant to the solution and not the problem.

New solutions create new problems, or in the words of Simon Wardley Higher Order Systems Create New Sources of Worth.

I still recommend avoid using problem/space and instead be more specific about what you actually mean: purpose, landscape, climate, doctrine, leadership, or something else.

Whenever using the terms problem space and solution space, you need to clarify from which perspective you are speaking. Your problem space is someone else’s solution space. It’s your view of the domain.

Domains are Hierarchical

If a domain can contain subdomains, and a subdomain is a domain… then a subdomain can contain more fine-grained subdomains. Domains and subdomains are a hierarchical concept.

When designing socio-technical systems, we often want to show domains at different levels. Leadership of an organisation might want to see the companies 7 top-level domains. Software architects might want to see the domain boundaries for 100 microservices.

The Enterprise Architecture world uses the concept of Business Capabilities at different levels. Business Capabilities can be viewed as domains and subdomains.

Subdomain vs Bounded Context

This is one of the most confusing things about DDD, but when you have a clear definition of subdomain it’s actually the simplest to explain.

I’ve already established that a (sub)domain is a non-mutually-exclusive, arbitrary subset of concepts in the universe. A bounded context is the boundary of a model that represents those concepts, their relationships, and their rules. The same subdomain could be represented by an infinite number of modelling choices.

A model in DDD can be represented in a variety of formats such as post-it notes or code. Anything that shows domain concepts, relationships, rules, and so on.

Since a bounded context is a boundary for a model, it could include concepts from multiple subdomains. Or a single subdomain could be modelled as multiple bounded contexts.

Agree or Disagree?

Do you agree with these definitions, and are you happy to use them going forward? If not, please leave a comment. I care more about creating a shared understanding in the DDD community than pushing my definitions as the de facto standards. I’m very happy to change my mind…

What is the purpose of the Solution Context?

Answers of Question What is the purpose of the Solution Context? is asked in PO PM Certification Exam.

More About PO PM Certification

Other Important Exam Links – Must visit

ServiceCentreList.com is providing the answer of questions asked in PO PM Certification exam. With these answers you will be able to score 100%+ exam and can get PO PM Certification. For that you need to just attempt all the questions mentioned for PO PM Certification.

What is the purpose of the Solution Context?

To enable marketing to create better marketing campaigns

To guide Product Management in prioritizing Features

To identify critical aspects of a Solution’s operational environment

To assist sales and service organizations in configuring complex solutions

ServiceCentreList.com is a participant in the Amazon Affiliate Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.in.

Answer of What is the purpose of the Solution Context?

Our Expert Team researched a lot to keep ServiceCentreList.com website updated for certification practitioners for free. You can also contribute by updating new questions or existing question answer(s). We will give the credit for the same by adding your name on the question post. Kindly Comment below with your answers.

Qual è lo scopo del Context soluzione?
ما هو الغرض من سياق الحل؟
Quel est le but du contexte Solution?
ソリューションコンテキストの目的は何ですか？
¿Cuál es el propósito del contexto de la solución?
Was ist der Zweck der Context-Lösung?
Какова цель контекста решения?
解决方法是什么背景的目的？
Qual é o propósito do contexto da solução?

People Also Searched For: PO PM Certification Answers, PO PM Certification questions, PO PM Certification exam, PO PM Certification exam answers, PO PM Certification quiz answers, Free PO PM Certification.

1 Comment on this Article

Anonymous

To Identify critical aspects of a solution’s operational environment

Solution Context

Understanding Solution context is crucial to value delivery. It impacts development priorities, Solution Intent, Capabilities, Features, and Nonfunctional Requirements (NFRs). It provides opportunities, limits, and constraints for the Continuous Delivery Pipeline and other solution-level Release on Demand activities.

The solution context is often driven by factors outside the control of the organization that develops the solution. The level of coupling between the solution and its context generally represents an architectural and business challenge, that of finding the right balance between flexibility and tightly coupled interaction with the environment—interactions that often cross internal, Supplier, and Customer organizational boundaries. Product and Solution Management seek to influence the solution context in ways that benefit both the customer and the enterprise.

Details

Rarely are systems built for one’s own use; instead, they are built for others, whether they be internal operational Value Streams or external customers. This means that no single person typically controls, or fully understands, the complete context for the system’s deployment and use. Rather, a system is shipped, deployed, installed, and maintained in an environment that is unlike that in which it was developed. Even in the case of internal IT systems, newly developed systems are typically hosted by the IT maintenance and operations teams. In this case, the production environment may not be the same as the development environment (see the DevOps article). Therefore, understanding the solution context is critical to reducing risk and achieving fitness for purpose.

Understanding and aligning the solution and solution intent with the solution context requires a customer-centric mindset. As Figure 1 illustrates, collaboration is required. The level of collaboration depends heavily on the level of coupling between the solution and its environment.

Figure 1. Solution intent and context inform each other

To ensure this alignment, the customer, or customer proxy, should participate in Program Increment (PI) Planning (and Pre- and Post-PI Planning where applicable) and Solution Demos as frequently as possible. As solutions increase in size and complexity the customer should be increasingly involved in integrating the solution into their often unique and/or specialized context. Ideally, the customer is aligned with the release cadence of the ART, as cadence-based interaction and integration allows for building solution increments based on correct assumptions and provides validation of the result.

Solution Context Drives the Solution Intent

The customer’s context drives requirements and puts constraints on design and implementation decisions. Many of these contextual requirements are non-negotiable (often driven by Compliance concerns) and may render the solution unusable if not included. These requirements fall under the fixed category of the solution intent. Many aspects of the solution context surface as Nonfunctional Requirements (NFRs) and need to be included as part of the Definition of Done for a solution increment.

The solution context may also stipulate specific content that the solution intent must address. In a hierarchical system of systems, the system intents may also be hierarchically dependent. The system context defines how the solution intent must be organized, packaged, and integrated for use by the customer to meet any compliance, certification, and other objectives.

Fixed versus Evolving Solution Context

Some solution contexts are established customer environments that the solution must simply support, such as legacy systems containing critical customer data or older models of hardware that are still in production. In that case, some or all of the previous and or current solution context requirements are imposed on the solution via solution intent.

However, in many cases, new solutions may require the evolution of the customer’s deployment environment. The changes must be actively tracked, as both the system and deployment environment must evolve to a common state. In this latter case, fixed versus variable thinking and the preservation of options via multiple potentially viable solution contexts (see the “Moving from Variable to Fixed Solution Intent” section in Solution Intent) are tools to manage risk. Increasing variability and/or rapidly evolving solution contexts motivate more continuous collaboration.

Types of Solution Contexts

Understanding the customer’s solution context helps determine how their system will be packaged and deployed in its ultimate operating environments. Examples of solution contexts might include environments such as:

Solution Context for a System of Systems

The solution supplier-to-customer relationship in large system-of-systems contexts is typically unique and cascading, as Figure 2 shows.

Figure 2. Solution contexts wrap into a system of systems

Each organization in the supply chain delivers its solution to the customer’s context, which specifies how the solution is packaged, deployed, and integrated. That customer, in turn, provides a solution in context to their customer, and so on. In Figure 2, for example, a vehicle navigation system supplier operates first, in the infotainment supplier’s contexts, then in the vehicle manufacturer’s context, and finally in the consumer’s context. All these contexts can impact the viability of the solution, so one must be aware of the full end-to-end value chain.

Solution Context for IT Deployment Environments

When developing software solutions for internal use, the customer may be internal, but delivering solutions into the production environment still requires context. The deployment must consider specific interfaces, deployed operating systems, firewalls, APIs to other applications, hosted or cloud infrastructure, etc., as Figure 3 shows.

Figure 3. Solution context for internal IT deployment

Making deployment as routines as possible is the primary purpose of DevOps and the continuous delivery pipeline.

In this example, the new customer relationship management (CRM) system should reflect the required interfaces, as well as how the application is packaged, released, hosted, and managed in the end environment.

Solution Context Includes Portfolio-Level Concerns

Generally, the products and services of an Enterprise must work together to accomplish the larger objectives of the solution. Therefore, most solutions do not stand alone; they are also a Portfolio Level concern. As such, emerging initiatives, typically in the form of portfolio Epics, also drive solution intent and impact the solution’s development and deployment.

For internally hosted systems, interoperability with other solutions is also often required, further extending the solution context. For example, larger operational value streams (see Value Streams article) often use solutions from multiple development value streams, as Figure 4 illustrates.

Figure 4. Solutions work together to support the full operational value stream

Each of those subject solutions must collaborate and integrate with the others to provide the operational value stream with a seamless, end-to-end solution.

Continuous Collaboration Ensures Deployability

Ensuring that a solution will operate correctly in its context and deployed environment requires continuous feedback (see the Continuous Delivery Pipeline article). Cadence-based development frequently integrates the entire system-of-systems solution to demonstrate progress toward the top-level context’s Milestone and release commitments. Continuous collaboration helps ensure that the solution can be deployed in the ultimate customer’s context:

Consequently, there are many collaboration points between the Agile teams and the various roles within the customer organization. Several SAFe roles carry that responsibility along with their customer counterparts, as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Collaboration between SAFe and customer roles

Therefore, effective collaboration between customer and SAFe roles helps ensure that the system meets the customers’ needs in their context.

What is solution mapping?

Maggie Pearce is Impact’s Head of Global Practice and is responsible for developing Impact’s Solution Mapping approach. In this article, Maggie answers questions about Solution Mapping.

What is Solution Mapping?

Solution Mapping is a process that we facilitate with our clients and their key stakeholders – it is, in effect, Impact’s consulting framework. Solution Mapping is based around six key areas and prompts us to discuss each of these areas before arriving at a statement that clearly articulates the purpose of the intervention.

Where have you found that Solution Mapping has made the greatest difference for clients?

Clients often find themselves torn between competing priorities from their various internal stakeholders and also expected to provide clear business results within an unclear business context.

Solution Mapping gives our clients a clear output that their stakeholders can either participate in producing or, at the very least, sign off on. This shared understanding of the purpose of an intervention, as well as the rationale and assumptions that underpin it, ensures that all parties are ‘on the same page’ from the outset. It also makes for a much smoother and more effective design and evaluation process.

What are the key areas within Solution Mapping?

Do you have to discuss these areas in a set sequence?

There’s no need to follow a set sequence, as long as the conversation ends with all areas having been addressed, so that we can create a concise statement that articulates the purpose for the intervention.

It is also important to check and challenge any assumptions that exist between the areas. For example, when looking at Development Focus we should ask questions such as; “Does this focus reflect and support the business need? What aspects of the business need won’t be covered and will it be an issue if they are not? On one occasion, when exploring the links between the Business Context and Development Focus, it became clear that the focus should not have been on the development of leadership skills for a group of middle managers who, ‘lacked initiative’, as was originally thought, but should, instead, have been on the development of coaching and challenging skills of a much smaller group of senior managers who were failing to delegate effectively. Without Solution Mapping we may have found ourselves focused on the middle managers, but failing to make a difference to the business due to this significant skill gap at senior manager level.

Does Solution Mapping take time to do?

I usually allow a half-day for Solution Mapping and find that it actually saves a lot of time in the long run, due to the additional clarity that it brings to the design and evaluation process. The time spent gaining the involvement and support of key stakeholders at the outset also reduces that chance that the initiative is challenged or derailed at a later date.

What is your favourite aspect of Solution Mapping?

My favourite aspect is the ‘Purpose’ bit – this is where we collectively draft the statement that reflects and articulates the purpose of the program. Whilst it’s probably the most challenging part of the process, it’s great for quickly bringing to light any differences of understanding, so that they can be discussed and resolved. It’s also a useful way of cross checking that all aspects of the Learning Map have been addressed. Part of the challenge of writing the purpose statement is the fact that it has to be concise. We limit the purpose statement to a couple of lines, so that the purpose is as clear as possible and not open to interpretation. Clients tell me that this gives them the confidence to manage senior leader expectations at their end and prevent scope creep.

Who needs to be involved for best results?

This varies from one client to the next, however, as a guide we suggest that clients invite the stakeholders whose insight and involvement is likely to have the greatest impact on the success of the intervention. This could be due to their knowledge of the target audience and their needs or as a way of ensuring their buy-in and support for the initiative. Where it’s not possible to involve key stakeholders in the creation of the Solution Map, I have found that senior leaders, in particular, appreciate the opportunity to review and edit a first draft and engage in the Solution Mapping process that way.

How does Solution Mapping help with evaluation?

If you know what you are trying to achieve, it is relatively straightforward to determine if you have achieved it or not. However, the challenge with evaluation is that the purpose and objectives for an intervention are not always clear or linked to tangible behavioural and business outcomes. In addition, evaluation is also often seen as something that is addressed at the end of an initiative. We use Solution Mapping to achieve this clarity at the beginning of the design process and, working in partnership with our clients, frequently review progress throughout the initiative, ensuring that on-going evaluation is a feature of our approach.

Would you like to know more about Solution Mapping? If so contact Maggie directly.

Solution

All the words, pages, roles, activities, and artifacts in SAFe exist for only one purpose: to help Agile teams continuously deliver solutions that provide value to their customer. In turn, that enables customers to achieve their goals, which is the pinnacle of applying Design Thinking tools with a Customer-centric mindset.

However, even when teams and trains apply SAFe guidance and operate effectively within their disciplines, the value isn’t guaranteed. After all, customers do not buy Capabilities or Features. Rather, they buy whole product solutions that deliver desired outcomes. For that reason, a solution is one of the central concepts in SAFe and requires taking a systems view regarding value delivery.

Details

Developing an effective solution that is fit for its intended purpose, that is desirable, viable, feasible, and sustainable—is the larger aim of SAFe. As described in the Development Value Streams article, a solution is either a final product or a set of systems that enable an organization’s operational value stream. In either case, the work is largely the same: to determine the solution ecosystem’s needs (end-users, customers, suppliers, partners) and to reliably, efficiently, and continuously produce a flow of value that meets those needs.

Overview of Solution Development in SAFe

Solution development is the subject of each Agile Release Train (ART) and value stream. In the Essential SAFe and Portfolio SAFe configurations, each ART has the ability to deliver a largely independent solution to the customer. Large Solution SAFe supports solutions that require multiple ARTs and typically multiple Suppliers. As solution development becomes larger and more complex, more SAFe elements and practices are required. The most complex solutions require all of SAFe, as Figure 1 illustrates.

Figure 1. Overview of solution development

Large solutions are delivered by multiple ARTs operating together as a Solution Train. ARTs function simultaneously to build the solution in fully integrated increments, measurable via a Solution Demo that occurs at least during every Program Increment (PI). Solution Intent captures evolving hypotheses on what to build and how to build it. But it also facilitates exploring and defining fixed and variable requirements and designs that are derived, in part, from the Solution Context.

The nature of the customer and the relationship between the customer and the value stream determine their involvement in solution development. Customers of bespoke solutions, internal solutions, or large systems customers often interact directly with ARTs and Agile teams to clarify intent, validate assumptions, and review progress. Solution Management and Architects help drive development, make scope and priority decisions, and manage the flow of features and capabilities and Nonfunctional Requirements (NFRs). Informed by research and design thinking practices, Product Management represents customers of other kinds of solutions.

Financial governance is provided, in part, by the Economic Framework, which establishes the decision rules that govern the financial objectives of the solution and guides the economic decision-making process. Lean Budgets, Guardrails, the portfolio canvas, and Strategic Themes all provide additional boundaries and input. System and Solution Architects and Engineering provide technical governance.

Effective Solution Development Requires Systems Thinking

Principle #2 – Apply systems thinking guides the organization to institute scalable and forward-looking practices around value definition, architecture, development practices, and process improvement. Many elements of the Framework facilitate this, as described in the sections below.

Solution Capabilities, Features, Enablers, and NFRs

Capabilities and features are the end-to-end solution services that help achieve user goals. Implemented via vertical, end-to-end slices of value, they enable incremental solution development. The distinction between capabilities and features is that features can be realized by a single ART, while multiple ARTs realize capabilities within a Solution Train. Both capabilities and features must be completed within a single PI. Enablers allow exploration of new capabilities, contribute to solution infrastructure and architecture and enhance NFRs. This triggers early value delivery and helps build robust architecture.

Solution Intent

Solution intent initiates and captures a full view of the solution. It also incorporates different aspects that govern value definition, including structural, behavioral, functional, and other views. Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) provides an effective way of reasoning about the solution and is an efficient tool to share knowledge. Fixed and variable solution intent enables ARTs and Solution Trains to enhance solution intent based on the objective knowledge that emerges over the course of many learning cycles.

Customer and Solution Context

Taking a systems view requires understanding the solution context—that is, the broader ecosystem in which the solution operates. It provides additional information that determines operational requirements and constraints. And, of course, customers are part of the value stream. They participate, either directly or indirectly, in defining solution intent and solution context, and they help validate assumptions and fitness for use.

Building an Economically Viable Solution

Building a complex solution requires informed and effective decision-making—the trade-offs of the economic framework help guide solution development. Besides, a continuous exploration process that includes learning Milestones, customer feedback loops, and Set-Based Design informs and streamlines the learning process by validating good options and eliminating less practical ones.

Integrating, Testing, and Releasing

Solution development is effective only when stakeholders and teams frequently evaluate integrated increments of the entire solution. While the Solution Demo occurs on a fixed PI cadence, all of the Continuous Delivery Pipeline work activities to support the continuous creation of value and Release on Demand. To accomplish this objective, Agile teams continuously enhance their DevOps capabilities and integration and testing practices, configuration management, automation, and virtualization.

Managing Multiple Solutions in the Portfolio

Each SAFe Portfolio contains multiple value streams. Many are largely independent, while others may have many cross-cutting concerns and dependencies, as is illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2. An example of crosscutting solution concerns in a portfolio

Sometimes these crosscutting concerns provide enhanced capabilities that allow strategy differentiation. Other times, they are just dependencies that must be addressed as part of the solution offering. When this is the case, Coordination across value streams is required.