‘God is in the details’ but ‘St Peter is in the gaps’ – why the ‘gaps’ matter in IT design

“God is in the details,” the German-American architect and designer Ludwig Mies van der Rohe famously declared.

Mies probably wasn’t the first to say it and, given the nature of his most famous designs – clean, modern, rational, even honest – at first sight his statement can seem contradictory and puzzling. Surely his minimalism and “less is more” philosophy don’t have ‘details’, especially not those of the sort found in classical architecture.

But while those classical approaches may have emphasised superficial, ornamental details that are singularly lacking in Mies’ designs, those weren’t really the subject of his quote.

Instead, when Mies referred to ‘details’ he was talking about an attention to those parts of a design that are crucial to its success – the often small, hidden or esoteric aspects.

It might be an oversimplification, but those are the design qualities I like to think of as the ‘four Ps’: purpose, perception, precision and price. (Mies may not have mentioned the last one but it’s clearly important and, of course, it begins with a ‘p’.)

In the architecture of buildings, these qualities ensure what’s constructed is useful, well received, reliable and accessible.

And those are qualities that are just as relevant to the architecture (design) of many other systems, IT included. It’s the attention to those details that enables projects to succeed.

The importance of the ‘gaps’ in IT systems 

However, for IT systems, it might be more appropriate to highlight the importance of the ‘gaps’ in meeting the four Ps. Or, more accurately, the interfaces between the applications that make up a system, rather than the details of them.

This is just a variation on the original idea that ‘details matter’. In IT systems architecture we can be even more specific about the areas that make the most difference. So, while what goes on behind the scenes in each application is important, the success of the overall system depends on what’s happening between those applications, i.e. in the system’s ‘public spaces’. Because it’s here that the interactions are formed that define the overall system’s behaviour, shape and quality.

But while it’s vital for the interfaces to be well-defined, it’s equally important for them to be well-known and non-proprietary. Only if interfaces are ‘open’ in this way can changes be made to an individual application (between the interfaces) without disrupting existing implementations or mandating changes of applications already deployed.

In IT this is sometimes described as ‘minimising coupling between applications’. But though it might sound obvious – and relevant to many systems – it’s all too easy to break the principles and introduce unintentional dependencies. For example, use of definitions mandated by certain applications or implementations can result in changes outside the control of the overall solution designer. This can even be intentional (it’s a classic supplier ‘lock-in’ strategy). And this applies not only to applications but also to underlying frameworks (how truly open and adaptive are AWS, Azure, GCP et al?).

But before open application interfaces can be useful, you need organisational processes to be equally well-known. And it’s here the full significance of the ‘gaps’ is seen. Without understanding how the steps within organisational processes interact, it’s difficult to know how a corresponding supporting system should be built.

While different organisational activities can often be easily identified, it’s much harder to describe how the fuzzy interactions between those distinct and concurrent activities support overall objectives. The results of one activity can often inform many successors, while conversely the behaviour of a single activity may be dependent on many preceding activities.

How NumberWorks can help

You need a coherent design method to describe these connections accurately and concisely, without creating an unmanageable set of interdependencies. And that’s where Quantiv’s NumberWorks comes in. It provides a standardised and open method to identify activity participants and outcomes, but without mandating precursor or successor activities. In effect, this provides a network of standalone organisational activities.

So, while God may indeed be in the details for buildings, in IT you might be more accurate to say, “St Peter is in the gaps”. After all, the apostle Peter is traditionally seen as a gatekeeper.

And if you’d like to know more about how NumberWorks provides both detail and separation, contact our team today.