I tend to have a moderate degree of confidence that my initial architecture/design will work, assuming all my underlying technology assumptions are correct. My

I tend to have a moderate degree of confidence that my initial architecture/design will work, assuming all my underlying technology assumptions are correct. My software architecture skills are definitely better than my coding skills - the coding is something of a plod. I try to minimise coding effort by designing out coding where I can, mainly cause it takes me so long to write the code. So step one is to prove all unknowns around the technology assumptions. One these are proven out then I build the hard bits then the easy bits, in the knowledge that it will all hold together. It annoys me to have a working system implemented "thinly" because I have to go back and context switch into the mindset of each component and then deal with the massive technical debt of properly implementing each component. Don't get me wrong - I really like the idea of the SpikeSolution - makes a great deal of sense.