IOSM: an Algorithmic Engineering Methodology you can automate

The vision: predictable evolution instead of heroic refactors ## The axioms (the “why” behind the algorithm) ## IOSM as “Configuration-as-Code” ## The core: an orchestrator, not a checklist ## The four phases (what you actually do) ## 1) Improve — make the system understandable ## 2) Optimize — make it fast and resilient, but only with a baseline ## 3) Shrink — reduce the surface area (where bugs and cost live) ## 4) Modularize — restructure so change is contained ## Fitness functions: make architecture testable ## Anti-patterns IOSM is designed to catch ## How to adopt IOSM without boiling the ocean ## The point ## If you want to discuss / collaborate Most engineering teams don’t fail because they lack talent. They fail because improvements are chaotic: So I built IOSM — an algorithmic methodology (not a vibe, not a manifesto) that turns system improvement into an executable discipline: configuration, gates, metrics, and a health index you can drive in CI/CD. :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0} Improve → Optimize → Shrink → Modularize …and the key idea is brutal in its simplicity: Metrics over opinions. Every step is validated by gates. :contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1} IOSM is designed to eliminate chaos in improvements, reduce cost of change, increase predictability, and align engineering with business value. :contentReference[oaicite:2]{index=2} The intended outcome is systems that become clear, fast, simple, and scalable. :contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3} That’s not a slogan — it’s enforced. IOSM is built on a few non-negotiables: If your process contradicts these, IOSM will keep pulling you back toward them. Here’s the part most methodologies miss: you can encode IOSM. A minimal iosm.yaml can define what “good” means for your system: This is the shift: instead of “we should clean it up,” you get quality gates that fail a build. IOSM is explicitly defined as a cycle orchestrator: That “advance only if gate passes” rule is where the discipline comes from. IOSM starts with clarity because unclear systems create fake speed and real pain later. The Improve phase includes things like: Gate-I is your “we can reason about this now” checkpoint. Optimization without a baseline is a classic self-own, so IOSM bakes in: This is performance work that can survive a postmortem. Shrinking is about removing what you don’t want to maintain: This phase is where “complexity budget” becomes real. Finally, you earn modularity: Modularity isn’t “more modules.” It’s lower coupling + higher cohesion + smaller change surface. IOSM encourages fitness functions — automated assertions that enforce properties like: This is how “architecture” stops being a PDF and becomes an executable standard. If any of these sound familiar, IOSM was made for you: IOSM includes an adoption roadmap: It also scales hierarchically: run cycles on modules, services, and whole portfolios, and benchmark the IOSM-Index across systems. :contentReference[oaicite:14]{index=14} IOSM is not “a better way to refactor.” It’s a way to turn improvement into a reproducible algorithm: configured, gated, measurable, automatable — so your systems evolve predictably instead of depending on heroics. :contentReference[oaicite:15]{index=15} If you’re building platforms, large applications, or anything that must survive years of change: this is the discipline I wish we all had by default. I’d love feedback from teams who’ve tried to make architecture enforceable in CI/CD: (And if you want, I can share a concrete “starter template” iosm.yaml + example fitness functions for a typical backend service / monorepo.) Github: https://github.com/rokoss21/IOSM Templates let you quickly answer FAQs or store snippets for re-use. Are you sure you want to hide this comment? It will become hidden in your post, but will still be visible via the comment's permalink. Hide child comments as well For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse - refactors without a finish line - “performance work” without a baseline - “modularization” that increases coupling - endless polishing that never reaches business value - Clarity is a prerequisite for speed (unclear architecture kills velocity) - Efficiency = performance × resilience - Simplicity reduces risks and costs - Modularity is the engine of evolution - Economics of change drives prioritization - Feedback closure: improvements must be validated by business + user feedback :contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4} - Gate I (Improve): semantic clarity, logical consistency, duplication limits - Gate O (Optimize): latency targets, error budget discipline, chaos testing - Gate S (Shrink): API surface reduction, onboarding time - Gate M (Modularize): change surface constraints, contracts must pass - Weights for a composite IOSM-Index :contentReference[oaicite:5]{index=5} - Pull backlog items - Prioritize by economic decision - Run phases in order - Advance only if the gate passes - Collect metrics and compute an IOSM-Index - Decide whether to continue or stop :contentReference[oaicite:6]{index=6} - build a glossary - enforce naming conventions - remove duplication - define invariants and instrument assertions :contentReference[oaicite:7]{index=7} - profiling → bottleneck identification - targeted optimizations - resilience patterns - chaos tests + benchmarks :contentReference[oaicite:8]{index=8} - find redundant APIs - remove/merge them - remove unused dependencies - measure onboarding time :contentReference[oaicite:9]{index=9} - build a dependency graph - partition it - refactor to partitions - define contracts + contract tests :contentReference[oaicite:10]{index=10} - bundle size limits - layering rules (e.g. no UI → data edges) - stable interfaces (no breaking changes) :contentReference[oaicite:11]{index=11} - selective phase execution (skipping phases breaks integrity) - optimization without a baseline - modularity for the sake of modularity - endless Improve cycles - shrink that breaks contracts - micro-optimizations at the expense of DX :contentReference[oaicite:12]{index=12} - 0–2 weeks: Gate-I / Gate-S - 30–60 days: Gate-O / Gate-M - 90 days: stabilize at IOSM-Index ≥ 0.98 :contentReference[oaicite:13]{index=13} - What gates would you add first? - What metrics do you trust? - Where does your org get stuck: Improve, Optimize, Shrink, or Modularize?