Grady Booch on Design

TL;DR Grady Booch defines design as navigating a decision space—choosing structural or behavioral configurations under constraints. He distinguishes between design and architecture (high-cost decisions), introduces patterns (reusable solutions), and styles (design traditions), offering a model that’s both conceptually clear and grounded in practice. This essay builds on Booch’s model through a temporo-material perspective, which sees design not as linear decision-making but as an enfolded, ongoing process. Design emerges from entanglements of material, temporal, organizational, and historical forces. It’s not just about choosing—it’s about inhabiting and shaping what already matters.

Key Takeaways for Software Architects 1 Architectural decisions carry temporal inertia.
Don’t just assess cost of change, it is not static. Costs are contextual they increase or decrease in value based on the future context. The cost of change is sociotechnical; design decisions (re)produce themselves and the systems they initially emerged from, increasing the cost of change over time. It is also critical to understand how decisions shape future possibilities. Design for adaptability, not permanence. 2 Patterns are habits, not just tools.
Use them consciously. They persist because of repetition, not because they’re always optimal. Be willing to break them when context demands. 3 Design happens within systems, not above them.
You’re always designing inside a web of prior decisions, tools, norms, and constraints. Start by mapping the entanglements, then work with them—not against them.

Booch’s Definition of Design

In 2006 Grady Booch responded to Dick Gabriel’s question, “What is design?” This question is notoriously difficult to answer as the concept of design has been undertheorized as its own epistemological/ontological framework. Instead, responses to this question have frequently imported theoretical systems, methods, and concepts from the sciences and humanities.

Booch’s response to the question offers a conceptually robust, pragmatic articulation of design in the context of software and systems design.

Booch distinguishes two primary senses of design:

• As a noun, design is the name we give to a particular structural or behavioral configuration of a system—an identifiable form that emerges from the resolution of forces on a system. Booch writes a decision (as a noun) “represents one point in a potential decision space.”

• As a verb, design is the activity of navigating this space—making choices among possibilities, constrained by materials and forces, in pursuit of coherence. Booch situates this activity at the intersection of science and art: empirical exploration combined with aesthetic and ethical judgment. Here we might argue that Booch is describing design-as-social-practice.

⠀His definition also has a few key distinctions:

• He creates a demarcation between Design in general and Architecture. Architecture refers to significant design decisions, where significance is indexed by the “cost of change.”

• Patterns are repeatable configurations (that resolve systemic tensions) that arise across systems, recognizable enough to be named.

• Styles are coherent ensembles of design (as a noun) decisions that mark a particular tradition or lineage.

Booch recognizes that design is not just about producing new things but about choosing amidst complexity—amidst competing goals, technical limitations, and shifting knowledge. His model acknowledges both the situational constraints of real-world systems and a phase space of potential that enables novelty via the multiple realizability of the resolution of forces on a system (there is more than one way to skin a cat).

There’s much to admire—and to retain—in Booch’s framing.

• First, his concept of design space elegantly expresses the combinatorial potential of design activity. It encourages an exploration mindset rooted in pragmatic navigation rather than limitless invention. Here, we may find use for concepts of boundedness in Simon’s sense of bounded rationality, but also within a larger frame of bounded cognition and agency.

• Second, by describing architecture through cost of change, Booch makes visible the temporal implications of decisions. Some design moves reverberate more than others; they entrench, stabilize, and constrain. He names this systemic inertia without mystifying it. Temporal constraints exist in the sense that it takes time to materialize and (later) modify materialized decisions. Within architecture, these high cost-of-change decisions have the kind of sticky depth and width we see when considering coupling, componentization, and “near decomposability.”

• Third, his concept of patterns and styles introduces historical depth: the idea that designs recur, not randomly, but because they persist within a field of shared intelligibility. Design is neither purely personal (or social) nor wholly technical—it participates in traditions of thought and practice.

Booch’s account is frequently cited and is a useful framework for thinking about software design precisely because it balances conceptual clarity with practitioners’ experiences designing software.

What Booch teaches us, perhaps most importantly, is that design is a mode of inquiry. It is how we reason with complexity, under ambiguity and constraint. His decision space is a metaphor— a map of possibilities—but one that acknowledges historicity, cost, and commitment.

Booch also gives us a way to think about how design accretes form and acquires significance over time. His categories of architecture, pattern, and style gesture toward an ontological layering: design decisions are not made once and for all—they are inherited, reinterpreted, and often lived with for far longer than expected.

However, Booch’s definition lends itself to a reading that presupposes a certain linear temporality—a model in which decision follows analysis and structure follows choice. Design is positioned as a response to forces, resolved through reasoning and craft. But from a tempro-material perspective, this sequence is both incomplete and ontologically insufficient.

Tempro-materiality offers a different ontology: one grounded in enfoldment, intra-action, and dynamic coherence. It tells us that materiality is not static or inert, and that design is not simply what we do to materials. Rather, materials—conceptual, technical, social—do something to us. Matterials-as-process only appear to matter in relation to other materials and emerge (or come forward) or recede in dynamic contexts. Design is not just decision within time, but the becoming of matter(ing) through time.

Booch’s “decision space” risks being understood as something “out there”—a topography waiting to be navigated. However, design does not occur on neutral terrain. Every act of design is already situated, already entangled in prior choices, past experiences, inherited tools, organizational histories, and (tempro)-materialities.

From a tempro-material view, the decision space itself is enfolded—a dynamic surface shaped by prior and present intra-actions. It is not mapped from above but traversed from within, where each decision folds in not only prior states but anticipations of future constraints. The “point in decision space” Booch refers to is not a neutral selection—it is a temporal event, a performance of the layered entanglement of past designs, future imaginaries, and present possibilities.

While Booch names the “cost of change” as the measure of architectural significance, tempro-materiality reframes this cost as temporal inertia. Architectural decisions matter not only because they are expensive to reverse—but because they enfold multiple temporalities: organizational momentum, technological dependencies, cognitive expectations, and social norms.

These decisions do not merely stabilize—they shape how the system itself is experienced by systemic agents and their stewards. Architecture becomes a vector, binding the future to the constraints of the past. To change a system requires unfolding these layers—revisiting the choices, assumptions, and material inscriptions that hold it in place (that (re)produce it).

Booch describes patterns as repeatable solutions to common problems, but from a tempro-material perspective, patterns are not just solutions—they are performances. They emerge through the ongoing intra-action between designers, tools, languages, institutions, and memory systems.

Patterns persist not because they are optimal in the abstract, but because they matter repeatedly—they arrive, again and again, into a context of use. They are coherent not because they are static, but because they are dynamically re-enacted. They come forward as part of an enfolded present, bearing traces of prior interpretations, expectations and applications.

Perhaps most significantly, tempro-materiality challenges the assumption that design is about resolving tensions. In Booch’s model, design resolves forces through decision. But in an tempro-material ontology, design does not resolve—it enacts. It is a performance of what matters, here and now, amidst a field of potential pasts and futures.

Design is the processual enactment of coherence, not the solution to a problem. It is how entities, meanings, and constraints come to matter in a moment shaped by entangled temporalities. The (tempro-)material isn’t just passive stuff—it carries history and shapes what futures are even imaginable. The material is not surface to act upon—it is the medium through which the past arrives, and the future is made thinkable.

Grady Booch’s model remains a touchstone in the discourse of software architecture. His clarity of expression and sensitivity to the real constraints of engineering practice are invaluable. Yet, if we wish to deepen our understanding of design’s ontology—especially in a world of increasingly hybrid materialities—we must shift the frame.

Design is not merely the navigation of decision space.

It is the enfolded becoming of systems across time.

It is not just what we choose—it is how we inherit, reinterpret, and reinstantiate what has already come to matter.

It is not resolution—it is coherence enacted under temporal pressure.

Tempro-materiality offers us this alternative: to see design not as a linear process of choosing among options but as a recursive enfolding of what matters, materially and temporally, in and through the intra-actions of agents, actants, systems, and time.

---

🚨 Don’t miss out — Early Bird pricing ends March 31! 🚨

Join Dr. Jabe Bloom at the DDD Europe Conference for an exclusive, two-day workshop on Designing Constraints. This session is a rare chance to co-design actionable design principles that shape sociotechnical systems — not as abstract theory, but as living frameworks tailored to your organization’s evolving needs.

This workshop is for Architecture and Product leaders ready to dive into design thinking, systems theory, and real-world practice — no lectures, just learning through doing. Collaborate, explore, and emerge with the tools to create context-aware principles that unlock strategic adaptability.

🎟️ Space is limited — Register now and save before the early bird deadline on March 31!