Make the important architecture decision before you build
Solution Architecture & AI Advisory turns a real workflow constraint into options, boundaries and a decision record that a delivery team can use. The work can recommend a pilot, more data, ordinary automation or no-go — it is not a promise that every use case will succeed.
What the architecture work makes explicit
Discovery
Interview owners, map the current workflow and identify the event, asset, process, document and decision that matter.
Architecture options
Compare Edge, Local, Cloud or Hybrid against latency, privacy, connectivity, cost and operations assumptions.
Data and security boundary
Show payload, telemetry, update, integration and remote-access paths with an approver for each boundary.
Pilot plan
Define the smallest useful test, method, metric/data owner, acceptance criteria and rollback path before implementation.
Decision record
Record why an option was chosen, what was rejected, open risks and the gate for the next investment.
Packages with an input, timebox and decision gate
These are fixed-scope structures to start a conversation. Time and price are confirmed after the scope, site and team are known.
| Package | Input | Timebox | Output | Exit decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Discovery Review | Problem brief, workflow owner and available data | Agreed discovery sessions | Current-state map, use-case score and risk list | Continue, collect data or stop |
| Architecture Sprint | Discovery findings and constraints | Agreed sprint window | Target architecture, ADR, decision matrix and TCO assumptions | Approve Pilot scope and acceptance plan |
| Production Readiness Review | Pilot/system inventory and existing evidence | Agreed review window | Security/operations gaps, runbook outline and prioritised backlog | Go, conditional go or no-go |
| Advisory Retainer | Named decision owner and recurring questions | Monthly review cadence | ADR updates, decision log and backlog review | Decisions and backlog per review |
Readiness scorecard — seven dimensions, with assumptions
A score is a conversation aid, not an ROI forecast. Each level must include the evidence, assumptions and owner that produced it.
| Dimension | Questions to answer | Assumption / evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Business | Which decision changes, how often and for whom? | Named outcome owner and baseline process |
| Data | What data exists, at what quality, with what label effort? | Data sample, retention and consent boundary |
| Performance | What latency, throughput and operating continuity are required? | Measured workload or explicit target |
| Privacy | What is payload, telemetry and permitted egress? | Data owner and architecture boundary |
| Integration | Which ERP, MES, PLC, API or workflow must connect? | Interface owner and compatibility constraints |
| Operations | Who monitors, backs up, rolls back and supports the system? | Runbook, access and support window |
| Ownership / exit | Who owns each artefact, license and decision; how can the system exit? | Contract, inventory and handover owner |
Sample decision kit
Template / sample only. It is intentionally redacted and does not represent a customer project, benchmark or production acceptance.
Architecture Decision Record
Edge / Local / Cloud / Hybrid options, decision drivers, rejected alternatives and open assumptions
Data-flow diagram
Payload, telemetry, update, integration and remote-access boundaries with approvers
Compatibility matrix
Model, runtime, hardware and version marked tested, supported or not tested
Risk register
Risk, impact, mitigation, owner, due date and residual uncertainty
Acceptance and rollback plan
Method, metric/data owner, conditions, acceptance decision and rollback trigger
Handover matrix
Business data, code, model, configuration, operations and acceptance artefacts
Delivery and ownership inventory
The architecture pack separates what is delivered from what remains a customer, third-party or contract decision.
| Area | What is recorded | Rights / responsibility to agree |
|---|---|---|
| Business data | Export format, schema and retention | Data owner, access and deletion |
| Custom code | Repository snapshot and build instructions | Ownership or license in contract |
| Third-party code | Version and license notices | License obligations and replacement effort |
| Model / fine-tuned artefact | Version/hash, source, training and evaluation context | License, data rights and redistribution |
| Configuration | Redacted template and deployment instructions | Customer rotates secrets through a safe channel |
| Operations | Runbook, alerts, backup and rollback | Owner, support window and escalation |
| Acceptance | Test report and known limitations | Named receiver and recorded exceptions |
What customers prepare
- Problem statement, decision owner and the KPI or workflow change to explore
- A representative data sample or a safe way to inspect availability and quality
- Existing systems, connectivity, privacy constraints and integration owners
- Pilot site, operator time, acceptance approver and a realistic stop condition
- Budget range or procurement constraint, without treating it as a final quote
Out of scope until separately agreed
- Full implementation, new features or retraining without a Build/change scope
- A production performance or ROI result before the agreed test is run
- Security, compliance or safety sign-off on behalf of the customer
- Third-party network/cloud responsibility not named in the contract
- Ownership of every model, component or dependency by default
Start with the decision, not a full architecture quote
Share the problem, current system, data boundary, integration and decision owner. We will propose a discovery or architecture scope first, including when the responsible next step is to collect data or not build yet.
Request an SA scope workshop