Deliverables

The curriculum covers what an architect should know. This covers what an architect actually hands over: 55 artifacts, each with a worked example, a note on when it is worth producing, who reads it, and the ways it usually goes wrong. Filter by the artifact's type, the kind of engagement that calls for it, the stack or industry it is drawn against, or the audience it is written for.

Identify the deliverable → 42 diagrams, shown one at a time with the answer withheld. Nothing to submit.

25 of 55 deliverables shown.

flowchart TB
  subgraph sell["Sell"]
    direction LR
    s1["CRM<br/><i>SaaS · Sales</i>"]
    s2["Quoting<br/><i>bespoke · Sales</i>"]
    s3["Pricing A<br/><i>legacy · Sales</i>"]
    s4["Pricing B<br/><i>legacy · Regional</i>"]
  end
  subgraph fulfil["Fulfil"]
    direction LR
    f1["Order Mgmt<br/><i>bespoke · Ops</i>"]
    f2["WMS<br/><i>COTS · Ops</i>"]
    f3["Carrier Portal<br/><i>SaaS · Ops</i>"]
  end
  subgraph support["Support"]
    direction LR
    b1["ERP<br/><i>COTS · Finance</i>"]
    b2["Billing<br/><i>mainframe · Finance</i>"]
    b3["HRIS<br/><i>SaaS · HR</i>"]
    b4["Expenses<br/><i>SaaS · unowned</i>"]
  end
  s3 -.->|"same capability"| s4

Structural View

Application Landscape Diagram

Every application in the estate placed against the business areas it serves, so duplication and orphans become visible.

Application Portfolio Management Discovery

flowchart TB
  subgraph core["Customer-Facing"]
    direction LR
    c1["Customer<br/>Management"]
    c2["Product &<br/>Catalogue"]
    c3["Order<br/>Capture"]
    c4["Fulfilment"]
  end
  subgraph enable["Enabling"]
    direction LR
    e1["Pricing &<br/>Promotion"]
    e2["Inventory<br/>Management"]
    e3["Payments &<br/>Settlement"]
    e4["Returns &<br/>Claims"]
  end
  subgraph support["Supporting"]
    direction LR
    s1["Finance &<br/>Accounting"]
    s2["Human<br/>Resources"]
    s3["Procurement"]
    s4["Risk &<br/>Compliance"]
  end

Structural View

Business Capability Map

What the business is able to do, arranged as a stable nested hierarchy of abilities with no processes, systems or org units on it.

Capability Mapping Discovery

flowchart TB
  subgraph l1["Experience"]
    direction LR
    e1["Web"] --- e2["Mobile"] --- e3["Partner Portal"]
  end
  subgraph l2["Channel & API"]
    direction LR
    c1["API Gateway"] --- c2["BFF"] --- c3["Event Ingress"]
  end
  subgraph l3["Business Services"]
    direction LR
    b1["Ordering"] --- b2["Pricing"] --- b3["Fulfilment"] --- b4["Billing"]
  end
  subgraph l4["Integration"]
    direction LR
    i1["Message Broker"] --- i2["Adapters"] --- i3["File Transfer"]
  end
  subgraph l5["Data"]
    direction LR
    d1["Operational Stores"] --- d2["Analytical Platform"] --- d3["Cache"]
  end
  subgraph l6["Infrastructure"]
    direction LR
    f1["Compute"] --- f2["Network"] --- f3["Storage"]
  end
  l1 --> l2 --> l3 --> l4 --> l5 --> l6

  sec["Security<br/>&<br/>Identity"]
  ops["Observability<br/>&<br/>Operations"]

Structural View

Layered Architecture Diagram

The solution as horizontal capability tiers with cross-cutting concerns as vertical bars — the picture executives expect and the one most often drawn without meaning.

Reference Models Design

flowchart TB
  cust(["Customer"])
  agent(["Support Agent"])
  sys["Order Management<br/>the system being described"]
  pay["Payment Gateway<br/>external SaaS"]
  erp["ERP<br/>existing on-premises"]
  mail["Email Provider<br/>external SaaS"]
  crm["CRM<br/>external SaaS"]

  cust -->|"places and tracks orders"| sys
  agent -->|"amends and refunds orders"| sys
  sys -->|"authorises and captures"| pay
  sys -->|"posts financial documents"| erp
  sys -->|"sends confirmations"| mail
  sys -->|"reads account and entitlement"| crm

Structural View

System Context Diagram

The single box of your system surrounded by the people and external systems it talks to, and nothing about how it is built inside.

Context Diagrams Discovery

flowchart LR
  subgraph cust["Customer"]
    direction TB
    c1(["Submits claim"])
  end
  subgraph intake["Intake — automated"]
    direction TB
    a1["Validate policy"]
    a2{"Policy active<br/>and in cover?"}
    a3["Auto-assess<br/><i>rules + model</i>"]
    a4{"Confidence<br/>&ge; threshold?"}
  end
  subgraph handler["Claims Handler"]
    direction TB
    h1["Manual review"]
    h2{"Approve?"}
  end
  subgraph fin["Finance"]
    direction TB
    p1["Schedule payment"]
  end

  c1 --> a1 --> a2
  a2 -->|"no"| r1(["Reject — notify with reason"])
  a2 -->|"yes"| a3 --> a4
  a4 -->|"yes"| p1
  a4 -->|"no"| h1 --> h2
  h2 -->|"yes"| p1
  h2 -->|"no"| r2(["Decline — notify with appeal route"])
  p1 --> e1(["Paid"])

Behavioural View

BPMN Process Diagram

A business process as tasks in swim lanes with explicit decision points and handoffs, where crossing a lane boundary is the interesting event.

Business Processes Discovery

flowchart LR
  a["Idea accepted<br/><i>work 2d</i>"]
  w1(["wait 9d<br/>backlog"])
  b["Refinement<br/><i>work 1d</i>"]
  w2(["wait 4d<br/>awaiting design"])
  c["Build<br/><i>work 5d</i>"]
  w3(["wait 3d<br/>awaiting review"])
  d["Code review<br/><i>work 0.5d</i>"]
  w4(["wait 6d<br/>awaiting test env"])
  e["Test<br/><i>work 2d</i>"]
  w5(["wait 11d<br/>awaiting release window"])
  f["Release<br/><i>work 0.5d</i>"]

  a --> w1 --> b --> w2 --> c --> w3 --> d --> w4 --> e --> w5 --> f
  f --> tot["Work 11d &middot; Wait 33d<br/>Lead time 44d &middot; Flow efficiency 25%"]

Behavioural View

Value Stream Map

Every step from request to delivery with its work time and its wait time, exposing that most of the elapsed time is queueing.

Flow Metrics Discovery

flowchart LR
  party["Party"]
  cust["Customer"]
  supp["Supplier"]
  prod["Product"]
  order["Order"]
  ship["Shipment"]
  inv["Invoice"]
  pay["Payment"]
  loc["Location"]

  cust -->|"is a"| party
  supp -->|"is a"| party
  cust -->|"places"| order
  order -->|"is for"| prod
  supp -->|"supplies"| prod
  order -->|"is fulfilled by"| ship
  ship -->|"is sent to"| loc
  order -->|"is billed on"| inv
  inv -->|"is settled by"| pay

Data View

Conceptual Data Model

The twelve or so things the business talks about and how they relate, with no attributes, no keys and no technology.

Data Architecture Discovery

flowchart TB
  subgraph d1["Domain: Sales"]
    direction TB
    p1["<b>customer-360</b><br/><i>daily · 99.5% freshness SLO<br/>owner: Sales Data</i>"]
    p2["<b>pipeline-facts</b><br/><i>hourly</i>"]
  end
  subgraph d2["Domain: Fulfilment"]
    direction TB
    p3["<b>order-events</b><br/><i>streaming · &lt;60s<br/>owner: Fulfilment Eng</i>"]
    p4["<b>delivery-performance</b><br/><i>daily</i>"]
  end
  subgraph d3["Domain: Finance"]
    direction TB
    p5["<b>revenue-recognised</b><br/><i>daily · certified<br/>owner: Finance Systems</i>"]
  end

  subgraph plat["Self-Serve Platform"]
    direction LR
    s1["storage + compute"] --- s2["catalog + lineage"] --- s3["access control"] --- s4["quality + observability"]
  end

  gov["Federated Governance<br/><i>global: identity keys · classification · retention</i>"]

  p3 -->|"consumed by"| p1
  p1 -->|"consumed by"| p5
  p3 -->|"consumed by"| p5
  plat --- d1
  plat --- d2
  plat --- d3
  gov -.-> d1
  gov -.-> d2
  gov -.-> d3

Data View

Data Mesh Domain Map

Which domain owns which data product, what each one guarantees, and the shared platform underneath that makes publishing one cheap.

Data Mesh Design

flowchart LR
  subgraph src["Sources"]
    direction TB
    oltp[("Operational DBs<br/><i>CDC</i>")]
    saas["SaaS APIs<br/><i>batch pull</i>"]
    events[["Event Stream<br/><i>Kafka</i>"]]
    files["Partner Files<br/><i>SFTP drop</i>"]
  end

  subgraph raw["Raw Zone"]
    direction TB
    r1[("append-only<br/>source schema<br/>no transforms")]
    r2["<i>guarantee:</i><br/>replayable history"]
  end

  subgraph clean["Cleansed Zone"]
    direction TB
    c1[("deduplicated<br/>typed, conformed<br/>quality-tested")]
    c2["<i>guarantee:</i><br/>schema + quality SLA"]
  end

  subgraph curated["Curated Zone"]
    direction TB
    g1[("business entities<br/>modelled, aggregated")]
    g2["<i>guarantee:</i><br/>agreed definitions"]
  end

  subgraph serve["Consumers"]
    direction TB
    bi["BI & Reporting"]
    ml["Feature Store<br/>& Model Training"]
    api["Data API<br/>& Reverse ETL"]
  end

  oltp --> raw
  saas --> raw
  events --> raw
  files --> raw
  raw --> clean
  clean --> curated
  curated --> serve
  clean -.->|"exploration only"| ml

Data View

Layered Data Platform Diagram

Sources landing into progressively refined zones, with the contract each zone offers written down rather than assumed.

Medallion Architecture Design

flowchart TB
  subgraph pri["Primary site"]
    direction TB
    p1["Application tier"]
    p2[("Transactional DB")]
    p3[("Object storage")]
    p4["Secrets + config"]
  end
  subgraph dr["Recovery site — warm"]
    direction TB
    d1["Application tier<br/><i>scaled to 0 · IaC ready</i>"]
    d2[("DB replica<br/><i>async · lag &lt; 30s</i>")]
    d3[("Storage replica<br/><i>cross-region · 15 min</i>")]
    d4["Secrets replicated"]
  end

  p2 ==>|"async"| d2
  p3 ==>|"async"| d3
  p4 ==>|"sync"| d4

  subgraph run["Recovery sequence — tested 2026-05-18"]
    direction TB
    s1["1. Declare · 5 min"]
    s2["2. Promote replica · 8 min"]
    s3["3. Scale app tier · 6 min"]
    s4["4. Repoint DNS · 5 min<br/><i>TTL 60s</i>"]
    s5["5. Verify + reconcile · 12 min"]
    s1 --> s2 --> s3 --> s4 --> s5
  end
  dr --> run
  run --> res(["Restored — measured RTO 36 min"])

Deployment & Infrastructure View

Disaster Recovery Topology

What is replicated where, in what order recovery happens, and the tested time each step takes.

Disaster Recovery Design

flowchart TB
  u(["Users"]) --> gslb["Global traffic manager<br/><i>health + latency routing</i>"]

  subgraph ra["Region A — write primary"]
    direction TB
    a1["Edge + API"]
    a2["Services"]
    a3[("Primary DB<br/><i>accepts writes</i>")]
    a1 --> a2 --> a3
  end

  subgraph rb["Region B — read + standby"]
    direction TB
    b1["Edge + API"]
    b2["Services"]
    b3[("Replica<br/><i>read only · lag &lt; 2s</i>")]
    b1 --> b2 --> b3
  end

  gslb -->|"reads: nearest"| a1
  gslb -->|"reads: nearest"| b1
  gslb -->|"writes: always A"| a1
  b2 -.->|"write forwarding<br/>+45ms"| a2
  a3 ==>|"async replication"| b3
  arb{{"Failover arbitration<br/><i>manual promote · documented<br/>RPO &le; 2s · RTO 15 min</i>"}}
  arb -.-> a3
  arb -.-> b3

Deployment & Infrastructure View

Multi-Region Topology

How many regions serve traffic, where writes are allowed, how data converges, and what the split-brain answer is.

Multi-Region Rollout Design

Governance Artifact

Non-Functional Requirements Matrix

Every quality attribute stated as a measurable scenario with a number, a measurement point and a named owner — not as an adjective.

Quality Attributes Discovery

Governance Artifact

RACI Matrix

Who is responsible, accountable, consulted and informed for each architectural decision type — with exactly one accountable per row.

Design Authority Design

Governance Artifact

RTO / RPO Matrix

Per service, how much data the business has agreed to lose and how long it has agreed to be down — with the cost of each tier stated next to it.

RTO & RPO Design

Governance Artifact

Service Level Objective Sheet

For each user-facing journey, the indicator, the target, the error budget it implies and what happens when the budget is spent.

SLI, SLO & SLA Run

gantt
  title Target state — 18 months
  dateFormat YYYY-MM-DD
  axisFormat %b %y

  section Foundation
  Landing zone and connectivity      :done,   f1, 2026-01-01, 60d
  Identity federation                :done,   f2, after f1, 45d
  Observability baseline             :active, f3, after f1, 75d

  section Decouple
  Strangler facade at edge           :active, d1, 2026-03-15, 90d
  Extract order domain               :        d2, after d1, 120d
  Extract pricing domain             :        d3, after d2, 90d
  Retire shared order database       :crit,   d4, after d3, 60d

  section Data
  Ingest to raw zone                 :        a1, 2026-04-01, 75d
  Conformed customer entity          :        a2, after a1, 90d
  Retire nightly extract jobs        :        a3, after a2, 45d

  section Resilience
  Multi-zone for tier 0              :        r1, 2026-06-01, 60d
  Automated failover rehearsal       :        r2, after r1, 45d
  Second region for tier 0           :crit,   r3, after r2, 90d

Planning Artifact

Architecture Roadmap

The sequence of architectural change over time, grouped by theme, with dependencies visible and each bar tied to an outcome rather than a technology.

Architecture Roadmaps Discovery

flowchart TB
  t1["T-7d · Dry run in staging<br/><i>full rehearsal, timed</i><br/>owner: Delivery"]
  t2["T-1d · Freeze changes · verify backups<br/>confirm rota and bridge<br/>owner: Ops"]
  t3["T-0 00:00 · Enable read-only on legacy<br/>owner: Ops"]
  t4["T-0 00:15 · Final delta migration<br/><i>est 90 min · checkpoint at 60</i><br/>owner: Data"]
  t5["T-0 01:45 · Reconcile counts + checksums<br/>owner: Data"]
  g1{"T-0 02:15 · GO / NO-GO<br/><i>criteria: 100% row match,<br/>0 critical defects, all owners present</i>"}
  t6["T-0 02:30 · Repoint DNS + feature flag<br/><i>TTL pre-lowered to 60s</i><br/>owner: Platform"]
  t7["T-0 02:45 · Smoke suite + 10 manual journeys<br/>owner: QA"]
  g2{"T-0 03:30 · Accept or roll back"}
  t8["T-0 03:30 · Open to 10% traffic<br/>owner: Platform"]
  t9["T-0 06:00 · 100% traffic<br/>owner: Platform"]
  t10["T+24h · Hypercare ends<br/>legacy kept read-only 30d"]
  rb(["ROLLBACK · revert DNS<br/>re-enable legacy writes<br/><i>est 20 min</i>"])
  pnr["POINT OF NO RETURN<br/><i>after first write to new system<br/>rollback needs reverse migration</i>"]

  t1 --> t2 --> t3 --> t4 --> t5 --> g1
  g1 -->|"no-go"| rb
  g1 -->|"go"| t6 --> t7 --> g2
  g2 -->|"roll back"| rb
  g2 -->|"accept"| t8 --> t9 --> t10
  t8 -.-> pnr

Planning Artifact

Cutover Plan

The hour-by-hour sequence of go-live, with owners, checkpoints, the rollback decision point and the moment rollback stops being possible.

Zero-Downtime Migration Build

flowchart LR
  subgraph w0["Wave 0 — Foundation"]
    direction TB
    f1["Landing zone"]
    f2["Connectivity + DNS"]
    f3["Identity federation"]
    f4["Observability + backup"]
  end

  subgraph w1["Wave 1 — Prove it (6 apps)"]
    direction TB
    a1["Internal wiki<br/><i>rehost</i>"]
    a2["Reporting portal<br/><i>rehost</i>"]
    a3["Batch scheduler<br/><i>replatform</i>"]
  end

  subgraph w2["Wave 2 — Bulk (34 apps)"]
    direction TB
    b1["Departmental apps<br/><i>rehost ×26</i>"]
    b2["Shared services<br/><i>replatform ×8</i>"]
  end

  subgraph w3["Wave 3 — Hard cases (9 apps)"]
    direction TB
    c1["Order management<br/><i>refactor</i>"]
    c2["Data warehouse<br/><i>replatform</i>"]
    c3["Partner gateway<br/><i>refactor</i>"]
  end

  subgraph w4["Wave 4 — Exit"]
    direction TB
    d1["Mainframe interfaces<br/><i>replace</i>"]
    d2["Data centre exit<br/><i>contract ends Q3</i>"]
  end

  w0 -->|"platform accepted<br/>by security + ops"| w1
  w1 -->|"runbook proven<br/>rollback rehearsed"| w2
  w2 -->|"shared services live<br/>latency measured"| w3
  w3 -->|"last dependency<br/>severed"| w4

Planning Artifact

Migration Wave Plan

Which applications move in which batch, in what order, and what the dependency between batches actually is.

Cloud Migration Design

Planning Artifact

RAID Log

Risks, assumptions, issues and dependencies in one place, each with an owner and a date — the artifact that makes the difference between a surprise and a decision.

Migration Risk Design

flowchart TB
  subgraph l1["Capabilities delivered"]
    direction LR
    c1["Product<br/>engineering"] --- c2["Data &<br/>analytics"] --- c3["Platform &<br/>infrastructure"] --- c4["Security &<br/>risk"]
  end
  subgraph l2["Organisation"]
    direction LR
    o1["Stream-aligned teams<br/><i>×9 · own build and run</i>"] --- o2["Platform team<br/><i>×1 · paved road</i>"] --- o3["Enabling team<br/><i>×1 · coaching</i>"] --- o4["Architecture chapter<br/><i>federated</i>"]
  end
  subgraph l3["Ways of working"]
    direction LR
    p1["Product-funded<br/><i>not project</i>"] --- p2["You build it<br/>you run it"] --- p3["Continuous<br/>delivery"] --- p4["Design authority<br/><i>advisory + gates</i>"]
  end
  subgraph l4["Governance"]
    direction LR
    g1["ARB<br/><i>off-radar only</i>"] --- g2["Tech radar<br/><i>quarterly</i>"] --- g3["Automated<br/>compliance"] --- g4["Exception<br/>register"]
  end
  subgraph l5["People"]
    direction LR
    s1["Skills gaps<br/><i>SRE ×6 · data eng ×4</i>"] --- s2["Sourcing<br/><i>hire 6 · reskill 4</i>"] --- s3["Career paths<br/><i>IC track added</i>"]
  end
  l1 --> l2 --> l3 --> l4 --> l5

Planning Artifact

Target Operating Model

How the organisation will be arranged to run the new architecture — capabilities, teams, processes, governance and skills, not just the systems.

Operating Models Discovery

quadrantChart
  title Business value against technical health
  x-axis "Poor technical health" --> "Good technical health"
  y-axis "Low business value" --> "High business value"
  quadrant-1 Invest
  quadrant-2 Migrate or re-engineer
  quadrant-3 Eliminate
  quadrant-4 Tolerate
  "Order management": [0.28, 0.92]
  "Payment gateway": [0.81, 0.95]
  "Customer portal": [0.74, 0.78]
  "Pricing engine": [0.22, 0.84]
  "Mainframe billing": [0.14, 0.88]
  "Legacy CRM": [0.19, 0.34]
  "Reporting portal": [0.31, 0.26]
  "Expenses tool": [0.68, 0.22]
  "Intranet wiki": [0.72, 0.18]
  "Partner gateway": [0.44, 0.66]

Analysis Artifact

Application Portfolio Heat Map

Every application placed on business value against technical health, so that invest, tolerate, migrate and eliminate become positions rather than opinions.

Application Portfolio Management Discovery

Analysis Artifact

Build vs Buy Analysis

Whether a capability is differentiating enough to build, tested against cost, fit, time and the cost of being wrong.

Trade-off Analysis Design

quadrantChart
  title Platform technologies
  x-axis "Retire" --> "Adopt"
  y-axis "Low usage" --> "High usage"
  quadrant-1 "Adopt — default choice"
  quadrant-2 "Hold — in use, do not extend"
  quadrant-3 "Retire — plan removal"
  quadrant-4 "Trial / Assess — bounded use"
  "Kubernetes (managed)": [0.92, 0.88]
  "PostgreSQL": [0.95, 0.93]
  "Kafka (managed)": [0.86, 0.72]
  "Terraform": [0.90, 0.80]
  "OpenTelemetry": [0.78, 0.55]
  "Service mesh": [0.55, 0.30]
  "Self-managed Elasticsearch": [0.18, 0.62]
  "Oracle DB": [0.12, 0.70]
  "Jenkins": [0.20, 0.45]
  "Nomad": [0.60, 0.08]
  "DuckDB (analytics)": [0.62, 0.12]

Analysis Artifact

Technology Radar

What the organisation has decided to adopt, trial, assess or retire — a decision record about technology choice, not a fashion report.

Architecture Principles Discovery

Analysis Artifact

Total Cost of Ownership Model

The full multi-year cost of an option including the people, the exit and the things that never appear on an invoice.

Total Cost of Ownership Design

Analysis Artifact

Weighted Decision Matrix

Options scored against weighted criteria — useful for making the reasoning inspectable, dangerous when the arithmetic is mistaken for the decision.

Trade-off Analysis Methods Design