Get the architecture decided, costed and documented before build starts — so delivery is an execution problem, not a discovery one.
Architecture decision records capture what was chosen, what was rejected and why.
A run-cost model per option so the budget conversation happens before build, not after.
HLD and LLD detailed enough for any competent team to implement against.
API contracts and data flows agreed across systems and teams before development starts.
Availability, latency, scale, recovery and security targets stated and designed for.
Technology selection driven by your constraints, not by a reseller relationship.
Common questions we hear before starting a migration or architecture engagement — click a question to reveal a short, clear answer.
A documented target-state architecture — HLD and LLD, integration contracts, an NFR specification, a costed infrastructure model, a delivery roadmap and architecture decision records. Enough for any competent team to start building.
We can, but the design stands on its own. Plenty of clients take the deliverables and build in-house or with an existing partner, which is exactly why the documentation is written to be vendor-neutral.
Typically 3–6 weeks depending on the number of systems and stakeholders. Larger programmes are split so the first buildable increment is designed early.
Yes. An architecture review is a common variant: we assess the proposed design against your NFRs and constraints and report gaps, risks and alternatives.
Against total cost of ownership, time to value, how core the capability is to your business and how much lock-in you can tolerate. The analysis is written down so the decision is reviewable later.
We give a costed recommendation with the reasoning shown, but we hold no reseller relationships, so the choice is driven by your constraints rather than ours.
Expected. The design is developed iteratively with stakeholder reviews at each stage, and decision records make it clear what a change actually affects.
Yes — security architecture, data handling and relevant compliance obligations are treated as design inputs. Where a formal audit is needed we can bring in our compliance practice.
Yes. Most engagements are constrained by existing systems and skills, and a design that ignores those is not much use.
They pair naturally — solution design defines the target state, and the migration engagement executes the move to it. Many clients run them back to back.
