Independent system assessment, target architecture and cloud strategy — evaluated against your requirements, not a vendor's roadmap.
Software, Architecture & Cloud
Most architecture decisions that organisations regret were not wrong in their technical content. They were wrong because they were made too early, on too narrow a view, without an honest assessment of the workload and without an honest answer to the question of which workloads belong in the cloud and which do not. Our architecture advisory is built around getting the assessment right, getting the vendor evaluation right, and getting the cloud decision right — in that order.
We do not sell software. We do not have partnerships that would compromise our ability to recommend against a particular vendor. The advice is the advice the board needs, not the advice the market is selling.
What we do
An honest, plain-language map of the existing technology estate — what each system does, where the seams are, where data is re-keyed, where single points of failure exist. The output is the baseline that every subsequent architecture and procurement decision depends on.
A target architecture that solves the most pressing capability gaps at an acceptable cost and risk, while leaving a sensible path to the longer-term vision. We deliberately distinguish between architectures that can be reached in eighteen months and architectures that require a five-year journey.
An independent evaluation framework — capability matrix, weighting, scoring rubric — that produces a defensible vendor recommendation. We run the scripted demonstrations, the reference checks and the commercial comparison, and we document the process so the board can defend the decision.
A workload-by-workload assessment of what is cloud-eligible, what is judgement-call, and what is not appropriate for cloud at all. The output is an honest cloud strategy that respects the workload portfolio rather than a vendor-led migration proposal.
Periodic independent architecture review for organisations that have the internal capability but want a regular external check. Reviews are scheduled around the major design decisions and produce written guidance the internal team can act on.
How we work
Our architecture work is workload-specific rather than portfolio-wide. We do not produce a single "migrate everything" recommendation. Instead we classify each workload against six dimensions of suitability — technical fit, security posture, regulatory constraints, cost model, operational impact and skill availability — and the classification is traceable to a documented source. The honest answer for most organisations is that some workloads belong in cloud, some belong on premise, and some belong in a hybrid pattern with careful boundary management.
We also recognise that architecture is a social exercise. The right target architecture is the one that the operating model around it can sustain. We work with the technology leadership to design the architecture in the context of the team that will run it, the skills that exist, and the changes that will be required.
Cloud-first is not a strategy. It is a default. A strategy requires the discipline to override the default when the workload warrants it. Our job is to help you tell the difference.
Related capabilities
The target architecture should be the physical expression of the strategy. We work with strategy teams to keep the two aligned.
DeliveryA new architecture is meaningless without a programme to deliver it. We support both ends.
GovernanceThe architecture needs a governance forum that meets regularly and that has the authority to say no.
Have an architecture decision ahead?
Common questions
There is no single correct answer, and the marketing around each term is louder than the engineering. We assess your workloads, your data gravity, your compliance posture and your commercial constraints, then tell you the honest target: for many Australian regulated organisations the right answer is a measured hybrid posture, not wholesale migration. 'Cloud-first' is a bias, not a strategy.
Yes — that is the point of using an independent adviser. We have no commercial relationship with the platforms we assess. We will review the architecture your incumbent has proposed, test it against your actual requirements, and tell you plainly where it is over-engineered, where it is under-scoped, and whether switching would genuinely save you money or just add migration risk.
A system-by-system assessment of a mid-sized application portfolio runs four to six weeks and is fixed-fee. A full target-state architecture with migration sequencing is typically ten to fourteen weeks. Both deliver a documented target design and a decision log, not just a workshop.
Most small and mid-sized organisations do not need a permanent EA team. What they usually need is a lightweight decision mechanism: a small architecture review board with a written standard, meeting on a fixed cadence. We help you stand that up and then hand it over to your own people.
We treat legacy as a portfolio decision, not a single 'rip and replace' event. Some cores should be strangled incrementally, some should be wrapped with modern APIs and left alone, and a few genuinely need replacement. We size the risk and the business impact before anyone writes a migration business case.