Solution architecture for integrable applications | Anexia

For the application architecture, we record business boundaries, data ownership and the necessary quality attributes. The choice of an architectural approach follows these requirements. Additional services or distributed components can enable independence but also create more communication and operational effort. A decision is therefore assessed on the basis of specific change and usage scenarios.

In architecture design, we document key alternatives and the reasons for selecting or rejecting them. This is particularly important if assumptions change later. For the solution architecture, we consider failures, migration and further development as well as normal operation. Data consistency, interface contracts and responsibilities are not left to be clarified during implementation. The results consist of understandable models and verifiable decisions, not the largest possible collection of diagrams. A suitable technical proof can examine particularly uncertain points in practice. In this way, the solution architecture provides a solid basis for implementation and explains which trade-offs are deliberately accepted.

Module boundaries are based on business responsibility and frequency of change. A distributed architecture is not chosen solely because of expected growth. For the solution architecture, we document the relevant assumptions and explain the reasons for the chosen option. Key alternatives are considered against the same business requirements. This makes later adjustments easier if load, data volume or organisational responsibility change.

A sound decision also takes maintainability and handover into account. For the application architecture, we check which skills are available internally and what additional support is needed. Technical possibilities are thus linked to a realistic operating model. The client can see which tasks will recur after the project and which decisions remain with them.

Unclear data ownership can create contradictory states that can only be corrected afterwards with costly synchronisation. In architecture design, we treat this point as a specific review question. Each risk is linked to the affected process, its possible impact and a suitable measure. Where prerequisites are still missing, the statement is explicitly left open until the necessary investigation has been carried out.

We review critical processes, failure scenarios, data consistency and feasibility for the intended team. For the solution architecture, we record the starting situation, the tested configuration and the result. Acceptance refers to the agreed scope. Open limitations are documented visibly and assigned to an owned next step. This allows your team to distinguish between proven functionality, a deliberate decision and an assumption that has not yet been confirmed.

Project example as an illustrative scenario

The following scenario is an application example and not a customer reference. A company is planning a new ordering platform alongside an existing merchandise management system. In the solution architecture, a central question would be which system is responsible for prices, stock levels and order states from a business perspective. If both systems changed the same information independently, conflicts would arise that cannot be solved by an additional interface alone.

For the solution architecture, a complete ordering process with regular and faulty transitions would be designed. This would include unavailable items, delayed responses and aborted payments. The team would compare synchronous and asynchronous connections based on the required consistency and user expectations. Particularly uncertain assumptions could be examined with a limited technical prototype. The architecture would also record how errors become visible, who handles them and which parts can be developed further independently.

The result of the application architecture would be a well-founded structure with traceable data and responsibility boundaries. Key interfaces, decision rationales and an implementable first phase would be planned. A drawing of components alone would not be sufficient for this. The development team would have to be able to derive where business rules reside, how partial failures are handled and which decisions need to be reviewed again with later growth. The preferred option would fit the operations and development team actually available.

Our experience and our engineering approach

We combine custom software development with the technical tasks of introduction and further development. For the solution architecture, we bring the perspectives of application, integration and operations into a shared workflow. Business requirements remain linked to technical decisions. You work with a defined scope of services and traceable results.

Our experience should be verifiable for your specific project. That is why, in the technical discussion, we explain how we examine the relevant risks, which deliverables are planned and how your team can assess them. For the application architecture, we match the roles involved to the actual need. Available references are presented with their respective project and company context; confidential customer details are not used as general marketing claims.

Effort for the application architecture

The number of integrations, quality requirements, data ownership and necessary migration steps determine the effort. We therefore calculate the solution architecture on the basis of a clearly defined scope and explicitly stated prerequisites. An initial analysis step can make sense if key technical information is still missing. Work packages and acceptance criteria can then be agreed more reliably.

The solution architecture can be organised as a limited project, as a joint implementation with your team or with subsequent support. Rights of use, access, documentation and responsibilities are clarified in the contract. Ongoing operating hours, response times and external consumption costs are subject to separate agreements. This makes it clear which services are provided once and which tasks recur after the introduction.

What the solution architecture does not cover

An architecture is not a fixed overall picture; decisions and their prerequisites are carried forward in versioned form. In architecture design, we state this limit in the proposal itself. Any additional services required are included with their business rationale and are not silently assumed. This allows your team to plan suitable internal skills and divide the overall work sensibly among those involved.