Architecture Vision Examples

Sample completed templates for reference.

---

Example 1: Order Management Modernization

Full example of a system modernization initiative.

Architecture Vision Document

# Architecture Vision: Order Management Modernization

**Version**: 1.0
**Date**: 2024-03-15
**Author**: Sarah Chen
**Status**: Approved

---

## 1. Executive Summary

Modernize the legacy order management system to support real-time order tracking,
improved scalability for peak seasons, and integration with new fulfillment partners.
Expected outcome: 40% reduction in order processing time and 99.9% system availability.

---

## 2. Background & Drivers

### Business Context
The current order management system was built 8 years ago and struggles to handle
holiday peak volumes. Recent expansion to 3 new markets has increased order volume
by 200%, exposing scalability limitations.

### Business Drivers
| Driver | Description | Priority |
|--------|-------------|----------|
| Scalability | Current system crashes at >10K orders/hour | High |
| Real-time tracking | Customers expect live order status | High |
| Partner integration | New fulfillment partners need API access | Medium |
| Maintenance cost | Legacy tech requires specialized (expensive) skills | Medium |

### Consequences of Inaction
- Continued revenue loss during peak periods (~$2M/year)
- Customer churn due to poor tracking experience
- Inability to onboard new fulfillment partners
- Increasing maintenance costs as legacy skills become scarcer

---

## 3. Stakeholders

### Sponsor
- **Name**: Michael Torres
- **Role**: VP of Operations
- **Interest**: System reliability, operational efficiency, customer satisfaction

### Key Stakeholders
| Stakeholder | Role | Concerns | Influence |
|-------------|------|----------|-----------|
| Customer Service | Frontline support | Need real-time order visibility | Medium |
| Fulfillment Ops | Order execution | Reliable order data, partner APIs | High |
| Engineering | System maintainers | Maintainable, modern tech stack | Medium |
| Finance | Budget holders | ROI, total cost of ownership | High |
| Customers | End users | Order tracking, reliability | Low (indirect) |

---

## 4. Scope

### In Scope
| Area | Description |
|------|-------------|
| **Business** | Order capture, processing, fulfillment handoff |
| **Data** | Orders, inventory reservations, fulfillment status |
| **Application** | Order service, inventory service, fulfillment gateway |
| **Technology** | Cloud infrastructure, API gateway, event streaming |

### Out of Scope
| Area | Rationale |
|------|-----------|
| Payment processing | Handled by separate payment platform |
| Warehouse management | Partner systems, not owned by us |
| Customer portal | Separate initiative planned for Q4 |

### Scope Boundaries
- **Organizational**: E-commerce and Operations teams
- **Geographic**: All 5 markets (US, UK, DE, FR, AU)
- **Temporal**: Phase 1 by Q3, full rollout by Q4

---

## 5. Vision

### Target State Description
A cloud-native order management platform that scales automatically to handle
10x current peak volume, provides real-time order status to customers and
internal teams, and enables rapid onboarding of new fulfillment partners
through standardized APIs.

### Key Capabilities
| Capability | Current State | Target State |
|------------|---------------|--------------|
| Order throughput | 10K orders/hour max | 100K orders/hour |
| Order status | Batch updates every 15 min | Real-time (<1 sec) |
| Partner onboarding | 3-6 months custom integration | 2 weeks via standard API |
| System availability | 99.5% | 99.9% |

### Value Proposition
- Eliminate peak season revenue loss ($2M/year)
- Improve NPS by 15 points through better tracking
- Reduce partner onboarding time by 80%
- Lower maintenance costs by 40% through modern stack

---

## 6. Goals & Success Criteria

### Goals
| ID | Goal | Alignment |
|----|------|-----------|
| G1 | Handle 100K orders/hour at 99.9% availability | Operational Excellence OKR |
| G2 | Real-time order tracking (< 1 sec latency) | Customer Experience OKR |
| G3 | Onboard 2 new fulfillment partners in Q4 | Growth OKR |

### Success Metrics
| Metric | Current | Target | Measurement Method |
|--------|---------|--------|-------------------|
| Peak throughput | 10K/hr | 100K/hr | Load testing, production metrics |
| Order status latency | 15 min | < 1 sec | APM monitoring |
| Partner onboarding time | 4 months | 2 weeks | Project tracking |
| System availability | 99.5% | 99.9% | Uptime monitoring |

---

## 7. Constraints & Assumptions

### Constraints
| Constraint | Impact |
|------------|--------|
| Budget: $1.5M | Must prioritize features; likely phased rollout |
| Timeline: MVP by Q3 | Limits scope of Phase 1 |
| Must support legacy API | Existing integrations need 6-month transition |

### Assumptions
| Assumption | Risk if Invalid |
|------------|-----------------|
| Cloud provider approved | Delay if security review fails |
| Team can learn new stack | Slower delivery, need training budget |
| Partners will adopt new API | Manual workarounds needed |

---

## 8. Risks

| Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation |
|------|-------------|--------|------------|
| Data migration issues | Medium | High | Parallel run period, rollback plan |
| Performance targets not met | Low | High | Early load testing, architecture spikes |
| Team skill gaps | Medium | Medium | Training plan, consider contractors |
| Partner resistance to new API | Low | Medium | Early engagement, migration support |

---

## 9. Architecture Principles

| Principle | Statement | Implication for This Initiative |
|-----------|-----------|--------------------------------|
| Cloud-Native | Prefer managed cloud services | Use cloud provider's managed services where possible |
| API-First | All capabilities exposed via APIs | Design APIs before implementation |
| Event-Driven | Prefer async communication | Use event streaming for order status updates |
| Observable | Built-in monitoring and tracing | Include observability from day 1 |

---

## 10. Next Steps

### Recommended Architecture Work
- [x] Phase B: Business Architecture - Map order lifecycle processes
- [x] Phase C: Information Systems - Design order domain model and services
- [x] Phase D: Technology Architecture - Define cloud infrastructure

### Immediate Actions
1. Form architecture team - Michael Torres - by March 20
2. Schedule stakeholder interviews - Sarah Chen - by March 22
3. Set up architecture repository - Engineering Lead - by March 25

---

## Approval

| Role | Name | Date | Signature |
|------|------|------|-----------|
| Sponsor | Michael Torres | 2024-03-15 | Approved |
| Architecture Lead | Sarah Chen | 2024-03-15 | Approved |
| Engineering Director | James Wilson | 2024-03-15 | Approved |

---

Stakeholder Map

# Stakeholder Map: Order Management Modernization

**Version**: 1.0
**Date**: 2024-03-15

---

## Stakeholder Register

| ID | Stakeholder | Type | Role | Contact |
|----|-------------|------|------|---------|
| S1 | Michael Torres | Individual | Executive Sponsor | m.torres@company.com |
| S2 | Customer Service Team | Group | Frontline users | #cs-team |
| S3 | Fulfillment Ops | Group | Order execution | #fulfillment |
| S4 | Platform Engineering | Group | System maintainers | #platform |
| S5 | Finance (David Park) | Individual | Budget approval | d.park@company.com |
| S6 | Partner Integration Team | Group | External APIs | #partner-integrations |

---

## Stakeholder Analysis

### S1: Michael Torres (Executive Sponsor)

**Type**: Executive

**Concerns**:
- System reliability during peak seasons
- Customer satisfaction impact
- Total cost of ownership
- Timeline to value

**Success Criteria**:
- Zero outages during Black Friday/Cyber Monday
- NPS improvement visible within 6 months
- Project delivered within budget

**Influence**: High
**Interest**: High

**Engagement Strategy**:
- Weekly status updates via executive summary
- Escalation path for blockers
- Quarterly business review on metrics

---

### S2: Customer Service Team

**Type**: End User (Internal)

**Concerns**:
- Need to see real-time order status
- Tired of telling customers "I don't know"
- Current system is slow and crashes

**Success Criteria**:
- Instant order lookup
- Accurate status information
- System doesn't crash during calls

**Influence**: Low
**Interest**: High

**Engagement Strategy**:
- Include in UAT testing
- Monthly demos of progress
- Feedback channel in #cs-feedback

---

### S3: Fulfillment Operations

**Type**: Operations

**Concerns**:
- Order data accuracy
- API reliability for partners
- Clear handoff process

**Success Criteria**:
- Orders arrive complete and correct
- Partners can integrate easily
- No manual workarounds needed

**Influence**: High
**Interest**: High

**Engagement Strategy**:
- Involve in requirements gathering
- Weekly sync during build phase
- Sign-off on partner API design

---

## Stakeholder Matrix

| Quadrant | Stakeholders | Strategy |
|----------|--------------|----------|
| Manage Closely | S1 (Sponsor), S3 (Fulfillment) | Regular meetings, involve in decisions |
| Keep Satisfied | S5 (Finance) | Monthly budget updates, flag issues early |
| Keep Informed | S2 (CS), S4 (Engineering), S6 (Partners) | Regular comms, feedback opportunities |
| Monitor | - | - |

---

## Communication Plan

| Stakeholder | Information Needed | Format | Frequency | Owner |
|-------------|-------------------|--------|-----------|-------|
| S1 Michael | Status, risks, decisions | 1:1 meeting | Weekly | Sarah |
| S2 CS Team | Progress, UAT schedule | Slack update | Bi-weekly | PM |
| S3 Fulfillment | Design decisions, timeline | Working session | Weekly | Sarah |
| S4 Engineering | Technical specs, standards | Confluence + review | As needed | Tech Lead |
| S5 Finance | Budget tracking | Report | Monthly | PM |

---

## Stakeholder Concerns → Architecture Responses

| Concern | Raised By | Architecture Response |
|---------|-----------|----------------------|
| System crashes at peak | S1, S2 | Auto-scaling cloud architecture |
| Real-time status needed | S2, S3 | Event-driven updates, sub-second latency |
| Partner integration too slow | S3, S6 | Standard OpenAPI spec, self-service portal |
| Maintenance too expensive | S1, S4 | Modern tech stack, managed services |

---

Example 2: Lightweight Vision (Startup Style)

For smaller initiatives where full formality isn't needed.

# Vision: Customer Feedback Widget

## What
Add an in-app feedback widget that lets customers report issues and suggestions
directly from our web app. Feedback goes to a central queue for the product team.

## Why
Currently, feedback comes through 5 different channels (email, Twitter, support tickets,
sales calls, app store reviews). We're missing insights and responding slowly.

## Who
- **Sponsor**: Lisa (Head of Product)
- **Users**: All customers, Product team (reviewers)
- **Team**: Frontend (2), Backend (1), Design (0.5)

## Scope
- **In**: Web app widget, feedback queue dashboard, Slack notifications
- **Out**: Mobile app (Phase 2), AI categorization (Phase 2), public roadmap

## Success
- 50+ feedback submissions/week within 1 month
- Response time < 48 hours for all feedback
- Product team rates usefulness 4+/5

## Risks
- **Spam/abuse**: Add rate limiting and report button
- **Low adoption**: In-app prompts at key moments, not just passive widget

## Next Steps
1. Design review - March 5
2. Backend API spec - March 8
3. Frontend implementation - March 15
4. Beta with 10% of users - March 22

---

Example 3: Stakeholder-Heavy Initiative

When stakeholder management is the primary challenge.

# Stakeholder Map: Data Platform Consolidation

## Context
Three business units each have their own data warehouses. Executive mandate to
consolidate into one platform. High political sensitivity.

---

## Stakeholder Analysis

### S1: CEO (Marcus Webb)
- **Concerns**: Cost reduction, single source of truth, competitive advantage
- **Success**: $2M/year savings, unified reporting by Q4
- **Influence**: High | **Interest**: Medium (delegates to CTO)
- **Strategy**: Quarterly updates, escalate blockers only

### S2: CTO (Patricia Lane)
- **Concerns**: Technical feasibility, team capacity, timeline
- **Success**: Clean architecture, no production incidents during migration
- **Influence**: High | **Interest**: High
- **Strategy**: Weekly architecture reviews, joint decision-making

### S3: BU1 Head (Sales - Tom)
- **Concerns**: Will lose "his" data team, reporting will break
- **Success**: Sales reports work day 1, team members placed well
- **Influence**: High | **Interest**: High (resistant)
- **Strategy**: Early involvement, address fears directly, show wins

### S4: BU2 Head (Marketing - Nina)
- **Concerns**: Speed of access, self-service capabilities
- **Success**: Marketing can build own dashboards without IT
- **Influence**: Medium | **Interest**: Medium
- **Strategy**: Demo self-service early, include in design

### S5: BU3 Head (Operations - Raj)
- **Concerns**: Real-time data needs, integration with ops systems
- **Success**: Sub-minute data freshness for ops dashboards
- **Influence**: Medium | **Interest**: High
- **Strategy**: Technical deep-dive on streaming architecture

### S6: Data Teams (3 teams, ~15 people)
- **Concerns**: Job security, skill relevance, org structure
- **Success**: Clear roles, growth opportunities, modern tech
- **Influence**: Low | **Interest**: High (anxious)
- **Strategy**: Town halls, 1:1s, training plan, transparent reorg timeline

---

## Political Dynamics

| Tension | Between | Mitigation |
|---------|---------|------------|
| Data ownership | BU heads | Executive mandate + clear governance model |
| Team consolidation | Data teams | Transparent process, no layoffs planned |
| Self-service vs control | Marketing vs IT | Governed self-service model |
| Speed vs quality | Operations vs Architecture | Tiered SLAs by use case |

---

## Engagement Sequence

Week 1-2: Executive alignment (S1, S2) ↓ Week 3-4: BU head 1:1s (S3, S4, S5) - listen to concerns ↓ Week 5: Data team town hall (S6) - address fears ↓ Week 6+: Working groups with representatives from each BU

---

## Warning Signs to Monitor

- [ ] BU head skipping meetings → escalate to CTO
- [ ] Data team attrition spike → accelerate communication
- [ ] Shadow IT attempts → address underlying need
- [ ] Scope creep from BUs → hold firm on Phase 1

---

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

Too Vague

# Bad Example

## Vision
Make the system better and more modern.

## Scope
Everything related to orders.

## Success
Users are happy.

Problems: No measurable outcomes, undefined scope, no stakeholders.

Too Detailed Too Early

# Bad Example

## Technical Architecture
- Use Kubernetes 1.28 with Istio service mesh
- PostgreSQL 15.2 with Citus extension
- Event streaming via Kafka with exactly-once semantics
- [500 more lines of technical detail...]

Problems: Phase A is about what and why, not how. Save technical details for Phase C/D.

Missing Stakeholders

# Bad Example

## Stakeholders
- Product Manager (sponsor)
- Engineering Team

[End of list]

Problems: Missing end users, operations, security, finance, etc. Will cause issues later.