When the direction is set, but architecture questions remain open
We assess whether the data architecture, tool landscape and target direction can truly support the chosen path - and which adjustments make sense now.
For ongoing data and platform initiatives where architecture, tools and target direction need to be reassessed.
Data and platform initiatives often start with a plausible direction. It becomes more difficult when new requirements, evolved systems, tool questions and dependencies emerge over time. New AI and analytics requirements raise the question of whether existing architecture decisions can still carry the organisation far enough.
The Architecture Review provides a focused interim assessment. We review target direction, data architecture, system landscape, data flows and tool decisions for viability. The result is a prioritised assessment of which options are reliable, where risks exist and which adjustments make sense before the next implementation phase.
Relevant when:
• a data, BI or platform initiative has already started
• new AI or analytics requirements challenge the current direction
• tool decisions are being made ahead of the target direction
• dependencies, legacy constraints or custom workarounds make decisions harder
• a neutral assessment is needed before budget, migration or implementation decisions
Relevant when:
a data, BI or platform initiative has already startednew AI or analytics requirements challenge the current directiontool decisions are being made ahead of the target directiondependencies, legacy constraints or special paths make decisions hardera neutral assessment is needed before budget, migration or implementation decisions
What we do in practice
We do not treat the Architecture Review as a purely tool- or technology-focused check.We assess whether architecture, data flows and the organisational operating model fit the chosen direction. This includes target architecture, requirements, system landscape, data flows, tool decisions, dependencies, ownership and governance. What matters is not only what is technically possible, but also who owns, operates and evolves the setup over time.
Compare against the target architecture
Assess
data flows
Evaluate
ownership
Set priorities
for the next phase
The outcome is not a generic technology check, but a prioritised assessment: which direction is viable, where technical or organisational risks exist, and which decisions should be made before the next implementation phase.
What you receive
A vendor-neutral assessment of your architecture and tool landscape,
not as a product recommendation, but as a reliable basis for the next decisions.
Architecture and system view
Risk and dependency profile
Assessed options
Prioritised decision basis
Why companies involve us in situations like this
When tool debates get stuck, another product or vendor perspective rarely helps. What is needed is an independent assessment of whether architecture, platforms, data flows and responsibilities truly support the chosen direction.
This is the perspective we bring: free from tool agendas, but grounded in delivery. We know BI, data and platform landscapes from real project work, but we do not assess them through the lens of a single tool. We assess them from the perspective of the next sound decision.
The result is not an abstract target state, but a realistic assessment: which direction is viable, where technical or organisational risks are emerging, and what should be clarified before the next implementation step.
Request an Architecture Review
In a short initial conversation, we clarify together whether an Architecture Review makes sense for your situation and which technical or organisational questions should be assessed first.
Thomas Howert
Co-Founder & Senior Advisor for BI, data architecture and platform strategy
FAQ –Common questions on Architecture Review
Not in the traditional sense. We assess not only technology, but also architecture, decision readiness, risks, dependencies, data flows and organisational responsibilities.
No. The Architecture Review first creates the basis for ensuring that next steps are not built on assumptions, tool preferences or unclear responsibilities.
Then we assess whether it fits the current system landscape, the requirements and the organisational operating model - and whether the next implementation steps can reliably build on it.
You receive a prioritised assessment: which direction is viable, where risks exist and which technical or organisational decisions should be made next.