System structure & boundaries
How the landscape is divided and whether boundaries between components, systems and responsibilities are clear.
ARCHITECTURE REVIEW
Understand whether the software architecture still fits what the organisation needs.
Software can keep working while architectural choices, coupling and dependencies gradually make change harder. An Architecture Review shows how the system is structured, where the constraints sit and whether that structure still supports the intended direction.
When a review helps
It usually starts with a concrete doubt, not a request for diagrams.
An Architecture Review is useful when a decision depends on how the system is put together in practice.
- 01
A change in one area causes unexpected effects elsewhere.
- 02
It is unclear which system or team owns what, and where the boundaries lie.
- 03
Integrations have grown organically over the years and nobody sees the whole picture any more.
- 04
Teams disagree about where business logic and data should live.
- 05
A modernisation, platform change or major new capability is planned and its architectural consequences need to be understood first.
What we examine
The structure behind the system, scoped to the decision.
Scope depends on the question. We focus on the parts that shape the decision and go deepest there.
Coupling & dependencies
Where parts lean on each other and which dependencies make change risky or expensive.
Business logic placement
Where rules and decisions live, whether they are scattered or duplicated, and whether that location still makes sense.
Data ownership & flows
Which system is leading for which data, and how data moves through the landscape.
Integrations & interfaces
How systems communicate, how robust those agreements are and where they have stayed implicit.
Modularity & separability
How far parts can be changed, replaced or moved independently of each other.
Change impact & maintainability
How large the impact of a typical change is and what that means for further development.
Scalability & performance
Only where relevant to the question: whether the structure can carry expected growth or load.
What the review should answer
Concrete answers for an architectural decision.
The review should make clear what can stay and what needs attention.
No scores or maturity models: we separate what is material from what is merely imperfect.
- 01
Which boundaries are clear and which have blurred?
- 02
Where is coupling making change risky or expensive?
- 03
Is business logic in the right place?
- 04
Which dependencies constrain the roadmap?
- 05
What can remain as it is?
- 06
What should be isolated, simplified or redesigned?
- 07
Which architectural risks are material, and which are merely imperfect?
How we work
From question to well-founded options.
We follow a fixed order: understand first, substantiate next, advise last.
- 01
Sharpen the question
Which decision is coming, what is the intended direction and how much depth does that require?
- 02
Inspect the landscape
Look at the system landscape, code, interfaces and existing documentation as they are today.
- 03
Trace flows & dependencies
Follow key processes and data flows through the system to make coupling and boundaries visible.
- 04
Validate findings
Test findings with the people who build, run and use the system.
- 05
Separate facts from assumptions
Make the distinction between facts, risks, assumptions and open questions explicit.
- 06
Translate into options
Turn findings into options, priorities and implications for the decision.
What you receive
Insight that supports a decision.
The format follows the question. We only use diagrams where they help the decision.
- Architectural findings
- Clear observations on structure, boundaries and design choices.
- Boundaries & dependencies
- An overview of system boundaries and the dependencies that matter.
- Material risks & constraints
- What holds change back, separated from what is merely imperfect.
- Strengths
- Parts and choices that create value and are worth preserving.
- Options & trade-offs
- Possible routes with their pros and cons, including changing nothing.
- Priorities
- Areas where modernisation or engineering will make the most difference.
- Open questions
- Topics that need deeper investigation before a decision can be made.
Architecture Review and Software Audit
Deeper on structure, narrower in scope.
Both are part of Technology Assessment, but they answer different questions.
Software Audit
A broader assessment of an application's technical quality and maintainability.
Architecture Review
A deeper focus on system structure, boundaries, responsibilities and dependencies.
From review to change
The review stands on its own.
An Architecture Review has value without any follow-on work. If change is needed, the findings can guide modernisation, new engineering or integration. Link2Leap can support that execution, but it is never a condition.
When we are less suited
Not every question needs an Architecture Review.
Link2Leap is generally not the best fit when:
- You only need an existing diagram redrawn.
- The desired architecture is already fixed and the review only serves to confirm it.
- The question is mainly about infrastructure, cloud or cybersecurity architecture outside the software itself.
- The software is simple and the decision does not justify an architectural review.
Unsure whether the current architecture is still the right foundation?
Tell us about the system, the planned change and where the uncertainty sits. Together we'll decide what should be reviewed and at what depth.
Discuss an architecture review