Steerpoint

Example engagement — produced in Steerpoint

All outputs →

Strategy

Future-State Scenarios

Three architecture pathways evaluated against scalability, integration complexity, and enterprise alignment. Each pathway carries distinct trade-offs for the transformation programme.

DraftUpdated 16 Mar 2026

Why this matters

The architecture pathway selected here determines the shape of the transformation programme, the vendor strategy, the migration sequence, and the cost envelope for the next 18–24 months.

What this informs

Steering committee funding decision, Phase 1 scope, vendor evaluation mandate, and deprecation sequencing.

What remains unresolved

Scenario A integration complexity not yet validated via proof-of-concept. Cost estimates pending vendor shortlisting.

Scenarios

3

Recommended

SCN-A

Timeline Range

6–24 months

Principles Applied

6

Status

Under evaluation

Scenario Comparison
SCN-A

Composable Best-of-Breed

Recommended path

Replace legacy systems with a composable architecture using best-of-breed services for each domain. Headless CMS, independent service APIs, unified experience layer. Maximum flexibility, highest integration complexity.

Advantages

No vendor lock-in — swap any component independently
Pace-layered evolution — each domain moves at its own speed
Best capability per domain — not constrained by platform limits
Regional flexibility — China can diverge without architectural debt
Future-proof — new capabilities plug in without re-architecture

Trade-offs

Highest initial integration complexity
Requires strong API governance and contract management
More vendor relationships to manage
Team needs composable architecture experience
Higher upfront investment in integration layer
Principles aligned
ComposableInteroperableDomain-driven
Timeline

18–24 months

Evaluation Criteria
CriterionWeightSCN-ASCN-BSCN-C
Vendor independenceHigh
ScalabilityHigh
Integration complexityMedium
Time to valueMedium
China compatibilityHigh
Enterprise alignmentHigh
Operational riskMedium
Long-term costMedium
Architecture Diagrams

Target Domain Map

Future-state domain architecture showing service boundaries, data ownership, and integration contracts.

Draft

Architecture Lead

Integration Architecture

API gateway, event mesh, and data pipeline topology for the recommended composable architecture.

Draft

Solution Architect

Decision Layer

Decisions Supported

ADR-001 (strangler-fig), ADR-003 (composable DXP), ADR-004 (China parallel track)

Dependencies

Depends on DEL-001 (Current-State Map) and DEL-004 (Capability Mapping). Feeds into DEL-006 (Deprecation) and cost estimation.

Next Actions

Validate Scenario A integration complexity via proof-of-concept. Present evaluation criteria to steering committee for weighting review.

Confidence

Medium — evaluation criteria are sound but cost estimates and proof-of-concept validation remain outstanding.

Previous

← Capability Mapping

All outputsNext

Risk & Dependencies→