We engage with our customers to review the architecture, design and implementation of existing software systems. Architecture reviews are typically aimed at assessing the quality attributes of the system, for example, if the architecture enables performance and scalability or has issues with modularity. To identify the Performance bottlenecks and scalability issues with the design. Similarly, whether the design is extensible and easy to maintain or not. The review is followed with recommendations on changes needed to the design to address the stakeholder concerns, or suggest future  roadmap for the architecture. The customers are typically product organizations, or end enterprises who are embarking on v2.0 of their enterprise software and are looking to scale it, refactor it or do significant enhancements.

Technology Due-Diligence is focused towards supporting an investment decision. The reviews and due-diligence is intended to address areas such as validating the technology claims, valuation of the technology, future potential (e.g. functional and load scalability) and future investment required to realize the roadmap/business plan. The clients are typically Investors or parties in an M&A discussion, looking for an independent assessment of the technology strength before making an investment decision.

Engagement Model & Methodology

The engagement is typically short duration, between 2 to 4 weeks. We work with the executive team to understand the business vision, roadmap and the specific concerns that need to be addressed during the review. Based on that, we outline the objectives and the process that we follow to conduct the reviews. The architecture, design and code artifacts are reviewed jointly with the engineering team. The observations, feedback and recommendations are documented and we conduct sessions with the team to explain the feedback and recommendations

Value Proposition

• Expert perspective: We combine multi-platform and technology expertise and business understanding with standards for architecture assessment such as ATAM to produce unbiased perspectives of architecture and development team capabilities
• Practitioner’s point of view: Unlike academic or theoretical reviews, our reviews reflect the realities of designing and implementing systems in the real world and are based on years if practical experience.