Architecture Portal

Direction and measures

Authority, cost and useful outcomes.

Adrian Sutherland · Version 1.0 · · © 2005–2026

Decisions

MG-D1 (Shared direction) connects the provider’s direction to the cancellation trial and possible partner service. MG-R1 (Service roadmap) records the sequence and dependencies. Local working instructions can change within the agreed rule; cross-team responsibility changes go to the business-area owner, and commitments require the funding owner. MG-E1 (Temporary exception) would retain a temporary exception’s owner, scope, checks and review trigger.

The process trial is the proposed first step, not an approved expenditure or an observed success. Software support and the partner extension each need their own acceptance conditions. L1 (Partner confirmation gap) reopens the unagreed partner-confirmation responsibility while retaining the existing purpose and learner-agreement rule.

Costs

FN-D1 (Option cost comparison) compares invented estimates over twelve months, in pounds sterling. Each total is introduction plus twelve months of operation plus transition overlap. Operation includes the assumed staff, supplier and technology costs.

Option Introduction Monthly operation Overlap Twelve-month total
Continue current practice £0 £1,600 £0 £19,200
Process and ownership trial £2,400 £1,500 £0 £20,400
Later case-service option £9,000 £1,100 £1,500 £23,700

If monthly operation of the case service rises by £250, its total becomes £26,700. Lower monthly cost does not make it the cheapest option in this period. Benefits are unmeasured; refunds, lost bookings and additional partner charges need estimates before a real decision. FN-C1 (Funding commitment) connects each proposed commitment to its funding owner and architecture decision. The preferred option remains open.

Measures

MT-M1 (Resolution measures) keeps different questions separate:

Question Observation and use
Does the service achieve its purpose? Time from recorded cancellation to confirmed accepted resolution; include waiting and missing events.
Is ownership reliable? Intervals without an accepted owner, unresolved transfers and causes.
Is work correct and supportable? Incorrect bookings, repeated work, correction effort and support effort.
Is the architecture method effective? Elapsed time to an accepted design decision, including active work, waiting and rework.
Can the design be changed? Effort to alter an agreement rule, find its meaning, update checks and prepare support.
Does recovery restore the business position? MT-Q1 (Recovery quality) examines accepted work lost, uncertainty and reconciliation alongside technical restoration time.

Baselines, targets, observation periods and results remain open. Useful longevity requires following operation, change and eventual retirement over time; a long-lived service alone would not establish quality.

See the management, finance and metrics records for the linked assumptions.

About this edition

Refreshed for the September 2026 website update. This edition develops earlier Architecture Portal and ASAF material; the fictional service example was added in 2026.

Scope, limitations and next checks

Status and accountability

Read this page with its boundaries visible

Status

Proposed

Last reviewed

Intended users

  • Architects describing, comparing and adapting an architecture

Non-goals

  • A prescribed product stack or a claim of measured service outcomes

Limitations

  • The service is a fictional design. Its proposed implementation and operational checks remain unrun.

Next evidence sought

  • Apply the views and linked checks to an actual service.