Architecture Portal

A shared roadmap

Cancellation work across two initiatives.

Adrian Sutherland · Version 1.0 · · © 2005–2026

The wider choice

In the fictional example, the provider’s business-area owner proposes a shared direction: learners should receive an agreed resolution, whoever supplies the replacement course. MG-D1 (Shared direction) links that direction to two possible initiatives.

Initiative Dependency and proposed decision
Cancellation trial For provider-run courses, assign a case owner and retain learner agreement using a shared record. Escalate partner courses and refunds, which are outside the trial. Learn where handovers fail.
Partner service Establish partner responsibilities, permitted disclosure, booking confirmation and costs before extending the trial.

MG-R1 (Service roadmap) is the proposed roadmap. It starts with the process-only trial and records the conditions for a later partner service. Those conditions include agreement on partner responsibilities as well as software delivery dates.

Authority and an exception

The proposed arrangement would allow the service owner to change local working instructions within the rule requiring learner agreement. The business-area owner would resolve responsibilities shared by teams; the funding owner would authorise expenditure. A temporary manual handover would identify its owner, permitted scope, checks and review date in MG-E1 (Temporary exception). Those fields remain open until the responsible people agree them.

Feedback

The hypothetical L1 (Partner confirmation gap) finding identifies a suitable partner alternative whose confirmation responsibility remains unagreed. Partner courses are outside the trial, so this finding would be escalated. It would reopen that responsibility and its dependencies for the later option. The purpose and learner-agreement requirement remain baseline assumptions within the fiction. The finance view compares the costs of the options; metrics defines what observations would help judge them.

The management record brings together the decisions, roadmap, dependencies and exceptions. The proposed roles await agreement, and the trial has not run.

About this edition

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

Scope, limitations and next checks

Status and accountability

Read this page with its boundaries visible

Status

In development

Last reviewed

Intended users

  • Architects comparing and adapting their existing approach

Non-goals

  • Prescribing a mandatory method or claiming measured benefits

Limitations

  • Guidance illustrated by a fictional example; proposed designs and checks have not been implemented or run.

Next evidence sought

  • Review the guidance and try its records with a practising architect.