What do you do if your innovative system architecture solution seems unfeasible?

When system architecture can not achieve project goals then this needs to communicate back to Business Analyst (BA) so that Objectives which were derived from Goals can be reassess with SMART framework which should have assessed all Objectives are realistic. Therefore, BAs need to be engaged to revise Objectives so that feasible system architecture can be developed later in solution design stage.

?? Clarify Objectives: Revisit the project goals and stakeholders' requirements to ensure alignment with the proposed architecture solution. ?? Identify Trade-offs: Evaluate whether the current solution aligns with the project's priorities, constraints, and long-term objectives. In a banking project aiming to enhance customer experience, reassess whether the innovative architecture aligns with the primary goal of improving transaction speed and security.

Try to measure the value addition of each and every Goal and need to make it quantitative as much as possible.even most of the quality related goals can be put into a value.These unmeasured qualitative goals are the once which makes the initial design unfeasible due to incorrect measurements taken during the desigphase.as an example in my line of work next big tech in telco is VoNR replacing old volte.The advantage of VoNR over Volte is pure call quality.If correctly implemented you can have a conversation over the phone like you are infront of each other but if you go further ahead you will find technology is not yet matured.Only handful of phones support it.and there is a spectrum issues as well so rushing it isnt worth it in my mind.

While reassessing the goals, keep the customer requirements in mind. What do the customer want? How does my user load/requirements scale in future? Is it possible to provide solution in short term and incrementally try to achieve the long term goal.

1. Identify area where current innovative solution architect is not feasible in terms of Cost/Volume/Expandability/Extensibility/Maintainability. 2. Need to prepare patch strategy to bring feasibility back in place 3. Analyze outcome of proof of concept of patch. Post that validate if outcomes is best fit 4. Analyses Time/Effort/Cost/Resource associated with patch strategy 5. Educate team if needed or on-board patch strategy experts 6. Seek stack holders go ahead signal based on informative proposal from output of above steps 1 to 5.

?? Divergent Thinking: Encourage brainstorming sessions to explore alternative architecture approaches or design patterns that address the project's requirements more effectively. ?? Evaluate Trade-offs: Compare the pros and cons of different architectural options in terms of scalability, maintainability, performance, and cost. Consider alternative architectural patterns, such as microservices or serverless computing, to address scalability challenges in a banking application.

??? Seek Expert Advice: Engage with domain experts, senior architects, or external consultants to validate assumptions, identify potential pitfalls, and gain insights into viable alternatives. ?? Collaborative Problem-solving: Foster collaboration between cross-functional teams to leverage diverse perspectives and expertise in finding innovative solutions. Consult with cybersecurity experts to address security concerns and regulatory compliance requirements associated with the proposed architecture solution in banking applications.

?? Focus on Essentials: Streamline the architecture design by eliminating unnecessary complexity, dependencies, or features that contribute to feasibility challenges. ?? Modular Approach: Break down the system architecture into manageable components or modules, prioritizing simplicity, clarity, and ease of implementation. Simplify the architecture of a banking application by decoupling business logic from presentation layers and adopting a modular architecture approach for better maintainability.

?? Iterative Development: Adopt an iterative and incremental approach to system development, focusing on delivering minimum viable products (MVPs) and iterating based on feedback and lessons learned. ?? Proof of Concept: Develop proof-of-concept prototypes or pilot projects to validate the feasibility of the innovative architecture solution before committing to full-scale implementation. Implement the innovative architecture solution in phases, starting with a small-scale pilot project to validate its feasibility and scalability in real-world banking scenarios.

?? Resource Evaluation: Assess the availability of technical expertise, budget, infrastructure, and time constraints required to implement and maintain the proposed architecture solution. ?? Risk Analysis: Conduct a risk assessment to identify potential resource constraints, dependencies, and mitigations strategies to ensure successful implementation. Evaluate the availability of skilled resources, budgetary constraints, and infrastructure requirements for deploying the innovative architecture solution in a banking environment.

?? Stakeholder Engagement: Engage stakeholders, including business users, IT teams, and management, in transparent discussions about the feasibility challenges and potential impact on project timelines and outcomes. ?? Continuous Improvement: Embrace a culture of continuous improvement and learning, leveraging feasibility challenges as opportunities for innovation, knowledge sharing, and professional growth. Foster a culture of collaboration and innovation within the banking organization, encouraging teams to embrace challenges and explore creative solutions to deliver value to customers and stakeholders.