Service
Solution Design
Technical architecture for regulated financial institutions — the bridge between strategy and implementation. Integration architecture, data design, security and compliance built in, and non-functional requirements specified to the level engineering can actually build from. Vendor-neutral across the platform stack; senior architects with hands-on production experience.
Solution design is the difference between a strategy deck that survives contact with engineering and one that doesn't. Strategy answers what to build and why; solution design answers how — the components, integration patterns, data flows, security model, and delivery sequence that turn intent into a system. Done well, it forecloses the expensive architectural decisions that otherwise surface mid-build. Our designs are written by architects who have implemented the systems they describe, not by analysts working from reference patterns — so the document an engineering team picks up is one they can act on without re-deriving the choices behind it.
What You Get
Technical architecture
End-to-end definition of the system — component model, service boundaries, deployment topology, and the runtime behaviours that determine whether the design holds under load. Documented at a level engineering teams can build from, with architectural decisions and their alternatives recorded so future trade-offs are made with context, not against it.
Integration architecture
API contracts, event schemas, idempotency and retry semantics, message ordering and exactly-once delivery patterns where the workload demands them. Particular attention to the boundary between modern components and legacy estates — strangler fig migrations, API abstraction layers, and event-driven coexistence patterns that allow gradual modernisation without business disruption.
Data architecture and modelling
Domain model, canonical data formats, master-data ownership, data lineage, and the classification rules that flow into security and compliance design. Where relevant, migration strategy from legacy schemas — including dual-write windows, reconciliation, and the cut-over choreography that determines whether the migration actually completes.
Security and compliance design
Compliance embedded from the first design decision, not bolted on at the end. Threat modelling, data classification, encryption and key management patterns, authentication and authorisation models, and the audit-evidence pathways that make PCI DSS, PSD2/PSD3, GDPR, and DORA obligations demonstrable. Worked through the architecture, not appended to it.
Non-functional requirements and resilience
Availability, latency, throughput, recovery-time and recovery-point objectives specified as engineering targets rather than aspirations. Capacity planning, failure-mode analysis, and the operational telemetry the design needs to be observable in production. Aligned to DORA operational resilience requirements where applicable.
Delivery sequencing
A phased plan that translates architecture into something deliverable — workstream dependencies, integration sequencing, milestone definitions, and the risk-managed cut-over approach for systems that must remain in operation throughout. The architecture document and the delivery plan land together; one is not useful without the other.
Our Approach
Discovery & requirements
Workshops with business, engineering, security, and compliance. Functional and non-functional requirements captured; constraints mapped — regulatory, integration, operational, commercial.
Architecture options
Two or three viable architectural options developed, with trade-offs framed in commercial and engineering terms. Decisions made deliberately rather than by default.
Detailed design
Selected option developed to engineering-buildable detail. Component model, integration contracts, data model, security architecture, NFR specifications, and the architectural decision record behind each choice.
Validation
Architecture review with the implementing team, threat modelling pass, and proof-of-concept validation for components where the risk profile justifies it.
Handover
Design handed to the implementing team — internal, third-party, or our Custom Rust Development and Team Extension teams — with the rationale behind every choice. Optional follow-on design review post-build.
Related Expertise
Frequently Asked Questions
Ready to get started?
Get in touch to discuss how we can help your organisation.
Contact us