Business Architecture Review
Business Architecture Review
Understand what is behind one business problem that keeps coming back.
The Review looks at the teams, processes and systems involved in one defined business problem. You receive a written explanation of what is happening, the likely causes, what remains unclear and what to address first.
Use the review when local fixes are no longer enough.
- 01
The same operational or management problem keeps returning.
- 02
Hiring more people has not reduced delivery delays.
- 03
Finance, sales and operations have different explanations for the same problem.
- 04
A transition, restructuring, succession or investment decision needs a stronger basis.
- 05
The cost of another local fix is becoming material.
One question. Connected parts of the company.
The proposal defines the question, the part of the company involved, the information to review, who needs to participate and what is out of scope.
The Review follows only the parts of the business that may change the answer. That can include decisions, responsibilities, information, workflows, money, technology, governance, people, risk or dependencies. For example, a pricing decision may depend on operational information, a reporting handoff and the approval process that controls when the figures arrive.
Work inside a larger organisation may be considered only when one unit, value stream or decision system can be clearly bounded. This is not whole-enterprise coverage.
Check the information behind the problem.
The Review compares what people report with relevant records, processes and decisions. Questions, interviews and walkthroughs fill important gaps or test other possible causes.
Example review: management reports arrive too late
Management needs the monthly figures before making a pricing decision. The report arrives too late. In this example, the written process and actual approval route assign responsibility differently. That suggests the handoff may be contributing to the delay, but staffing and software issues have not yet been ruled out. The first recommendation is to clarify responsibility and track where the next reporting cycle is delayed. Further changes should depend on what that check reveals.
What happened
The monthly management report arrived after the pricing decision it was meant to support.
What we checked
Dated documentary evidence, an observed process walkthrough and corroborated accounts show the timing and handoffs.
What did not match
The written process names one owner, while the actual approval path uses another.
Other possible causes
The delay may be caused by staffing capacity or by the reporting software.
What the evidence suggests
Unclear decision rights at the finance and operations handoff may be delaying the report.
How certain
Moderate.
What remains unclear
The review covers one reporting cycle and does not include a complete transaction-level sample.
What to address first
Clarify responsibility and track where the next reporting cycle is delayed. Consider a software change only if further investigation shows that the system is contributing to the delay.
How to check whether it helped
The next report arrives inside the decision window with fewer handoff exceptions.
What you receive
You receive a written explanation of the likely causes, what remains unclear and what to address first.
Included in the written report
- 01
An executive decision brief.
- 02
The information covered, assumptions, limitations and unanswered questions.
- 03
A map of the teams, processes, decisions and systems involved.
- 04
Findings, likely causes and recommended next steps.
- 05
Other possible causes and unanswered questions.
- 06
How to check whether a change helped.
- 07
A discussion of the findings and agreed follow-up.
What participation looks like.
Client
- 01
Identify the person responsible for the business decision.
- 02
Agree the question and scope.
- 03
Provide relevant information and access.
- 04
Protect participants from retaliation.
- 05
Review factual corrections within the agreed window.
- 06
Decide what to do with the final report.
Depthics
- 01
Keep the agreed question and information boundary.
- 02
Separate what is known from interpretation and conclusion.
- 03
Record contradictions and limitations.
- 04
Protect restricted participant information.
- 05
Check findings before release.
- 06
State when a question cannot be answered.
Questions before you start.
- What happens first?
- First, we discuss the business question, the decision it affects and whether a Review is appropriate. If it is, the proposal defines the initial scope and commercial terms.
- How is scope agreed?
- Before work starts, the proposal states the decision, the part of the company involved, the information to review, participants, exclusions and release conditions.
- Who needs to participate?
- People who can provide relevant information or a different view that may change the answer may be asked to participate. A Review does not require every employee to participate.
- What evidence may be required?
- Depending on the question, this may include reports, decisions, process records, system extracts, policies, agreements, operating data, walkthroughs and relevant external material. The request is limited to the agreed question.
- How are participant responses protected?
- Confidentiality terms and their limits are explained before participation. Access to identities is restricted, and we check whether report details could identify participants before release. Absolute anonymity is not promised.
- Can the Review be used inside a larger organisation?
- Yes, when one unit, value stream or decision system can be bounded clearly. The result does not represent the whole enterprise.
- Who makes the final decisions about the findings?
- A person reviews the information, checks the findings and makes the final decisions about conclusions and recommendations.
- How are timing and price set?
- The proposal sets both after the question, scope and access are understood. They depend on the question, participant coverage, evidence condition, included systems, confidentiality, urgency and review work required.
Bring the business problem, the decision it affects and what you have already tried. We will discuss whether a Review is suitable and agree the scope before substantive work begins.
Start with a short, non-confidential description. Evidence is requested only after fit, scope, and confidentiality are agreed.