Solution Architecture Document Template

Enterprise solution architecture – drivers, current/target state, gap analysis, domain architectures, NFR and principles compliance, roadmap

Architecture & System DesignFullsolutionUpdated Oct 20, 2026

Open in editorDownload .md

How to use: Initiatives that go to an architecture review board. Agree business drivers and scope with the sponsor first, describe current and target state at the same depth, and derive gaps. Be honest in the compliance tables and request waivers explicitly.

Preview

Solution Architecture Document: [Solution name]

Enterprise solution architecture document for one business initiative: drivers, current and target state, gaps, the business, application, data and technology architecture of the solution, integration and security, compliance with non-functional requirements and architecture principles, risks, cost, roadmap and governance approval. Replace every [bracketed] value and every row marked Example.

Document control

Field	Value
Document ID	[SAD-PRJ-001]
Solution / initiative	[Solution name]
Programme or project code	[PRJ-0000]
Version	[0.1]
Status	[Draft / Submitted to board / Approved / Approved with conditions / Rejected]
Solution architect	[@architect]
Business sponsor	[@sponsor]
Classification	[Internal / Confidential]
Last updated	YYYY-MM-DD

Approvals

Role	Name	Decision	Conditions	Date
Architecture review board	[Chair @name]	[Approved / Approved with conditions / Rejected]	[Conditions]	YYYY-MM-DD
Enterprise architect	[@name]	[Decision]	[Conditions]	YYYY-MM-DD
Security architect	[@name]	[Decision]	[Conditions]	YYYY-MM-DD
Data protection officer	[@name]	[Decision]	[Conditions]	YYYY-MM-DD
Business sponsor	[@name]	[Decision]	[Conditions]	YYYY-MM-DD

Revision history

Version	Date	Author	Change summary
0.1	YYYY-MM-DD	[@name]	Business context, current state, initial options
0.5	YYYY-MM-DD	[@name]	Example: Target state and gap analysis; submitted to pre-board review
1.0	YYYY-MM-DD	[@name]	Example: Approved with conditions C1 and C2 (board minutes ARB-2026-14)

Executive summary
Business context and drivers
Scope
Current state
Target state
Gap analysis
Solution overview
Business and application architecture
Data architecture
Technology architecture and integration
Security architecture
Non-functional requirements compliance
Architecture principles compliance
Risks, assumptions, issues and dependencies
Costs
Roadmap and transition states
Architecture decisions
Governance and approvals

1. Executive summary

[Example: "Customer onboarding takes 9 days on average and requires five manual hand-offs between three legacy systems. This document proposes a digital onboarding solution built on the existing CRM platform, a new identity verification service and an integration layer, delivered in three transition states over 12 months for an estimated capital cost of EUR 1.4 million. The board is asked to approve the target architecture and the waiver for principle P-07 until transition state 2."]

2. Business context and drivers

2.1 Business drivers

ID	Driver	Source	Measurable outcome
BD-01	Example: Reduce customer onboarding time	Corporate strategy YYYY	From 9 days to under 1 day for 80% of applicants
BD-02	Example: Comply with updated anti-money-laundering rules	Regulator	Electronic identity verification for all new customers by YYYY-MM-DD
BD-03	Example: Lower operating cost	Finance	40% fewer manual onboarding tasks
[BD-nn]	[Driver]	[Source]	[Outcome]

2.2 Stakeholders

Stakeholder	Interest	Influence
Example: Head of retail banking (sponsor)	Faster onboarding, revenue	High
Example: Compliance	Regulatory conformity	High
Example: Operations	Fewer manual tasks	Medium
[Stakeholder]	[Interest]	[High / Medium / Low]

3. Scope

Dimension	In scope	Out of scope
Business units	Example: Retail banking, all EU markets	Corporate banking
Processes	Example: Application, identity verification, account opening	Credit decisioning
Channels	Example: Web, mobile app	Branch, call centre (phase 2)
Systems	Example: CRM, core banking interfaces, new verification service	Core banking replacement
[Dimension]	[In scope]	[Out of scope]

4. Current state

The current onboarding process spans three systems and manual steps.

Pain point	Evidence	Driver affected
Example: Re-keying data in three systems	22 minutes average handling per application	BD-01, BD-03
Example: Identity checks not recorded electronically	Audit finding AF-2025-07	BD-02
[Pain point]	[Evidence]	[BD-nn]

5. Target state

In the target state, applicants complete onboarding online; verification and account creation are automated and orchestrated.

[Narrative: key capabilities, what is automated, where people remain in the loop and why.]

6. Gap analysis

ID	Domain	Current	Target	Gap	Action	Work package
GAP-01	Business	Manual review of every application	Exceptions only	Exception rules not defined	Define rules with Compliance	WP-1
GAP-02	Application	No orchestration capability	Orchestrated onboarding	New capability	Build on CRM workflow	WP-2
GAP-03	Data	Customer data duplicated in three systems	CRM as customer master	Master data ownership	Data migration, sync rules	WP-3
GAP-04	Technology	Point-to-point file transfers	API-based integration layer	Integration platform missing	Extend enterprise API gateway	WP-2
[GAP-nn]	[Domain]	[Current]	[Target]	[Gap]	[Action]	[WP-n]

7. Solution overview

7.1 Options considered

Option	Description	Fit to drivers	Cost (5 years)	Risk	Recommendation
A	Example: Extend existing CRM with workflow and a verification service	High	EUR 2.1 M	Medium	Recommended
B	Example: Buy a specialist onboarding platform	High	EUR 3.4 M	Medium (vendor lock-in)	Not recommended
C	Example: Improve manual process only	Low	EUR 0.4 M	Low	Not recommended (fails BD-02)

7.2 Solution summary

[Describe option A in one or two paragraphs: main building blocks, reuse of existing platforms, new components, and how it meets each business driver.]

8. Business and application architecture

8.1 Business architecture

Capability / process	Change	Business owner	Users affected
Example: Customer onboarding	Redesigned as digital self-service with exception handling	Head of retail operations	120 back-office staff, all new customers
Example: Identity verification	Automated document and liveness check	Compliance	Compliance analysts
[Capability]	[Change]	[Owner]	[Users]

8.2 Application architecture

Application	Status	Role in solution	Owner	Lifecycle
Example: CRM	Existing, extended	Customer master, orchestration	CRM platform team	Strategic
Example: Identity verification service	New (SaaS)	Document and liveness checks	Compliance IT	Strategic
Example: Identity check portal	Existing	Replaced	Compliance IT	Retire by TS-2
[Application]	[New / Extended / Unchanged / Retired]	[Role]	[Team]	[Strategic / Tactical / Retire]

9. Data architecture

Data entity	Master system	Consumers	Classification	Personal data	Residency	Retention
Example: Customer	CRM	Core banking, orchestration	Confidential	Yes	EU	10 years after relationship ends
Example: Identity evidence	Verification service	CRM (result only)	Restricted	Yes (special)	EU	5 years per AML rules
[Entity]	[System]	[Systems]	[Class]	[Yes / No]	[Region]	[Period]

Data migration: [volumes, approach, reconciliation, cut-over].

10. Technology architecture and integration

10.1 Technology platforms

Component	Platform	Hosting	Standard or deviation
Example: Onboarding portal	Corporate web framework	Private cloud EU	Standard
Example: Verification service	Vendor SaaS	Vendor EU region	Deviation: new SaaS vendor, see DEC-03
[Component]	[Platform]	[Hosting]	[Standard / deviation]

10.2 Integration

ID	Source	Target	Pattern	Protocol	Frequency / volume	Error handling
INT-01	Example: Orchestration	Verification service	Request-response	REST over HTTPS, mutual TLS	3,000 per day	Retry 3 times, then manual case
INT-02	Example: CRM	Core banking	Event-driven via integration layer	Messaging	3,000 per day	Dead-letter queue, alert
[INT-nn]	[Source]	[Target]	[Pattern]	[Protocol]	[Volume]	[Handling]

11. Security architecture

Area	Control	Requirement source	Status
Example: Customer authentication	Strong customer authentication via corporate identity provider	Security policy SP-04	Designed
Example: Data protection	Encryption at rest with customer-managed keys; field-level encryption of identity numbers	Data classification standard	Designed
Example: Third-party risk	Vendor security assessment of verification provider	Supplier policy	In progress
Example: Monitoring	Security events to the corporate SIEM	Logging standard	Designed
[Area]	[Control]	[Source]	[Status]

Threat model reference: [link]. Residual risks accepted: [list with owner].

12. Non-functional requirements compliance

ID	Category	Requirement	Solution response	Compliance
NFR-01	Availability	Example: 99.9% during 06:00 to 24:00	Active-active portal, SaaS SLA 99.95%	Compliant
NFR-02	Performance	Example: Verification result within 60 s for 95%	Vendor benchmark 35 s p95	Compliant
NFR-03	Recovery	Example: RTO 4 h, RPO 15 min	CRM backup meets RPO; orchestration state replayable	Compliant
NFR-04	Accessibility	Example: WCAG 2.2 AA	Portal compliant; vendor widget not yet tested	Partial: test by TS-1
[NFR-nn]	[Category]	[Requirement]	[Response]	[Compliant / Partial / Non-compliant]

13. Architecture principles compliance

Principle	Assessment	Compliance	Waiver
Example: P-01 Reuse before buy before build	Reuses CRM and API gateway; buys verification	Compliant	n/a
Example: P-04 Single master per data entity	CRM is customer master	Compliant	n/a
Example: P-07 No point-to-point integration	Interim file transfer to core banking until TS-2	Non-compliant	WVR-12, expires YYYY-MM-DD
[Principle]	[Assessment]	[Compliance]	[Waiver ID]

14. Risks, assumptions, issues and dependencies

ID	Type	Description	Impact	Likelihood	Owner	Response
R-01	Risk	Example: Verification vendor fails EU data residency audit	High	Low	@security	Contract clause; fallback vendor shortlisted
A-01	Assumption	Example: CRM upgrade to version [x] completes before TS-1	High	n/a	@crm-lead	Confirm at monthly checkpoint
I-01	Issue	Example: Core banking API capacity not confirmed	Medium	n/a	@core-lead	Load test scheduled
D-01	Dependency	Example: Enterprise API gateway extension	High	n/a	@platform	Tracked in platform roadmap
[ID]	[R / A / I / D]	[Description]	[H / M / L]	[H / M / L / n/a]	[@owner]	[Response]

15. Costs

Cost item	Year 0 (capex)	Annual run cost (opex)	Assumption
Example: Verification SaaS licences	EUR 50,000 setup	EUR 180,000	36,000 checks per year at EUR 5
Example: Delivery team	EUR 1,100,000	0	8 FTE for 12 months
Example: Platform and hosting	EUR 60,000	EUR 90,000	Corporate rate card
Total	EUR 1,210,000	EUR 270,000

Total cost of ownership over five years: $C_{TCO} = C_{capex} + 5 \times C_{opex}$ = EUR 2.56 million.

16. Roadmap and transition states

Transition state	Date	Capabilities delivered	Gaps closed	Retired
TS-1	YYYY-MM	Online application, automated verification, manual account creation	GAP-01, GAP-02 (part)	Email PDF forms
TS-2	YYYY-MM	Automated account creation via integration layer	GAP-02, GAP-04	Identity check portal, file transfer
Target	YYYY-MM	Full self-service, exceptions only	GAP-03	Duplicate customer stores

17. Architecture decisions

ID	Decision	Rationale	Status
DEC-01	Example: Use CRM workflow for orchestration	Reuse, skills available, lower cost than a new BPM suite	Accepted
DEC-02	Example: Event-driven integration with core banking	Decouples release cycles, aligns with P-07	Accepted
DEC-03	Example: SaaS verification vendor in EU region	Time to market, certified liveness detection	Accepted with condition C2
[DEC-nn]	[Decision]	[Rationale]	[Status]

18. Governance and approvals

Checkpoint	Body	Date	Outcome	Conditions
Concept review	Architecture review board	YYYY-MM-DD	Example: Proceed to detailed design	Provide data residency evidence
Design approval	Architecture review board	YYYY-MM-DD	[Outcome]	[Conditions]
Pre-go-live compliance check	Enterprise architecture	YYYY-MM-DD	[Outcome]	[Conditions]

Condition	Owner	Due	Status
Example: C1 Accessibility test of vendor widget	@ux-lead	YYYY-MM-DD	Open
Example: C2 Vendor residency evidence	@security	YYYY-MM-DD	Closed
[Condition]	[@owner]	YYYY-MM-DD	[Open / Closed]

Standard and licence note

Based on common industry practice for enterprise solution architecture documents: business drivers, current and target state, gap analysis, domain architectures, compliance assessment, transition planning and governance. This template is original text written for this collection and reproduces no text from TOGAF or any other framework. Template licence: MIT.

Related templates

Architecture & System Design