Thinking
Notes on system design, delivery, and applied AI from our work with enterprise teams.
These are observations from our work—patterns we've seen across engagements, lessons from systems that succeeded and ones that didn't, and frameworks we use when advising clients on difficult decisions.
We share them because good thinking should be visible, and because enterprise buyers deserve more than marketing copy when evaluating a partner.
How we approach the design of systems that need to last, scale, and remain maintainable under real-world conditions.
Observations on what makes enterprise delivery succeed or fail—particularly in regulated and high-trust environments.
Practical considerations for deploying AI systems that are reliable, governable, and suitable for enterprise use.
System Design & Architecture
The first year of a platform initiative is often the easiest. The problems emerge when the team that built it moves on, requirements shift, and the assumptions baked into the architecture start to surface.
Delivery & Governance
Organizations often treat architecture reviews as ceremony. We've observed a consistent pattern: the cost of skipping them is rarely visible until remediation becomes the primary workstream.
AI in Production
When deploying AI in regulated environments, the question isn't whether the model works—it's whether you can explain what data it touched, why, and what happens when it's wrong.
System Design & Architecture
Two systems that exchange data are integrated. Two systems that can evolve independently while maintaining their contracts are interoperable. The distinction matters more than most organizations realize.
Delivery & Governance
A system that works in demo is not production-ready. A system that works under load is closer. A system that can be operated, monitored, and recovered by someone who didn't build it—that's production-ready.
AI in Production
Model accuracy is table stakes. What enterprises actually need is a governance layer that answers: who approved this, what can it access, and how do we turn it off?
System Design & Architecture
Teams often treat technical debt as the problem to solve. In our experience, it's usually a symptom of misaligned incentives, unclear ownership, or architectural decisions made without sufficient context.
Delivery & Governance
Documentation is necessary but not sufficient. Knowledge transfer happens through structured handover, not through wiki pages that no one reads after the first week.
These perspectives reflect our current thinking and are updated as we learn. If something here resonates—or if you disagree—we'd be interested to hear from you.
Start a conversation