Recommended
4+1 Development
AWS Ops Excellence
Azure Ops Excellence
Lifecycle Management describes how the solution is developed, deployed, operated, and eventually retired. It corresponds to the Development View in the 4+1 model and the operational aspects of the AWS/Azure Well-Architected Frameworks.
| Sub-section | Focus | Depth |
|---|
| 5.1 Software Development & CI/CD | Build and deploy pipelines | Recommended |
| 5.2 Service Transition & Migration | Migration strategy and cutover | Recommended |
| 5.3 Test Strategy | Architecturally significant testing | Recommended |
| 5.4 Release Management | Release frequency and process | Recommended |
| 5.5 Operations & Support | Support model and SLAs | Recommended |
| 5.6 Resourcing & Skills | Team capability and readiness | Recommended |
| 5.7 Service Start | Start-up sequence and dependencies | Comprehensive |
| 5.8 Maintainability | Patching, certificates, dependencies | Recommended |
| 5.9 Decommissioning & Legacy Removal | End-of-life and disposal | Recommended |
| 5.10 Exit Planning | Vendor lock-in and exit strategy | Recommended |
Recommended
Does the application include any software developed internally?
| Attribute | Detail |
|---|
| Source control platform | [e.g., GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket] |
| CI/CD platform | [e.g., Jenkins, GitHub Actions, Azure DevOps] |
| Build automation | [how builds are triggered and managed] |
| Deployment automation | [how deployments are automated] |
| Test automation | [what testing is automated in the pipeline] |
| Control | Implementation |
|---|
| Security requirements identification | [how security requirements are captured] |
| Static Application Security Testing (SAST) | [tool used] |
| Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) | Yes / No - [tool] |
| Software Composition Analysis (SCA) | [tool used] |
| Container image scanning | [if applicable, tool used] |
| Secure coding practices | [standards, training, code review] |
| Patch management | [how security patches are applied and SLAs] |
Recommended
If this solution replaces or migrates an existing system, classify the migration approach:
| Classification | Selected? | Description |
|---|
| Retain | ☐ | Keep as-is, not suitable for migration at this time |
| Retire | ☐ | Decommission; functionality no longer needed |
| Rehost | ☐ | Lift-and-shift to new infrastructure with minimal changes |
| Replatform | ☐ | Lift-and-shift with targeted optimisations (e.g., managed database) |
| Refactor | ☐ | Re-architect components to take advantage of new platform capabilities |
| Replace | ☐ | Replace entirely with a new solution (e.g., SaaS product) |
| Attribute | Detail |
|---|
| Deployment strategy | Big Bang / Blue-Green / Canary / Strangler Fig / Rolling / Parallel Run |
| Data migration mode | One-off / Phased / Continuous Sync / Not applicable |
| Data migration method | [e.g., Export/Import, ETL, CDC, DMS, manual] |
| Data volume to migrate | [e.g., 500 GB] |
| End-user cutover approach | One-off / Phased / Not applicable |
| External system cutover | One-off / Phased / Not applicable |
| Maximum acceptable downtime | Zero / Seconds / Minutes / Hours / Days |
| Rollback plan | [how to revert if the transition fails] |
| Acceptance criteria | [what must be true before cutover] |
| Transient infrastructure needed? | Yes / No — [if yes, describe temporary infrastructure required during migration] |
Recommended
Describe the testing approach that validates the architecture:
| Test Type | Scope | Approach | Environment | Automated? |
|---|
| Integration testing | [what is tested] | [approach] | [environment] | Yes / No |
| Contract testing | [API contracts between services] | [approach] | [environment] | Yes / No |
| Performance testing | [load, stress, soak] | [approach] | [environment] | Yes / No |
| Security testing | [penetration, vulnerability] | [approach] | [environment] | Yes / No |
| DR testing | [failover, recovery] | [approach and frequency] | [environment] | Yes / No |
Guidance
This section covers architecturally significant testing — not unit tests or functional test cases (which belong in detailed design / low-level documentation). Focus on testing that validates the architecture itself: integration points, performance characteristics, security posture, and recovery capabilities.
Recommended
| Attribute | Detail |
|---|
| Release frequency | [e.g., continuous, weekly, monthly, quarterly] |
| Release process | [how releases are planned, approved, and deployed] |
| Release validation | [how releases are validated in production] |
| Feature flags / toggles | [if used, how they are managed] |
Recommended
| Attribute | Detail |
|---|
| Support model | [which teams or vendors support the application] |
| Support hours | [e.g., 24/7, business hours, follow-the-sun] |
| SLAs | [internal or external service level agreements] |
| Escalation paths | [how issues are escalated] |
Recommended
Operational practices have a continuous carbon impact. Document how sustainability is preserved over the life of the running solution; the metric and tooling detail belongs in Section 4.5.
| Question | Response |
|---|
| Are non-production environments on an auto-shutdown schedule (e.g., evenings, weekends)? | Yes / No — [schedule] |
| Is there a periodic review of compute right-sizing (typically quarterly)? | Yes / No — [cadence] |
| Are unused resources (orphaned VMs, unattached disks, idle environments) actively identified and reclaimed? | Yes / No — [process] |
| Is the carbon footprint reported alongside cost in operational reviews? | Yes / No |
| Are environment retirements (e.g., a decommissioned dev cluster) actually deleted, not just stopped? | Yes / No |
Recommended
Assess whether the team has the skills and resources to build, operate, and support the solution.
| Skill Area | Current Level | Action Required |
|---|
| Cloud platform (e.g., AWS, Azure, GCP) | High / Medium / Low / N/A | [training, hiring, or contractor needed?] |
| Infrastructure as Code (e.g., Terraform, Pulumi) | High / Medium / Low / N/A | […] |
| CI/CD pipeline management | High / Medium / Low / N/A | […] |
| Application technology stack | High / Medium / Low / N/A | […] |
| Database administration | High / Medium / Low / N/A | […] |
| Security & compliance | High / Medium / Low / N/A | […] |
| Question | Response |
|---|
| Can the team fully operate and support this solution in production? | A: Fully capable / B: Partially capable / C: Not yet capable but willing to learn / D: Not capable and will not be in the foreseeable future |
| If B, C, or D: what additional resources are required? | [e.g., DBA, DevOps engineer, cloud architect, managed service] |
| Is a managed service being considered for ongoing operations? | Yes / No — [details] |
Comprehensive
Describe how the application and its supporting services are started:
[What steps are needed to bring the solution into operation? Are there manual steps? What is the start-up sequence and dependency order?]
Recommended
Describe how the solution design enables ongoing maintenance:
| Concern | Approach |
|---|
| Keeping software versions current and supported | [patching strategy] |
| Hardware lifecycle management | [refresh cadence] |
| Certificate management | [renewal process] |
| Dependency management | [how third-party dependencies are tracked and updated] |
Recommended
Where this solution replaces or modifies existing systems, document the plan for removing legacy infrastructure.
| Attribute | Detail |
|---|
| Intended lifespan | [expected or planned lifetime of the solution] |
| End-of-life triggers | [what would trigger decommissioning] |
| Decommissioning blockers | [dependencies or constraints on retirement] |
| Legacy Component | Current State | Decommission Date | Owner | Dependencies | Status |
|---|
| [system/server/service] | [running / standby / powered off] | [target date] | [person/team] | [what depends on it] | Planned / In Progress / Complete |
Guidance
Common items to decommission after migration or replacement:
- Servers and VMs — physical or virtual machines no longer needed
- Licences — software licences that can be released or cancelled
- Network rules — firewall rules, DNS entries, load balancer configs for retired systems
- Data stores — databases, file shares, or storage accounts (after data migration and retention period)
- Monitoring and alerting — dashboards, alerts, and runbooks for retired systems
- Service accounts and credentials — accounts and secrets for decommissioned integrations
- Documentation — update or archive architecture documents for retired systems
Technical debt is tracked in Section 6.6 — Technical Debt Register.
Comprehensive
| Attribute | Detail |
|---|
| Data disposal method | [how data will be securely erased — crypto-shredding, secure wipe, physical destruction] |
| Data retention obligations | [any data that must be retained beyond decommissioning, and for how long] |
| Infrastructure disposal | [how hardware/cloud resources will be decommissioned — resource deletion, subscription cancellation, hardware return] |
| Cost savings realised | [expected cost reduction from decommissioning] |
Recommended
If hosted in public cloud or with a third-party provider:
| Attribute | Detail |
|---|
| Exit strategy | [how to migrate away from the current provider] |
| Data portability | [how data can be extracted and migrated] |
| Vendor lock-in assessment | [degree of lock-in and mitigation] |
| Exit timeline estimate | [how long an exit would take] |
Scoring Guidance
| Score | What This Looks Like |
|---|
| 1 | CI/CD tool identified but pipeline not documented |
| 3 | Development practices, deployment strategy, support model, and release frequency documented; migration plan in place if applicable |
| 5 | All of the above plus security scanning integrated in pipeline, team skills assessed with action plan, exit strategy documented with vendor lock-in assessment |