Booker Tech Consulting
All engagements

CLOUD & DATA PLATFORMS

Build a foundation
your team can operate.

Cloud & Data Architecture Review

A bounded review of one cloud or data workload: its environments, data flows and definitions, access boundaries, and operating responsibilities. Led by Ian Booker, drawing on ownership of enterprise warehouse data layers in Snowflake, data governance and metadata roadmaps, and Azure foundations with Terraform at Lurie Children’s Hospital.

Explore Ian’s production healthcare experience

Discuss a project or contract Inspect a sample output

WHEN THIS HELPS

A growing platform.
Unclear foundations.

An Azure or Snowflake initiative is ready for its next workload, but upstream dependencies or data definitions are unclear, environments differ, or ownership is split across teams. Make the data and platform decisions explicit before extending it.

A bounded starting point

One workload and agreed environments, reviewed through architecture documents, data definitions, infrastructure definitions, and stakeholder discussions.

What you receive

  • A platform and data-flow map covering sources, transformations, and reporting dependencies.
  • Prioritized gaps in data definitions, metadata, access, and operating ownership, with evidence limits.
  • A target design and decision records.
  • Operating responsibilities and a sequenced delivery plan.

The decision: which data and platform changes are necessary, and how should delivery be sequenced?

ILLUSTRATIVE REVIEW EXCERPT

See the reasoning.
Inspect the output.

Illustrative example. Not a client case study. Example systems, inputs, and findings show part of the review deliverable. No production outcome or measured improvement is claimed.

The question

In this example, a healthcare organization wants to move a daily encounter report from a pilot into routine operation. Azure hosts its ingestion jobs; Snowflake holds the reporting data. The team needs to decide whether its reporting definitions, environment, and access arrangements are ready for the next release.

Review boundary: One reporting workload across development and production. This excerpt focuses on one reporting measure, configuration, access, and operating responsibility. The complete review follows the agreed workload and decision.

01 / Workload and environment boundaries

Development environmentAzure ingestion job → development reporting data in SnowflakeSynthetic test inputs; release validation
Production environmentAzure ingestion job → production reporting data in SnowflakeOperational inputs; business reporting
Changes cross a separate boundary

Reviewed infrastructure definitions and data-platform changes are promoted through an agreed release process. This is change promotion, not a flow of production data into development.

Example arrangement. Actual account, network, identity, and deployment boundaries would be established from the customer's evidence. No direct connection or shared identity between these environments is assumed.Ian Booker · Booker Tech ConsultingIllustrative example · Not a client system.
Trace a reporting measure: completed encounters

Proposed definition for this example: Count each encounter ID once when its latest valid state received by the report cutoff is completed. Group by completion date in the agreed reporting timezone; exclude cancelled encounters.

  1. Source: An encounter feed supplies the ID, status, completion timestamp, and source version. Ingestion records when each update arrived.
  2. Transformation: Validate required values, remove duplicate versions, and resolve updates by source version rather than arrival order. Flag conflicting or unorderable updates for review. Apply the agreed status and date rules before aggregation.
  3. Published definition: The catalog records the counting unit, source fields, transformation version, reporting timezone, cutoff, refresh time, and correction policy. The reporting owner approves the business meaning; data engineering owns the transformation and refresh process.

Quality and freshness: Reconcile synthetic IDs with the aggregate and check duplicates, missing completion timestamps on completed records, and cancelled states. Late corrections revise a later report with an explicit as-of time. Show refresh status separately from the reporting period; flag a missed agreed refresh deadline.

Release evidence: An approved definition, reviewed lineage from source to report, expected and observed synthetic test results, and named responders. These are proposed checks, not completed tests.

02 / Findings and evidence limits

Read the findings and verification steps

F01 / CONFIGURATION CONSISTENCY

The declared setup may not match the deployed one.

Example input E1: A sample change log describes a manual production configuration edit that is absent from the supplied infrastructure definition.

Inference: There is an unreconciled difference. The record alone does not establish which configuration is correct or authorize overwriting production.

Verify: Compare approved definitions with a sanitized current-state export. Have the platform owner explain and reconcile the difference before the next change.

F02 / ACCESS BOUNDARIES

The reporting task needs a defined identity.

Example input E2: A sample access matrix gives a reporting automation identity the same listed permissions as a developer role, without a task-level rationale.

Inference: The intended access boundary is unclear. The matrix is not proof of effective permissions or unauthorized access.

Verify: Map required reads and writes, inspect the relevant grants, and test intended allowed and denied actions using synthetic data in an approved environment.

F03 / REPORTING DEFINITION

Fresh data needs a shared meaning.

Example input E3: A sample catalog entry names “completed encounters” but omits the counting unit, status rules, cutoff, and correction policy.

Inference: Consumers cannot establish what the count represents. This is a definition gap, not proof that the published count is wrong.

Verify: Agree the definition with the reporting owner, trace its transformation, and test duplicates, status changes, late arrivals, and corrections using synthetic records.

03 / SAMPLE ARCHITECTURE DECISION · ADR-CD-001

Establish a workload baseline before expanding production use.

Status: Proposed within this example; subject to evidence and stakeholder review.

Compare the three options
Option A — Promote the pilot as it stands
Minimizes preparatory work, but carries unresolved configuration, permission, and ownership assumptions into the release.
Option B — Establish a bounded operating baseline
Agree the reporting definition and correction rules, reconcile environment differences, define task-specific access, and assign the response process. Requires platform and data-owner time, but keeps the work limited to this release.
Option C — Redesign the whole platform
Could address broader organizational needs, but expands scope beyond the workload and requires separate funding, authority, and dependency analysis.

Proposed choice: Option B. Record the approved reporting definition, lineage and quality checks, environment differences, access requirements, and operating responsibilities before deciding the production rollout.

Reconsider if: The existing environment cannot provide the required separation, a mandatory constraint changes, or evidence reveals shared dependencies that cannot be addressed within the workload boundary. Those findings may justify a wider review; they do not automatically authorize it.

04 / Sequenced actions

Read the action sequence and completion evidence

  1. Reconcile the environment definitions

    Proposed owner: Cloud platform lead with the workload engineer.

    Completion evidence: An approved inventory of intended differences, an explanation for each unmanaged change, and a reviewed plan that avoids unintended replacement or deletion.

  2. Define and verify the access contract

    Proposed owner: Data platform owner and identity/security counterpart.

    Completion evidence: Named task identities, justified permissions, and recorded allowed/denied test cases using synthetic data.

  3. Agree the reporting contract and response

    Proposed owner: Reporting owner with data engineering and operations.

    Completion evidence: Approved counting and correction rules, source-to-report lineage, synthetic quality checks, a refresh deadline, and a rehearsed escalation path.

  4. Decide the next release

    Proposed owner: Workload sponsor and change owner.

    Completion evidence: A reviewed rollout decision with validation steps, rollback or forward-recovery choices for data changes, and explicit unresolved risks.

The deliverable connects data definitions and platform evidence to a release decision, validation steps, and named operating responsibilities.

HOW THE REVIEW WORKS

Agree the question.
Make the next step clear.

Work starts with a written scope, fee, inputs, and delivery date. The scope follows your workload and decision; the sample above does not prescribe a universal solution.

Discuss a project or contract
  1. Frame the decision. Identify the workload, environments, stakeholders, and release decision.
  2. Review the evidence. Examine sanitized platform and data-flow diagrams, data definitions and metadata, infrastructure definitions, access matrices, and operating procedures.
  3. Resolve the important unknowns. Distinguish supported findings from assumptions and agree what needs further verification.
  4. Walk through the recommendation. Review the target design, trade-offs, priorities, and operating responsibilities with the team.
Inputs and exclusions

Useful inputs: A workload description, agreed environment boundaries, existing diagrams and data definitions, sanitized infrastructure and access definitions, and discussions with platform and data owners.

Not included by default: Implementation, migration, penetration testing, compliance certification, emergency response, or ongoing operations. A broader delivery need can be scoped separately.

Initial reviews use sanitized evidence. System access and implementation are agreed separately. Do not send patient information, credentials, or confidential documents through the inquiry link.

START A CONVERSATION

Bring the architecture
challenge into focus.

Share the work, the team, and the timing. Ian welcomes relevant senior architecture opportunities and focused consulting inquiries.

Please leave out patient data, credentials, and confidential documents. Supporting material can be arranged afterward. How we use inquiry information.

Projects & contracts

Describe the integration, platform, or architecture challenge and the support you need.

Cloud & Data Architecture Review

Discuss a project or contract Contact details & email help

For consulting, scope, fee, inputs, and timing are agreed before work starts.

Architecture roles

Open to suitable full-time architecture roles and focused consulting engagements.

Send the role, organization, location, engagement type, and expected rate or salary range.

Discuss an architecture role Contact details & email help
Request résuméView LinkedIn (opens in a new tab)