How to select a Microsoft Business Solutions architect for a connected programme

Define the decisions that need an architect

A request for a senior Microsoft architect can mean many things: selecting application boundaries, reviewing an integration, resolving competing data definitions or overseeing a complex rollout. List the decisions that remain unsettled and why the current team cannot resolve them. This turns a prestigious title into a useful assignment. It also prevents hiring a technically strong person whose expertise sits in a different part of the stack.

When reviewing Microsoft Business Solutions enterprise architect profiles, distinguish breadth from depth. An architect who understands the overall landscape may still rely on a specialist for detailed Finance behaviour or Power Platform configuration. That is reasonable when responsibilities are explicit. Ask the candidate to identify where they would seek specialist review in your programme. A credible resource can state the limits of their knowledge while still maintaining the coherence of the overall design.

Start with outcomes and operating constraints

Microsoft describes implementation strategy as choices spanning design, testing, deployment and operation. Use that broad view in selection: ask how the architect would connect a business outcome to the design and its ongoing support. A proposal that solves a demonstration scenario but leaves ownership, monitoring or release coordination unexplained is incomplete. The discussion should include the people who will operate the result.

Provide constraints such as existing applications, critical transaction timings, available support skills and planned rollout stages. Ask the candidate which constraints are confirmed and which should be challenged. A strong architect does not treat every current habit as immovable, but also does not dismiss genuine business restrictions. Their value lies in making those distinctions visible. Request an example of how they would record a decision so a delivery team understands the context months later, after the original workshop participants have moved on.

Use a cross-application scenario to expose reasoning

Consider a hypothetical organisation using Dynamics 365 Sales for customer engagement, Finance for accounting and Power BI for management reporting. Customer information changes in more than one place, and executives disagree about the source of a particular revenue figure. Ask the candidate to frame the problem before suggesting technology. They should identify business definitions, ownership, timing and the decisions that belong to finance or sales leaders.

Then ask what happens when a connected component is unavailable or a record cannot be reconciled. The purpose is to evaluate operational thinking rather than knowledge of a fashionable integration term. A Dynamics 365 Finance solution architect may be required for the finance-specific design, while the broader architect coordinates boundaries. The resource should explain how those roles work together and how disagreements become decisions rather than parallel designs that only meet during testing.

Expect options with trade-offs and a recommendation

An architecture review should not present a single preferred pattern as inevitable. Ask for plausible options, the criteria used to compare them and a recommendation with assumptions. Criteria might include business fit, supportability, data timeliness, delivery effort and dependency on specialist skills. Not every option needs equal detail, but the rejected alternatives should be understandable enough to prevent the same debate from restarting repeatedly.

For a hypothetical approval requirement, ask whether configuration, a separate application or custom code is appropriate and what information would change the recommendation. Microsoft advises considering configuration before code extensions in finance and operations apps. Use that as a narrow checkpoint rather than a rule that custom work is always wrong. A useful architect explains when the added complexity earns its place and how the business will support it after the implementation team leaves.

Inspect data and integration ownership carefully

Connected systems often fail organisationally before they fail technically. Two teams may both believe they own a customer record, or neither may own a failed message. Ask the architect to describe how they would establish ownership of creation, changes, reconciliation and exception resolution. These responsibilities should be discussed in business terms before the design becomes a detailed interface specification.

The hiring assessment should include timing. Some business decisions require immediate information; others can tolerate a defined delay. Ask the candidate how they would gather those requirements without assuming that every integration must behave identically. A useful answer considers what users do when information is late or incomplete. It also identifies the teams responsible for observing and resolving the condition. This shows whether the resource can design a workable operating arrangement rather than simply connect application boxes on a diagram.

Look for collaboration that preserves delivery accountability

An architect should help functional consultants, developers, data specialists and project managers make consistent choices. They should not become the sole person permitted to answer every question. Ask how they separate decisions requiring architecture review from routine implementation choices. A clear review threshold keeps the programme moving while protecting the decisions with wider consequences. The approach should be proportionate to your team and risk.

For a Microsoft partner adding external expertise, clarify whether the resource advises your existing design authority or holds delegated approval responsibility. Establish how recommendations are recorded and who resolves disagreement with the customer. Ask for an anonymised example of a decision the architect changed after new evidence emerged. This can reveal more about their suitability than an idealised success story. Effective architecture requires both conviction and the ability to revise a position when the facts no longer support it.

Choose the engagement around decision frequency

The Hourly Model fits an independent review, a focused design question or periodic advisory sessions where the material is prepared in advance. Agree what constitutes a useful output: options, findings, risks and next actions. Project Based engagement can suit an architecture package for a defined scope, with agreed review points and acceptance. Clarify which later design changes would require additional work.

A Dedicated Resource is useful when a programme contains frequent cross-workstream decisions and the architect needs continuing context. Define how much time is reserved for design reviews, delivery support and documentation. For an India-based architect supporting teams in North America, the United Kingdom or Europe, establish decision meetings during reliable overlap. Written decision records should carry the context between regions. Otherwise, the architect may spend much of the engagement repeating explanations while separate teams interpret earlier conversations differently.

Assess the handover as an operating asset

Architecture documentation should help the next team make a safe change. Ask for a concise set of artefacts that explains purpose, boundaries, dependencies, significant decisions and operational ownership. The exact format can vary. The test is whether a functional lead, developer or support manager can find the information needed for their responsibility without relying on the original author to interpret every diagram.

Use the first assignment to evaluate clarity. Give the architect one unresolved decision and request a short recommendation with alternatives and evidence gaps. Review it with both technical and business stakeholders. If either group cannot understand the consequence of the recommendation, improve the communication before expanding the engagement. This practical exercise also reveals whether the candidate can work within the level of detail your organisation needs, rather than producing a large architecture document that is admired once and rarely used.

• List unresolved decisions and the authority required to resolve them.
• Identify application specialists who will support detailed review.
• Provide business constraints and existing design records.
• Agree review thresholds and escalation ownership.
• Require decision context, alternatives and operational consequences in handover.