Tommy Wang Product Builder · Architecture Advisor

Integration modernization

Modernize integration without losing ownership, reliability, or rollback paths.

Review legacy integration modernization decisions across BizTalk, ESB, Azure Logic Apps, API Management, Service Bus, event-driven architecture, reconciliation, retries, and rollback.

Discuss integration modernization Back to Consulting

Buyer pain

Integration modernization is not only a platform replacement.

Teams moving from BizTalk or ESB patterns to Azure Logic Apps, API Management, Service Bus, and event-driven architecture need to decide what should move, what should be redesigned, and how failure paths remain visible.

Relevant background

Domain exposure without naming confidential clients.

Integration-developer roots and architecture experience across BizTalk/ESB modernization, cloud workflow platforms, API/event boundaries, system-of-record boundaries, and reliability patterns.

What I review

Architecture decisions that need explicit ownership.

  • Sync vs async decisions
  • Retries and idempotency
  • Reconciliation and replay paths
  • Contract ownership
  • System-of-record boundaries
  • Cutover and rollback strategy

Deliverables

Decision-ready outputs, not generic slideware.

  • Integration modernization map
  • Target boundary model
  • Migration sequencing recommendations
  • Rollback and reconciliation checklist

Patterns from prior work

Anonymized examples of the kind of architecture pressure this work is built for.

No client names, fake outcomes, or invented metrics. These are domain patterns and pressure points from prior work.

Integration modernization

Integration-developer roots across ESB, API, event, contract, retry, idempotency, reconciliation, and cutover concerns.

Digital banking onboarding

Experience across retail and business banking onboarding flows where many dependent systems needed consistent contracts, exception handling, and support paths.

What to send before a review

Useful context beats polished decks.

  • Current architecture diagram or rough sketch
  • Integration inventory
  • Known failure modes or incidents
  • Roadmap or migration plan
  • Constraints: budget, timeline, vendor/platform commitments
  • Decision that needs to be made
  • People who need to agree

What the first conversation should clarify

Enough clarity to choose the right review shape.

  • The decision being made
  • Systems and teams affected
  • Main risks
  • Missing information
  • Whether a short review is enough
  • Likely artifact: decision memo, risk register, readiness brief, or boundary map

Sample artifacts

Concrete working artifacts for review and action.

Stylized examples only. No client names, fake metrics, or confidential diagrams.

Boundary modelAPI owner

Event contract · Failure path

Risk mapCoupling risk

Retry risk · Cutover risk

Sequencing planMove

Redesign · Retire

How the review works

A short path from context to recommendation.

01

Intake

Goals, constraints, current diagrams, backlog, operating concerns, and known failure points.

02

Architecture read-through

Boundaries, dependencies, contracts, data movement, failure modes, telemetry, rollback, and ownership.

03

Working session

Compare options, pressure-test assumptions, and align practical decision criteria.

04

Decision package

Memo, risk register, recommended path, and next actions with owners.

Related Insights

Further reading before a review.

Next step

Bring the architecture decision that needs pressure testing.

Start with a focused question, a modernization concern, or a production-readiness risk.

Discuss integration modernization Email an integration modernization question Use the checklist