Brainforge Knowledge

warehouse-architecture-assessment-template

3 min read

[Client] — Warehouse architecture assessment — [Domain / scope]

About this document (Brainforge)

Internal conventions for how this file works in the repo. Strip or export without this section when sharing with a client.

Titling and filename

Use [Client] — Warehouse architecture assessment — [Domain or scope] for the document title. Examples: LMNT — Warehouse architecture assessment — Platform evaluation · Acme — Warehouse architecture assessment — Migration evaluation.

Filename: {client}-warehouse-assessment-{scope}.md under knowledge/clients/{client}/resources/.

When to use this template

Use this when a client needs a data warehouse platform evaluation and recommendation. This document compares options on technical fit, cost, migration effort, and future-proofing, and makes a scored recommendation.

Do not use this template when:

  • profiling a new data source (use the Discovery Memo)
  • designing a data model (use the Modeling Design Doc)
  • migrating between ETL tools (use the ETL Migration Plan)

Document metadata

Status: [Draft / In review / Final] Current warehouse: [platform + version] Assessment date: [YYYY-MM-DD] Prepared for: [Client stakeholder names and roles] Prepared by: Brainforge Last updated: [YYYY-MM-DD]

ArtifactLink / pathNotes
Data Platform Documentation[Google Sheet link]Current source catalog
Discovery Memo(s)[path to A1 memo]Source profiling for the data being assessed
ETL Migration Plan[path to E1]If ETL is scoped alongside warehouse decision
Current architecture diagrams[link]Existing infrastructure

1. Executive summary

1.1 Recommendation

[1 sentence stating the recommended platform. E.g., "We recommend Snowflake for LMNT's data warehouse, based on cost, private share capability, and team familiarity."]

1.2 Why this recommendation

[2–4 sentences. Lead with the business rationale: cost, speed to value, risk reduction, or strategic fit. Technical merits support the business case, not the other way around.]

2. Current state assessment

2.1 Current architecture

[Brief description of the current warehouse setup: platform, schemas, data volume, key pipelines, downstream consumers, team skills.]

Current metrics:

MetricValue
Warehouse platform[name]
Total data volume[TB]
Number of schemas[N]
Number of active tables[N]
Monthly compute cost[$]
Monthly storage cost[$]
Key consumers[BI tools, operational systems, reverse ETL]

2.2 Pain points

  • [Pain] — [Business impact]
  • [Pain] — [...]

3. Options evaluated

3.1 [Option 1: Name]

[2–3 sentences describing the platform, its deployment model, and its fit for this client's use case.]

Key facts:

  • Compute model: [e.g., serverless / provisioned / hybrid]
  • Storage model: [e.g., compressed columnar / object store]
  • Pricing: [e.g., compute credits + storage]
  • Private share capability: [Yes / No / via third party]
  • Migration effort: [estimated person-weeks]

3.2 [Option 2: Name]

(Repeat for each option.)

4. Comparison matrix

Criterion[Option 1][Option 2][Option 3]
Compute cost (est. monthly)[$][$][$]
Storage cost (est. monthly)[$][$][$]
Migration effort[weeks][weeks][weeks]
Team learning curve[Low / Med / High][Low / Med / High][Low / Med / High]
Private share / data sharing[rating][rating][rating]
Ecosystem integration[rating][rating][rating]
AI / ML capabilities[rating][rating][rating]
Weighted score[score][score][score]

[Restate the recommendation.]

5.2 Migration path

PhaseWhatTimelineKey milestones
1[e.g., Provision target warehouse, establish connectivity][weeks][milestone]
2[e.g., Migrate core schemas, validate parity][weeks][milestone]
3[e.g., Cut over consumers, decommission old platform][weeks][milestone]

5.3 Rollback criteria

[What would trigger a rollback, and what the rollback plan looks like.]

6. Risks and mitigations

RiskImpactMitigation
[Risk][High / Med / Low][How addressed]
[Risk][High / Med / Low][How addressed]

Appendix — Pre-handoff QA checklist

  • Recommendation is stated in the first section (pyramid principle)
  • Comparison matrix evaluates same criteria across all options
  • Migration path includes phases, timeline, and rollback criteria
  • Costs are estimated (not generic — tied to this client’s volume)
  • Risks are named with mitigations, not buried
  • Options not evaluated in depth are listed with reasons

Graph View