A SaaS company lives or dies on the product it operates for customers. If that product fails — technically, financially, or contractually — the business takes the hit, not just the engineering team.
When the product works, the business grows. When the product fails, the business bleeds.
Across the industry, the same symptoms keep appearing:
- outages, overloads, and peak-time failures that erode trust
- runaway monthly infrastructure and cloud bills that eat margin
- inability to evolve fast enough to meet sales, contract, or regulatory pressure
This is not bad luck. This is structural.
The real source of the damage
In most SaaS companies, the damage is driven by two repeating patterns.
Short-term wins that create long-term risk.
A contract is signed, a deadline is promised, scope is cut, cost is squeezed — and the internal story becomes "we’ll fix it later."
"Later" becomes "never," and the result is instability, accumulated technical and operational debt, and even contractual exposure.Delivery teams implement something that technically runs, but is not something the business can safely live with
Not because the teams are weak.
Because they were never given a design that was realistically buildable, operable, and sustainable at the same time.
From the outside, the solution sounds obvious:
"Make better decisions. Do better implementation."
In reality, it is not that simple.
Why making good decisions is hard
Every meaningful decision inside an IT solution is a trade-off across four forces:
Business
What must be achieved to win the deal, protect margin, satisfy contractual promises, and keep revenue flowing.Domain
How the business actually operates: processes, rules, compliance obligations, regulatory constraints, and industry expectations that cannot be violated.Software
What can realistically be built, tested, and maintained by the current teams and tech stack.Infrastructure
What can reliably run in production: capacity, resilience, security, performance, and cost to operate at scale.
These four forces naturally form two sides of a single scale:
Demand = Business + Domain
Demand is what the business wants and what must be respected.Capability = Software + Infrastructure
Capability is what the company can actually build and run without blowing up cost, uptime, or roadmap.
Because every decision in the lifecycle of an IT solution must hold Demand and Capability in balance, making a truly good decision is inherently hard for a SaaS company.
Why this balance falls apart in most SaaS companies
Even though every decision is supposed to keep Demand and Capability in balance, most SaaS companies do not even have a shared language for the four forces behind that balance — Business, Domain, Software, and Infrastructure. Because these forces are not named, the need to actively balance them is not recognized. As a result, nobody is assigned to own the balance.
Instead, each group defends its own priority:
- Business leadership pushes new ideas and commercial commitments.
- Sales optimizes for contract win.
- Product management optimizes for functionality and deadlines.
- Engineers optimize for shipping code.
- Operations optimize for stability and keeping production up.
Individually, each of these priorities is rational. Together, they pull the solution apart.
This is the structural gap.
The job of holding Business, Domain, Software, and Infrastructure in balance must belong to a dedicated role.
That role is the Solutions Architect (SA).
The missing function
Keeping a SaaS product healthy requires someone who continuously turns Business intent into something that can survive in production without blowing up cost, stability, or roadmap. This is not abstract. It is an ongoing process that looks like this:
- Capture Business intent: understand revenue impact, contractual promises, deadlines, constraints, and success criteria.
- Anchor it in the Domain: map real workflows, compliance, obligations, and rules that cannot be broken.
- Test it against Software reality: confirm that it can actually be built with the current stack, safely, on time, and make visible what debt or risk will be created.
- Test it against Infrastructure reality: confirm that it can actually run at scale, securely, cost‑effectively, and with the uptime and cost profile the company is willing to carry.
- Negotiate and document the solution shape: define how the solution must look so it is truly buildable and operable, with explicit trade‑offs instead of silent debt.
- Stay through implementation: ensure what gets delivered still matches that agreed shape and has not been quietly degraded into something unstable, unmaintainable, or unprofitable.
This transformation cannot be reliably split across multiple roles. When it is fragmented, every group protects its own priority, and nobody owns the full business, domain, software, and infrastructure balance.
When a single role owns this process end to end, the balance holds and the product remains viable.
That single accountable role is the Solutions Architect (SA).
What a Solutions Architect actually is
A real SA is the business safeguard against self-inflicted damage.
The SA’s responsibility is to translate business intent into something that the company can actually build, run, and afford — and then defend that shape against erosion.
In practical terms, an effective SA does the following:
- Confirms that what is being promised to a customer can in fact be delivered without destroying future roadmap or operational stability.
- States clearly when a shortcut creates a future liability (technical, contractual, compliance, or cost).
- Describes the viable path: "Yes, this is possible — here is how it must be done so it will not explode six months from now."
- Forces explicit trade-offs and documented decisions instead of silent debt.
The SA is the function that keeps Demand and Capability in balance.
The SA is margin protection, reputational protection, and delivery risk control.
Why no existing role can realistically do this
Common internal assumption across SaaS companies:
“This can be handled by senior people working together.”
In practice, this does not work.
Senior developers are deep in Software, but typically are not deeply embedded in Business contract exposure, Domain compliance obligations, or Infrastructure cost/risk at scale.
Operations / infrastructure leads are deep in Infrastructure and reliability, but are not negotiating Business promises and Domain rules at deal time. Their mandate is to prevent outages, not to shape commercial commitments.
Engagement management / delivery leadership / product ownership understands “what must be delivered by when,” but usually does not own the long-term technical cost of those promises, nor the operational blast radius.
Sales / commercial / finance leadership understands margin and contractual leverage, but is not designing a system that will still be operable and maintainable a year later.
Because of this fragmentation, companies often attempt “alignment meetings”: put engineering, ops, delivery, compliance, and finance in one room and aim for consensus.
On paper, this appears healthy.
In reality, it fails for a simple reason: no single person in that room is personally accountable for the final integrated balance across Business, Domain, Software, and Infrastructure.
What emerges from a committee is a negotiated compromise. Everyone protects their own priority, and the final result is watered down. No one fully owns the consequences.
What is required instead is a single coherent solution that works commercially, respects the domain, can actually be built in software, and can actually run in infrastructure — and someone who will take responsibility for that full shape.
That is the job of the Solutions Architect.
What kind of person can actually play this role
A real Solutions Architect is rare.
This is not a theoretical strategist.
This is a person who has already lived the consequences of bad decisions across multiple environments and can recognize them before they repeat.
A strong SA typically has:
Business
Direct exposure to commercial pressure. Ideally has acted as a co-founder, carried responsibility for a product or engagement P&L, or directly supported revenue-critical deals. Understands money, contract pressure, and margin, not just technology.Domain
Several years inside the actual business domain (energy, finance, logistics, healthcare, etc.). Understands compliance traps and which “minor requirements” are in fact legally or operationally non-negotiable.Software
Over a decade of building, debugging, and operating production systems in the same languages and frameworks that the IT solution uses. Not “familiar with,” but battle-tested. Has carried on-call responsibility for that stack.Infrastructure
A decade of running workloads on the actual platform in use (specific cloud environment, network model, security posture). Understands scaling limits, cost levers, and real failure modes under load.Motivation
The SA must care that the solution actually fits the business and survives in production — and must be rewarded like someone protecting revenue, margin, and reputation.
This is not a role that can be filled by “a smart engineer with potential in six months.”
This profile is rare.
Which leads to the practical question: how does a SaaS company actually get this capability?
How to get this capability
The realistic way to secure this capability is to bring in a senior Solutions Architect from the market as a dedicated contractor for a defined period (for example, one to two years). The company brings in someone who has already seen these failure patterns in multiple environments, already paid the price for getting them wrong, and is now motivated to protect the business rather than protect a vendor.
Why common alternatives fail
Most SaaS companies, once they understand what the Solutions Architect actually does, assume they can easily cover the need. What happens in practice is always some variation of the same three failed workarounds:
1. Splitting responsibilities across multiple senior people
Pattern: pair a senior developer, an operations lead, a delivery/engagement lead, and maybe someone from compliance or finance, and expect the group to collectively "own" decisions.
On paper, this seems to cover all four areas — Business, Domain, Software, and Infrastructure.
In reality, it fails because no one person is accountable for the full shape of the solution. Each participant protects their own priority, and there is still no single owner of the total business/technical/operational balance in real time. This is a workaround, not a Solutions Architect.
2. Trying to grow an internal candidate into the role
The theory: identify a strong internal engineer or delivery lead and mentor them into a Solutions Architect over time.
This rarely succeeds, because correct judgment in this role comes from years of seeing different kinds of pressure and different kinds of failure:
- multiple customers,
- multiple business models,
- multiple domains with different regulatory traps,
- multiple technology stacks and scaling problems,
- multiple production outages and cost crises.
A single SaaS company usually cannot generate that breadth fast enough for one person. It is not about intelligence. It is about accumulated scar tissue under different conditions.
A SaaS company can cultivate this over years by rotating one person through multiple high-impact problems, but it cannot manufacture a senior Solutions Architect "on demand" just because the need appeared this quarter.
3. Borrowing an “architect” from a vendor
This looks efficient: take the architect that comes with an implementation partner or service provider.
The risk is incentive alignment. In that model, the architect’s primary loyalty is to the vendor’s commercial safety and delivery success, not necessarily to the long-term cost structure, maintainability, and roadmap viability of the SaaS company’s product. Sometimes those interests align. Sometimes they do not. There is no guarantee.
A SaaS company does not only need engineers who can build.
It needs one role whose job is to prevent the company from selling something it cannot safely deliver — and from building something it cannot afford to run.
That role is the Solutions Architect.
Conclusion
Any SaaS company that operates a live product needs a Solutions Architect.
Without an SA, no one is accountable for keeping Business and Domain expectations aligned with what Software and Infrastructure can actually deliver and run. That’s when cost blows up, promises break, and reputation gets damaged.
With an SA, that balance is actively protected. The product stays deliverable, operable, and economically viable.
A senior SA is not overhead. It is a required function for any serious SaaS business.
Top comments (0)