We help your team design data workflows, choose storage and compute options, and build automated pipelines that scale as your datasets grow.
Many institutional data problems start as a spreadsheet and end as a fragile batch script run by one person. When that person is on leave, the dataset stops updating. When a vendor changes a column, the job breaks silently. When compliance asks where a number came from, the answer is a folder full of CSVs with no naming convention.
Our architecture service is the fix. We work with your engineers (or alongside your existing IT vendor) to design a data workflow that is repeatable, observable and documented — ingestion, storage, transformation, validation, publication and monitoring — without over-engineering it for the size of the dataset you actually have.
We are deliberately technology-agnostic. We have built workflows on Python, DuckDB, Postgres, cloud object storage, scheduled compute and on-premise servers. The right answer depends on dataset size, regulatory constraints, team skills and budget — not on whichever tool we happen to like.
Current-state audit. We map what you actually run today — feeds, scripts, storage, manual steps, who knows what. The audit output is a single diagram with the known failure points circled.
Target-state design. We propose a pipeline architecture matched to your volume and team. For many Australian institutional clients this is modest: a scheduled Python job, a relational warehouse or analytical database, object storage for raw landing, and a thin report layer. It does not need a three-platform data lake.
Build or hand-off. Depending on your team, we either build the first version with you, or produce a specification your IT team can implement. We do not lock you into a proprietary toolchain.
Validation and monitoring. Every pipeline needs tests: row-count checks, value-range checks, source-vs-storage reconciliation, and alerts when a feed does not arrive. We design those in from the start.
Documentation. Runbooks, data dictionaries, on-call notes. When the pipeline breaks at 4pm before an investment committee, the person answering the page should have something to read.
We will push back on "we need a real-time data platform" when the dataset is refreshed daily and read by four people. We will push back on a multi-cloud architecture when Australian data-residency rules make a single region simpler. We will push back on "let's just load everything into a data lake" when a six-table relational schema would do the job and be auditable. Our job is not to sell you more technology than you need.
Send your requirements. Reply includes a written scope and price.