Engineering Leaders-Specific Decision Intelligence
Architecture decisions are Type 1 — high-stakes, hard to reverse, and expensive to get wrong. Choosing the wrong database, cloud provider, or application framework costs months of migration effort and millions in engineering time. SolveRight gives you the quantified, sensitivity-tested analysis to make these decisions defensible.
155
Decision Frameworks
10
Framework Categories
<6s
Analysis Time
7
Export Formats
Decision Challenges Engineering Leaders Face
Type 1 Decisions With Type 2 Analysis
Irreversible infrastructure choices get evaluated with a two-week proof of concept, a Slack thread debate, and a meeting where the loudest voice wins. The stakes demand rigor, but the process delivers opinion.
Justifying Technical Choices to Non-Technical Stakeholders
The board asks 'why not DynamoDB?' and 'what is the downside risk?' Your PostgreSQL expertise is not the answer they are looking for — they want structured, quantified reasoning they can evaluate without a CS degree.
Engineer Opinions Masquerading as Analysis
Every engineer prefers the technology they used at their last company. Team debates devolve into personal preference battles. There is no objective framework cutting through the noise.
ADRs Written After the Fact
Architecture Decision Records are supposed to document the reasoning process. Instead, they are written retroactively to justify a decision already made in a meeting — losing the actual analysis forever.
How Engineering Leaders Use SolveRight
Database Selection for a High-Traffic SaaS Platform
Situation: Evaluating PostgreSQL, DynamoDB, and CockroachDB for a new SaaS product expecting 10,000 requests per second at launch with 100x growth projected over 3 years. Latency requirements are strict (<50ms p99).
Outcome: CockroachDB scored highest overall (81/100), but sensitivity analysis showed that if cost weight exceeded 30%, PostgreSQL overtook it. FMEA revealed CockroachDB had fewer single points of failure. The exported ADR documented exactly which criteria would need to change to reverse the decision — giving the team a clear trigger for re-evaluation at the 12-month mark.
Build vs Buy for Authentication Infrastructure
Situation: Custom auth system vs Auth0 vs Clerk vs Supabase Auth. Security team wants full control. Product wants fast time-to-market. Finance wants predictable cost at scale.
Outcome: Build-vs-Buy analysis showed custom auth scored 73/100 but carried 4x the operational risk. TCO over 3 years revealed Auth0 cost $180K more than Supabase Auth at projected scale. First Principles stripped out the assumption that 'we need custom auth for compliance' — the actual compliance requirement was satisfied by all SaaS options. Supabase Auth won with 84/100.
Monolith vs Microservices for Platform Rewrite
Situation: The legacy monolith is becoming unmaintainable. Three options: full microservices, modular monolith, or strangler fig pattern for incremental migration. Team of 12 engineers across 3 squads.
Outcome: Modular monolith scored 79/100, beating full microservices (71) and strangler fig (76). The key differentiator: execution feasibility scored modular monolith 25 points higher because it did not require distributed systems expertise the team lacked. Contradiction detection flagged that scalability frameworks favored microservices — surfacing a genuine trade-off rather than hiding it.
Ready to Transform How You Make Decisions?
14-day free Pro trial. No credit card required.
Start Solving FreeFull access to all 155 frameworks during trial
Features Built for Engineering Leaders
ADR-Compatible Export Format
Export your analysis as a structured Architecture Decision Record with context, decision, consequences, and the full scoring methodology. Drop it directly into your ADR repository.
Failure Mode & Effects Analysis (FMEA)
Every option is evaluated for failure modes — what breaks, how badly, and how likely. Technical decisions need failure analysis, not just feature comparison.
Sensitivity Analysis for Weight Robustness
Change any weight and see if the winner flips in under 100 milliseconds. When the CTO asks 'what if scalability matters more than we thought?' — you have the answer instantly.
Total Cost of Ownership Over Time
Infrastructure costs compound. TCO analysis projects licensing, operational, migration, and opportunity costs over 1, 3, and 5-year horizons — not just the sticker price.
Methodology Transparency
Drill into any score to see the extracted data, rubric computation, and reasoning trace. Engineers trust transparency — SolveRight shows its work on every calculation.
Top Frameworks for Engineering Leaders
These frameworks are pre-selected in the Engineering Leaders bundle. All 155 frameworks are available in every analysis.
Weighted Decision Matrix
Scores options against weighted criteria for systematic comparison
Total Cost of Ownership
Calculates full lifecycle cost including hidden and ongoing expenses
Risk Assessment Matrix
Maps risks by probability and impact to quantify overall risk exposure
FMEA (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis)
Identifies potential failure modes and their severity, occurrence, and detection
First Principles Analysis
Decomposes options to fundamental truths and builds up from there
Build vs. Buy Decision Framework
Evaluates whether to build custom software or purchase/license existing solutions
Sensitivity Analysis (Meta)
Identifies which input variables most affect the outcome
Scalability Assessment
Evaluates how well an option scales with growing demands
Engineering Leaders — Frequently Asked Questions
How does SolveRight help with architecture decisions?+
Can I export the analysis as an ADR?+
How is this different from writing an RFC?+
Does it handle build-vs-buy decisions?+
Can my engineering team collaborate on the same analysis?+
How long does an architecture analysis take?+
Is the scoring deterministic and reproducible?+
Start Making Architecture Decisions That Survive Scrutiny
Join professionals who make decisions with evidence, not instinct.
Start Your Free Trial14-day Pro trial, no credit card required