PM Consultant| CLOUD SAFE CO., LTD.New Taipei City, NWT, Taiwan
Lately, I’ve been reflecting on how we define a “good” solution in project and architecture discussions.
In my view, the best answer is not always the most advanced, the most complex, or even the most appealing one on paper. More often, it is the solution that best fits the actual situation, considering time, cost, scope, risk, and the real purpose behind the design.
I understand that user behavior, business priorities, and organizational culture can all influence decisions. Those factors do matter. But I also think that when we focus too heavily on those perspectives alone, we can sometimes drift away from the core issue that actually needs to be solved.
For me, a strong solution starts with a few basic questions:
What problem are we really trying to solve?
What constraints are real, and which ones are assumptions?
What level of simplicity, control, resilience, or scalability is actually needed?
Under those conditions, what is the most appropriate solution — not just the most impressive one?
I have found that the most effective solution is often not the most “perfect” one, but the one that is most suitable for the context and can realistically be implemented well.
I’d love to hear different perspectives from the community:
When making project or architecture decisions, how do you distinguish between the “best” solution and the “most appropriate” solution?
Saving Changes...
Sort By:
Sergio Luis ConteHelping to create solutions for everyone| Worldwide based OrganizationsBuenos Aires, Argentina
You will find the answer to your question if you review the Business Analysis documentation in the PMI. But key things: 1-define what "problem" means for the organization. Sometimes not solution is needed. 2-think in systemic theory applied to organizations. Organizations are open and adaptable systems and the problem situation arrives when changes in the environment happend. 3-because they are systems then architecture drives the solution. With those simple things in hand then you will give the first steps to avoid failure.
...
1 reply by Chia Fang Chang
Mar 27, 2026 4:09 AM
Chia Fang Chang
...
Thanks, Sergio. I really appreciate your point about defining the real problem before jumping into the solution. I also agree that when we view organizations as adaptive systems, the “right” solution often depends on changes in context, not just on technical design alone. Your perspective is a great reminder that architecture should respond to the real situation, not just theoretical completeness.
I think that one of the considerations is the tradeoffs the company is willing to make. The perfect solution, from a functionality perspective, may be too expensive or have other "costs" the company is unwilling to bear. A solution with slightly less functionality and more acceptable costs may be the most appropriate solution.
This isn't the only consideration, but it is an important consideration.
...
1 reply by Chia Fang Chang
Mar 27, 2026 4:10 AM
Chia Fang Chang
...
Thanks. I agree — trade-offs are a critical part of defining what is truly appropriate. A solution may look ideal from a functional perspective, but if the organization cannot realistically absorb the cost, complexity, or operational burden, it may not be the right choice after all. That balance between capability and acceptability is often where the real decision gets made!
That's a very good list of questions and agrees quite well with what I've seen taught at masters level university courses. Another good question that I see you have indirectly captured in your last bullet about the most appropriate solution is: What are the qualities of a solution that would make it more or less appropriate? These are sometimes referred to as "illities" because they include qualities such as reliability, affordability, operability, etc.
Discretely defining the most important qualities of better vs. worse solutions can help reduce bias in the evaluation process of alternative solutions. Each is individually scored against all criteria helps to look at all the important aspects of each, instead of potentially only focusing on one or two qualities that make it our personal most or least favorite, and ignoring other rationale. When gaining consensus on the chosen solution from multiple stakeholders, I find the individual scoring approach is preferred to multi-voting methods which can become popularity contests.
...
1 reply by Chia Fang Chang
Mar 27, 2026 4:10 AM
Chia Fang Chang
...
Really like your point about explicitly defining the evaluation criteria instead of letting bias focus only on one or two preferred qualities. Your mention of reliability, affordability, and operability is especially valuable because those qualities often shape whether a solution is sustainable in practice. Also agree that a more structured scoring approach can lead to better consensus than decisions driven mainly by personal preference!
PM Consultant| CLOUD SAFE CO., LTD.New Taipei City, NWT, Taiwan
Mar 24, 2026 10:45 AM
Replying to Sergio Luis Conte
...
You will find the answer to your question if you review the Business Analysis documentation in the PMI. But key things: 1-define what "problem" means for the organization. Sometimes not solution is needed. 2-think in systemic theory applied to organizations. Organizations are open and adaptable systems and the problem situation arrives when changes in the environment happend. 3-because they are systems then architecture drives the solution. With those simple things in hand then you will give the first steps to avoid failure.
Thanks, Sergio. I really appreciate your point about defining the real problem before jumping into the solution. I also agree that when we view organizations as adaptive systems, the “right” solution often depends on changes in context, not just on technical design alone. Your perspective is a great reminder that architecture should respond to the real situation, not just theoretical completeness.
...
1 reply by Sergio Luis Conte
Mar 28, 2026 7:22 AM
Sergio Luis Conte
...
You are welcome. Thank you very much for your answer.
PM Consultant| CLOUD SAFE CO., LTD.New Taipei City, NWT, Taiwan
Mar 24, 2026 12:20 PM
Replying to Aaron Porter
...
I think that one of the considerations is the tradeoffs the company is willing to make. The perfect solution, from a functionality perspective, may be too expensive or have other "costs" the company is unwilling to bear. A solution with slightly less functionality and more acceptable costs may be the most appropriate solution.
This isn't the only consideration, but it is an important consideration.
Thanks. I agree — trade-offs are a critical part of defining what is truly appropriate. A solution may look ideal from a functional perspective, but if the organization cannot realistically absorb the cost, complexity, or operational burden, it may not be the right choice after all. That balance between capability and acceptability is often where the real decision gets made! Saving Changes...
PM Consultant| CLOUD SAFE CO., LTD.New Taipei City, NWT, Taiwan
Mar 26, 2026 1:14 AM
Replying to Keith Novak
...
That's a very good list of questions and agrees quite well with what I've seen taught at masters level university courses. Another good question that I see you have indirectly captured in your last bullet about the most appropriate solution is: What are the qualities of a solution that would make it more or less appropriate? These are sometimes referred to as "illities" because they include qualities such as reliability, affordability, operability, etc.
Discretely defining the most important qualities of better vs. worse solutions can help reduce bias in the evaluation process of alternative solutions. Each is individually scored against all criteria helps to look at all the important aspects of each, instead of potentially only focusing on one or two qualities that make it our personal most or least favorite, and ignoring other rationale. When gaining consensus on the chosen solution from multiple stakeholders, I find the individual scoring approach is preferred to multi-voting methods which can become popularity contests.
Really like your point about explicitly defining the evaluation criteria instead of letting bias focus only on one or two preferred qualities. Your mention of reliability, affordability, and operability is especially valuable because those qualities often shape whether a solution is sustainable in practice. Also agree that a more structured scoring approach can lead to better consensus than decisions driven mainly by personal preference! Saving Changes...
Sergio Luis ConteHelping to create solutions for everyone| Worldwide based OrganizationsBuenos Aires, Argentina
Mar 27, 2026 4:09 AM
Replying to Chia Fang Chang
...
Thanks, Sergio. I really appreciate your point about defining the real problem before jumping into the solution. I also agree that when we view organizations as adaptive systems, the “right” solution often depends on changes in context, not just on technical design alone. Your perspective is a great reminder that architecture should respond to the real situation, not just theoretical completeness.
You are welcome. Thank you very much for your answer. Saving Changes...
Program Manager| HARPER SRLSanto Domingo / Distrito Nacional, Dominican Republic
I tend to look at it in terms of fit and impact, not perfection. The most appropriate solution is the one that solves the real problem within the actual constraints and can be executed well by the team. I usually test it by asking: does it reduce risk, enable decisions, and move us closer to the intended outcome without adding unnecessary complexity? Sometimes the “best” solution on paper fails in reality because it doesn’t fit the context. The right one is the one the organization can sustain and deliver successfully. Saving Changes...
Community Champion
