Skip to content

Overview

Executive Summary

As a multi-company organization, success depends on clear information flow between teams to deliver value efficiently. Today, however, system knowledge is fragmented: documentation lives in different formats, locations, and levels of completeness across the internal companies. This makes it difficult to discover how systems work, who owns what, and how components interact. These gaps slow delivery, increase operational risk, and force teams to relearn or rebuild knowledge that already exists elsewhere.

This proposal defines a unified documentation standard centered on Markdown and a docs-as-code approach. Instead of introducing another documentation tool or platform, the focus is on creating clear, structured, version-controlled documentation that lives directly alongside the code it describes. Documentation remains in the repositories where it is authored, but becomes consistent, discoverable, and fully owned by the teams who build and maintain the services. By expressing diagrams, architecture, and design decisions as text, every aspect of the documentation becomes traceable, reviewable, and easy to evolve over time.

The initiative integrates documentation into the software delivery process by making it part of the Definition of Done (DoD). Documentation will live with the code (docs-as-code), be reviewed through pull requests, and follow a consistent structure across all services. Ownership remains with the team that owns the service.

Expected outcomes:

  • Reduced time wasted searching for information
  • Faster onboarding and improved system understanding
  • Clear ownership and traceability for every service and component
  • Reduced operational risk through standardized runbooks and ADRs
  • Higher architecture alignment and reuse of existing services

This proposal does not introduce bureaucracy - it enables autonomy through clarity and consistency. Teams keep full control of their documentation, while the docs-as-code approach ensures that technical information is transparent, versioned, and easy to discover within the places where engineers already work.

1.0. Problem

The organization consistently delivers high-quality software and innovative solutions. However, much of the critical knowledge required to understand, operate, and evolve these solutions remains siloed within individual teams, repositories, or even people’s heads. Documentation today varies widely across teams - in format, quality, depth, and location. As a result, developers, architects, managers, and new team members often spend significant time searching for information, piecing together service behavior, or rediscovering past decisions.

This introduces avoidable friction:

  • Onboarding new team members takes longer than necessary.
  • Understanding how a service works requires tribal knowledge or personal networks.
  • Architecture decisions are not consistently recorded, leading to repeated discussions.
  • Operational knowledge is scattered or undocumented, slowing down incident resolution.
  • Teams reinvent documentation patterns rather than following a single standard.

To address this, we should propose the introduction of a structured documentation standard supported by a consistent, organization-wide documentation structure. This initiative ensures that every service, platform component, or technical capability is documented in a consistent way and made accessible in a consistent, predictable structure, regardless of where the documentation physically lives.

By integrating documentation into the delivery pipeline and definition of done, documentation ceases to be an afterthought or separate task. Instead, it becomes a natural part of the development workflow - reducing cognitive load and eliminating the dependency on tribal knowledge.

2.0. Goals & Expected Outcomes

The goal of this initiative is not just to gather documentation in one place, but to enhance organizational efficiency and engineering velocity by defining a consistent documentation standard supported by Markdown, diagrams-as-code, and version control. This ensures that documentation evolves naturally with the software it describes.

2.1. Goals

The primary goal of this initiative is to establish a single, authoritative entry point for technical documentation. The outcome should provide a central hub where stakeholders, architects, engineers, and staff onboarding can discover any service, its owners, and the related documentation without having to search through multiple systems or repositories.

A secondary goal is to create and adopt a standardized documentation structure across all teams. Each service will follow the same model - including a service overview, architecture summary, architecture design decisions (ADRs), operational runbooks, and quality expectations - removing ambiguity and making every service equally understandable, regardless of which team owns it.

Documentation must become an integrated part of the software delivery workflow. Instead of being an afterthought, documentation will be stored alongside code and reviewed through pull requests. In practical terms, this means documentation becomes part of the Definition of Done.

Another important goal is to capture and preserve institutional knowledge. Architecture choices, historical decisions, troubleshooting experiences, and operational wisdom should no longer exist only in conversations or private channels. By documenting these elements as part of daily work, we reduce reliance on tribal knowledge and avoid rediscovering past decisions.

Finally, this initiative aims to accelerate onboarding and clarify service ownership. With all documentation maintained in a predictable Markdown structure within each repository, new engineers can quickly understand system responsibilities, dependencies, and integration points. Clear ownership metadata and well-defined documentation folders reduce ambiguity and streamline collaboration.

2.2. Expected Outcomes

Outcome Impact
Reduced time searching for documentation Faster delivery; fewer interruptions and context switching
Consistent documentation quality across teams Lower cognitive load; easier system understanding
Accelerated onboarding for new engineers Faster ramp-up; reduced reliance on senior developers
Lower operational and incident risk Clear ownership and documented runbooks
Improved architectural alignment Decisions are visible instead of hidden in private threads or history
Reduced duplication and wasted effort Teams reuse existing services instead of rebuilding

2.3. Measurable Success Indicators

We should track progress using quantifiable indicators:

  • 100% of new services adopt the standardized Markdown-based documentation structure
  • ≥ 90% of actively maintained services have complete, version-controlled documentation following the required structure
  • Documentation completeness and quality monitored through repository-level checks (ie: required files, ADR presence, diagram consistency)
  • Onboarding time reduced by 30–50% through clearer service documentation and improved discoverability within repositories
  • Significant reduction in internal requests such as “where do I find X?” or “who owns this?” due to consistent documentation and explicit ownership

Success is achieved when documentation becomes a natural part of development, not a separate task or afterthought.

3.0. Scope

The details of this standard will be refined further in the next stage once organizational alignment is secured.

This documentation standard applies to:

  • All new services, components, and technical capabilities going forward.
  • Existing services that are actively maintained or receiving new features.

Legacy or end-of-life systems are not required to be backfilled unless they are still operationally critical or high-risk.

4.0. Audience

This documentation standard supports several different audiences, each with distinct goals and expectations. Although all content is maintained directly within the code repository in Markdown, sections are structured so that every audience can easily find the information relevant to them.

Developers are the primary audience. They rely on documentation to understand how a service works, how to integrate with it, and how to troubleshoot issues. For developers, the documentation must answer: “How do I use this component or service, and how do I operate or modify it safely?” They need architecture diagrams, API specifications, onboarding instructions, and operational details.

Architects and principal engineers require a different level of insight. Their focus is on how services fit into the broader system landscape - ownership, dependencies, architectural decisions, and alignment with company-wide design principles. Clear documentation enables them to evaluate technical decisions and maintain consistency across teams and platforms.

New joiners and onboarding users benefit from documentation that provides orientation. They need a way to quickly understand key systems, how things connect, where repositories live, and who to contact for questions. Accessible, structured documentation reduces ramp-up time and dependency on senior team members.

Engineering managers use documentation to support planning and decision-making. They need clarity around ownership, maturity of services, and operational readiness. Good documentation supports their need to assess delivery progress, manage dependencies, and ensure quality standards are met.

Non-technical stakeholders and customers may also interact with high-level documentation, especially where a service or platform is externally exposed. Their focus is on capabilities, not implementation - what the solution provides, how it adds value, and how it should be used.

Although these audiences differ, the solution should provide the same benefit to each: a single, consistent entry point to find what they need without searching across multiple tools or teams.

4.1. Documentation Access Levels

Not all documentation needs to be visible to all audiences. To ensure clarity, security, and appropriate information exposure, documentation will be organized into three access levels. These levels determine what type of content is visible to internal teams versus external stakeholders.

Public (External / Customer-Facing)

Content in this category is intended for external users such as customers, partners, or auditors. It focuses on what the system does, not how it is implemented.

Examples include:

  • Product or solution overview
  • High-level capabilities and feature descriptions
  • Public API/reference documentation
  • Service SLAs and support guidelines

Tone: non-technical, outcome-oriented, value-focused

Internal (Engineering-Facing)

Internal documentation is available to all employees but not external stakeholders. This contains the detail required to understand, use, or modify a service.

Examples include:

  • Architecture diagrams (logical and component-level)
  • Service usage instructions
  • Integration guides and internal APIs
  • Design decisions (ADR: Architecture Decision Records)
  • Code walk-throughs and onboarding guides

Tone: technical, instructional, context-driven

Restricted (Need-to-Know / Sensitive)

Restricted documentation contains sensitive or security-critical information and should be limited to specific individuals or roles (ie: security team, platform owners, specific service owners).

Examples include:

  • Secrets management procedures
  • Production operational runbooks (containing internal URLs, credentials handling, etc.)
  • Incident post-mortems
  • Risk assessments and audit-related artifacts

Tone: precise, operational, confidential

Access Level Summary

Access Level Audience Typical Content Security Sensitivity
Public Customers, partners, external users What the system does Low
Internal Developers, architects, onboarding users, managers How the system works Medium
Restricted Specific service owners, SRE/SecOps, platform leadership How to operate or access the system High

By defining access levels, we ensure that documentation serves the right audience without exposing sensitive operational or security details. Search tooling, developer portals, or repository navigation can act as the discovery layer that routes users to the correct documentation based on their access level, while the documentation itself remains stored in existing tools.

Documentation remains open by default - sensitive only when required.

5.0. Documentation Structure & Standards

The following sections describe the proposed conceptual structure for documentation and illustrates the types of information a mature documentation standard may contain. Final templates, depth and structure will be refined collaboratively with the teams.

To ensure consistency, discoverability, and quality, each service or solution must follow a standardized documentation structure. All documentation follows a "docs-as-code" approach - documentation lives alongside the code in the repository and is versioned, reviewed, and deployed with it.

The structure below applies to every service or technical component registered in the solution.

This structure transforms documentation from a collection of isolated pages into a cohesive knowledge asset: reusable, searchable, and accessible to engineers, QA, architects, operations, and stakeholders.

5.1. Overview

The Overview introduces the solution in clear, human language. It explains what is being built, why it is being built, and who will benefit from it. This section should include a brief product description that summarizes the goal and value of the solution without requiring technical context. It should articulate the problem the solution solves and why solving it matters, both strategically and practically.

It should define the target users or stakeholders, describing the intended consumers of the system - whether end-users, administrators, or integrators - and what they aim to achieve with it. This section also establishes measurable success criteria, such as performance metrics, business outcomes, or acceptance criteria that allow the team to determine when the work is “done.”

A glossary of terms helps ensure that anyone reading the document later can understand project-specific terminology without needing to ask for clarification.

5.2. Requirements

The Requirements section defines what the system must do.

Functional requirements describe expected capabilities and behaviors of the solution. These are statements that define expected system behavior from the perspective of the user or the system itself. Non-functional requirements define constraints and qualities such as security, scalability, reliability, latency expectations, and accessibility. They explain how well the system must perform its functions.

This section should also outline use cases or user stories that illustrate real-world workflows, showing how different users interact with the system to achieve certain outcomes.

If the project involves compliance with regulations or standards, such as GDPR, ISO27001, PCI, or industry-specific mandates, this is where those expectations are documented. Capturing these requirements early prevents surprises later.

5.3. Architecture and Design

The Architecture & Design section explains how the system works, both conceptually and technically.

It begins with a system architecture diagram, showing major components and how they interact. Each component is described in terms of its responsibilities, the inputs it expects, the outputs it produces, and how it interacts with other parts of the system. Data flow descriptions illustrate how information moves through the solution from end to end.

Data models or schema definitions provide detail around the structure of key data entities and formats, such as database schemas, JSON definitions, message payloads, or API responses. Any technology choices - programming languages, frameworks, or infrastructure components - should be justified, particularly if there were alternatives considered.

If the system involves authentication, authorization, encryption, or threat modeling, the security architecture should explain those design decisions. Any integration points with external systems should also be described, including API specifications and expected communication protocols.

5.4. Implementation

The Implementation section provides practical guidance for developers so they can understand how to contribute to and maintain the codebase.

It begins by describing the project structure - how the repository is organized, where critical files are located, and how responsibilities are divided across modules or directories.

This section must explain how to build, compile, or run the project, including required dependencies, SDK versions, or tooling. Coding standards are documented here, covering conventions such as naming styles, logging approach, error handling, and architectural patterns. This creates consistency across the codebase, especially when multiple contributors are involved. Finally, the section should define how versioning and branching work - for example, if semantic versioning is used, or if the team follows GitFlow or trunk-based development.

5.5. Operational Documentation

The Operational Documentation section details how the software is deployed, operated, monitored, and supported in real environments. Deployment instructions must be explicit enough that a new team member - or even another team - could deploy the solution without guesswork. Configuration management explains how settings are handled, including environment variables, configuration files, and secret management.

Monitoring and observability describe what should be measured, which logs are critical, and what alerting thresholds are appropriate. Disaster recovery strategies outline how backups are managed, how fast the system is expected to be restored after a failure, and how data integrity will be preserved. If the solution is expected to scale, this section explains the performance baseline and how additional load will be handled.

5.6. Testing & Validation

The Testing & Validation section details and proves that the system functions correctly and safely.

It begins with a high-level test plan that explains the scope of testing - including what will and will not be tested. This section should describe the different levels of testing, such as unit testing, integration testing, and full-system validation.

Expectations around test coverage should be defined here, so contributors understand the required level of test completeness. If security or vulnerability assessments are required, the test methodology and results should be documented. Finally, this section should include an overview of the outcomes of testing - not an exhaustive log, but a summary of defects discovered and resolved, providing traceability from test execution to quality assurance.

5.7. User / Customer Documentation

The User / Customer Documentation section should contain the externally-facing documentation needed by customers or users of the system.

It includes user guides, tutorials, or walkthroughs to show how the product should be used. If the system provides APIs, this section explains the endpoints, data formats, and response expectations in a manner that is easy for developers to consume.

Common issues and troubleshooting recommendations should be included here, reducing the dependency on direct support from engineering teams. For some solutions, this may become a knowledge base that forms the foundation for customer onboarding.

5.8. Lifecycle & Maintenance

The Lifecycle & Maintenance section defines what happens after the product is released.

It describes how releases are planned and scheduled, how changes are documented and approved, and how the product evolves over time. Maintenance policies outline how bugs are prioritized, how long older versions remain supported, and what the update process looks like.

If backward compatibility or migration paths are relevant, this section should document how customers transition without disruption. This section ensures the product remains sustainable after initial delivery and makes responsibilities clear when the project becomes operational.

5.9. Appendices

The Appendices section is for providing supporting material.

This might include risk logs capturing potential failure modes and mitigations, architectural decision records that explain why certain decisions were made, or documentation related to licensing, IP ownership, or compliance.

Appendices ensure that historical or compliance-related information is retained without cluttering the main narrative of the documentation.

6.0. Solution: Markdown-First Documentation With Version-Controlled Assets

To solve the fragmentation and inconsistency challenges in the organization, the proposed solution is a Markdown-first, version-controlled documentation standard grounded in simplicity, reproducibility, and automation. Instead of managing documentation in multiple disconnected platforms, or relying on static images and manually maintained diagrams, we move toward documentation-as-code, where all documentation is stored alongside the software it describes.

This approach ensures documentation is:

  • easy to edit,
  • easy to review,
  • versioned together with code,
  • consistent across teams,
  • and always reproducible.

6.1. Why Markdown?

Markdown is a lightweight, readable, developer-friendly format. It fits naturally into existing workflows because:

  • It integrates with Git - allowing change tracking, code review, and version history.
  • It avoids vendor lock-in - readable in any code editor or viewer.
  • It works seamlessly with tools that render diagrams, tables, examples, and code blocks.
  • It is easy for engineers to author in the same environment they write code.

Markdown becomes the foundation for all documentation - not because it is a new tool, but because it is a standardized writing format embedded directly into development workflows.

6.2. Diagrams-as-Code: PlantUML, Mermaid, and Other Renderers

The examples below illustrate possible formats for diagrams-as-code. The final selection of tooling will be refined during the next phase.

Traditional diagrams (PNG files, Visio diagrams, screenshots) create several problems:

  • hard to diff,
  • hard to version,
  • tied to local tooling,
  • and difficult to review through pull requests.

To solve this, all diagrams should be expressed as diagrams-as-code, using formats such as:

  • PlantUML
  • Mermaid
  • GraphViz (DOT)
  • Kroki-compatible formats

These formats provide:

  • text-based diagram definitions,
  • full version control,
  • meaningful diffs in code reviews,
  • automated preview in Markdown renderers,
  • and the ability to regenerate images automatically.

6.3. Repository-Centric Documentation Structure

All documentation lives inside the Git repository of the service it describes.

By colocating documentation with code:

  • documentation evolves as the system evolves,
  • pull requests ensure documentation is reviewed,
  • historical changes are preserved,
  • ownership is clear: the service team owns the documentation,
  • onboarding becomes faster because the repository becomes the source of truth.

This approach does not dictate a specific repository layout; rather, it establishes principles for where documentation belongs.

6.4. Version Control Benefits

Version-controlling documentation enables:

  • diffing even small changes,
  • reverting incorrect or outdated information,
  • branching for experimentation or redesigns,
  • pull request review of documentation updates,
  • continuous integration checks (linting, link validation, diagram compilation).

6.5. Document Templates and Reproducible Output

To ensure consistency across the organization, teams can use:

  • Markdown templates (copied per repository),
  • repository templates for new services,
  • Tooling may be used to generate consistent output formats when needed; specifics will be defined during the refinement phase.
  • ADR templates,
  • diagram templates.

6.6. Discoverability Without Lock-In

Even though this standard does not depend on a centralized documentation platform, the output is portable and can be indexed by any:

  • internal developer portal,
  • static site generator,
  • search engine,
  • IDE plugin,
  • documentation viewer.

Any discovery layer the organization uses - whether search tools, developer portals, or documentation browsers - remains optional and decoupled from the documentation structure itself.

6.7. Summary of the Solution Approach

Principle Explanation
Markdown-first All documentation authored in Markdown for consistency and clarity
Diagrams-as-code PlantUML, Mermaid, Graphviz for reproducible, versioned diagrams
Docs-as-code Documentation lives with code in the repository
Version control Historical traceability, diffing, branching, PR review
Templates & folder structure Ensures consistency across all teams and projects
Tooling agnostic Documentation standard does not depend on any single portal or platform

7.0. Execution & Governance

The preceding sections define the vision, standards, and documentation structure. This section defines how the organization will implement it, who is accountable, and how documentation quality and consistency will be maintained over time.

Definition of Done ensures documentation is created; the scoring model ensures documentation remains complete over time.

7.1. Rollout Plan

The phases outlined below describe a proposed approach. The exact rollout plan will be finalized collaboratively after approval of this initiative.

The rollout will be iterative to minimize disruption and ensure adoption across teams.

Phase 1 – Pilot A small number of representative teams will adopt the new Markdown-based documentation structure and incorporate it into their repositories. Feedback from these teams will be used to refine templates, folder structures, and authoring guidance.

Phase 2 – New Service Standardization All newly created repositories and services must use the standardized documentation structure. Documentation templates will be included in the organization’s repository boilerplates or project scaffolding to reduce friction and ensure consistency from day one.

Phase 3 – Backfill of Existing Services Each team identifies its most critical existing services (based on business value, architectural significance, or operational risk). Documentation improvements are completed gradually as part of ongoing feature work and engineering maintenance, rather than as a standalone project.

Phase 4 – Continuous Improvement Documentation maturity will be tracked through automated repository checks and lightweight scoring indicators and peer review processes. Quality will improve incrementally over time based on feedback, operational learnings, and evolving best practices.

The initiative is complete once documentation becomes part of normal engineering practice.

7.2. Ownership and Accountability

Documentation ownership follows service ownership.

The team that owns the service owns its documentation.

Accountability includes: - Creating and maintaining documentation directly in the service’s repository - Ensuring required documentation files, diagrams, and ADRs remain complete and up to date - Updating documentation alongside code changes so design, behavior, and operational details never drift

If a team owns a service in production, they also own the accuracy, clarity, and completeness of its documentation.

7.3. Definition of Done (Documentation)

Documentation is part of the delivery workflow, not an afterthought.

A feature or change is not “done” until:

  • Documentation exists or has been updated to reflect the change
  • ADRs (Architecture Decision Records) are created or updated when decisions impact design or architecture
  • All required documentation files remain accurate, complete, and consistent within the repository

Code changes without corresponding documentation updates are not accepted.

Pull request templates will include a confirmation step requiring authors to verify that documentation has been reviewed and updated as part of the change.

7.4. Quality & Governance

To ensure documentation remains useful and does not decay over time, the organization will use a lightweight documentation maturity model. This model does not assess content quality subjectively - instead, it verifies that required documentation exists, follows the standard structure, and is kept current.

The maturity model applies to every service maintained within the organization, and compliance is evaluated through repository-level checks, automated validation tools, and periodic governance reviews.

The specific tooling for these automated checks will be defined in the next phase; the scoring model here describes the conceptual approach.

Documentation Maturity Model

Each service is evaluated based on four maturity levels:

Level Name Description
0 - Unknown No documentation No documentation exists, or documentation cannot be found in the service’s repository. Ownership may be unclear.
1 - Discoverable Basic visibility The service has a clear README, visible ownership, and a link to its documentation folder. Basic information such as purpose, contacts, and repository location is easy to find.
2 - Understandable Architecture clarity Required documentation exists: service overview, responsibility boundaries, integration points, data flows, and ADRs for major decisions. A developer can understand how the service works.
3 - Operable Production-ready Operational documentation is available: runbooks, SLAs/SLIs/SLOs, quality expectations, and incident handling guides. Someone can support and operate the service without relying on tribal knowledge.
4 - Optimized Continuous improvement Documentation is consistently kept up to date through the Definition of Done, PR review practices, versioned ADRs, and automated repository checks. Documentation evolves with the code and is treated as a first-class part of the workflow.

Documentation does not need to be perfect - it needs to be complete, accurate, and discoverable.

Scoring Mechanism

Repository-level checks and lightweight documentation scorecards will automatically evaluate whether required documentation exists and is kept up to date:

  • Required files are discovered in the repository
  • Ownership information is clearly defined in repository metadata (README, CODEOWNERS, or equivalent)
  • Quality gates ensure docs and code evolve together

Automated checks generate visual indicators of documentation compliance:

✅ Green - Complete ⚠️ Yellow - Partial ❌ Red - Missing

This makes documentation maturity visible at a glance to leadership and architecture governance.

Continuous Improvement Cycle

Governance is not a policing function - it is an enablement function.

Documentation maturity is reviewed periodically (ie: quarterly) to:

  • Identify critical services that need improvement
  • Support teams adopting the standard
  • Help new teams use existing services rather than reinventing them

Teams own their documentation. Architecture defines the standard and quality expectations. Repository-based validation and CI checks ensure transparency across the organization.

“If a service is running in production, it must be possible to understand and operate it without guesswork.”

Governance Ownership

Responsibility Owner
Define documentation standards Architecture function
Maintain documentation templates, scaffolding, and validation tools Platform Engineering / Developer Experience
Produce and maintain service documentation Service-owning engineering team
Approve changes to standards or templates Architecture governance

Governance is intentionally lightweight - the goal is to guide consistency, not introduce bureaucracy.

We are enabling teams, not slowing them down.

8.0. Risks & Mitigations

Implementing a documentation standard and developer portal introduces organizational change.

Risks are not primarily technical - they are behavioral, cultural, and related to adoption. The following risks and mitigations ensure that the initiative succeeds without creating additional burden on teams.

To support accountability and clarify who does what across the organization, we apply the RACI responsibility model.

RACI Model (Responsibility Assignment)

To clarify ownership and avoid ambiguity, this proposal uses the RACI responsibility model.

RACI defines four roles involved in any activity or deliverable:

  • Responsible – The person or team who performs the work and delivers the result.
  • Accountable – The single owner who approves the work and is ultimately answerable for the outcome.
  • Consulted – People who provide input or expertise before a decision or action is taken.
  • Informed – People who are kept updated on progress or decisions, but are not actively involved.

Every service documented within the organization must have a clearly assigned Responsible and Accountable owner to ensure clarity, accountability, and traceability.

Responsible does the work, Accountable owns the result, Consulted contributes, Informed stays aware.

Identified Risks and Defined Mitigations

Risk Description Mitigation
Perception that documentation is “extra work” Teams may believe documentation slows delivery or adds unnecessary overhead. Documentation is part of the Definition of Done (DoD). Repository templates and scaffolding provide the documentation structure automatically, so teams only fill in relevant content as part of normal development-not as a separate activity.
Documentation becomes outdated over time Teams may update code without updating documentation, leading to gaps, mistrust, and eventual abandonment. Docs-as-code: documentation lives in the same repository as the service and must be updated in the same pull request as the code change. PR templates enforce the question: “What documentation did you update?” Automated repository checks highlight missing or outdated documentation.
Inconsistent adoption across teams Some teams may ignore the templates or standards, resulting in uneven quality and structure. Rollout plan makes the standard mandatory for all new services. Existing services are updated incrementally (prioritized by business or operational impact). Architecture governance periodically reviews documentation maturity based on repository-level indicators.
No clear ownership of documentation Documentation may be created initially but later abandoned if ownership is unclear. Ownership = service ownership. The team that owns a service is responsible for its documentation. Clear RACI model: Architecture defines standards; Platform Engineering maintains templates and validation tools; service teams maintain their documentation.
Exposure of sensitive information Documentation may inadvertently include confidential details or secrets. Documentation access levels (Public, Internal, Restricted) define who can view specific content. Templates include warnings and clear guidance to avoid including sensitive material or secrets.
Too much process slows teams down Overly heavy governance encourages avoidance or workarounds. Governance remains lightweight and focused on enablement. Templates, scaffolding, and automation reduce friction instead of adding it. Teams remain autonomous while benefiting from consistency.
“Big bang” attempt overwhelms teams Updating all existing services at once could block delivery and drain capacity. Incremental adoption: new services follow the standard immediately; existing services are improved gradually. Prioritization is based on business value, customer risk, and operational dependency.

The primary risk of this initiative is not technical complexity - it’s adoption.

Developers will not embrace documentation unless it is easy, lightweight, and embedded into their daily workflow. By incorporating documentation into the Definition of Done, providing ready-to-use templates through repository scaffolding, and establishing clear ownership, we ensure documentation becomes a natural part of development rather than an afterthought.

The focus is to enable teams, not burden them.

9.0. Effort & Investment Required

This initiative requires no new documentation tools. Teams continue to document inside their repositories (and optionally in existing documentation spaces), with the only new activity being the adoption of a consistent documentation structure and Markdown-based templates.

Architecture and Platform Engineering provide: - Standardized Markdown documentation templates - Repository scaffolding and folder structures - Automated validation tools and maturity tracking mechanisms

Teams contribute: - Updating and maintaining documentation as part of normal sprint work - Keeping documentation complete, accurate, and aligned with the standard over time

10.0 Example - Customer Notification Service

*This example intentionally shows a fully expanded version of what a documented service could look like. Teams will tailor depth to the complexity and importance of their services. *

To illustrate how the documentation structure is applied in practice, the following example walks through a fictional internal service - the Customer Notification Service.

The purpose of this example is not to prescribe how teams must build software, but to demonstrate the level of detail, clarity, and consistency expected when documenting a solution. By showing a fully completed version of the required sections, teams can better understand how to describe their service’s purpose, architecture, operational expectations, and lifecycle.

This ensures that anyone - from new team members to cross-team collaborators - can quickly understand what the service does, how to use it, and how to maintain it.

Overview

The Customer Notification Service is responsible for delivering outbound customer notifications via email and SMS. When the order management system or marketing platform triggers a notification event, this service receives the request and formats, schedules, and delivers the notification using external communication providers.

The service exists to centralize notification logic that is currently duplicated across multiple backend systems. By consolidating this capability into a dedicated service, we reduce implementation effort, eliminate duplicate logic, and improve reliability and auditability of messaging.

Problem Statement

Multiple internal systems are responsible for sending notifications to customers, resulting in inconsistent behavior, duplicated code, and limited traceability.

Stakeholders / Consumers

  • Internal backend systems that need to trigger outbound notifications
  • Support and operations teams who require traceability of message delivery

Success Criteria

  • 99.99% service uptime
  • Notifications delivered within 5 seconds in normal conditions
  • Traceability of delivery status for all notifications

Glossary

  • Provider: A third-party platform used to send messages (ie: Twilio, SendGrid).
  • Notification Event: An upstream request that triggers a message.

Requirements

Functional Requirements

The service accepts a notification request by API or via Kafka event stream. It validates required fields, loads the correct template, merges parameters into the message, and routes the message to the appropriate provider. If provider communication fails, the service retries the delivery based on an exponential backoff policy. All deliveries must be logged for audit traceability.

Non-Functional Requirements

Latency must be under five seconds per notification. The system must tolerate provider outages using retry and fallback logic. All customer-identifiable data must be encrypted at rest and in transit.

Compliance Requirements

Since customer data is involved, the system must comply with: - GDPR data retention - Data minimization principles - Secure encryption of PII (AES-256 at rest, TLS 1.3 in transit)

User Stories

  • As an upstream service, I send the event and receive confirmation the notification was triggered.
  • As a customer, I only receive messages I have opted into.

Architecture & Design

The Notification Service exposes a REST API and listens to Kafka topics for asynchronous bulk events. The service loads templates, personalizes notifications, and forwards messages to external communication providers.

System Components

  • API Layer: Receives REST requests and validates input
  • Message Processor: Handles templating, formatting, retries
  • Delivery Provider Adapter: Sends messages to external provider (Twilio/SendGrid/etc.)
  • Database: Stores delivery logs and retry queues

Technology and Integration Decisions

Providers are abstracted using a strategy pattern so switching providers requires no change to calling systems. Sensitive data is encrypted using AWS KMS. Metrics and logs are emitted for audit and debugging.

Implementation

The repository is structured into the following modules: - /api - REST controllers and request models - /domain - core business logic and services - /providers - communication provider adapters

All code must follow project linting rules and naming conventions. Errors must be wrapped in structured internal exceptions rather than exposing raw provider details.

Versioning follows Semantic Versioning: MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH. Development follows GitHub Flow (feature branch → pull request → merge to main).

Operational Documentation

Deployment & Configuration

Deployment is fully automated. A merge to main triggers CI/CD, producing a Docker container published to AWS ECR. Sensitive configuration values such as API keys are stored in AWS Parameter Store and injected at runtime.

Monitoring

Critical metrics: - Number of messages processed - Delivery success rate - Provider latency - Retry counts

Alerts are triggered if delivery success drops below 98%.

Testing & Validation

Testing includes: - Unit tests for validation, formatting, retry logic - Integration tests using mocked provider APIs - Nightly end-to-end test execution in staging

Minimum required code coverage: 80%

Security scans (Snyk) run weekly. External penetration tests run quarterly.

User Documentation

Triggering a notification (example request) 

POST /v1/notifications

{
  "customerId": "9320",
  "type": "ORDER_SHIPPED",
  "channel": "SMS",
  "parameters": {
    "trackingNumber": "PKG-16830"
  }
}

Tracking Status 

GET /v1/notifications/{messageId}

The response contains delivery status and timestamp.

Lifecycle & Maintenance

Patch and minor releases are deployed automatically. Major releases require approval and include migration planning.

Older versions of the API are supported for twelve months after deprecation. Ownership belongs to the Platform Messaging Team.

Support follows normal engineering on-call rotation.

Appendices

Architectural Decision Record (ADR) - Provider Selection

Twilio selected for SMS due to higher deliverability success rate in the target markets.