Architecture and engineering for cloud platforms with AI built in, focused on delivery speed, cost control, resilience, security and compliance, including regulated environments.
Challenges addressed
Recurring challenges in cloud and AI programmes, and the focus of every YTJK Systems engagement.
Costs growing faster than the business
Cloud and AI spend nobody can explain, over-provisioned platforms and no link between cost and value.
AI pilots that never reach production
Promising prototypes stuck on security, cost, evaluation and the question of who runs them.
Delivery slowed by the platform
Teams waiting on environments, manual releases and a platform not ready for AI workloads.
Modernisation that has stalled
Migrations half-finished, legacy and cloud both running, and costs doubled in the meantime.
Security, compliance and regulatory pressure
Regulatory requirements, audit evidence, repeat incidents and AI risk the board is asking about.
No clear cloud or AI strategy
Decisions made project by project, with no roadmap leadership and engineers both trust.
Engagements
Defined engagements with clear deliverables. Scope and timeline are agreed for each engagement, based on the size and complexity of the change.
Advise
Direction, assessment and ongoing architecture leadership.
Cloud and AI strategy
Current position, target state and the sequence to get there, with AI adoption and data foundations planned alongside the platform.
Current-state assessment of platforms, data and AI use cases
Target cloud, data and AI architecture
Prioritised roadmap with business case and investment profile
Cloud and AI initiatives aligned to business priorities
Clear decisions on what to build, buy or retire
A plan leadership can fund, track and explain
Cloud and AI architecture review
An independent assessment of an existing platform and its AI workloads: risks, readiness and spend.
Findings and risk register
Cost-saving opportunities across cloud and AI, sized
Security, resilience and compliance gaps identified
Quick wins and a remediation plan
Reduced operational and audit risk
Spend linked to business value
Architecture leadership
Ongoing design authority and direction across cloud, data and AI.
Design authority and architecture reviews
Vendor, model and build-or-buy decisions
Architecture standards and governance
Consistent decisions across programmes and teams
Lower delivery risk on major initiatives
Advice for leadership and the board
Build
Design and delivery of platforms, and modernisation of existing estates.
Cloud and AI platform delivery
Design and build of cloud and Kubernetes platforms with data and AI capability built in, alongside internal teams.
Platform built as code, ready for AI workloads
AI services in production with evaluation, monitoring and cost controls
Resilience by design: availability, recovery and disaster recovery targets met
Faster, safer releases through automation and paved paths
Predictable running costs at real volumes
Capability that stays with internal teams
Migration and modernisation
Legacy applications and infrastructure moved or modernised, so the estate is ready for cloud and AI.
Application and infrastructure portfolio assessment
Migration strategy per workload: rehost, refactor, replace or retire
Wave plan with dependencies, risks and cut-over approach
Modernised, AI-ready platforms and data
Reduced legacy cost and technical debt
Programmes completed rather than left running in parallel
Assure
Security, compliance and cost kept under control as platforms and AI scale.
Security, governance and compliance
Cloud security architecture and AI governance that stand up to regulators, auditors and the board.
Security architecture across identity, network, data and workloads
AI governance: model risk, data use, evaluation and human oversight
Controls mapped to frameworks such as ISO 27001, DORA and the EU AI Act
Evidence that is generated continuously, not assembled for audits
Lower regulatory and reputational risk
Faster approvals for new services and AI use cases
Cost optimisation
A structured FinOps programme that reduces cloud and AI spend and keeps it under control.
Cost visibility by product, team and AI service
Right-sizing, commitment and architecture savings
Unit economics such as cost per customer or per AI request
Budgets, alerts and accountability built into delivery
Lower, predictable run costs
Savings that are sustained, not one-off
Business outcomes
Faster time to market
Shorter path from idea to production for products and AI features alike.
Lower, predictable cost
Cloud and AI spend tied to value, with the visibility to keep it that way.
Reduced operational risk
Resilient, secure, observable platforms and AI services that stand up to audits and incidents.
Value that is measured
Platforms and AI services tracked on quality, cost, adoption and business impact.
Confident decisions
A cloud and AI strategy that leadership can explain, fund and track.
Capability that stays
Internal teams own the result, with documentation and hand-over built in.
How an engagement runs
Four stages, each ending in an agreed output. The depth of each stage scales with the size, complexity and risk of the change.
Discover
Interviews with business, engineering, security and finance stakeholders. Review of the current architecture, cloud spend, incident history, delivery metrics and constraints such as regulation, contracts and skills. Goals and measures of success agreed.
Output: discovery report with findings, risks and priorities, and a scoped proposal.
Design
Options assessed against cost, risk and time to value. Target architecture defined, with security and compliance reviewed and key decisions recorded as architecture decision records. Roadmap sequenced to deliver value early.
Output: target architecture, decision log and roadmap, signed off by stakeholders.
Deliver
Incremental delivery in short iterations, built as code alongside internal teams. Regular demonstrations, progress tracked against the agreed measures, and risks, dependencies and change managed openly.
Output: working platform or service, released in stages.
Hand over
Runbooks, operating model, training and knowledge transfer so internal teams can run and evolve the result. A review against the original success measures closes the engagement.
Output: documented, owned service and recommendations for next steps.
Principles
Outcome-based
Success measures, deliverables and responsibilities are agreed before work starts and reported throughout.
Independent
No reseller ties. Recommendations across AWS, Azure and Google Cloud are based only on requirements.
Business case first
Every recommendation comes with its cost, risk and expected benefit.
Secure and compliant by design
Security, data protection and regulatory controls are designed in from the start, with the evidence regulated environments require.
Cloud and AI together
AI systems are designed with the platform, security and operations they depend on.
Knowledge transfer
Documentation and hand-over are part of every engagement, so capability stays in-house.
Insights
Architecture notes from YTJK Systems, and key public references for cloud and AI system design.
Architecture notes
Reference architecture: retrieval-augmented generation (RAG)AI system design
RAG grounds a language model in an organisation's own content. It is two systems: an ingestion pipeline that keeps an index fresh, and a query path that has to be fast, safe and observable.
IngestionPreparing structured and unstructured data for retrieval.
Unstructured sourcesDocuments, PDFs, wiki and web pages, images, audio, video
Unstructured data pathChunked, embedded and indexed
RetrieveHybrid search and governed SQL, filtered by the caller's permissions
Re-rankMost relevant context first
GenerateGrounded answer with citations and output checks
Permissions enforced at retrieval: the model never sees content the user cannot
Observability and evaluation
End-to-end tracing
Retrieval quality
Answer faithfulness
Latency per stage
Cost per request
User feedback loop
Key design decisions
Chunking: split on document structure, not fixed sizes, and keep source and section metadata for citations and access control.
Hybrid retrieval: combine vector and keyword search, then re-rank. Pure vector search misses exact terms such as product codes.
Permissions: filter by the caller's entitlements at retrieval time, so the model never sees content the user cannot.
Versioning: treat the embedding model and index as a versioned pair. Changing one means re-indexing.
Evaluation: keep a golden question set and measure retrieval quality and answer faithfulness on every change.
Designing a multi-tenant Kubernetes platformPlatform architecture
Multi-tenancy is a spectrum of isolation, not a single choice. The right level depends on how much control each tenant needs and how much separation the business requires, and most platforms use more than one level at once.
Isolation levelsChosen per workload; most platforms use more than one.
NamespaceOne per application and environment, e.g. payments-prodSoft isolation, lowest cost
TenantSelf-service namespaces within a team's quotaTeam autonomy on shared clusters
Virtual clusterOwn API server, CRDs, operators and admin rights on shared nodesControl-plane isolation
Dedicated clusterRegulated data, separate versions or distinct scaling such as GPUHard isolation, highest cost
More isolation, more cost and operational effort
Tenant onboarding as codeEvery tenant starts secure and consistent
Tenant definitionDeclared in Git: owners, environments, quotas
Review and policyPull request, automated policy checks
GitOps controllerReconciles the desired state
Guardrails appliedNamespaces, group RBAC, quotas, network and admission policies
Golden pathsService, pipeline and dashboard templates
Shared platform services
Ingress and DNS
Certificates
Secrets
Policy engine
Observability
Cost attribution
Key design decisions
Isolation per workload, not per platform: namespaces per application and environment by default; a tenant layer where teams need self-service; virtual clusters when teams need cluster-scoped resources; dedicated clusters only for regulatory separation, different Kubernetes versions or distinct scaling profiles such as GPU workloads.
Onboarding as code: one tenant definition creates namespaces, group-based RBAC, quotas and limit ranges, network policies and admission policies, so every tenant starts secure and consistent.
Data-plane isolation on shared nodes: default-deny networking, dedicated node pools or taints for sensitive and GPU workloads, and sandboxed runtimes where the risk justifies it.
Golden paths: templates for a service, its pipeline and its dashboards, so the secure default is also the easiest option.
Cost attribution: tenant, application and cost-centre labels from day one, so spend can be shown back to the business.
Serving LLMs in production: latency, cost and reliabilityAI platform architecture
Once an AI feature has real users, the model call becomes a dependency like any other: it needs routing, limits, fallbacks and monitoring. A model gateway puts that in one place.
Model gatewayOne control point between applications and every model.
ApplicationsProducts, internal tools, agents
Model gateway
Access · authentication, per-team quotas and budgets
Safety · input and output filters, PII handling
Cache · repeated prompts and responses
Routing · by task, cost and latency
Resilience · timeouts, retries, fallback
Managed model APIPrimary provider
Managed model APIFallback provider or region
Self-hosted modelsAutoscaled on queue depth, for residency or unit cost
Operations
Tokens and cost per team
Time to first token
Tokens per second
Error and fallback rates
Quality evaluation
Audit logs
Key design decisions
Route by task: send simple tasks to smaller, cheaper models and reserve the largest models for work that needs them.
Measure the right latency: track time to first token and tokens per second, not just total request time.
Plan for failure: timeouts, retries with backoff and a fallback model or provider, so one outage does not take the feature down.
Control spend: per-team budgets, caching of repeated prompts and alerts on cost per request.
Build or buy: self-host only when data residency, unit cost at scale or customisation justify the operational load.