Requirements - Solution Design & Methods
-
SD05 - Commodities
Solutions should focus on commodity products and services where possible/sensible.
Requirement description
This requirement is concerned with ensuring that solution teams make effective use of established commodity products and services before developing bespoke capabilities.
Commodity products are typically widely adopted, proven, supported and cost-effective solutions that address common business needs. Examples may include shared platforms, SaaS products, commercial off-the-shelf services and standard enterprise capabilities. The SAF does not require commodity products to be used in all circumstances, but expects them to be considered where sensible and appropriate.
The objective is to reduce unnecessary custom development, minimise duplication, improve maintainability and enable delivery teams to focus effort on genuinely differentiating requirements.
In simple terms:
Use proven off-the-shelf or shared solutions where they adequately meet the need, and only build custom solutions when there is a clear justification.
Scoring rubric table – SD05 Use of Commodity Products and Services
| Score | What it looks like | Typical evidence | Key gaps / risks |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | No evidence that commodity products or services have been considered. Bespoke solutions have been selected by default. |
No options assessment. No buy-versus-build analysis. No market evaluation. No architecture rationale. |
Significant service risk. The service may incur unnecessary development, operational and support costs while duplicating existing capabilities. |
| 1 | Limited evidence that commodity options were considered. Decisions appear driven by local preference or existing implementation choices. |
Informal discussions. Undocumented assumptions. Limited supplier review. Weak architecture justification. |
High-risk gaps. Suitable commodity solutions may have been overlooked. |
| 2 | Some commodity options have been assessed, but evaluation is incomplete or inconsistently documented. |
Partial options appraisal. Basic market scan. Some architecture decision records. Limited cost comparison. |
Significant notable gaps. It is unclear whether the most appropriate solution approach was selected. |
| 3 | Much of the solution demonstrates consideration of commodity products and services. Where bespoke functionality exists, there is generally evidence supporting the decision. |
Buy-versus-build assessment. Architecture Decision Records. Supplier evaluations. Solution design documentation. Documented rationale for custom development. |
Notable gaps remain. Some decisions may lack sufficient evidence regarding long-term cost, supportability or alternative options. |
| 4 | Most opportunities for commodity adoption have been assessed and the solution makes effective use of commodity products where appropriate. |
Comprehensive options appraisal. Cost-benefit analysis. Documented evaluation criteria. Governance review records. Clearly justified exceptions where bespoke development was chosen. |
Minor gaps only. Remaining custom components are understood and supported by clear business or technical rationale. |
| 5 | Comprehensive and exemplar use of commodity products and services. Buy-versus-build decisions are evidence-based, strategically aligned and consistently governed. |
Formal sourcing and architecture assessments. Comprehensive business case evidence. Governance-supported technology decisions. Demonstrable reduction in custom development. Evidence that commodity adoption improves cost, supportability and time-to-value. Regular review of emerging commodity capabilities. |
Minimal or no significant gaps. Commodity adoption is embedded within architecture decision-making and contributes to efficient, sustainable delivery. |
What assessors should look for
- Buy-versus-build assessment – Has the team evaluated commodity alternatives before choosing bespoke delivery?
- Evidence-based decision-making – Is there documented rationale supporting the selected approach?
- Cost and value – Have whole-life costs, implementation effort and operational implications been considered?
- Capability fit – Can commodity solutions satisfy the business and user requirements without excessive customisation?
- Governance – Have decisions been reviewed through appropriate architecture or investment governance processes?
- Exception management – Where bespoke development has been selected, is the justification clearly documented?
What separates a 3 from a 4 or 5
A score of 3 generally indicates that commodity options have been considered and that there is evidence supporting key decisions, but assessments may be incomplete or lack sufficient commercial, operational or governance rigour.
A score of 4 requires a structured evaluation of commodity alternatives with clear evidence that the selected approach represents a sensible balance of capability, cost, supportability and risk.
A score of 5 requires commodity-first thinking to be embedded within architecture and delivery practices. Decisions should be evidence-based, consistently governed and demonstrably focused on maximising value while minimising unnecessary custom development.
Suggested evidence examples (not SAF-mandated artefacts)
- Buy-versus-build assessments
- Options appraisal documents
- Business cases
- Architecture Decision Records (ADRs)
- Supplier and market evaluations
- Cost-benefit assessments
- Governance review papers
- Technology selection reports
- Commercial evaluation outputs
- Solution Design Overview (SDO) documents
Updated: 04 September 2026 (SAF Version 1.1)