A proof of concept has scaled into a governed refactoring programme. Which description best captures the workflow that should now be followed at scale?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
Scale does not change the order. Analyze, select, review, generate - repeated across the whole estate.
Full Explanation
The correct description is the analyze-select-review-generate workflow applied consistently across the estate, not a shortcut. From proof of concept to governed programme, keep that sequence: analyze the application, select candidate modular components, review the recommendations and dependency maps, then generate the components, and repeat it for each part of the estate. Generating modular components first across the estate and analyzing afterward whether they turned out sensible is incorrect because generating before analyzing leaves components with no grounding in real application structure. Using only the components that were part of the original proof of concept, without further analysis, is incorrect because the proof of concept's scope was deliberately narrow and does not cover the rest of the estate. Prioritising refactoring based on recent production incidents rather than on analysis and review is incorrect because incidents are a reactive, partial signal, not a substitute for analysis and review. Exam caveat: expect analyze-select-review-generate at any scale.