Lead Software Architect Java – Belgium

ph3Context /h3 pThe solution to be studied is based on a Java / Spring Boot microservices architecture, supplemented by a TypeScript / Angular micro-frontend approach, a DSP based on Kafka, critical mass processing (Spring Batch), and several distinct PostgreSQL databases per business domain, supplemented by 360 views and a synchronized reference base used daily for statistical or reporting purposes. The solution is containerized and runs with Podman. Each business domain is supported by approximately 4 Java applications, each placed in a separate container. This solution is developed to replace, in an iso-functional manner, another software already in place; the deployment of this solution therefore involves reusing data from the existing software. The metrics as of 01/04/2026 highlight a significant application volume, of the order of 528,000 lines of code, including: roughly 475,000 Java lines, 85,000 TypeScript / Angular lines, supplemented by SQL, CSS/SASS and various scripts. Insufficient performance in several key processes which may or may not have their origins in the architecture implemented. In this context, the SPW wishes to have an independent, objective and actionable diagnosis, making it possible to assess the relevance of architectural choices, the capacity of the solution to absorb the business load, as well as the structuring technical risks in the short and medium term. /p h3Objectives of the Mission /h3 pThe mission aims to: /p ul liEvaluate the overall performance of the application solution, both for current operation by users in transactional mode and for mass processing; /li liAnalyze the relevance of the division into microservices with regard to functional responsibilities, inter-application flows (synchronous and asynchronous), consistency and volume constraints; /li liIdentify the root causes of observed or latent dysfunctions (performance, excessive coupling, BD contention, etc.); /li liEvaluate transactional robustness and data consistency management in a distributed context (choreography, outbox/inbox, idempotence); /li liAssess the level of resilience and observability (monitoring, metrics, logs, traceability, incident recovery) with regard to the SPW requirements; /li liProduce structured, prioritized and realistic recommendations to guide development decisions (refactoring, reorganization of services, targeted optimizations); /li liAssess the operational robustness of the solution in the face of incidents, application errors or degraded situations (exception management, behavior in the event of partial failure, continuity of service); /li liIdentify structural technical risks likely to have a lasting impact on the performance, stability or maintainability of the solution; /li liIdentify the risks and points of weakness linked to existing or planned data recovery mechanisms (quality, completeness, integrity, performance, etc.); /li liIdentify the levers to strengthen internal control of the information system and secure continuity of service in the event of a change in the sourcing method. /li /ul h3Scope of the Mission /h3 pThe scope covers in particular: /p ul liBackend microservices; /li liAssociated PostgreSQL databases: data models, access, performance, replication and view strategies; /li liInter-service communications, including REST and SOAP APIs, event exchanges via Kafka/DSP (choreography), file exchanges via FTP; /li liMass processing and continuous flows (Spring Batch, outbox/inbox, idempotence); /li liThe application infrastructure influences performance to the extent that it directly impacts the observed behaviors (without an exhaustive infrastructure audit). /li /ul pThe scope also includes, in a logic of analysis and recommendations: /p ul liThe planned mechanisms for data and document recovery (GED Alfresco/S3); /li liThe analysis of the impact of data recovery on overall performance of the system, the consistency of data in a distributed context, the robustness of processing and application chains. /li /ul h3Expected Deliverables /h3 ul liAn executive summary for management, highlighting key findings, major risks and main levers of action; /li liA detailed audit report, including supported findings, qualitative and quantitative analyses, and justified technical analyses; /li liA prioritized recommendations plan, crossing the criteria of impact, effort and risk; /li liSpecific analyses addressing maintainability and robustness of the solution in the medium term, data recovery issues, dependence on the service provider, and a summary map of technical risks with recommendations; /li liSupport for presentation (PowerPoint type) intended for governance bodies. /li /ul h3Prerequisites /h3 ul liIndependent, factual and pragmatic approach; /li liAbility to interact with expert teams (SPW, service provider, architects); /li liStrong capacity for synthesis, especially for decision-making bodies; /li liClear orientation toward concrete and actionable recommendatio