Cloud Architecture Design for a Multi-Tenant SaaS Platform
Overview
What this challenge is about.
Cloud Architecture Design for a Multi-Tenant SaaS Platform. Advanced challenge in design. Designing real products under real constraints, earn a blockchain-v...
The Brief
What you'll do, and what you'll demonstrate.
Design a production-ready multi-tenant SaaS architecture on AWS that balances data isolation, GDPR compliance, and per-tenant customization with cost efficiency and operational simplicity. The design must support 200 tenants at launch and scale to 2,000 tenants without a fundamental re-architecture.
This is not a design exercise. It is the work a product designer does between a brief and a shipped interface. That distinction matters to every hiring manager who has seen candidates redesign Spotify's homepage and none who have worked under real product constraints.
When you finish, you will have something most graduates do not: a real-world deliverable, verified by Ewance, that you can show to a hiring manager and say "I did this. Here is the proof."
Your tasks
01
Requirements Analysis and Pattern Selection
- Analyze the functional and non-functional requirements and create a requirements matrix
- Research multi-tenancy patterns and evaluate trade-offs for each architectural layer
- Select your tenancy model and document the decision rationale
- Draft the high-level architecture (C4 Context and Container diagrams)
02
Detailed Design and Cost Modeling
- Design the data architecture including schema, RLS policies, and migration strategy
- Create the AWS infrastructure diagram with specific service selections
- Build the cost model spreadsheet for 200/500/2000 tenant scenarios
- Document the security and GDPR compliance approach
03
Scaling Strategy and Final Documentation
- Design the scaling roadmap with capacity thresholds and migration triggers
- Create the Component-level C4 diagrams for critical services
- Compile the complete design document with all sections
- Review for consistency, completeness, and clarity before submission
Earning criteria — what you'll demonstrate
- Evaluate and select appropriate multi-tenancy patterns (shared vs. siloed) across application, data, and infrastructure layers with clear justification.
- Design a cloud-native architecture that meets functional requirements (GDPR compliance, data isolation, customization) while adhering to cost constraints.
- Create professional architecture diagrams and technical documentation that communicate complex system designs to both engineering and business stakeholders.
- Develop a scaling strategy with concrete cost projections that demonstrates understanding of cloud economics and capacity planning.
Program Fit
Where this fits in your program.
Sharpens the same skills your degree expects you to demonstrate.
Aligned coursework coming soon.
Skills
Skills you'll demonstrate.
Each one shows up on your verified credential.
- Cloud Computing
Design and deploy scalable applications using cloud platforms and services.
- It Security
Apply it security to solve real industry problems and demonstrate production-level capability.
- Web Development
Apply web development to solve real industry problems and demonstrate production-level capability.
Careers
Career paths this challenge builds toward
Completing this challenge demonstrates skills that transfer directly to these roles:
Frequently asked questions
What students usually ask before they start.
No. This is an architecture design challenge. You should produce architecture diagrams, a written design document, and a cost model. You may include code snippets (e.g., RLS policies, Terraform examples) to illustrate specific patterns, but a working implementation is not required.
The scenario specifies AWS as the chosen provider. You should use AWS services in your design. However, you may note equivalent services on other providers for comparison where it strengthens your analysis.
Use the AWS Pricing Calculator to estimate costs for key services (RDS, ECS/EKS, ALB, ElastiCache, etc.) at the three tenant milestones (200, 500, 2000). Ballpark estimates with clear assumptions are acceptable — exact pricing is less important than demonstrating sound cost reasoning.