Platform Hosts and Platform Applications - How to map these?

[Tom104]

Hi All,

I'm trying to get some clarity regarding how we should be mapping our Platform Hosts and Platform Applications.

What I'd like to address specifically, is what we classify as a platform host/platform application.

As an example, my current firm use Microsoft Dynamics extensively. This is hosted within Microsoft Azure (Which they have modelled as a Business Application).

However, a number of custom "Business Applications" have been built within Microsoft Dynamics.

As such, which of the following should be listed as the Platform Host (Microsoft Azure, or Microsoft Dynamics)?


If, we determine that Microsoft Azure is the Platform Host, and Microsoft Dynamics is a "Platform Application", what then should be the relationship between Microsoft Dynamics and the "Business Applications" built using this?

[CFrandsen]

Hi @Mike10 ,

Appreciate the callout for feedback.

From my perspective, this approach makes sense in scenarios where there are several Platform Hosts sitting under separate cost centers, especially when that setup is the result of historical M&A activity.

In that context, modelling each Azure estate as a separate Platform Host can help make ownership, funding, and dependencies clearer. Modelling the applications built on top as Platform Applications, together with environment-specific Application Services, also gives a practical way to assess impact when changes are planned against the underlying platform.

It also seems useful from a rationalization perspective, as it can help show where multiple platform estates may be supporting similar or overlapping capabilities across the organization.

One thing I would keep in mind is how the model evolves after M&A integration, if those separate Platform Hosts are later consolidated into a primary strategic platform.
The separate Platform Host records are useful during the transition, but lifecycle state, ownership, and migration relationships become important so the model does not continue to reflect historical funding structures once the platforms have effectively merged.

So overall, I can see why this pattern would work well for the use case you describe.