Platforms grow as separate domains, and the gaps between them are where work is lost
Enterprise platforms rarely arrive as a single unified system. They grow: a customer experience platform, a data and intelligence platform, a productivity and workforce system. Each is a legitimate investment. The problem is what happens between them.
Research from the 2025 N-iX platform engineering trends analysis found that 75% of developers lose more than six hours every week to tool fragmentation and cross-platform coordination problems. That is not a tooling problem. It is a scope problem: the kind that emerges when platform domains have not defined what belongs in the orchestration layer and what belongs within each domain's own boundary.
DORA's 2025 findings add a sharper frame: the capability most correlated with positive developer experience is not the platform's feature set — it is the clarity of feedback and ownership between platform components. And when platform quality is low, the performance benefits of AI adoption become negligible. Better tooling does not help if the orchestration layer is undefined and every team is still solving the same integration problem from scratch.
A capability belongs in the SDO layer only if it governs contracts no single domain owns
The SDO layer is responsible for the service delivery contracts between platform domains. That includes the APIs, event streams, workflow orchestration, and coordination logic that prevents each domain from solving its integration problems independently.
A capability belongs in the SDO layer if it: (1) governs how two or more platform domains exchange services; (2) defines or enforces a service contract that multiple domains depend on; (3) would break cross-domain coordination if removed; and (4) no single domain owns naturally.
Capabilities that fail this test belong in one of the domain platforms or in a product team. Capabilities that pass it and currently sit outside a defined SDO layer are integration debt made visible.
Without a defined SDO layer, orchestration sprawls across repositories no one owns
A financial services organisation runs a digital banking platform, a data analytics environment, and an internal operations system. Each works well. A new product needs all three to interact: the customer interface triggers a workflow, which needs a model output, which writes back to the customer record. Without a defined SDO layer, each integration point is solved at the team level. Within two years, the organisation has an orchestration layer — distributed across twelve repositories, owned by no one, understood by three people who have not yet left the company. A deliberately scoped SDO layer defines the service delivery contracts between those three domains from the start, with clear ownership and explicit contracts any team can consume.
The SDO layer orchestrates contracts; it does not execute another domain's work
An SDO layer is an orchestration layer, not an execution layer. It manages service delivery contracts between domains — it does not own data pipelines, AI models, user experience logic, or business productivity workflows. Those belong to their respective domains. The moment SDO starts absorbing execution responsibilities from other domains, it becomes a monolith that everything depends on and nobody can change cleanly. Most organisations are not missing an SDO layer. They are missing the name for the one they already have, and the defined scope that would make it governable.
