Insights into the Updated CPSA®-Foundation Level Curriculum

Since April 1, 2025, the new CPSA®-Foundation Level curriculum version 2025–1 has been officially valid. With the revised CPSA Foundation Level Curriculum, the iSAQB has taken an important step toward greater clarity, structure, and practical relevance. The contents have been reorga­nized, refined from a didactic perspective, and aligned more closely with real-world software architecture practice.

The update was carried out by the iSAQB’s Foundation Level working group, led by Dr. Gernot Starke, software architect and author, and Dr.-Ing. Alexander Lorz, IT consultant and trainer, who served as deputy lead and played a key role in shaping the revision. Mirko Hillert, Managing Director of iSAQB GmbH, conducted an interview with the two of them in which they provide valuable insights into the most important updates and changes.

What are the most important changes in the updated CPSA-Foundation Level curriculum – and what motivated those changes?

Gernot Starke:
We aligned the structure with the core architectural activ­ities while maintaining most of the learning goals and content. This results in a curriculum that has a much more logical structure, with only minor content changes compared to previous versions.

The motivation behind these changes was to eliminate surprises. In past versions, some partic­i­pants were surprised by the “location” of certain learning goals. The updated version aims to remove such surprises entirely.

Alexander Lorz:
In addition to some updates and minor adjust­ments to the relevance of certain topics, we’ve incor­po­rated feedback from GitHub issues, our Foundation trainings, and Train-the-Trainer events. One major improvement is that the curriculum now follows a more natural progression of the architectural devel­opment process. This allows trainers to structure their courses in a way that aligns with the curriculum, while also maintaining a clear pedagogical thread. This approach makes it easier to integrate practical exercises and deliver knowledge incre­men­tally, with each learning unit building on the previous one.

One specific change is the shift of quality requirements for software systems from the later sections to a more prominent position earlier in the curriculum. This change highlights that quality requirements should form the foundation for design decisions, rather than becoming clear only after the system is mostly implemented.

How does the new curriculum reflect current challenges in software architecture practice?

Gernot Starke:
The Foundation Level curriculum has always provided a solid method­ological foundation, without diving into specific technologies. The focus on methodical architectural practices enables archi­tects and devel­opment teams to apply these methods across any technology, whether it’s AI, cloud, or embedded systems. This foundation ensures long-term sustain­ability and a higher return on investment.

Alexander Lorz:
I completely agree with Gernot’s point. We’ve carefully balanced acknowl­edging techno­logical devel­op­ments while preserving our core methodical focus. This approach ensures that archi­tects can navigate trends like AI and cloud, without being swept up in temporary hype cycles. The principles we teach are timeless, enabling archi­tects to make sound decisions regardless of whether they are working with tradi­tional systems or exploring cutting-edge technologies.

How does the Foundation Level fit into the overall CPSA certification scheme – especially in relation to the Advanced Level modules?

Gernot Starke:
The Foundation Level curriculum provides a solid basis for the Advanced Level modules. It intro­duces a shared termi­nology (a kind of ubiquitous architecture language) and teaches practices that archi­tects can immedi­ately apply in practice.

Alexander Lorz:
The Foundation Level provides the essential common language and conceptual framework that all software archi­tects need. From my experience in training, partic­i­pants often ask which Advanced Level modules they should pursue next. My answer is that it really depends on the specific challenges they encounter in their daily work. We don’t aim to simply provide solutions but to teach archi­tects how to develop architectural thinking and apply the appro­priate methods to their unique situa­tions. This is exactly what the Foundation Level curriculum achieves: equipping archi­tects with the funda­mental skills to make informed decisions about their profes­sional development.

The main goal is to enable partic­i­pants to indepen­dently design software architecture in small to medium-sized projects. From your perspective, what are the most important compe­tencies they gain?

Gernot Starke:
First, partic­i­pants learn how to define their core requirements correctly, including quality requirements, stake­holders, and external inter­faces. Based on these, they learn to make systematic struc­tural decisions, identi­fying appro­priate compo­nents, services, modules, or subsystems within the system. Alongside these struc­tural decisions, they also learn how to choose the right patterns and technologies to apply. Finally, they gain the ability to discuss, document, and commu­nicate architectural issues and decisions.

In general, the Foundation Level training helps archi­tects and devel­opment teams approach system devel­opment in a more systematic way.

Alexander Lorz:
It’s important to under­stand that techno­logical expertise alone is not enough for successful software architecture. Archi­tects also need the skills to navigate organi­za­tional politics and create perspec­tives that help decision-makers under­stand the impli­ca­tions of architectural choices. An effective architect must have both deep technical knowledge and the ability to elicit the under­lying motiva­tions from stake­holders by asking “why” questions. This stake­holder input forms the foundation for defining requirements and architectural options. The true skill lies in under­standing these needs and explaining the trade-offs between different solutions in a way that resonates with both technical and non-technical stakeholders.

Both of you have been closely involved in shaping the curriculum for years – is there a particular highlight or section in the updated version that you’re especially proud of?

Alexander Lorz:
My highlight is that we’ve finally managed to provide a structure that better aligns with the learning progression. This was long overdue, and although it requires additional work for trainers to adjust their slides and publi­ca­tions, I’m confident that this will improve both training and training outcomes for everyone involved.

Last but not least: Alexander and Gernot would like to thank all members of the Foundation Level Working Group for their excellent work.