IVI Framework Viewer

Representative POMs are described for Architecture Funding at each level of maturity.

2Basic

• Practice

  Begin cross-project funding for a limited number of architecture capabilities.

  Outcome

  Some cross-project investments are made, typically in infrastructure — e.g. shared storage, virtualization.

  Metrics

  • Survey results that identify where organization support and resistance to architecture projects lie.
  • Satisfaction ratings for the architecture function.
  • Basic counters and trends for architecture artefacts creation and usage.
  • Budgets, costs, and resource usage.
  • Aggregated project portfolio, programme, and project metrics for dash boards, and project phase and task metrics for diagnosis.

3Intermediate

• Practice

  Put funding mechanisms in place for a central enterprise architecture function and architecture management practices.

  Outcome

  Enterprise architecture planning begins to take a longer term view and leverages synergies across projects.

  Metrics

  • Counts, averages, variances, and associated trends of errors and rework.
  • Variance from targets and mean.
  • Issue counts and trends (by severity and urgency).
  • Open to close metrics (e.g. time, total cost of fix).
  • Metadata enabled aggregate metrics by department, function, business unit, geospatial region, product, service, and so forth.
  • Surveys on awareness of, usability, and use of architecture artefacts and guidance.
  • Project portfolio, programme, and project life-cycle metrics.

• Practice

  Provide separate funding for architecturally significant projects.

  Outcome

  Architecture maintenance costs for such projects are adequately funded.

  Metrics

  • Counts, averages, variances, and associated trends of errors and rework.
  • Variance from targets and mean.
  • Issue counts and trends (by severity and urgency).
  • Open to close metrics (e.g. time, total cost of fix).
  • Metadata enabled aggregate metrics by department, function, business unit, geospatial region, product, service, and so forth.
  • Surveys on awareness of, usability, and use of architecture artefacts and guidance.
  • Project portfolio, programme, and project life-cycle metrics.

• Practice

  Put funding in place for a target architecture landscape (in principle for a 3-year vision, with confirmation for the current funding cycle).

  Outcome

  An architecture vision and a roadmap are funded and enabled.

  Metrics

  • Counts, averages, variances, and associated trends of errors and rework.
  • Variance from targets and mean.
  • Issue counts and trends (by severity and urgency).
  • Open to close metrics (e.g. time, total cost of fix).
  • Metadata enabled aggregate metrics by department, function, business unit, geospatial region, product, service, and so forth.
  • Surveys on awareness of, usability, and use of architecture artefacts and guidance.
  • Project portfolio, programme, and project life-cycle metrics.

• Practice

  Implement architecture components in the project portfolio for appropriate prioritization and funding.

  Outcome

  Enterprise architecture activity is subjected to and passes project selection/authorization criteria.

  Metrics

  • Counts, averages, variances, and associated trends of errors and rework.
  • Variance from targets and mean.
  • Issue counts and trends (by severity and urgency).
  • Open to close metrics (e.g. time, total cost of fix).
  • Metadata enabled aggregate metrics by department, function, business unit, geospatial region, product, service, and so forth.
  • Surveys on awareness of, usability, and use of architecture artefacts and guidance.
  • Project portfolio, programme, and project life-cycle metrics.

4Advanced

• Practice

  Expand funding mechanisms to support a larger suite of architecture capabilities, enabling innovation and value across the whole organization.

  Outcome

  Leveraging the enterprise architecture knowledge base enhances the return on investment.

  Metrics

  • Counts and trends of governance compliance and governance exceptions.
  • Elapsed time and trends for governance steps such as approvals cycles.
  • Counts and trends for first time fixed and count issues re-opened.
  • Pareto of missing information types that cause delays in decision-making.
  • Frequency and time in use of tool features.
  • Cost, cycle-time, and resource utilization impact of automation and architecture driven process changes.
  • Baseline measurements of business (unit) operations before an architecturally significant change implementation so that its impact can subsequently be determined more accurately.
  • Comprehensive project portfolio, programme, and project metrics.
  • Stakeholder surveys on communications, architecture engagement, and architecture artefact utility.

5Optimized

• Practice

  Implement a lifetime TCO model to fund services beyond the lifetime of individual platforms.

  Outcome

  Technological debt from unfunded end-of-life events is avoided.

  Metrics

  • Pareto of architecture guidance principles explicitly used in decision-making.
  • Count of decisions adjusted by enterprise architecture governance committee.
  • % of decisions getting enterprise architecture approval without modification.
  • Cost to projects of technology debt.
  • Complexity metrics (e.g. # of decisions in process, divergent process path counts, count of tasks requiring experts/consultant level staff).
  • Satisfaction rating surveys that are value focused (i.e. how valuable is the enterprise architecture function to the stakeholders).
  • Benefits realization metrics from project portfolios, programmes, and the benefits realization function.

• Practice

  Start collaborative investments with customers, partners, and/or suppliers to build architectural capabilities in support of the business ecosystem (e.g. common data model, electronic marketplace).

  Outcome

  Shared capabilities are developed which are visible to customers, partners, or suppliers (e.g. establishment of open industry standard data models for data exchange).

  Metrics

  • Pareto of architecture guidance principles explicitly used in decision-making.
  • Count of decisions adjusted by enterprise architecture governance committee.
  • % of decisions getting enterprise architecture approval without modification.
  • Cost to projects of technology debt.
  • Complexity metrics (e.g. # of decisions in process, divergent process path counts, count of tasks requiring experts/consultant level staff).
  • Satisfaction rating surveys that are value focused (i.e. how valuable is the enterprise architecture function to the stakeholders).
  • Benefits realization metrics from project portfolios, programmes, and the benefits realization function.