Architecture Governance Framework

Governance as a whole defines the structure, processes and mechanisms which are used to effectively manage and control an organisation. These same concepts apply to Enterprise Architecture.  Our Architecture Governance Framework is an extensible framework that blends with an organisation’s existing corporate and IT governance mechanisms, to protect the investment made in Enterprise Architecture and to ensure solution delivery is consistent with the target state architecture.

Enterprise Architecture Governance must address three important questions:

1. What decisions must be made to ensure effective progression towards the target state architecture?
2. Who should make these decisions?
3. How will these decisions be made and monitored?

An analogy can be drawn between architectural governance and the Westminster system of governance. Under the Westminster system there is a distinct separation between the bodies responsible for forming legislation (parliament), the bodies responsible for interpreting legislation (the courts) and the bodies responsible for enforcing the legislation (the police). In our approach to Enterprise Architecture, the equivalent to forming legislation is the Strategic Planning Framework, and the Architecture Governance Framework is responsible for interpreting and enforcing the architecture.

Because Enterprise Architecture is often viewed as being “an IT thing” and because Enterprise Architects are often located within the IT department organisational structure, there is a misconception that IT Governance and Architecture Governance are the same thing. We argue that the management processes and control mechanisms of IT governance are inadequate for the holistic governance of Enterprise Architecture.

• IT Governance is operationally focussed and relates to the services delivered by IT operations. IT Governance encompasses areas like project management, configuration management, incident and problem management, business continuity planning and disaster recovery planning.
• Architecture Governance is strategic and forward looking. It is transformative in nature and revolves around decisions that are taken that will influence the target state architecture of the organisation. Architecture Governance includes principles, standards and guidelines that must be complied with in order to ensure design integrity of the business as a whole. Consequently Architecture Governance extends to decisions that are outside the domain of IT.

The following illustration (from http://www.jannekorhonen.fi/EA_and_IT_Governance.pdf) summarises the respective roles of Architecture Governance and IT Governance.

Adapting the Architecture Governance Framework to an organisation typically involves the following activities.  The extent and detail to which Architecture Governance is implemented is largely driven by the existing level of governance maturity within the organisation.

1. Identify existing governance mechanisms and bodies. This avoids duplication of any governance processes, but more importantly often identifies the escalation points required by the Architecture Governance Framework.
2. Identify and establish the bodies required by the Architecture Governance Framework. Our experience is that this normally leads to the establishment of two architecture boards – a Technology Architecture Board and a Business Architecture Board. Primarily this is in recognition that the membership of each board is different and that decisions tend to be either business or technical in nature. It also aligns with our Enterprise Architecture Framework , which itself recognises that Enterprise Architecture includes business design, people design and technology design. 
3. Identify and establish appropriate Architecture Governance processes. These can include:
   1. An exceptions process for granting exceptions, with consequences, to the concepts and principles of the strategic architectures.
   2. A communications process for engaging with architecture stakeholders.
   3. A vitality process for maintaining the currency of the strategic artefacts.
   4. A review/approval process for the scrutiny of solution designs.