Enterprise architecture and technology innovation leaders report that they are weak at measurement. This research exposes simple project assurance metrics that can support predicting the impact of more advanced measurements.
■ Some enterprise architecture (EA) programs have mistakenly believed that 100% compliance is a goal, damaging support for actionable EA advice.
■ Resistance can be passive, limiting access to real change that projects implement.
■ Solving in-flight challenges with the selection, creation and implementation of new technology is not the same as creating EA guidance.
■ Technical debt is inevitable, and project control will not alleviate technical debt.
Enterprise architecture and technology innovation leaders engaging in project assurance to build a world-class EA discipline should:
■ Measure compliance as a percentage of all actions taken, aggregating the impact and trending the anecdotal reasons project teams comply with EA guidance.
■ Measure resistance and trend the aggregated anecdotal reasons project teams resist, enabling leadership teams to determine remedial measures.
■ Measure absence, uncovering where solutions must be created or refined when projects are in flight or afterward.
Figure 1. The Role of Project Assurance Metrics
Source: Gartner (June 2018)
In the center are the project assurance metrics. As noted, a list of specific measures are outlined in “EA Business-Value Metrics You Must Have Today.” The focus of this paper is on taking the measurement, and how the metric is treated. A future note will examine the process suggested in Figure 1.
In the interim, the graphic suggests that measurement occurs within projects regardless of the project methodology employed. The assurance metrics are then aggregated and trended, noting anecdotal reasons for each project assurance metric. This is explained in each section of the paper, for each project assurance metric. Where appropriate, the extended use of the project assurance measurement is noted within each section.