Webinar Track Your Progress Toward High-Performance EA By Creating And Using An EA Maturity Model Tim DeGennaro, Analyst September 12, 2012. Please call in at 10:55 a.m. Eastern time

It is important to track EA’s progress and performance It is important to track EA’s progress and performance. But creating and running an EA assessment takes time and is difficult — and can’t compete with other EA priorities. This presentation provides a pragmatic approach to creating or customizing your assessment.

Agenda Starting an EA assessment initiative Developing questionnaire Deciding on scale Examples to guide your approach Running an assessment

Where does EA assessment fit in? AN EA ASSESSMENT RESTARTS AND INFORMS THE EA CYCLE EA assessment Determine stakeholder needs. Set EA vision. Determine readiness. Set an EA strategy. Create an EA road map. Execute. Build artifacts. Develop processes. Develop organization. Track. Track progress. Market success. Evolve.

An assessment can be quick or can span months

Which questions can it answer? AN EA ASSESSMENT CAN PROVIDE A FEW TYPES OF BENEFITS “Prove to me that you’ve made progress with EA.” “Where do we need to get up to speed?” “What kinds of skills should we develop?” “Are we aligned with our organization’s vision for EA?” “Have we delivered?”

Five dimensions comprise a good assessment model A list of the dimensions the assessment addresses A questionnaire with clear questions A simple scoring scale/methodology that improves transparency A list of potential interviewees for outside-in EA assessments An explanation of how the framework communicates results Validate Dimensions Questions Scoring scale Interview targets Explanation of results

Developing questionnaire and criteria Validate Dimensions Questions Scoring scale Interview targets Explanation of results

Determine the dimensions STEP 1: PICK YOUR STRUCTURING PRINCIPLES Does the organization dissect EA as: A set of EA domains? A set of major activities? A group of bodies? . . . ?

Five types of criteria to include STEP 2: MATCH CRITERIA TYPES TO STRUCTURING PRINCIPLES Choose your criteria areas pragmatically to save time: Processes: the methods EA applies to accomplish tasks/goals. Always include. Content: the tangible resources EA keeps to inform its processes. Always include. Organization: the internal people or collections of people that perform EA tasks. Include if skill development/hiring is needed. Relationships: the interactions EA has with external roles. Include to show the need for collaboration. Management: the leadership applied internally to EA. Include if EA has gone through this cycle a few times already.

Criteria types applied to structuring principles (e.g., 1 — EA domain) Tech arch Process: standards management Content: standard repository Organization: infrastructure architect Relationships: technology SMEs Info arch Process: data governance Content: information models Organization: data architects Relationships: process owners App arch Process: application arch Content: reference architecture repository Organization: application architects Relationships: business analysts Bus arch Process: strategic planning Content: capability map Organization: business architects Relationships: LOB managers

Planning and road mapping Criteria types applied to structuring principles (e.g., 2 — major EA activities) Planning and road mapping Process: strategic planning Content: tech life cycles Organization: business architecture leads Relationships: IT and business management Tech selection Process: vendor analysis Content: standards repository Organization: ARB Relationships: LOB managers Design Process: application arch Content: process model repository Organization: business architects Relationships: business analysts Consolidation Process. APM Content: application data Organization: portfolio manager role Relationships: LOB managers

Explanation of results Developing the scale Validate Dimensions Questions Scoring scale Interview targets Explanation of results

Best practices for developing a scale A good scale: Follows a “0 to 5” numerical scale. Is consistent across criteria types. Process 1 and Process 2 scored the same way. Artifact 1 and Artifact 2 scored the same way. Describes the differences between scores. Is not 100% prescriptive (allow for some vagueness). Reflects your definition of progress.

What do you mean, progress? STEP 3: DEFINE WHAT PROGRESS WILL MEAN Choose from four main types of EA progress: Alignment to needs. Does EA do what is needed, and are stakeholders pleased? Repeatability/adoption. Are EA activities formalized and followed? A specific outcome. What kind of measurable changes has EA enacted? Depth/best practices. How descriptive or rigorous is our approach versus the most advanced examples?

Create a “skeleton” scale STEP 4: APPLY YOUR CONCEPT OF PROGRESS TO THE CRITERIA Source: June 21, 2012, “Track Progress Toward High-Performance EA” Forrester report

Examples for comparison Validate Dimensions Questions Scoring scale Interview targets Explanation of results

Use existing models for completeness STEP 5: VALIDATE AND CLOSE GAPS External models provide a good mix of perspectives: NASCIO: developed with input from 22 US states E2AMM: developed by Institute for EA Developments EAAF: developed by US OMB DoC: developed by US Department of Commerce Forrester EA Maturity Assessment: developed by Forrester’s EA team Note: Links appear in appendix.

Pros and cons if using Framework Pros Cons NASCIO E2AMM OMB EAFF DoC Prescriptive scale example Quick Poorly laid out High-level E2AMM Well laid out Scale is clear/easy. Scale inconsistent Overly focused on management-level OMB EAFF Organized by EA activity Scale is complete. Criteria are very high-level. Does not look at individual components DoC Organized by architecture characteristics IT-focused Forrester In-depth Excel-based Long to complete Vague scale

Running the assessment Validate Dimensions Questions Scoring scale Interview targets Explanation of results

Assessment approach impacts results STEP 6: CHOOSE ASSESSMENT APPROACH BASED ON TIME AND SCALE Approach Pros Cons “Me only” Fastest to complete Easy when using external model Low integrity Tells you what you already “know” “EA only” Good variety of perspectives Gets everyone on board Can’t measure alignment, impact, or satisfaction “EA+ stakeholders” High integrity Best results Slow/high-effort Requires explanation

A complete outside-in assessment targets many perspectives Source: June 21, 2012, “Track Progress Toward High-Performance EA” Forrester report

Select the appropriate technique STEP 7: CHOOSE AN APPROPRIATE COLLECTION TECHNIQUE Collection techniques vary in effort: Discussion. Get everyone in a room, score together. (1-3 participants) Excel. Build an excel model, send out individually. (4- 10 participants) Online survey. Build an online survey, tab results. (10+ participants)

“What next” requires some perspective STEP 8: INTERPRET RESULTS How you react depends on context: Broad architecture programs: Focus on improving “no zeroes.” New programs: Focus on dissatisfaction. Stagnated programs: Focus on stakeholder needs.

Key tenets of communicating results STEP 9: COMMUNICATE RESULTS Communications should cover: Assessment objectives (1 slide). Assessment process (1 slide). Criteria and scale/what progress means (1-2 slides). Summary results — good and bad (1-2 slides). Prioritized areas of improvement and rationale (as needed). EA’s one-year development plan for process, content, relationships, and structures (1-2 slides). Impact on EA resources (1-2 slides).

Tim DeGennaro tdegennaro@forrester.com

Selected Forrester Research June 21, 2012, “Track Progress Toward High-Performance EA” July 28, 2011, “Forget EA Nirvana: Assessing EA Maturity” July 28, 2011, “Forrester’s EA Maturity Assessment, Q3 2011” July 2, 2009, “Use EA Assessment And Maturity Models To Guide Your EA Program Next Steps”

Appendix — links to assessment frameworks NASCIO Maturity Assessment: http://www.nascio.org/publications/documents/nascio-eamm.pdf E2AMM Maturity Assessment: http://www.enterprise- architecture.info/Images/E2AF/E2AMMv2.PDF OMB’s EAAF: http://www.cio.gov/Documents/OMB_EA_Assessment_Framework _2.pdf DoC Assessment: http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf8- doc/arch/chap27.html#tag_28_03