The “G” word

May 17th, 2007

I would be interested to know how you deal with architecture governance in your enterprise, how well accepted it is and how effective it is.

In some places it is known as the “G” word and not spoken about. One person said that as soon as you introduce governance procedures, or mention the “G” word, you find that people are looking for ways around them. Others have said, that governance is no more than a power grab by a group that wants to take control. While others see it as not only necessary but also a matter of normal routine.

Growing up, in business terms, in the finance function of a large multi-national, I cannot recall ever hearing the “G” word. Instead we had internal control procedures, designed to protect the assets of the company. It all made sense at the time and still does. Authority schedules that described who could sign-off what at different levels, enabled the company to function without everything having to go through a single person or entity. Separation of duties meant that it took at least two people to mis-use the assets. Budgetary control enabled greater delegation of authority. And of course in a large enterprise, there is Internal Audit, who even in my day were focused mostly on auditing systems, leaving the real work to the external auditors.

Overall, internal control procedures not only protect the enterprise but also protect the individual when things go wrong. So, are the companies that have effective IT governance, simply extended these principles? I suspect the answer is yes. One thing that leads me to this conclusion is that ISACA who publish CoBIT has its roots in internal audit. So it is not surprising that CoBIT reads somewhat like an internal controls manual, which is a good thing, although it is wrapped up in scary words like the “G” word.

IT has always been an area where one person can make a significant change or have a significant impact without the checks and balances that are ever-present when money is directly involved. Yet today errors or mis-use, within the IT systems, can have devastating effects on more and more enterprises. On top of that there is more and more regulation, such as Sarbanes-Oxley, that require rigor when changing systems that have a direct relationship with the assets of the corporation.

In TOGAF 8, in the Resource Base, there is a section on Architecture Governance where the members of The Open Group have produced an Architecture Governance Framework and a piece on Key Success Factors. There is also a piece on architecture governance and corporate politics that has obviously been borne out of similar experiences by a number of members, when it says, “An enterprise architecture imposed without appropriate political backing is bound to fail. In order to succeed, the enterprise architecture must … ”

Which takes me back to the original question, how do you deal with architecture governance in your enterprise, how well accepted is it and how effective is it?

Allen Brown

Entry Filed under: About AOGEA