Maturity models for enterprise architecture are everywhere. Most of them measure the wrong things.
They count the number of artefact types in use, the percentage of projects going through architecture review, the completeness of the governance documentation. These things can all be measured, which is presumably why they appear in maturity models. But they can all be present in a failing practice and absent from a successful one. They measure form, not function.
AMBIT’s maturity model has two layers.
Layer one: which Alignment Processes are genuinely institutionalised?
Stage 0 — No Architecture
No architects, no artefacts, no governance. The starting point.
Stage 1 — Initiative Alignment
Business Outlines and IT Designs are produced for significant initiatives. The Investment Forum and Design Forum are meeting. Project delivery quality has measurably improved. Strategic Alignment and Technology Alignment are absent or rudimentary.
Stage 2 — Technology Alignment added
IT Standards are established and maintained. IT Landscapes are current and trusted. The Technology Forum is meeting. The IT landscape is being actively managed, not just documented. Architecture debt is being recorded and addressed.
Stage 3 — Strategic Alignment added
Business Factors and Business Visions are established and maintained. The Strategy Forum is meeting with genuine business executive participation. IT investment decisions are shaped by explicitly agreed capability priorities. The investment portfolio reflects strategic intent rather than accumulated bottom-up demand.
Most organisations in large industry sectors sit somewhere between Stage 1 and Stage 2. The transition from Stage 2 to Stage 3 — the addition of genuine Strategic Alignment — is the most culturally demanding step. It requires business executives to engage deeply with IT planning in a way that most have not done before. It cannot be mandated into existence. It has to be earned.
Layer two: the five-question test
The ultimate test bypasses all measurement entirely. Find your senior business executives — the CFO, the COO, the business unit heads — and ask them five questions:
- Do you understand what IT is doing, and how it contributes to the achievement of your business goals?
- Do you understand where and on what particular initiatives your IT budget is being spent?
- Do you understand how IT is transforming your business?
- Do you understand what business value IT is delivering to your organisation?
- Do you feel that IT investment decisions reflect your strategic priorities?
If these questions receive consistent positive answers from the executive-level business audience, the architecture practice is fulfilling its purpose. If the answers are negative — if senior business executives are confused about what IT is doing, uncertain about whether the budget is well-spent, or disconnected from the transformation agenda — the practice is not working. It does not matter how many artefacts have been produced, how rigorous the governance process is, or how impressive the architecture repository looks.
This test is uncomfortable to apply honestly. Most architecture teams have not asked these questions — or have asked them and not acted on the answers. There is a natural incentive to measure what looks good: artefact production, governance completeness, technical standards coverage. These are within the architecture team’s direct control. Business executive understanding is not. It depends on relationships, communication quality, the track record of delivery, and organisational culture. It is harder to influence and harder to measure. It is also the only measurement that matters.
One question for reflection: when did you last ask a senior business executive those five questions? And if you did, what did they say?