FORM 2
THE PATENTS ACT, 1970
(39 of 1970)
&
THE PATENT RULES, 2003
COMPLETE SPECIFICATION
(See Section 10 and Rule 13)
Title of invention:
ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE PROGRAM MATURITY ASSESSMENT
MODEL
Applicant
TATA Consultancy Services Limited A company Incorporated in India under The Companies Act, 1956
Having address:
Nirmal Building, 9th Floor,
Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021,
Maharashtra, India
The following specification particularly describes the invention and the manner in which it is to be performed:

FIELD OF THE INVENTION
The present invention in general relates to a system and method facilitating assessment of maturity of an enterprise architecture program. More particularly, the present invention relates to a system and method of maturity assessment of an enterprise architecture program for an organization or organization unit.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
Enterprise architecture (EA) program is one of the levers for translating business vision and strategy into effective enterprise change by creating, communicating and improving the key requirements, principles and models that describe the enterprise's future state and enable its evolution. Enterprise architecture (EA) is growing to be realized as a critical function in the success of the business. Organizations are increasingly making it mandatory to assess their EA programs periodically and reorient the EA program with the changing business scenario.
There are multiple assessment frameworks available in the public domain for assessing the EA program maturity like FEAF, NASCIO, TOGAF, OMB etc. The coverage of these available assessment frameworks, is neither holistic to cover the entire scope of an enterprise architecture program nor sufficiently detailed to derive actionable decisions. Most of the frameworks rely on very subjective and high-level assessments and are open to interpretation. The frameworks lack coverage of all dimensions of an organization that EA can potentially impact. Most of the frameworks primarily consider business-IT alignment and completeness of EA artifacts as the measure of maturity. They do not consider the impact of IT investments, and the maturity of the governance practices for assessment.
Furthermore, the frameworks do not provide granularity in assessment. The assessment dimensions lack granularity in the assessment sub-dimensions and/or characteristics which is necessary for ascertaining the root cause and provide

directions to progress in maturity. Also,, the available EA program maturity models are not agnostic of the underlying EA framework or methodology.
Additionally, the outcome of the existing frameworks does not provide detailed findings and actionable directions to move to the subsequent level of maturity. The frameworks do not provide a toolset or applicable supporting documents that can be used as solution accelerators for the assessment to be carried out. Moreover, the frameworks are addendums to the corresponding enterprise architecture framework thereby providing the view of a logical extension for the EA framework itself. This limits the applicability of the assessment framework when the corresponding EA framework is not used.
Therefore, there is a need of a system and an elaborate as well as pragmatic methodology to assess the maturity of an EA program in a holistic manner and a framework to identify areas of improvement within the EA program.
OBJECTS OF THE INVENTION
The primary object of the invention is to provide a system and method for the assessment of maturity of an enterprise architecture program for an organization or organization unit.
The other object of the invention is to provide an assessment model for measuring the progress of the enterprise architecture program.
Yet another object of the invention is to provide a maturity model for designing maturity levels for the enterprise architecture program of the organization.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The present invention provides a system facilitating assessment of maturity of an enterprise architecture program of an organization or organization unit. The system

comprises of an input capturing module configured to gather one or more parameters from one or more stakeholders as well as from relevant enterprise-artifacts pertaining to enterprise architecture program across the organization, a storage system adapted to store the parameters provided by the stakeholders and an assessment model coupled with the storage system. The assessment model is configured to analyze and interpret the parameters in terms of enterprise architecture program progress measurements. The assessment model further comprises of an execution module configured to correlate the captured parameters with one or more assessment parameters for further generating a score depicting a state of progress of the enterprise architecture program, a maturity model configured to design a plurality of benchmarked maturity levels for assessment of the enterprise architecture program by detecting its current maturity level and an output module configured to render an assessment report comprising one or more recommendations to scale up the current maturity level to each ascending level.
The present invention also provides a method facilitating assessment of maturity of an enterprise architecture program across an organization or organization unit. The method comprises of processor implemented steps of gathering one or more parameters from one or more stakeholders as well as from relevant enterprise-artifacts pertaining to enterprise architecture program across the organization, storing the parameters provided by the stakeholders and processing the captured parameters to analyze and interpret them in terms of enterprise architecture program progress measurements. The processing further comprises of correlating the captured parameters with one or more assessment parameters and further generating a score depicting a state of progress of the enterprise architecture program, designing a plurality of benchmarked maturity levels for assessment of the enterprise architecture program by detecting its current maturity level and generating an output to render an assessment report comprising one or more recommendations to scale up the current maturity level to each ascending level.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRWAINGS
Figure 1 illustrates the system architecture in accordance with an embodiment of the invention.
Figure 2 illustrates the assessment parameters in detail in accordance with an alternate embodiment of the system.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
Some embodiments of this invention, illustrating its features, will now be discussed:
The words "comprising", "having", "containing", and "including", and other forms thereof, are intended to be equivalent in meaning and be open ended in that an item or items following any one of these words is not meant to be an exhaustive listing of such item or items, or meant to be limited to only the listed item or items.
It must also be noted that as used herein and in the appended claims, the singular forms "a", "an", and "the" include plural references unless the context clearly dictates otherwise. Although any systems, methods, apparatuses, and devices similar or equivalent to those described herein can be used in the practice or testing of embodiments of the present invention, the preferred, systems and parts are now described. In the following description for the purpose of explanation and understanding reference has been made to numerous embodiments for which the intent is not to limit the scope of the invention.
One or more components of the invention are described as module for the understanding of the specification. For example, a module may include self-contained component in a hardware circuit comprising of logical gate, semiconductor device, integrated circuits or any other discrete component. The module may also be a part of any software programme executed by any hardware entity for example processor. The implementation of module as a software programme may include a

set of logical instructions to be executed by the processor or any other hardware entity. Further a module may be incorporated with the set of instructions or a programme by means of an interface.
The disclosed embodiments are merely exemplary of the invention, which may be embodied in various forms.
The present invention relates to a system and a method for facilitating assessment of maturity of an enterprise architecture program of an organization or organization unit. In the very first step, parameters pertaining to the enterprise architecture program are gathered and stored for further analysis and interpretation for determining a current maturity state of the enterprise architecture program along with recommendations for achieving the next maturity level.
In accordance with an embodiment, referring to figure I, the system (100) comprises of an input capturing module (102) for gathering one or more relevant parameters, a storage system (104) for storing the captured parameters and an assessment model (106) for analyzing the captured parameters in order to determine the maturity of the enterprise architecture program. The assessment model (106) further comprises of an execution model (108), a maturity model (110) and an output module (112).
In accordance with an embodiment, referring to figure 1, the input capturing module (102) configured to gather one or more parameters from one or more stakeholders as well as from relevant enterprise-artifacts pertaining to enterprise architecture program. These parameters are captured from an organization or organization unit. The organization is extended to an organization unit from which data can be captured remotely..
In accordance with an embodiment, still referring to figure 1, the input capturing module (102) identifies stakeholders for gathering information in EA (Enterprise

Architecture) ranging from senior management, EA group or council/board and business unit heads. The information regarding the parameters associated with the architecture program is gathered by conducting workshops and interviews with the stakeholders or remotely as well as reference to enterprise level artifacts pertaining to EA program. The parameters gathered by the input capturing module (102) are furthered stored in a storage system (104). The parameters are specified as dimensions which provide a 360 degree assessment by covering all the aspects of an EA program.
In accordance with an embodiment, the assessment dimensions may include but is not limited to EA Management, EA Governance, Business-Architecture Alignment and IT Funding. Referring to figure 2, each dimension is broken down into sub-dimensions. Each sub-dimension is further broken down to characteristics to assess the EA program health at the granular level.

Table 1 shows an example of dimension and its sub-dimensions:
Dimension Sub-dimension Assessment Characteristic
• Clarity of EA vision and mission
• EA Vision & Mission • Traceability of EA vision and mission
EA Program • EA Strategy • Clarity and coverage of EA strategy

• EA Goals & constraints • Alignment of EA strategy with business strategy
• EA Policies • Modification of EA policies in accordance with changing business needs
Business View of
EA • Business Architecture
Definition
• Business Architecture
Life Cycle • Availability of business architecture
• Traceability of application, technical
and information architecture with
business architecture
• IT Architecture • EA methodology for gap analysis

Alignment • Definition of business scenarios for EA
Table 1
The EA program maturity is measured against each characteristic which are finally
rolled up to derive the maturity level of the dimensions.
The system (100) further comprises of an assessment model (106) which is coupled
with the storage system (104) and is configured to analyze and interpret the
parameters in terms of enterprise architecture program progress measurements. The
enterprise architecture program progress measurements are measured in terms of
maturity scores based on analysis of an existing architectural artifacts, anecdotes
stakeholders view and industry best practices.
The assessment model (106) comprises of an execution module (108) which is
configured to correlate the captured parameters with one or more assessment
parameters for further generating a score depicting a state of progress of the
enterprise architecture program. The captured parameters are correlated with one or
more of the above mentioned assessment dimensions.
The execution model (108) assigns weightages at the dimension, sub-dimension and
the characteristic level in terms of high (3), medium (2) and low (1) based on the
importance or criticality of the same within the EA framework of the enterprise. The
execution module (108) then uses the weighted average at sub-dimension and
dimension levels and derives a maturity score by using the below mentioned
formula:


The assessment model (106) further comprises of a maturity model (110) which is configured to design a plurality of benchmarked maturity levels for assessment of the enterprise architecture program by detecting its current maturity level. The maturity levels further comprises of an initial level, a beginning level, an established level, a managed level and an optimizing level. Each maturity level is an evolutionary step towards maturity relative to its previous level.
The a ssessment model (106) further comprises of gap identification means (not shown in figure) which is configured to identify a gap in one or more maturity levels of the Enterprise Architecture Program.
In accordance with an exemplary embodiment, the overview of the assessment parameters is provided below:
1. EA Management: This dimension assesses the effectiveness and maturity of
the processes and enablers that are used to develop and manage EA. The sub-
dimensions under EA Management are EA methodology. Reference
Architecture and their usage, Architecture Extensibility, Technology Content
in EA and how it is managed, Security Architecture and how security is
handled within EA.
Examples of assessment characteristics in this dimension include standard taxonomy for EA artifacts, reusability of EA assets, guidelines for architecture adaptability, product standardization across the technology stack, compliance to enterprise security policies etc.
2. EA Governance: Under EA Governance dimension, all the enablers and
processes of the governance model including governance processes, roles and
responsibilities, tools, documentation and communication are assessed. The
sub-dimensions under EA Governance are EA Program Vision & Mission,
EA processes, EA governance structure, Communication, Tools &

Knowledge Management and Architecture Documentation. Examples of assessment characteristics in this dimension are periodic review of EA vision, mission principle and strategy, exception handling processes in EA governance, documented Service Level Agreements (SLA) for EA processes, communication plan and contents for architectural building blocks and workflow definition for architecture artifacts.
3. Business-Architecture Alignment: The focus of assessment for Business-
Architecture Alignment dimension is the degree to which the EA vision,
mission, activities and initiatives align with business and the level of
integration business has with EA. The sub-dimensions under Business-
Architecture Alignment are Business Involvement of EA, Business View of
EA, and Value Measurement of EA to business and Agility provided by EA to
Business.
Examples of assessment characteristics in this dimension include business sponsorship for EA, business and EA vision mission principle alignment, technology review with changing business dynamics, EA change management etc.
4. IT Funding: A major factor of assessing the maturity of EA program and
thereby EA is the positive effect EA has on the IT investment processes and
decisions in the enterprise. IT funding dimension assesses the effectiveness
aspect through the following sub-dimensions: IT Investment Business Cases,
Monitoring and Control and IT Procurement.
Examples of assessment characteristics in IT funding are EA participation in IT investment decision, cash flow and payback analysis, architectural reusability analysis from investment perspective and procurement guidelines with the reference architecture.

In accordance with an exemplary embodiment, the benchmarked maturity levels are detailed as follows:
Level 1 - Initial - This is the level where foundational EA activities are planned. There is no formal EA methodology or framework in practice yet. The value that the enterprise derives from this level is very limited in the current state. However, since foundational initiatives are planned, proposition and strategy will bear results in the medium to long term if properly executed.
Level 2 - Beginning - Informal and ad hoc architecture practice and artifacts are in place. Architecture initiatives are need based. The focus is on keeping the business running. EA tends to focus more on products rather than value.
Level 3 - Established - Formal EA program is initiated and processes practiced. Framework, governance model and processes are defined. The value enterprises realize at this level is standardization of solutions and reduction of risk and cost.
Level 4 - Managed - The processes and practices defined as part of the EA program are well defined and practiced. Metrics are established against established performance criteria. EA is leveraged for better decision making and business sees value in EA.
Level 5 - Optimizing - Metrics are used as a foundation for continuous improvement. EA processes continuously drive EA improvement within the enterprise. A strong connection is realized between business and IT architectures. EA is used to optimize the business value provided. The focus will be on creating new value and greater revenue.
Table 2 shows an example of maturity level definition for an assessment characteristic.
Dimension Business-Architecture Alignment

Sub Business View of EA: Business Alignment
Dimension
Characteristic Business/Architecture Traceability
Level -1 No traceability from application, technical or information
architecture to business architecture
Level - 2 Traceability from application, technical and information
architecture are defined at various levels of detail for
business units.
Level - 3 Traceability from application, technical and information
architecture to business architecture is maintained at
enterprise level.
Level - 4 A defined process is followed to align the application,
technical and information architecture with the business
architecture.
Level - 5 Effective mechanism for maintaining the traceability
between business architecture and application, technical
and information architecture exists and traceability is
accessible to business and EA stakeholders. Change in
business architecture triggers a change in the other
architecture layers and is monitored by business and EA
stakeholders.
Table 2
In accordance with an embodiment, the system (100) further comprises of an output module (112) configured to render an assessment report. The output will include a current maturity level for each assessment parameter; a target maturity level and recommendation action to move from the current maturity level to the target maturity level. The output also provides the Opportunities for improvements, roles and responsibilities, prioritizations to be used as input for EA program roadmap planning.

BEST MODE/EXAMPLE FOR WORKING OF THE INVENTION
The process illustrated for facilitating assessment of maturity of an enterprise architecture program for one or more organization may be illustrated by a working example described in the following paragraph; the process is not restricted to the said example only:
Let us assume that the system (100) for assessment was used to assess the EA
program at a leading global mining company.
Context
The mining company had grown inorganically with global presence. Since the
company grew through acquisitions, the EA practices at the respective geographies
were at different states, viz. moderately practiced at some geography and completely
absent at others.
Engagement Objectives
The overall objectives of the engagement was to assess the current state of EA
program and define & deploy a global EA program, governance model for the for the
operations across the organization units globally with a centralized monitoring and
control mechanism
As part of the engagement, the objective of the assessment was to individually assess
each of the geography's EA practice and identify opportunities for improvement.
The output would be used to identify common improvement areas, build consensus
among stakeholders on the identified patterns and help them to prioritize the next
steps.
Engagement Approach using system of the present invention:
As a first step, the stakeholders in each of the geography were identified. The overall
strategic goals for a common EA program were captured from the senior
management. Information on the existing IT landscape and EA program were

collected from the stakeholders in their respective geographies through interviews and workshops. Information was also gathered by referring to existing documents and artifacts pertaining to EA. The understanding thus gained and the inferences made were verified iteratively through rounds of workshops with key stakeholders from respective organization units.
The gathered information was used to fill up the questionnaires related to the assessment dimensions. Organization unit level scoring was done on the assessment characteristics based on the responses and inferences drawn from analysis. Detailed rationale was given against the score to each characteristic.
The maturity scores for each organization unit were reviewed for consensus with key stakeholders from respective organization entities through iterative workshops and one on one meetings.. The score cards and the thresholds were used to identify and address the opportunities for improvement (OFI) for individual organization entities. Analysis was carried out on the consolidated list of OFIs for all organization units and common set of priorities were identified. As a reconciliation step, the OFIs were mapped in the order of importance to the strategic goals stated by the senior management. The OFIs were also categorized in terms of quick wins, immediate and long terms for adoption and incorporation through EA program. The final list of prioritized OFIs was identified through a common workshop with all stakeholders across all organization units. Detailed assessment reports along with prioritized OFIs and plan of next-steps were delivered to the client as part of the actionable items for enhancing the EA Program maturity.
Assessment Results
The assessment results showed that the organization units had varying levels of maturity with respect to EA program. Organization units in multiple countries had a very nascent IT landscape while other countries had fairly established EA practices. It was observed that some organization units, being in a green-field IT environment

have the advantage of growing their EA practice as the Business grows and supporting IT services mature. A roadmap for enhancing the maturity of the EA program was developed and delivered.

WE CLAIM:
1. A system facilitating assessment of maturity of an enterprise architecture program of an organization or organization unit, the system comprising;
an input capturing module configured to gather one or more parameters from
one or more stakeholders as well as from relevant enterprise-artifacts
pertaining to enterprise architecture program across the organization ;
a storage system adapted to store the parameters provided by the
stakeholders;
an assessment model coupled with the storage system configured to analyze
and interpret the parameters in terms of enterprise architecture program
progress measurements, the assessment model further comprising:
an execution module configured to correlate the captured parameters with one or more assessment parameters for further generating a score depicting a state of progress of the enterprise architecture program; a maturity model configured to design a plurality of benchmarked maturity levels for assessment of the enterprise architecture program by detecting its current maturity level; and
an output module configured to render an assessment report comprising one or more recommendations to scale up the current maturity level to each ascending level.
2. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the assessment model further comprises of gap identification means configured to identify a gap in one or more maturity levels of the Enterprise Architecture Program.
3. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of assessment parameters further comprises of one or more dimensions, sub-dimensions and characteristics.

4. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the assessment dimensions may include but is not limited to an Enterprise Architecture management. Enterprise Architecture Governance, Business-architecture alignment and IT funding.
5. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the maturity levels further comprises of an initial level, a beginning level, an established level, a managed level and an optimizing level.
6. A method facilitating assessment of maturity of an enterprise architecture program across an organization or organization unit, the method comprising processor implemented steps of:
gathering one or more parameters from one or more stakeholders as well as
from relevant enterprise-artifacts pertaining to enterprise architecture
program across the organization ;
storing the parameters provided by the stakeholders;
processing the captured parameters to analyze and interpret them in terms of
enterprise architecture program progress measurements, the processing
further comprising:
correlating the captured parameters with one or more assessment
parameters and further generating a score depicting a state of progress
of the enterprise architecture program;
designing a plurality of benchmarked maturity levels for assessment
of the enterprise architecture program by detecting its current maturity
level; and
generating an output to render an assessment report comprising one or
more recommendations to scale up the current maturity level to each
ascending level.

7. The method as claimed in claim 6, wherein the method further comprises of identifying a gap between current and desired maturity levels for each of the assessment parameter.
8. The method as claimed in claim 6, wherein the plurality of assessment parameters further comprises of one or more dimensions, sub-dimensions and characteristics.
9. The method as claimed in claim 6, wherein the assessment dimension may include but is not limited to an Enterprise Architecture management, Enterprise Architecture Governance, Business-architecture alignment and IT funding.
10. The method as claimed in claim 6, wherein the maturity levels further comprises of initial level, a beginning level, an established level, a managed level and an optimizing level.
11. The method as claimed in claim 6, wherein the maturity level is determined for each characteristic and aggregated by using a weighted average at the dimension and the sub-dimension level.
12. The method as claimed in claim 6, wherein the enterprise architecture program progress measurements are measured in terms of maturity scores based on analysis of a existing enterprise architecture artifacts, processes, practices, anecdotes, stakeholders view and industry best practices.