Skip to content
Software Architecture Guide

Stakeholder Readiness for Change Assessment

Explanation

Section titled “Explanation”

A stakeholder readiness assessment is one step in TOGAF stakeholder management. TOGAF is a framework for enterprise architecture (see the article TOGAF). The process runs in this order:

  1. Identify the key stakeholders of the enterprise architecture.
  2. Classify them by position. A power/interest matrix helps choose how to engage each one (see Stakeholder Power Grid).
  3. Assess each stakeholder’s readiness.
  4. Tailor deliverables to the catalogs, matrices and diagrams the engagement needs.

Two questions

The assessment asks two things about each person:

  • Is this person willing to change direction toward the Target Architecture, and how ready are they?
  • Can this person be a credible advocate or agent of the architecture initiative?

Current versus required commitment

For each critical stakeholder, you judge two levels. One is the commitment today. The other is the commitment you want in the future. Together they show the commitment gap.

The table

The stakeholder analysis table has these columns:

  • ability to disrupt change
  • current and required understanding
  • current and required commitment
  • required support

Each rating is H (high), M (medium) or L (low). In one example row, the CIO has H disruption ability, L current commitment and M required commitment.

When to do it

Run the analysis in Phase A (Architecture Vision), where it identifies the key players. Keep it up to date through later phases. Look beyond the formal organization too. Informal groups can be just as powerful and influential.

Example

Section titled “Example”

A company plans to replace its order system. The architect lists three stakeholders and rates each one.

Stakeholder Ability to disrupt Commitment now Commitment required
CIO H L M
Sales lead M M M
Informal user group M L M

The CIO and the informal user group each show a gap between L and M. The sales lead shows none. The architect therefore plans extra engagement for the first two and leaves the sales lead as is.

Trade-offs

Section titled “Trade-offs”

The table rests on judgment. Someone must decide each H, M or L rating, so the result is only as good as that person’s knowledge of the stakeholders. Informal groups are easy to miss, yet they can hold real influence. The ratings also age, so the table needs updating through later phases.

Place of the readiness assessment in TOGAF stakeholder management

Diagram source 
flowchart LR
 A[Identify key stakeholders] --> B[Classify by position]
 B --> C[Assess readiness]
 C --> D[Tailor deliverables]

Checks

Section titled “Checks”
  • Each critical stakeholder has a current and a required commitment level, so the gap is visible.
  • The stakeholder table uses H/M/L ratings and includes ability to disrupt, understanding, commitment and required support.
  • The analysis was done in Phase A and is kept up to date in later phases.
  • Informal stakeholder groups are considered, not only the formal organization.
Section titled “Related”

Sources

Section titled “Sources”