Our client, a leading asset manager, had successfully established an EA practice and developed various architecture artifacts such as architecture principles, technology standards and target pictures. However, there were still deficits with regard to managing Technical or Architectural Debt. This concept refers to all architecture decisions made (whether conscious or unconscious) that are not compliant with the defined architecture artifacts. The client had already documented Architectural Debt in its EA tool in the form of a qualitative description of the deficiency and possible remediation, but this was rudimentary and in simple text form. As a consequence, it did not allow for a common evaluation and prioritization. Furthermore, there was no structured procedure for systematically reducing architectural debt in line with the corporate strategy and objectives.

The objective of our assignment was to develop a model for actively managing Architectural Debt. The model was to enable a systematic assessment as well as a holistic prioritization and management of Architectural Debt. It had to take into account the risks, effects and financial obligations of the affected stakeholders throughout the entire life cycle. At the same time, the approach had to be as simple and practical as possible, and be integrated into an ongoing initiative to renew change management and governance.

Initially, the as-is situation was analyzed and a more precise definition of the term Architectural Debt developed. Drawing from a conceptual model, different categories of Architectural Debt were defined. Based on existing guidelines and standards, suitable qualitative and financial evaluation and prioritization criteria were then developed that take into account the material effects, risks and costs of Architectural Debt for the overall organization. The existing architecture processes were then adapted to include the necessary steps for systematically managing Architectural Debt. Among other things, this included steps for the mandatory and uniform capturing of Architecture Debt and for an active management of the overall portfolio of Architectural Debt. Also, the integration into the existing and planned future governance framework was described.

The outcome of the project was a documented procedure for a systematic management of Architectural Debt that was approved by all stakeholders (including executive management). This includes a categorization scheme, an approach for systematically capturing Architectural Debt (including the corresponding metamodel extension in the EA tool), a structured risk and cost assessment as well as a description of the relevant process steps, taking into account the existing processes, committees and roles of architecture and portfolio management. In order to facilitate effective decision-making processes, a dashboard was also developed to provide a comprehensive overview of Architectural Debt and the relevant parameters including a portfolio view showing all debt categorised according to urgency.