Analysis of Enterprise Architecture Gaps

Stage 5 of the EA development cycle. It compares the current state components with the target state, identifies the gaps, and approves a list of solutions that close those gaps in line with the entity's direction.

In Brief

Placement in NORA: Section II - Stage 5: Analysis of Enterprise Architecture Gaps.
The purpose is to define the difference between the target state and the current state of the EA, then study how to close it.
The stage has two steps: identify the EA gaps, then propose and approve the solutions.
Solutions fall into three categories: quick wins, medium-term solutions (under 12 months), and long-term solutions (delivered after 12 months).
The output is two lists, gaps and solutions, that both feed Stage 6 of the methodology, where the roadmap is built.

Reviewing and Analyzing EA Components

Current State	Targeted Future State
Current components that the future state does not touch and that continue as they are.	New components introduced by the future state that need to be created.
Current components affected by the future state that need to be staged out under the strategic recommendations and directions.	Existing components retained after their alignment with the future direction is confirmed.
Current components affected by the future state that need to be updated under the strategic recommendations and directions.	Designs and viewpoints of the future EA domains, one set per domain within the cycle's scope.
Documented current viewpoints for each EA domain.	Future viewpoints that show the changes applied to the components.

Steps of EA Gap Analysis

Step 1: Identifying EA gaps
The Chief Enterprise Architect and the EA team review the documented current and future state components for each domain. Every existing component falls into one of four decisions: maintain it as is, stage it out, update it, or create a new component. The gaps that must be closed to deliver the future state are then defined.
Refining the gap list
Once the list is complete across all domains, three refinement options apply: merge gaps that share the same cause, split a gap that spans more than one domain, and remove anything that does not relate to EA components.
Step 2: Proposing solutions to close the gaps
The team drafts and documents initial solutions for each gap, for example a new application, restructured databases, or an external provider. It then analyzes how each solution affects the other gaps and whether merging solutions would raise efficiency and reduce cost.
Evaluating and classifying the solutions
Solutions are scored by expected impact and ease of delivery, then sorted into three classes: quick wins with a short timeframe and high impact; medium-term solutions under 12 months with high to medium impact; and long-term solutions delivered after 12 months with medium to low impact.
Issuing the final list of future solutions
Based on the analysis, the EA team prepares the final list of proposed solutions, sets the scope of each solution and the gaps tied to it, then reviews the list with business and technology stakeholders and updates it where needed.

Bottom Line

Key takeaway

For each gap, the EA team records the code, the related requirement, the definition and description, the gap owner, the priority (high, medium, or low), and the affected domains, components, and viewpoints, plus the related project that comes later at the roadmap stage. The same level of detail goes into every proposed solution: code, definition, description, priority, and the gaps and domains it touches.

National methodology

The seven stages and supporting elements.

Requirements management

Governing requirements across the development cycle.

EA governance

The governance committee and its procedures.

Ready to start?

Book a free consultation. We walk through your priorities and recommend the right starting point.

In Brief

Placement in NORA: Section II - Stage 5: Analysis of Enterprise Architecture Gaps.
The purpose is to define the difference between the target state and the current state of the EA, then study how to close it.
The stage has two steps: identify the EA gaps, then propose and approve the solutions.
Solutions fall into three categories: quick wins, medium-term solutions (under 12 months), and long-term solutions (delivered after 12 months).
The output is two lists, gaps and solutions, that both feed Stage 6 of the methodology, where the roadmap is built.

Reviewing and Analyzing EA Components

Current State	Targeted Future State
Current components that the future state does not touch and that continue as they are.	New components introduced by the future state that need to be created.
Current components affected by the future state that need to be staged out under the strategic recommendations and directions.	Existing components retained after their alignment with the future direction is confirmed.
Current components affected by the future state that need to be updated under the strategic recommendations and directions.	Designs and viewpoints of the future EA domains, one set per domain within the cycle's scope.
Documented current viewpoints for each EA domain.	Future viewpoints that show the changes applied to the components.

Steps of EA Gap Analysis

Step 1: Identifying EA gaps

The Chief Enterprise Architect and the EA team review the documented current and future state components for each domain. Every existing component falls into one of four decisions: maintain it as is, stage it out, update it, or create a new component. The gaps that must be closed to deliver the future state are then defined.

Refining the gap list

Once the list is complete across all domains, three refinement options apply: merge gaps that share the same cause, split a gap that spans more than one domain, and remove anything that does not relate to EA components.

Step 2: Proposing solutions to close the gaps

The team drafts and documents initial solutions for each gap, for example a new application, restructured databases, or an external provider. It then analyzes how each solution affects the other gaps and whether merging solutions would raise efficiency and reduce cost.

Evaluating and classifying the solutions

Solutions are scored by expected impact and ease of delivery, then sorted into three classes: quick wins with a short timeframe and high impact; medium-term solutions under 12 months with high to medium impact; and long-term solutions delivered after 12 months with medium to low impact.

Issuing the final list of future solutions

Based on the analysis, the EA team prepares the final list of proposed solutions, sets the scope of each solution and the gaps tied to it, then reviews the list with business and technology stakeholders and updates it where needed.

Bottom Line

Key takeaway

Analysis of Enterprise Architecture Gaps

In Brief

Reviewing and Analyzing EA Components

Steps of EA Gap Analysis

Bottom Line

Related

National methodology

Requirements management

EA governance

Ready to start?

Analysis of Enterprise Architecture Gaps

In Brief

Reviewing and Analyzing EA Components

Steps of EA Gap Analysis

Bottom Line

Related

National methodology

Requirements management

EA governance

Ready to start?