Best Practice: Governance/Approvals for "Platform Host" Architecture Type in EA workspace

Shivambitanwar1
Tera Contributor

3 weeks ago

Hello experts,

I have a requirement to restrict APM Analysts from independently setting the Architecture type to "Platform Host" on Business Application records. Our EAs want to implement a "gate" or approval process before an application is designated as a Platform Host to ensure CSDM integrity and proper hierarchy.

Before I jump into a technical build, I’d like to gather insights on:

  1. Commonality: Is it a standard practice to gate this specific attribute, or is it typically handled through post-update audits?

  2. Implementation Path: Rather than using a Client Script (which is easily bypassed), what is the recommended OOTB approach?

    • Should I use a Data Policy to make it read-only and trigger a Flow Designer approval?

  3. Alternative OOTB Features: Are there any existing Governance or Assessment features within Enterprise architecture that I might be overlooking for this specific use case?

I want to avoid technical debt while ensuring our Application Portfolio remains a "single source of truth" that the EAs can trust.

Thanks in advance for your guidance!

 

0 Helpfuls
  • 327 Views
1 REPLY 1

Jonathan Schnei
Giga Guru

3 weeks ago

This is an interesting use case. 

 

An idea to consider adding is working this into the intake workflow. As part of the New App catalog, much of the meta-data for the new app can be entered in the RITM, and if the Owner/Solution Architect says it is a platform host, the EA gets a follow-on task to review and update (if required).

 

As for whether this is common or best practice I'd say it is not. From a best practice perspective, I'm always hesitant to use field-level ACL or control, let alone a specific value within a field. I'd ask the client how commonly it is an issue that IT Owners are modifying the Architecture Type to Platform Host and choosing a platform - and more importantly, how often that is happening incorrectly. If it is not common then this may be a lot of squeeze for not much juice.

 

For your 3rd question - a more topical solution such as generating a report / analytic that the EA team can use to monitor changes to the field may work. Or set up periodic Data Certifications for the Architecture Type & Platform Host fields that are assigned to the EA team. Both of those leverage OOB and would minimize potential tech debt with a custom solution.