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

[Shivambitanwar1]

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!

[Jonathan Schnei]

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.