STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK

POWER/INTEREST MATRIX

High  ┌─────────────────┬─────────────────┐
      │  Keep Satisfied │  Manage Closely │
Power │  (Executives)   │  (Sponsors)     │
      ├─────────────────┼─────────────────┤
      │  Monitor        │  Keep Informed  │
Low   │  (Low priority) │  (Technical SMEs)│
      └─────────────────┴─────────────────┘
            Low              High
                Interest

STAKEHOLDER REGISTER
┌───────────┬──────────┬──────────┬─────────────┬────────────┐
│Stakeholder│ Role     │ Interest │ Concerns    │ Engagement │
├───────────┼──────────┼──────────┼─────────────┼────────────┤
│ CIO       │ Sponsor  │ High     │ Budget, risk│ Weekly 1:1 │
│ VP Eng    │ Approver │ High     │ Delivery    │ Biweekly   │
│ Dev Teams │ Impacted │ Medium   │ Work impact │ Town halls │
└───────────┴──────────┴──────────┴─────────────┴────────────┘

PYRAMID PRINCIPLE (Barbara Minto)

                    ┌─────────────┐
                    │ CONCLUSION  │  ← Start here
                    │ (Answer)    │
                    └──────┬──────┘
                           │
         ┌─────────────────┼─────────────────┐
         │                 │                 │
    ┌────▼────┐       ┌────▼────┐       ┌────▼────┐
    │Key Point│       │Key Point│       │Key Point│
    │    1    │       │    2    │       │    3    │
    └────┬────┘       └────┬────┘       └────┬────┘
         │                 │                 │
    ┌────▼────┐       ┌────▼────┐       ┌────▼────┐
    │Evidence │       │Evidence │       │Evidence │
    │/Details │       │/Details │       │/Details │
    └─────────┘       └─────────┘       └─────────┘

RULE: Lead with the answer. Support with grouped arguments.
      Each group follows MECE (Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive)

BAD (Bottom-up, buried lead):
"We analyzed 47 systems, interviewed 23 stakeholders,
reviewed 15 architecture documents, and found that the
current state has significant technical debt. There are
three main areas of concern. First..."
[5 minutes later] "...therefore we recommend consolidating
to a modern platform."

GOOD (Pyramid Principle):
"We recommend consolidating to a modern cloud platform.
This will reduce costs by 30%, improve time-to-market by
50%, and address critical security vulnerabilities.

The recommendation is based on three findings:
1. Technical debt is costing $2M annually in maintenance
2. Current architecture can't support business growth plans
3. Security posture has critical gaps

Let me walk through each..."

MECE: Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive

MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE: No overlap between categories
COLLECTIVELY EXHAUSTIVE: Categories cover everything

GOOD MECE EXAMPLE (Business Analysis)
├── Revenue opportunities
├── Cost reduction opportunities
└── Risk mitigation requirements
    (No overlap, covers all business value types)

BAD EXAMPLE (Overlap)
├── Cost savings
├── Efficiency improvements  ← Overlaps with cost savings
├── Revenue growth
└── Quality improvements     ← Could overlap with all above

WORKSHOP DESIGN TEMPLATE

OBJECTIVE: What decision or output must result?

PARTICIPANTS:
├── Decision makers (required)
├── Subject matter experts (required)
├── Impacted stakeholders (recommended)
└── Observers (optional, limited)

AGENDA STRUCTURE:
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 0:00  Welcome, objectives, ground rules          (10 min)│
│ 0:10  Context setting (current state)            (20 min)│
│ 0:30  Problem framing exercise                   (30 min)│
│ 1:00  Break                                      (10 min)│
│ 1:10  Solution brainstorming                     (40 min)│
│ 1:50  Prioritization/voting                      (20 min)│
│ 2:10  Decision and next steps                    (20 min)│
│ 2:30  Close                                              │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

MATERIALS:
├── Pre-read distributed 48+ hours before
├── Whiteboard/Miro/FigJam
├── Sticky notes (physical or virtual)
├── Voting dots (physical or virtual)
└── Timer visible to all

ARCHITECTURE MATURITY LEVELS

LEVEL 1: INITIAL (Ad-hoc)
├── No formal EA practice
├── Reactive, project-driven decisions
├── Inconsistent technology choices
└── Tribal knowledge

LEVEL 2: DEVELOPING (Emerging)
├── EA function established
├── Basic principles defined
├── Some documentation exists
└── Limited governance

LEVEL 3: DEFINED (Structured)
├── Formal EA methodology
├── Documented standards
├── Regular architecture reviews
└── Governance processes in place

LEVEL 4: MANAGED (Measured)
├── Metrics-driven EA
├── Continuous improvement
├── Strong business alignment
└── Proactive technology strategy

LEVEL 5: OPTIMIZING (Leading)
├── EA drives business strategy
├── Innovation enabled
├── Industry-leading practices
└── Full business-IT alignment