“Is every new solution built on the standards we agreed?”
One set of standards, patterns and review decisions across every architecture component — applications, data, integrations, infrastructure, cloud and AI. Standards carry an owner, a lifecycle and a review date. Every review ends in a recorded decision, linked to the systems it affects. Every exception is a dated waiver with a remediation plan. And because it all sits on the same model as the estate, the portfolio and the ledger, the board can see what being off-standard costs and fund the fix through the same portfolio as everything else.
Runs in
Covers
Standards and review for every architecture component
The pressure
Standards live on a wiki page. Reviews happen in a weekly meeting, and decisions are captured in slides or not at all. Exceptions are granted with no end date. Delivery teams experience the architecture board as a gate to get through, and the board has no way to see whether what it approved is what got built — or what running off-standard is costing.
What it looks like today
Full coverage
Standards leave the wiki and decisions leave the meeting. Every step — standard, review, waiver, verdict — sits with the estate, the portfolio and the cost.
Apps · data · integration · infrastructure · cloud · AI
What good looks like, written down once.
One set of rules, whatever is being built.
The radar, with dates and costs.
From a design to a recorded call.
Dated, owned and expiring.
What the gaps cost, and who funds them.
What changes
Standards on a wiki
Standards as records, with an owner, a lifecycle and a review date
Review as a meeting
Review as a recorded decision, linked to every system it affects
Exceptions granted and forgotten
Waivers with an expiry, a remediation plan and a price
A gate teams route around
Conformance checked continuously, so every review starts from the facts
Every component, every standard
Each standard checked against the components it governs, with a dated verdict from a named assessor: conformant, partly conformant or a gap. A gap with a waiver shows the waiver and its expiry; a gap with none stands out. And because the grid sits on the same model as the cost ledger, the run cost on non-conformant assets is shown beside the verdict — so the board can weigh a fix against what the gap costs to carry.
Where other tools stop
Standards on a wiki and reviews in a ticket queue can’t tell you which systems are off-standard today, or what that costs.
Flexed to how you run
There is no single standard for solution governance, and there shouldn’t be. Dotwork gives you the parts and lets you set the weight — so routine changes move fast and risky ones get the board.
Your review tiers
Decide which changes can self-certify against the standards and which need the full board — by risk, by component or by cost.
Your radar, your rings
Use adopt, trial, assess and hold, or your own lifecycle labels. Each one maps to a standard’s lifecycle so the grid reads the same either way.
Federated ownership
Let domain architects own the standards for data, integration, cloud or AI, each with their own board, on one shared register.
Prove it on one domain
Begin with the components that hurt most — often integrations or AI — and extend the same grid to the rest as it proves itself.
When your standards change
Solution governance has no external version to track — your own standards are what change. When a standard is revised, deprecated or replaced, Dotwork proposes what it means for every system assessed against it. You approve; earlier verdicts, waivers and decisions keep the revision they were made under.
A standard is tightened — a newer minimum version, a stricter rule
Every subject flagged for reassessment; prior verdicts kept with their date
A product moves from adopt to hold
New use flagged; current use listed with its cost and end-of-life date
A decision is superseded by a newer one
Both kept and linked, with the reason it changed
A standard is retired
Waivers against it closed out — nothing silently passes
A new kind of component, such as AI agents, comes under governance
Standards and verdicts extend to it, on the same grid
Every framework, one model
Architecture standards overlap with security controls, resilience rules and AI regulation. Here the verdicts, waivers and decisions are shared, not copied into each program.
ADM · TOGAF Standard, 10th Edition
TOGAF’s architecture contracts are the standards a project signed up to, with their verdicts.
Explore TOGAFNIST CSF · ISO 27001 · SOC 2 · COBIT · SEC cyber rules
Security standards and the controls behind them sit on the same systems.
Explore Security & IT GovernanceEU AI Act · NIST AI RMF · ISO 42001
New models and agents are reviewed against the standards and the rules for AI together.
Explore AI RegulationTIME model · 7 Rs
Verdicts and open waivers count toward each application’s technical fit.
Explore App RationalizationEU DORA · NIS2 · UK op-res
Recovery standards are checked against the services regulators care about.
Explore Operational ResilienceIT spend taxonomy
The price on a gap is the system’s run cost from TBM’s allocation.
Explore TBMAI-native solution governance
The work that slows governance down — finding the applicable standards, checking current conformance, digging up the last decision, chasing waivers — is done before anyone meets. Recommendations stop at the architect or board that owns the decision, and every decision is kept.
Drafts the review pack: the standards that apply, the conformance of every system the design touches, open waivers, the blast radius and earlier decisions on similar designs.
Finds earlier decisions on similar components and patterns, with the reasons given, so the board doesn’t debate the same design twice.
Keeps each decision — the context, the options, the call and why — linked to the systems and standards it affects.
Flags standards past their review date, subjects with no verdict and provisional standards left undecided.
Watches architecture waivers for expiry, flags any renewed more than twice or with no remediation plan, and puts the gap back on the grid when one lapses.
Puts each system’s cost beside its conformance verdict, so being off-standard has a price.
Checks the architecture model against its rules and tracks violations by severity, age and owner.
Answers governance questions — which standard applies, which waiver is open, why a design was approved — from the grid and the decision log.
Where it runs in Dotwork
Dotwork does not ask you to adopt a new method. The framework becomes a view over the same model these solutions already read and write.
How it compares
EA and IT governance suites manage standards and reviews. Wikis and ticketing tools run the process by hand. Solution Governance on Dotwork covers every component and every step, and connects each decision to the estate, the portfolio and the cost.
| Capability | EA & IT governance suites | Wikis & ticketing | Solution Governance on Dotwork |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standards with owners, lifecycle and review dates | Partly | ||
| Adopt, trial, assess and hold | Partly | ||
| Review decisions linked to the systems they affect | Partly | Partly | |
| Waivers with expiry, renewals and remediation | Partly | Partly | |
| Verdicts across apps, data, integration, infrastructure and AI | Partly | ||
| Conformance read from the records, not self-reported | Partly | ||
| Cost of non-conformance by system | |||
| Technical debt funded through the portfolio | |||
| Verdicts shared with security, resilience and AI rules | Partly | ||
| Wired to the estate, budgets and portfolio | Partly |
Who it is for
“Where are we off-standard, and which waivers are still standing?
“Which standards apply to my design, and what was decided last time?
“What do we need to show to get through review without waiting a month?
“Are new designs meeting our security standards before they ship?
“Are new models and agents held to the same standards as everything else?
“What does our non-conformance cost to carry, and what is funded?
Before you buy
How to get a number instead of a pitch.
1
Good answer · A list with owners, cost and end-of-life dates, read from the grid.
Bad answer · A search across wiki pages and tickets.
2
Good answer · Yes — it is flagged, its owner is told and the gap shows again.
Bad answer · No — the exception quietly stays.
3
Good answer · The decision, the options and the reason, linked to the systems.
Bad answer · Ask whoever was in the meeting.
More in Architecture
Architecture
The maps of what the business does and the technology that supports it.
The model underneath
Steer, Fund & Optimize and Govern & Deliver all read and write the same Enterprise Operating Model. The first module you license builds the model. Every module after it adds context instead of another silo — and Dotwork AI reads all of it, stopping where the decision is yours.
See the Enterprise Operating Model© 2025-2026 Dotwork, Inc. All rights reserved.