Beyond the Firehose: Operationalizing Threat Intelligence for Effective SecOps

Security teams today aren’t starved for threat intelligence—they’re drowning in it. Feeds, alerts, reports, IOCs, TTPs, dark‑web chatter… the volume keeps rising, but the value doesn’t always follow. Many SecOps teams find themselves stuck in “firehose mode,” reacting to endless streams of data without a clear path to turn that noise into meaningful action.

Yet, despite this deluge of data, many organizations remain perpetually reactive.

Threat Intelligence (TI) is often treated as a reference library—something analysts check after an incident has occurred. To be truly effective, TI must transform from a passive resource into an active engine that drives security operations across the entire kill chain.

The missing link isn't more data; it’s Operationalization.

This blog explores what it really takes to operationalize threat intelligence—moving beyond passive consumption to purposeful integration. When intelligence is embedded into detection engineering, incident response, automation, and decision‑making, it becomes a force multiplier. It sharpens visibility, accelerates response, and helps teams stay ahead of adversaries instead of chasing them.

The Problem: Data vs. Intelligence

Before fixing the process, we must define the terms. Many organizations confuse threat data with threat intelligence. Threat data is raw, isolated facts (like IP addresses or file hashes), while threat intelligence is analyzed, contextualized, and prioritized data that provides actionable insights for decision-making, answering "who, what, when, where, why, and how" to help organizations proactively defend against threats. Think of data as weather sensor readings (temperature), and intelligence as a full forecast (80% chance of hail) that tells you what to do.

 

Threat Data: Raw, uncontextualized facts. (e.g., a list of 10,000 suspicious IP addresses or hash values). 

Threat Intelligence: Data that has been processed, enriched, analyzed, and interpreted for its relevance to your specific organization.

If you are piping raw IP feeds directly into your firewall blocklist without vetting, you aren't doing intelligence; you are creating a denial-of-service condition for your own users.

The goal of operationalization is to filter the noise, add context, and deliver the right information to the right tool (or person) at the right time to make a decision.

A Framework for Operationalization

Effective operationalization doesn't happen by accident. It requires a structured approach that aligns intelligence gathering with business risks.

A framework for operationalizing threat intelligence structures the process from raw data to actionable defence, involving key stages like collection, processing, analysis, and dissemination, often using models like MITRE ATT&CK and Cyber Kill Chain. It transforms generic threat info into relevant insights for your organization by enriching alerts, automating workflows (via SOAR), enabling proactive threat hunting, and integrating intelligence into tools like SIEM/EDR to improve incident response and build a more proactive security posture.

Central to the framework is the precise definition of Priority Intelligence Requirements (PIRs), which guide collection efforts and guarantee alignment with organizational objectives. As intel maturity develops, the framework continuously incorporates feedback mechanisms to refine and adapt to the evolving threat environment.

Cross-departmental collaboration is vital, enabling effective information sharing and coordinated response capabilities. The framework also emphasizes contextual integration, allowing organizations to prioritize threats based on their specific impact potential and relevance to critical assets. This ultimately drives more informed security decisions.

Phase 1: Defining Requirements (The "Why")

The biggest mistake organizations make is turning on the data "firehose" before knowing what they are looking for. You must establish Priority Intelligence Requirements (PIRs).

PIRs are the most critical questions decision-makers need answered to understand and mitigate cyber risks, guiding collection efforts to focus on high-value information rather than getting lost in data noise. They align threat intelligence with business objectives, translate strategic needs into actionable intelligence gaps (EEIs), and ensure resources are used effectively for proactive defense, acting as the compass for an organization's entire CTI program.

Following are few examples of PIRs: 

• "How likely is a successful ransomware attack targeting our financial systems in the next quarter, and what specific ransomware variants should we monitor?".
• "Which vulnerabilities are most actively exploited by threat actors targeting our sector, and what are their typical methods?".
• "What are the key threats and attacker motivations relevant to our cloud infrastructure this year?".

Practical Strategy: Hold workshops with key stakeholders (CISO, SOC Lead, Infrastructure Head, Business Unit Leaders) to define your top 5-10 organizational risks. Your intelligence efforts should map directly to mitigating these risks.

Phase 2: Centralization and Processing (The "How")

You cannot operationalize 50 disparate browser tabs of intel sources. You need a central nervous system. Centralization and processing are crucial stages within the threat intelligence lifecycle, transforming vast amounts of raw, unstructured data into actionable insights for proactive cybersecurity defence. This process is typically managed using a Threat Intelligence Platform (TIP).

Key features of TIP:

• Automated Ingestion: TIPs automatically pull data from hundreds of sources, saving manual effort.
• Analytical Capabilities: They use advanced analytics and machine learning to correlate data points, identify patterns, and prioritize threats based on risk scoring.
• Integration: TIPs integrate with existing security tools (e.g., SIEMs, firewalls, EDRs) to operationalize the intelligence, allowing for automated responses like blocking malicious IPs or launching incident response playbooks.
• Dissemination and Collaboration: They provide dashboards and reporting tools to share tailored, actionable intelligence with different stakeholders, from technical teams to executives, and facilitate collaboration with external partners.

A TIP is essential for:

 

• Aggregation: Ingesting structured (STIX/TAXII) and unstructured (PDF reports, emails) data across all feeds.
• De-duplication & Normalization: Ensuring the same malicious IP reported by three different vendors doesn't create three separate workflows.
• Enrichment: Automatically adding context. When an IP comes in, the TIP should immediately query: Who owns it? What is its geolocation? What is its passive DNS history? Has it been seen in previous incidents within our environment?

Phase 3: The Action Stage (Where the Rubber Meets the Road)

This is the crux of operationalization. Once you have contextualized intelligence, how does it affect daily SecOps?

The "Action Stage" in threat intelligence refers to the final phases of the threat intelligence lifecycle, specifically Dissemination and the resulting actions taken by relevant stakeholders, such as incident response, vulnerability management, and executive decision-making. The ultimate goal of threat intelligence is to provide actionable insights that improve an organization's security posture.

The key phases involved in the "Action Stage" are:

Dissemination: Evaluated intelligence is distributed to relevant departments within the organization, including the Security Operations Center (SOC), incident response teams, and executive management. The format of dissemination is tailored to the audience; technical personnel receive detailed data such as Indicators of Compromise (IOCs), while executive stakeholders are provided with strategic reports that highlight potential business risks.

Action/Implementation: Stakeholders leverage customized intelligence to guide decision-making and implement effective defensive actions. These measures may range from the automated blocking of malicious IP addresses to the enhancement of overarching security strategies.

Feedback: The final phase consists of collecting input from intelligence consumers to assess its effectiveness, relevance, and timeliness. Establishing this feedback mechanism is vital for ongoing improvement, enabling the refinement of subsequent intelligence cycles to better align with the organization's changing requirements.

It should drive actions in three distinct tiers:

Tier 1: High-Fidelity Automated Blocking (The "Quick Wins")

High-fidelity automated blocking is a key tier in the Action stage, where, in case of the High Fidelity indicators, systems automatically block threats based on reliable, context-rich intelligence (indicators of compromise and attacker TTPs) with minimal human intervention and a low risk of false positives.

"High-fidelity" refers to the reliability and accuracy of the threat indicators (e.g., malicious IP addresses, domain names, file hashes). These indicators have a high confidence score, meaning they are very likely to be malicious and not legitimate business traffic, which is essential for safely implementing automation.

Strategy: Identify high-confidence, short-shelf-life indicators (e.g., C2 IPs associated with an active, confirmed banking trojan campaign).

Action:

• Integrate your TIP directly with your Firewall, Web Proxy, DNS firewall, or EDR.
• Automate the push: When a high-confidence indicator hits the TIP, it should be pushed to blocking appliances within minutes.

Tier 2: Triage and Incident Response Enrichment (The "Analyst Assist")

Many indicators occupy an ambiguous space; while not immediately warranting automatic blocking, they remain sufficiently suspicious to merit further investigation. Triage comprises the preliminary assessment and prioritization of security alerts and incidents. In these situations, context enrichment by human experts is essential, enabling analysts to quickly evaluate the severity and legitimacy of an alert.

The nature of enrichment during triage typically include:

 

Prioritization: SOC analyst helps identify which alerts are associated with known, active threat groups, critical vulnerabilities, or targeted campaigns, allowing security teams to focus on the highest-risk incidents first.

Contextualization: By providing data such as known malicious IP addresses, domain names, file hashes, and threat actor tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs), SOC analyst quickly confirm if an alert is a genuine threat or a false positive.

Speeding up Detection: Real-time threat intelligence feeds integrated into security tools (SIEM, EDR) help automate the initial filtering of alerts, reducing the time to detection and response.

Strategy: Use intel to stop analysts from "Alt-Tab switching."

Action:

• Integrate the TIP with your SIEM and SOAR (Security Orchestration, Automation, and Response) platforms.
• When a SIEM alert triggers, the SOAR platform should automatically query the TIP for related indicators within the alert.

The outcome: When the analyst opens the ticket, the intel is already there. "This alert involves IP X. TI indicates this IP is associated with APT29 and targets healthcare. The confidence score is 85/100." The analyst can now make a rapid decision rather than starting research from scratch.

Tier 3: Proactive Threat Hunting (The "Strategic Defense")

The "Action Stage" of Threat Intelligence for Proactive Threat Hunting entails leveraging analyzed threat data—such as Indicators of Compromise (IOCs) and Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs)—to systematically search for covert threats, anomalies, or adversary activities within a network that may have been overlooked by automated tools. This stage moves beyond responding to alerts; it focuses on identifying elusive threats, containing them, and strengthening security posture, often through hypotheses formed from observed adversary behavior. In this phase, actionable intelligence supports both skilled analysts and advanced technologies to detect what routine defenses may miss.

This approach represents a shift from reactive to proactive security operations. Rather than relying solely on alerts, practitioners apply intelligence insights to uncover potential threats that existing automated controls may not have detected.

Strategy: Use strategic intelligence reports (e.g., "New techniques used by ransomware group BlackCat").

Action:

• Analysts extract Behavioral Indicators of Compromise (BIOCs) or TTPs (Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures) from reports—not just hashes and IPs.
• Create hunting queries in your SIEM or EDR to search retroactively for this behavior over the past 30-90 days. "Have we seen powershell.exe launching encoded commands similar to the report's description?"

The Critical Feedback Loop

Operationalization should be regarded as an ongoing process rather than a linear progression. If intelligence feeds result in an excessive number of false positives that overwhelm Tier 1 analysts, this indicates a failure in operationalization. It is imperative to institute a formal feedback mechanism from the Security Operations Center to the Intelligence team.

The feedback phase is critical for several reasons, which include:

Continuous Improvement: It allows organizations to refine their methodologies, adjust collection priorities, and improve analytical techniques based on real-world effectiveness, not just theoretical accuracy.

Ensuring Relevance: Feedback helps align the threat intelligence program with the organization's evolving needs and priorities, preventing the waste of resources on irrelevant threats.

Identifying Gaps: It uncovers intelligence gaps or new requirements that must be addressed in subsequent cycles, leading to a more robust security posture.

Proactive Adaptation: By learning from the outcomes of defensive actions, organizations can adapt to new threats and attacker methodologies more quickly than relying on external reports alone.

Conclusion: From Shelfware to Shield

As the volume and velocity of threat data continue to surge, the organizations that thrive will be the ones that learn to tame the firehose—not by collecting more intelligence, but by operationalizing it with purpose. When threat intelligence is woven into SecOps workflows, enriched with context, and aligned with business risk, it becomes far more than a stream of indicators. It becomes a strategic asset.

Operationalizing TI isn’t a one‑time project; it’s a maturity journey. It requires the right processes, the right tooling, and—most importantly—the right mindset. But the payoff is significant: sharper detections, faster response, reduced noise, and a security team that can anticipate threats instead of reacting to them.

The future of SecOps belongs to teams that transform intelligence into action. The sooner organizations make that shift, the more resilient, adaptive, and threat‑ready they become.

Enterprise Architecture Framework - Non-Functional Attributes

Non-Functional Attributes (NFAs) always exist though their signficance and priority differs when considered with certain other functional or non-functional attribute. It’s particularly important to pay attention and consider them in the inital phase of the EA framework development, as these attributes may have direct or indirect impact on some of the functional attribute of the framework. Considering Non Functional attributes early in the lifecycle is important because NFAs tend to be cross-cutting, and because they tend to drive important aspects of your architecture, they do cause considerable impact on certain important aspects of your test strategy. For example, security requirements will drive the need to support security testing, performance requirements will drive the need for stress and load testing, and so on. These testing needs in turn may drive aspects of your test environments and your testing tool choices.

The Enterprise Architecture team will interact closely with all the other management processes in an organisation, especially the IT management processes. When all these processes work together effectively, an enterprise will be able to successfully manage strategic changes and drive business transformation effectively and efficiently. Often in organisations little thought has been given to the integration of the EA processes to the other management processes. Identifying and considering NFAs early on will certainly of help in proactively address such issues. Having a clear picture of the NFAs help the EAs in taking into account innovative alternatives or trade-off before presenting decision-ready options. 

NFAs play a vital role in defining certain atomic properties of each enterprise architecture framework. The challenge with NFAs is that it is difficult to trace and identify the same. It is also difficult to define metrics to measure its performance. Described below in this blog are the typical NFAs that need to be considered while developing the EA Framework:

• Adaptability – Be it people, process or technology, Adaptability as an attribute has never been more needed in the enterprise workplace. With the change happening at a faster pace than ever before, Adaptability is becoming a key attribute of every resource, including the human resouces apart from the systems. The resources identified as part of the EA Framework should have the the ability to accept and acquire the changes that is coming along. This way, the longivity of the EA Framework can be furthered with fewer or least changes to the framework itself.
• Compatibility – EA Framework will have many artificacts which are not only interfaced with the other internal artifacts, but also with the external actors. Making this work seamlessly requires that the interfaces shall be compatible with each other at all times. The EA Framework shall be developed considering this important aspect of compatibility in mind and any incremental changes should not lead to break the compatibility, so that functional performance of the same is not impacted. Considering the compatibility of the artificats in the initial phase of the development of the EA Framework will save considerable efforts than fixing it when a compatibility issue surface later in the lifecycle.
• Cohesiveness – Cohesion is the uniqueness in purpose of the system elements. A certain amount of formality is essential in providing uniformity and forming a coherent aggregate. This is critical when the components of EA Framework are developed by people both from a centralized EA team and from projects and programs. Obviously, lower level architectures should conform to the upper level architectures and unnecessary duplication should be avoided. Cohesion has to be considered in developing components or models describing a certain target area from different viewpoints. Utilizing a formal EA framework in an appropriate way is critical in achieving uniformity and cohesion in EA products.
• Conceptuality – The benefit of enterprise architecture (EA) management is directly coupled to the underlying conceptualization of the enterprise. This conceptualization should reflect the goals pursued by the EA management endeavor and focus on the areas of interest of the involved stakeholders. A conceptual model captures the essential concepts that are present or should be present in the specific artifiact or entity and thus makes the understanding or visualization of such entity easier and unambiguous.
• Coupling – It describes the level of dependencies between modules and components of the system. Loosely coupled systems minimize the assumptions they make about one another while still providing a meaningful interchange. Conversely, Tightly coupled systems have restrictive effect on the variability and evolution of the connected components or systems. The level of coupling that is appropriate for the particular system component shall be ascertained and considered while developing the EA Framework.
• Diversity – Diversity is the difference between the systems or components of the EA Framework in terms of technology, methodology, principles, process, environment, etc. Diversity shall be at the manageable level, so as to minimise the cost of maintaining expertise in and connectivity between multiple processing environments. The advantages of minimum diversity include: standard packaging of components; predictable implementation impact; predictable valuations and returns; redefined testing; and increased flexibility to accommodate future changes. 
• Dependability – As system operations become more pervasive, the enterprise become more dependent on them. Dependable systems are characterized by a number of attributes including: reliability, availability, safety and security. For some attributes, there exist probability-based theoretic foundations, enabling the application of dependability analysis techniques.  To ensure that all stakeholders at different level get the same understanding, considering the level of dependability expected out of the systems and components becomes critical. This will also ensure that the systems and components are developed and implemented as expected. 
• Extensibility – One of the capabilities of the enterprise architecture is to allow for various artifacts of prebuilt integrations to be extended without or with least efforts. Extensibility also ensures that such system or component extensions are protected during implementing changes or revisions later on.  It is essential to evaluate and consider the appropriate level of extensibility of each system or component that is part of the EA Framework in the initial phase. 
• Flexibility – It is a quality attribute of business information systems that contributes to the prevention of aging. It may also be considered as the capability of the enterprise to connect people, process and information in way that allows enterprise to become more flexible and responsive to the dynamics of its ever changing environment, stakeholders and competitors. This requires simplification of underlying technology and related infrastructure and creation of a consolidated view of and access to, all available resources in the enterprise.  
• Interoperability – It is the ability of systems (including organizations) to exchange and use exchanged information without knowledge of the characteristics or inner workings of the collaborating systems (or organizations). Clearly, making systems interoperable can mean many things. The strongest drive for interoperability is technical interoperability—the technical problem of sharing information that already exists in different systems from different times and places by enabling sharing, or at least providing connected technical services. Therefore, it is imperative to develop the big picture of what data the enterprise needs to share, to receive as incoming data and to send to other systems. Both end points may reside within the enterprise, or some may reside in external enterprises..
• Maintainability – Maintainability is defined as the ease with which a system or component can be modified to correct faults, improve performance or other attributes, or adapt to a changed environment. A fast and continuously changing business environment demands flexible systems easy to modify and maintain. Maintainability is said to be affected by; the maturity of the human resources involved, the maturity of the process governing change management, the quality of the systems' supporting documentation, the systems' architectural quality and the quality of the enterprise ecosystem on which the system executes. Thus, identifying and appropriately documenting the expectations around this attribute will certainly help implementing a better EA Framework.
• Portability – It is the ability of the system to run under a different environment without any disruptions. Portability depends on the symmetry of conformance of both applications and the platform to the architected API. That is, the platform must support the API as specified, and the application must use no more than the specified API. Documenting the level of portability expected early on would contribute considerably in designing and developing the systems in line with the target platforms or ecosystems.
• Robustness – It is the ability of a system to recover elegantly after failure or restart. Clearly, robust and easily modifiable automation is fundamental to achieving an enterprise’s vision for the future. However, such benefits don’t come without their price. Hard work and management commitment, both from IT and from the highest levels of the business are needed to build the kind of integrated IT architecture plans that will make the difference between success and failure in today’s highly competitive business climate.  
• Scalability – It is the capability of a system, network, or process to handle a growing amount of work, or its potential to be enlarged to accommodate that growth. Scalability, as a property of systems, is generally difficult to define and in any particular case it is necessary to define the specific requirements for scalability on those dimensions that are deemed important. The concept of scalability is desirable in technology as well as business settings.
• Security – With the ever evolving cyber threats both on the IT and as well as OT, security has become a very important NFA to be considered in the development of EA Framework. Considering its significance, the Security requirements ideally should be intertwined with EA Framework. Security must be designed into data elements from the beginning; it cannot be added later. Systems, data, and technologies must be protected from unauthorized access and manipulation. Headquarters information must be safeguarded against inadvertent or unauthorized alteration, sabotage, disaster, or disclosure.

Most of the attributes mentioned above are easily reckoned as Non Functional Requirements with respect to a Software System. Though Enterprise Architecture by itself may not be 'software system', it is a 'System' which depicts the blueprint of the enterprise's overall business activities with answers to the basic questions like What, Who, When, Where and How. Enterprise Architecture has multiple layers and implementation of software and IT systems is one such layer. To ensure that the stakeholders involved in different layers get the accurate view of the principles, strategies and guidlines, it is important to identify, analyze and consider these NFAs early on in the EA Framework development lifecycle.

Enterprise Architecture - Guiding Principles

Enterprise Architecture (EA) artifacts must be developed with a clear understanding of how the EA will be used and who will use it. The EA may be used as a tool for evaluating design alternatives and selecting optimal solutions, as a guide providng insights into how practices will be streamlined or improved through automation or as a plan for needed investments and an understanding of what costs savings will be achieved through consolidation. Throughout, the people involved in the development and maintenance of an EA Framework shall consistently follow certain guiding principles, so that the EA contributes to the vision and mission of the enterprise. That makes the guiding principles of most important and mostly the first step in developing EA.


Enterprise architecture principles serve as a Framework for decision making by providing guidance about the preferred outcomes of a decision in a given context. This acts as a mechanism for harmonizing decision making across organization functions & departments in addition to guiding the selection and evolution of information systems to be as consistent and cost effective as possible. Alignment with enterprise architecture principles should be a goal for any initiative and will result in fewer obstacles, surprises and course corrections later in the project.


The usefulness of principles is in their general orientation and perspective; they do not prescribe specific actions. A given principle applies in some contexts but not all contexts. Different principles may conflict with each other, such as the principle of accessibility and the principle of security. Therefore, applying principles in the development of EA requires deliberation and often tradeoffs. The selection of principles to apply to a given EA is based on a combination of the general environment of the enterprise and the specifics of the goals and purpose of the EA. The application of appropriate principles facilitates grounding, balance, and positioning of an EA. Deviating from the principles may result in unnecessary and avoidable long-term costs and risks.


Typically there will be a set of overarching general principles and specific principles with respect to Business Architecture, Application & Systems, Data & Information, Security, etc. The following are some of the generic guiding principles that could be applicable to all enterprises.

Maximize Value

Architectures are designed to provide long-term benefits to the enterprise. Decisions must balance multiple criteria based on business needs. Every strategic decision must be assessed from a cost, risk and benefit perspective. Maximizing the benefit to the enterprise requires that information system decisions adhere to enterprise-wide drivers and priorities. Achieving maximum enterprise-wide benefits will require changes in the way information systems are planned and managed. Technology alone will not bring about change. To maximize utility, some functions or departments may have to concede their preferences for the benefit of the entire enterprise.

Business Continuity

As system operations become more pervasive, the enterprise become more dependent on them. This calls for ensuring reliability and scalability to suit the current and perceived future use of such systems throughout their design and use. Business premises throughout the enterprise must be provided with the capability to continue their business functions regardless of external events. Hardware failure, natural disasters, and data corruption should not be allowed to disrupt or stop enterprise activities. The enterprise business functions must be capable of operating on alternative information delivery mechanisms. Applications and systems must be assessed for criticality and impact on the enterprise's mission in order to determine the level of continuity that is required as well as on the need for an appropriate recovery plan.

Applications & Systems Architecture

Applications and Systems should be scalable to support use by different size organizations and to handle decline or growth in business levels. While the unexpected surge or decline in the volumes are to be handled, support for horizontal scaling is also essential. Enterprise applications should be easy to support, maintain, and modify. Enterprise applications that are easy to support, maintain, and modify lower the cost of support, and improve the user experience. Applications and Systems shall have the following characteristics: Flexibility, Extensibility, Availability, Interoperability, Maintainability, Manageability and Scalability

Legal and Regulatory Compliance

Information system management processes must comply with all relevant contracts, laws, regulations and policies. Enterprise policy is to abide by laws, policies, and regulations. This will not preclude business process improvements that lead to changes in policies and regulations. The enterprise must be mindful to comply with laws, regulations, and external policies regarding the collection, retention, and management of data.Education and access to the rules. Efficiency, need, and common sense are not the only drivers. Changes in the law and changes in regulations may drive changes in our processes or applications. Staff need to be educated about the importance of regulatory compliance and their responsibility to maintain it. Where existing information systems are non-compliant they must be strategically brought into compliance.

Leverage investments

All systems shall leverage existing and planned components, enterprise software, management systems, infrastructure, and standards. It is impossible to accurately predict everything upfront. A try before you buy approach validates investment plans, designs and technologies. Prototypes enable users to provide early feedback about the design of the solution. If the enterprise capability is incomplete or deficient, efforts will be made to address the deficiency as against duplicating or investing further in building such new capabilities. This will allow us to achieve maximum utility from existing investments.

Risk Based Approach to Security

Following a risk-based approach provides the enterprise with an opportunity to: Identify threats to projects, initiatives, data and the ongoing operation of information systems; Effectively allocate and use resources to manage those risks; Avoid unwarranted speculation, misinterpretation and inappropriate use; and Improve stakeholder confidence and trust. Information systems, data and technologies must be protected from unauthorized access and manipulation. Enterprise information must be safe-guarded against inadvertent or unauthorized alteration, sabotage, disaster or disclosure. The cost and level of safeguards and security controls must be appropriate and proportional to the value of the information assets and the severity, probability and extent of harm

Continuous Improvement

The rate of change and improvement in the worldwide information technology market has led to extremely high expectations regarding quality, availability and accessibility. As a result, ICT must deliver projects and service-level agreements (SLAs) on progressively shorter deadlines and information systems with increasingly higher quality in an effective cost-control manner. This demand requires an operating model that continuously reviews and improves upon current practices and processes. Routine tasks that can be automated should be, but only where the benefit justifies the cost. The complexity of the process, the potential time savings and the potential for error reduction should be factored into the benefit. Processes and tasks must be analyzed and understood to determine the opportunity for improvement and automation. Service outages, errors and problems need to be analyzed to understand and improve upon deficiencies in existing processes and practises. Manual integration, where data is copied from one information system to another by hand, should give way to automated processes that are repeatable, timely and less prone to error.

Responsive Change Management

Changes to the enterprise information environment are implemented in a timely manner. If people are to be expected to work within the enterprise information environment, that information environment must be responsive to their needs. Processes may need to be developed to manage priorities and expectations. This principle will, at times conflict with other principles. When this occurs, the business need must be considered but initiatives must also be balanced with other enterprise architecture principles. Without this balanced perspective short-term considerations, supposedly convenient exceptions and inconsistencies, will rapidly undermine the management of information systems.

Technology Independence

Business architecture describes the business model independent of its supporting technology and provides the foundation for the analysis of opportunities for automation. Eliminate technology constraints when defining business architecture and ensure automated processes are described at the business process level for analysis and design. Enterprise functions and IT organizations must have a common vision of both a unit’s business functions and the role of technology in them. They have joint responsibility for defining the IT needs and ensuring that the solutions delivered by the development teams meet expectations and provide the projected benefits. Independence of applications from the supporting technology allows applications to be developed, upgraded and operated under the best cost-to-benefit ratio. Otherwise technology, which is subject to continual obsolescence and vendor dependence, becomes the driver rather than the user requirements themselves.

Data is a Shared Resource

Timely access to accurate data is essential to improving the quality and efficiency of enterprise decision making. It is less costly to maintain timely, accurate data and share it from a single application than it is to maintain duplicate data in multiple applications with multiple rules and disparate management practices. The speed of data collection, creation, transfer and assimilation is driven by the ability of the enterprise to efficiently share these islands of data across the organizations. A shared data environment will result in improved decision making and support activities as we will rely on fewer sources (ultimately one) of accurate and timely managed data. Data sharing will require a significant cultural change. This principle of data sharing will need to be balanced with the principle of data security. Under no circumstance will the data sharing principle cause confidential data to be compromised.

The above is not an exhaustive list. The set of principles actually depends on the enterprise's vision and mission and as the EA is aligned to such vision and mission, the principles should also be formulated with alignment in mind. While the above principles are generic and may be used by all enterprises, it is important to state the principle in a structured manner. The principle shall be supported with a rationale, so that the users can understand, why this principle exist and to what extent the same can be traded-off when a conflict arise. 

Information Security - Reducing Complexity

Change is constant and we are seeing that everything around us are evolving. Primarily, the evolution is happening on the following categories:

Threats:

There is a drastic change in the threat landscape between now and the 1980s or even 1990s. Between 1980 and 2000, a good anti-virus and firewall solution was considered well enough for an organization. But now those are not just enough and the hackers are using sophisticated tools, technology and sills to attack the organizations. The motive behind hacking has also evolved and in that front, we see that hacking, though illegal is a commercially viable profession or business. 

Compliance:

With the pace at which the Threat landscape is evolving, governments have reasons to be concerned much as they are increasingly leveraging the technology to better serve the citizens and thus giving room for an increased security risk. To combat such challenges, Governments have come up with regulatory compliance requirements making it even complex for the CSOs of enterprises.

Technology:

Technology is evolving at a much faster pace and as we are experiencing, we are seeing that the things around us are getting smarter with the ability to connect and communicate to internet. On the other side, considerable progress have been achieved in the Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, etc. These newer ‘smarter things’ are adding up to the complexity as the CSOs of the have to handle the threats that these bring on to the surface.

Needless to mention that the hackers too make the best use of the technology evolution and thus improving their attack capabilities day by day.

Business Needs:

The driver of adoption of these evolution is the business need. As businesses want to stay ahead of the competition, they leverage the evolving technologies and surge ahead of the competition. With a shorter time to market, all departments, including the security organization should be capable of accepting and implementing such changes at faster pace. Due to this time pressure, there is a tendency to look for easier and quicker ways to implement changes ignoring the best practices.

Consumerization

IT today is to simplify things to the consumers within and outside the organization and this raises the user expectation and thus leading to too many changes with some being unrealistic as well. This may include the users bringing their own anything (BYOA). This will soon include Bring Your Own Identity with chips implanted under the skin. As you would know, employees who work at the new high tech office campus in Sweden, EpiCenter can wave their hands to open doors, with an RFID chip implanted under the skin.

Connected world

Most enterprises are now connected with their business partners in terms for exchanging business data. With this the IT System perimeter extends to that of the partners’ as well to some extent. Rules and polices had to be relaxed to support such connected systems. Now that we are looking at things that we use every day will transform as connected things, adding up to the complexity.

Big data

Basically the need for big data tools to handle this. While this complexity did exist earlier, the attacks were not that sophisticated then. Today with the level of sophistication on the attack surface, the need for simplifying complexity of handling huge data is very much required.

Skillset

The threat landscape is widening and the attacks are getting sophisticated, which call for even better tools and technologies to be used to prevent or counter them. This means that there is a continuous change in the method, approach, tools and technology used, making it difficult to maintain and manage the skills of the human resources.

Application Eco System

A midsized organization will have hundreds of applications, needing to have different exceptions to the policies and rules. These applications may in turn use third party components and thus the chances of a vulnerability within these applications is very high. Given that these applications constantly undergo change and evolve, there is a possibility that the code or component left behind might expose a vulnerability.

How does this impact

Complexity impacts the security capability in many ways and the following are some:

Accuracy in Detection

The complexity makes the detection of a compromise difficult. Having to handle and correlating large volume of logs from different devices and that too different vendors will always be a challenge and this makes timely and accurate detection a remote possibility. A successful counter measure require accurate detection in the pre-infection or atleast in the infection stage. The later it is detected, it is complex to counter the same.

Resources

Each new security technology requires people to properly deploy, operate and maintain it. But it is difficult to add new heads to the Security Organization as and when a new tool or technology is considered. Similarly, managing the legacy solutions put in by older employees who are no longer employed in the organizaiton is likely to remain untouched due to the fear of breaking certain things.

Vulnerabilities and Exposures

With the huge number of applications used by the enterprise, this is a complex and huge exercise, unless the same is integrated into the build and delivery process by mandating a security vulnerability assessment. With innumerable number of applications, components, and the operating systems connecting to the enterprise network, this is almost impossible. Needless to mention that with the wearables and other smarter things connection to the network, who knows, what vulnerability exist in such smarter things and in turn exploited by hackers.

Methods for reducing complexity

Complexity is certainly bad and reducing complexity will beneficial both in terms of cost and otherwise. However, simplification by any means should not result in compromising the needed detection and protection abilities. A balanced approach is necessary so that the risk, cost and complexity are well balanced and beneficial to the organization. The following are some of the methods that may help reduce the complexity:

• Integrated processes as against isolated security processes. Every Business process should have the security related processes integrated within, so that every person in the organization will by default contribute towards security. The security process framework shall be designed in such a manner that it evolves over a period based on experience and feedback.
• Practicing Agile approach within the security organization, so that the complexity is hidden within tools and appliances by automating the same. Agile approach also helps the security organization to embrace changes faster, especially, when implementing changes in response to a detected threat or compromise. One has to carefully adopt such practices into the Security framework.
• Outsourcing the security operations to Managed Security Service Providers(MSSP) is certainly an option for small and medium enterprises that brings takes some of the complexity away and thus benefits the organization. Needless to mention here that outsourcing does not absolve the responsibility of the security organization from any security incident or breach.
• “Shrinking the Rack” – Consolidating technologies whereby devices combining multiple technology and capability within it may make it easier for deployment and administration. At the same time this has the risk of ‘having all eggs in one basket’, i.e. when such a device or solution is hacked, then it is far and wide open for the hackers.
• Mandating periodical code, component and process refactoring, where by unneeded legacy code, component and process are periodically reviewed and removed from the system. This will help keeping the applications maintainable and secure. Also implant security as a culture amongst all the employees, so that they handle security indicators responsibly.

Information Security - Cost Analysis

Reports indicate that the Information Security is now a Board Agenda and the security spending by enterprises is on the rise. This is more because of the raise in the data breaches worldwide and the increased hacking and cyber attacks. This impacting all enterprises, be it small, medium or large and across various segments, i.e. not only financial but also all domains. The increased exposure and financial damages associated with security risks have pushed enterprises to increase the budget allocations and mitigate if not avoid such risks.

The following recent predictions of Gartner influence the Information Security spending among enterprises:

• By 2015, roughly 10% of overall IT security enterprise product capabilities will be delivered in the cloud.
• Regulatory pressure will increase in Western Europe and Asia/Pacific from 2014.
• By year-end 2015, about 30% of infrastructure protection products will be purchased as part of a suite offering.
• By 2018, more than half of organizations will use security services firms that specialize in data protection, security risk management and security infrastructure management to enhance their security postures.
• Mobile security will be a higher priority for consumers from 2017 onward.

In the best interests of the investors, any spending or investment should be backed up with an appropriate cost-benefit analysis. Applying this cost-benefit-justifications to Information Security function is gaining focus but remains a challenge. Quantification forms the basis for being able to perform the cost-benefit analysis. The advantages of quanti fication are its accuracy, objectivity, and comparability. In addition, quanti cation is the basis for calculations and statistical analyses. While costing is a comparatively easier aspect, quantifying the benefits is still a challenge as it depends on the occurrence of uncertain events.

Starting with the idea of a Return on Security Investment (ROSI) several concepts have been developed to support the decision for or against an information measure. On way to do this is to apply the concept of Net Present Value (NPV). NPV-Formula for information security investments could be as below:

The following are the four aspects of Information Security costs:

• Information Security Management - This is about the costs associated with the Information Security function, which comprises of People, Process and Technology. Though quantifying this aspect of the cost is straightforward, measuring the benefits is not.
• Incidental costs of Information Security related decisions - As we all know, Information Security is a cross functional task and every personnel and process in the organization need to contribute towards Information Security. As such, implementation of any security control will cause additional overhead in other departments or functions. For instance, regulating the fair use of the Internet will require some extent of involvement from the HR function in the form of policies, code of conduct, ethics etc. Quantifying of both costs and benefits is not as easy.
• Cost of capital for Security investments - Like any investment, capital invested in security function has a cost and quantifying this element of cost is not at all a challenge.
• Costs arising out of security incidents - This is more like a Risk Management and all the principles of measuring the risks apply here as well. The risk measure for security incidents can be measured as a product of the probability and the impact. However quantifying this in absolute value requires the identification of the impacted information and / or related resource and the value of such resource. Many people have opined that information is the currency of the organization, but it has a dynamic value, i.e. the value of information depends not only on its significance to the organization but also its significance to others.

A common way of categorising and structuring costs in a repeatable and comparable way is required to manage the associated challenges. Building on that basis it becomes possible to identify cost-drivers and to analyse di fferent security management approaches like the following:

• Balance Sheet Oriented Approach - where the costs are categorized and quantified under personnel, hardware, software and services. This approach does not take into consideration of the cross functional aspect of the security function.
• Life Cycle Oriented Approach - where the costs are categorized and quantified against the various life cycle phases of the security function. Typically, the life cycle of the security function would be in the lines of Plan - Do - Check - Assess, in which case the costs are quantified with respect to each of the life cycle phases. This approach takes the project management approach and can be useful for quantifying the incremental cost of a specific security initiative, but this approach will not be useful for assessing the costs for the security management function as a whole.
• Process Oriented Approach - where the costs are categorized into direct and indirect costs at process level. Direct costs could comprise of People and Technology and the Indirect costs could comprise of cost allocated by various functions towards a specific process, the quantified costs of risk avoidance and risk mitigation. This approach can be customized further to suit the varying needs of the enterprise.
• Control Oriented Approach - where costs are categorized with respect to individual security control, which can be added up to ascertain the cost for a security area. However this approach has challenges abound in putting a standard approach and framework for ascertaining the costs at control level. The costs that every control comprise of are that of a share in the fixed organizational overhead, in addition to the variable costs of people, technology and the processes.
• Layer Oriented Approach - where information security costs are categorized against the different layers of the ISMS layers, namely Management System, People & Processes, Architecture & Concepts, Operational Measures and Pre-requisites.

While quantifying the benefits is not very easy, by applying the Quantitative Risk Analysis techniques, the cost of not implementing a specific security process or control can be ascertained, which can be considered as the benefit of implementing the control or process. Another technique that can be useful to categorize and visualize the cost-benefits is the modeling and simulation.

Information Security Controls Relating to Personnel

Information Security in an organization largely focusses on the Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability of data, information and related resources. While the risk of threats are increasing, study says that the threat is more from the inside than from the outside. This has mandated the need for framing polices, procedures and controls around the employees of the organization, so that such risks arising from within can be mitigated or managed well.

Whilst personnel security controls cannot provide guarantees, they are sensible precautions that provide for the identity of individuals to be properly established. In circumstances where risk assessments indicate that the necessary thresholds are met, they provide for checks to be made of official and other data sources that can indicate whether individuals may be susceptible to influence or pressure which might cause them to abuse their position or whether there are any other reasons why individuals should not have access to sensitive assets.

Personnel security aims to:

• reduce the risk of loss, damage or compromise of Australian Government resources by providing assurance about the suitability of personnel authorised to access those resources
• create an environment where those accessing Australian Government resources are aware of the responsibilities that come with that access and abide with their obligations under the PSPF
• minimise potential for misuse of Australian Government resources through inadvertent or deliberate unauthorised disclosure
• support a culture of protective security.

Controls designed around the following aspects would certainly help an organization to achieve the said purpose:

Information security awareness and training

Organizations must have a program to provide information security awareness and training for personnel on an on-going basis, focusing on information security policies including topics such as responsibilities, consequences of non–compliance, and potential security risks and counter–measures. It is human nature to lose or forget training content over time. Providing ongoing information security awareness and training helps keep personnel aware of issues and their responsibilities.

Information security awareness and training programs are designed to help personnel to: become familiar with their roles and responsibilities; understand and support security requirements; and learn how to fulfil their security responsibilities. Methods that can be used to continually promote awareness include logon banners, system access forms and departmental bulletins or memoranda.

Specific controls may be designed around the following aspects of information security awareness training:

• Accessibility of the Information Security Policies and Procedures
• Number and type of such programs to be offerred to personnel
• Degree and content of information security awareness and training, which may be based on the roles of employees and on the target systems to which they have access to.
• A scoring system for employees designed to establish the level of awareness by employees. A gamified approach would work better here.
• Establishing responsibility and accountability for security of the information assets.
• Review and feedback system for content and process improvement

Authorisations and Security Clearances

Depending on the roles and responsibilities, the employees gain access to various systems, data and information. It is important that only appropriately authorised, cleared and briefed personnel are allowed access to various such systems. For the purpose the systems, data and other information resources shall be identified and classified based on the sensititivity. Similarly, a mapping of various roles that would have different types of access on such resources is also created. This mapping will typically be based on the "need to know". Exceptions are also documented and are handled with additional clearances or approvals.

Employees seeking access to a system need to have a genuine business requirement to access the system as verified by their manager. Once a requirement to access a system is established, giving personnel only the privileges that they need to undertake their duties is imperative. Providing all personnel with privileged access when there is no requirement for privileged access can be a significant threat to a system. Any temporary access to information resources shall be time bound and the same shall be subject to close observation. Similarly, during emergency situations, privilege escalation may be required to carry out certain critical tasks. Such authorizations shall be documented and appropriate additional authorization shall be mandated.

Specific controls may be designed around the following aspects:

• Existence of a process for ascertaining employee's background and trust worthiness
• Documented inventory of information assets with appropriate security and sensitivity classification
• Documented roles and responsibilities of personnel
• Establishing the identity of the employees or contractors as the case may be
• Mapping of roles with the information assets
• Authorization for process for grant of privileges
• Change management process for privilege escalation or downgrade
• Maintenance of Access logs with necessary details
• Periodic review and audit of authorizations and access logs

Internet Usage

Use of internet is a major source of security breaches as it may facilitate external threats in the form of malware, virus. etc. There shall be a fair use policy with respoect to Internet, which shall set out the Do's and Don'ts for the employees. Employees should be made aware on how to report any suspicious contact and what suspicious contact is, especially contact from external sources using Internet services. Organizations should implement measures to monitor their personnel’s compliance with their internet usage policies.

Employees need to take special care not to accidentally post sensitive or classified information on public websites, especially in forums, blogs and social networking sites. Employees holding any key position may attribute an appropriate disclaimer that such posts carry his personal views and do not bind the organization.

The following specific controls may help in implementing the policies and procedures around this aspect:

• Existence of a Fair Use Policy
• Collection of logs and data for monitoring violations to such policies
• Initiation of disciplinary action against policy violations
• Enforce appropriate system security and privacy policies for internet usage
• Monitor the use of unspecified or unauthorized websites or applications that access internet.0

Governance of Agile Delivery

Introduction

The Agile methodology brings in alternate approach to traditional project management, where success was hard to get. Typically used in software development, Agile methodology help businesses respond to unpredictability. By focusing on the repetition of smaller work cycles as well as the deliverables, agile methodology is described as “iterative” and “incremental”. In waterfall, development teams only have one chance to get each aspect of a project right. In an agile paradigm, every aspect of development viz. requirements, design, etc. is continually revisited. When a team stops and re-evaluates the direction of a project every two weeks, there’s time to change course. Because teams can develop software at the same time they’re gathering requirements, “analysis paralysis” is less likely to impede a team from making progress. Agile development preserves a product’s critical market relevance and ensures a team’s work doesn’t wind up on a shelf, never released. Considering the value delivery that the Agile methodology promises, its adoption has been on the rise and today most organizations, including Government are embracing Agile approaches.


Governance of Agile Delivery


Critics say that Agile methodology is all about working in an unstructured way and for that reason, they believe that governing agile practices is always a challenge. While some of the Agile principles appear to support such criticism, there are many cases where organizations have successfully implemented processes and frameworks towards governance of Agile practices. Agile practitioners believe that because the agile methods are designed to be self-assuring, when practiced right, there exists built-in governance and accountability.


More so, the agile practices are more collaborative and operates continuously, requiring the stakeholders to review and test the deliverables on a continuous basis and helps the team to take alternate course of action as may be needed. Collaborative culture helps resolution of problems quicker and makes decisions are made on time. This helps to have a continuous focus on the value forecast with respect to the business case and manage the risks that may potentially impact on the expected value.


Principles of Governance

The following are the key governance principles for a successful governance of Agile Delivery:

Focus on the value delivery - only do a task if it brings value to the business. This principle also recognizes the timely delivery of a task as the value derived is more likely to deteriorate with the delayed delivery. In case of Agile deliveries, the governance is continuous and at a work unit level. It should also focus on what activity is taking place and the value such task delivers.

Embrace Change - This another principle of Agile and the Governance framework should take this into consideration. This would mean that the decisions or work flows should be flexible enough to change course based on the feedback received. Given that all stakeholders collaborate, decisions should be taken across the table, without putting things on hold and for the purpose, all needed specialists should take part in the reviews.

Decide on the performance metrics - Another key principle of Agile methodology is to 'fail fast and learn quiuckly'. Given that the overall objective is to improve the certainty that the team will deliver a usable product or service of good quality, the teams should be able to identify and implement the right metrics that will accurately indicate the quality of the deliverables and the performance of the team. For example they measure tasks completed; rework they had to perform; the backlog list and the value of the product or service to the business at the end of each iteration. Teams display this information visually, updating it frequently. This makes progress transparent to business users and management. If senior managers require performance information to oversee projects, they define what the ‘must have’ data are. Performance reports for senior management become a task in each iteration and an output of the delivery team.

Collaboration - All stakeholders, including senior management, external assessors, business users and the development team should be partners in quality, and this collaborative approach is an essential change in mindset. The business owner and delivery team defines what ‘quality’ tests they will use and what results are acceptable at the outset of each iteration – the definition of ‘done’. Regular user feedback identifies whether the product or service is providing the expected business value at each stage. External assessors are not gatekeepers; rather they are an integral part of the team. The iterative approach ensures continual reviews and feedback on progress, so external assessors are not just involved at critical points as defined in a traditional project life cycle.

Focus on behaviours and not just processes and documentation - More specifically, the external reviews or assessments will be more effective in providing critical challenge if the assessors have high-end skills, including technical and Agile delivery experience. In addition, they provide better value if they continually review how the team is performing, using observation as their main method of evidence collection. The focus of such external review or assessment shall be on the following:

• the skills and experience of the team;
• the team dynamics – frequency and nature of communication inside and outside of the delivery team, and the level of input to the delivery team from the business;
• the organisational culture – the level of commitment and openness;
• the timing and nature of quality control by the delivery team – the testing and release framework;
• the order in which the team tackled the tasks – prioritisation of actions and deliverables, the amount of actions in the backlog list;
• the way the team changes its activity in response to the results achieved in each iteration; and
• the value of outputs to the business.

IBM's Disciplined Agile Delivery Methodology


IBM believes Agile delivery allows it to continually issue new capabilities that meet user needs. It usually introduces software as part of a wider business change project so, to keep both in step, it has developed several Agile project methodologies. Disciplined Agile Delivery is a hybrid method that can be applied by a large number of teams working on the same project at the same time. The image below shows the Disciplined Agile Delivery life cycle. It starts with a few short iterations that allow the team and its stakeholders to identify the initial requirements, develop the architecture and agree a release plan. IBM also uses this to determine the system level properties and characteristics – the non-functional requirements. There are iterations after the business owner has decided that the system has sufficient functionality. These additional iterations are necessary for IBM to support the operation and maintenance of the solution once it is in service.



In contrast to the traditional approach of looking at outputs, plans, resourcing and how a project is organised, external assessors should focus on outcomes, prioritisation of work and team dynamics. The most useful indicators of success are how the teams are organising the delivery of an operational service or capability and what Agile behaviours and practices are used. Areas for assessment include whether:
system level issues (security, availability) are addressed within the iterations;

• short- and longer-term planning exists;
• the stakeholders have a shared vision;
• there is continuous integration; and
• the team has the right people

---

Reference:

National Audit Office's Review on Governance of Agile Delivery

Sustaining Successful IT Governance Environment

A tremendous amount of importance is being given to governance, risk, and compliance (GRC), ans thus IT governance is becoming a necessity in today's business context. There is strong pressure on senior management and the Board members to have a good understanding of their IT systems and the controls that are in place to avoid things such as fraud and security breaches. As the global corporate and economic climate continues to shift, businesses need to be prepared to anticipate, respond to, and mitigate risk with flexible processes that can be adapted to any methodology. This calls for assessing and continuously monitoring of the IT Governance as it operates in an organization.

IT governance represents a continuous journey (not an end state in itself), which focuses on sustaining value and confidence across the business functions. Many companies start on a short term approach and focus on the compliance component of IT governance, without developing a balanced longer term approach consisting of both a top down framework and roadmap together with bottom up implementation to address the broad range of IT governance issues and opportunities in a planned, coordinated, prioritized and cost effective manner. 

Getting it Right First

Different IT governance stake holders need different features so the solution needs to be structured, taylored and feature risk management. Because process is at the heart of IT Governance the solutions has to be process centric but also support all other perspectives, organisations, technology, application, infrastructure, etc. Being process centric, IT Governance aspects should be integrated into the existing process framework of an organization, so that it becomes real, operational and sustainable.

It is important to get the IT Governance pieces well integrated and have the same operational first. To have an effective and operational IT Governance program, at the minimum, the following should be taken care of.

• Executive Commitment - The Board and the Executive Leadership Team are committed to implementing and sustaining a robust Governance environment.
• Do Homework - Educate yourself on past, current and emerging best practices.
• Gather knowledge - Develop, adopt, integrate, leverage and tailor current and emerging best practices models, frameworks and standards to make them work for the enterprise - create an integrated IT governance framework and roadmap for your organization.
• Sell it - Market the IT governance value propositions to the organization and communicate its goals and objectives.
• Assess Current State - Assess the “current state” of the level of IT governance maturity and identify gaps. 
• Define Future State - Based on the knowledge gathered, develop a “future state” IT governance blueprint.
• Implementation plan - Come up with an implementation plan by breaking down the components into well defined work packages and assign an ownership and responsibility.
• Roll out - Implement a scalable and flexible governance policy and process.

Continuous Improvement

There could not be a second thought in that the IT Governance needs to be sustainable by putting in place a lifecycle for continuous improvement.  IT Governance like any other process framework need continuous improvement in line with the changing business and technology environment and to ensure that the desired benefits are realized for ever. While the improvement cycle can be as simple as that of Demings PDCA, ISACA has suggested a seven step cycle as below:

• What are the Drivers?
• Where are we now?
• Where do we want to be?
• What needs to be done?
• How do we get there?
• Did we get there?
• How do we keep the momentum going?

At the minimum, organizations should address the following questions to have the IT Governance continuously improved and thus sustained:

Image Source: The Advisory Council

With an integrated IT Governance framework in place, these improvement steps cannot be performed in isolation for the IT Governance function alone. Such improvement life cycle shall be applied to each of the functions, like Service Management, Asset Management, People & Project Management, and IT Portfolio Investment Management. The improvement life cycle shall thus at such levels and when such functions improve and deliver the desired results and value, IT Governance in turn will also be delivering. 

How much is enough?

As a process, operational governance must be carried out by one or more people. Even though it is useful to treat governance as outside the day-to-day operations of an organization, those carrying out the governance process may or may not belong to the governed organization. Even so, those who are carrying out the governance process must be concerned with certain external forces on the organizations as well. These external forces could be External Policies, External Standards, Government Regulations, etc. 

It is needless to mention that continuous improvement of IT Governance requires investment and it is equally important to justify the investment in continuous improvement pays back. Thus, the organization should know how much improvement is enough for them and accordingly focus its resources for this activity. However, knowing how much of IT Governance is enough is a key challenge, which will depend on the following factors:

• Investment in IT (capital and expense), strategic value
• Management philosophy and policy (e.g. mandatory and discretionary)
• Program/Project and/or Operational visibility
• Complexity, scope, size and duration of initiatives
• Number of interfaces an integration requirements
• Degree of risk
• Speed of required implementation
• Number of organizations, departments, locations and resources involved
• Customer or sponsor requirements
• Type and location of outsourcing (e.g. domestic, international)
• Regulatory compliance 
• Level of security required
• Degree of accountability desired and audit-ability required (per external auditors)
• Management Control Policies and Guidelines

Key Principles

To sustain and continue to make progress on the journey to achieving higher levels of IT maturity, an organization should adopt select principles from managing and accelerating change and transformation, which include the following key elements:

• Proactively Design and Manage the IT Governance Program. Requires executive management sponsorship, an executive champion and creating a shared vision that is pragmatic, achievable, marketable, beneficial and measurable. Link goals, objectives and strategies to the vision and performance metrics and evaluations.
• Mobilize Commitment and Provide the Right Incentives. There is a strong commitment to the change from key senior managers, professionals and other relevant constituents. They are committed to make it happen, make it work and invest their attention and energy for the benefit of the enterprise as a whole. Create a multi-disciplinary empowered Tiger Team representing all key constituents to collaborate, develop, market and coordinate execution in their respective areas of influence and responsibility. 
• Make Tradeoffs and Choices and Clarify Escalation and Exception Decisions. IT governance is complex, continuous and requires tradeoffs and choices, which impact resources, costs, priorities, level of detail required, who approves choices, to whom are issues escalated, etc. At the end of the day, a key question that must be answered is, “When is enough, enough?” 
• Making Change Last, Assign Ownership and Accountability. Change is reinforced, supported, rewarded, communicated ( through the Web and Intranet), recognized and championed by owners who are accountable to facilitate the change so that it endures and flourishes throughout the organization.
• Monitoring Progress, Consistent Processes, Technology and Learning. Develop/ adapt common policies, practices, processes and technologies which are repeatable across the IT Governance landscape and enable (not hinder) progress, learning and best practice benchmarking. Make IT governance an objective in the periodic performance evaluation system of key employees and reward significant and sustainable progress and achievements. 

People often think they have a choice between "governance" and "no governance," but in reality the choice is between "good governance" and "bad governance." Every organization has a framework of decision-making and some set of often unstated measures. The needs of the business and the role of IT evolve; these unintentional governance solutions do not. Good governance is intentional, and it takes effort and attention. The operational perspective described in this article provides an approach for doing governance well.

IT Governance - Implementation Obstacles

IT governance is a process which include a set of controls and practices that ensures that the IT function is working on the right things at the right time in the right way with a view to accomplish the stated objectives and thereby contributing towards the meeting enterprise objectives and goals. Any process that aligns IT to business goals is the right strategy. However, it’s the change required and the compromises on the part of business leaders that can come in way to make it a not so easy program.

IT Governance offers many benefits, which include reduce the cost of day-to-day operations, improve overall operational efficiency and consistency, free more resources for strategic initiatives that improve competitiveness, choose those initiatives far more wisely working on the right things, bring those initiatives to market faster with less risk and bring IT into close alignment with business priorities. But at the same time the results of an ineffective implementation can be devastating. Some such devastating results could be:

• Business losses and disruptions, damaged reputations and weakened competitive positions
• Schedules not met, higher costs, poorer quality, unsatisfied customers
• Core business processes are negatively impacted (e.g. SAP impacts many critical business processes) by poor quality of IT deliverables 
• Failure of IT to demonstrate its investment benefits or value propositions

The Three Pillars of IT Governance

To understand the obstacles to IT Governance in an organization, it would be appropriate to understand the three critical pillars on which a successful IT Governance program is built on. The following are the three critical pillars of a successful IT Governance implementation:

Leadership, Organization, Decision Rights and Metrics

The IT Governance Initiative must be decomposed into manageable and accountable work packages and deliverables and assigned to owners for planning, development, execution and continuous improvement. The IT Governance program must have clearly defined roles, responsibilities and decision rights for the entire program and for each major component of the integrated IT Governance framework and road map.
A decisions rights matrix identifying decision influencers and decision makers is necessary to clarify decision roles and authority levels for the major IT Governance components.

Flexible and Scalable Processes

Processes form an integral part of the IT Governance program and as the IT Governance framework is made of such processes and controls, which shall be defined. It is also important these processes evolve over its usage based on feedback collected through various metrics. At the same time, processes should not only be simple enough to understand and implement but also flexible enough to provide room for improvement. People tend to ignore processes, if it is difficult to understand and practice as part of their day to day work. Thus the integrated framework approach works best.

Enabling Technology

Most business components rely on Technology for most aspect of their value, reliability or efficiency. Even choice of right technology plays a key role in making up the first two pillars. Given that technology evolves in an accelerated rate, there should be a clear watch on such advancements and the technology road map should provide for identification and adoption of the right technology at the right time to get the maximum value. Most organizations have recognized and accordingly have started managing this area well.

The Key Obstacles

Most often, the business leaders are motivated and rewarded by having their small part of the organization succeed. IT governance requires that the scarce resource of technology capacity be diligently distributed across the organization for overall business success. In other words, it requires that IT cannot be allocated on the basis of individual team needs but rather on collective, organizational goals. A recent empirical study by Lee uncovered factors such as ‘lack of IT principles and policies’, ‘lack of clear IT Governance processes’, ‘lack of communication’, and ‘inadequate stakeholder involvement’, as inhibitors of IT Governance implementation success. A good understanding on the barriers or obstacles that hinder the success of IT Governance implementation is important as once understood, their effect is understood and pre-emptive actions can be taken to address them

Implementing IT Governance is a long and continuous journey, where obstacles and challenges are aplenty. A good understanding on the barriers or obstacles that hinder the success of IT Governance implementation is important as once understood, their effect is understood and pre-emptive actions can be taken to address them. The most frequently experienced obstacles include:

Culture

Instituting effective IT governance requires dealing with the “c-word.” The culture of a company—“the way we do things here”—can be a tremendous driver for business success. It can also be—and often is—a giant resistor that dampens positive change. Immeasurable amounts of energy have been dissipated trying to change embedded habits and methods that hid behind the cloak of “culture.” Today, worldwide, the trend is toward collaborative culture, especially in the sharing of information. The attitude that “information is power” lingers in some dark company corners. In some disciplines, such as sales, where compensation is directly related to personal contacts and initiative, it is arguable that the status quo has value. In most cases, though, managements are trying to rid the company of these attitudes in order to unlock the power of teamwork leveraged by technology. IT governance requires teamwork and information sharing to succeed.

Resistance to Change

Virtually every manager in business today has encountered employees who held up organizational change by insisting on continuing with the “old way” of doing something, even though the success of the “new way” depends on universal adoption. Fear of failure could be one of the reason why people are afraid to commit to change, uncertain that they can successfully implement it and fearing that if they fail, they will be held accountable. Another reason could be the existence of innate conservatism and uncertainty emanating and causing resistance

Lack of Appropriate Communication

Communication is really at the heart of IT governance and the lack of appropriate communications can cause a major disconnect between IT executives and business executives. IT still continues to communicate in more technology terms, which is just not relevant to the business and they just don't understand it. So good communications is extraordinarily important so that everybody is on the same page and that the business and IT become very closely engaged. Again -- we're making strategic decisions on where we're going to invest in technology and those are really business decisions, not technology decisions. That way, lack of communication can easily derail the IT Governance program of an organization.

Lack of Value Proposition

CIOs must be willing to take the lead in the search for value-creating IT processes. If they are not, others—real experts—are glad to do so, in language that resonates with CEOs. For instance, if you take the Project and Porfolio Governance the 'Fail Fast' or 'Fail First' approach may be helpful. If the processes are designed around this approach, we could see that the IT programs and functions get evaluated at various stages by analyzing the collected metrics to see if it would still make sense to let the project, or program to move into the next stage. At every stage there using the metrics, a revisit to the project charter and the business objectives would ensure that the desired value out of such project or program is still the same.

Internal politics

Internal organizational politics may exert themselves, as the adoption and implementation of formal ITG practice will sometimes bring a shift in decision rights and associated powers that currently exist in the organization. It is seen in most organizations that projects that should be given a higher priority mostly be based on “who speaks the loudest” rather than“ looking at the current business, collected metrics, what is the immediate need?”