Technology Governance and Strategy Assessment
Evaluates technology governance and strategy maturity across governance mandate and system design, policy and conformance, technology strategy and direction, investment and resource direction, risk, compliance and assurance oversight, AI and emerging technology oversight, performance oversight and stakeholder reporting, and governance review and improvement.
Already have an account? Log in to start
Board and board technology or risk committee, CEO, CIO, head of IT governance. Secondary: chief risk officer, CFO and portfolio office, chief architect, chief data officer, AI governance lead, internal audit and regulators.
Shows where the governing body receives information but does not direct, where decision rights and delegation are unclear (including for AI agents), where policies and exceptions are out of control, where strategy is not tied to outcomes, where investments cannot be stopped, where risk, compliance and assurance do not reach the body, and where governance costs more than it adds. Gives each gap a concrete next step and a measurable target.
Many organizations have a technology committee that meets, reads status packs and approves what reaches it, yet nobody can say who may decide what, which policies are current, whether the strategy delivered what it promised, or who allowed an AI agent to commit money on the organization's behalf. Decisions are made in corridors, exceptions never expire, failing programs are not stopped, and the board learns of a major supplier dependency only when it fails.
This assessment follows the order in which sound governance is built: one governance framework, a chartered governing body, principles, the operating model and CIO mandate, decision rights and delegation, risk-proportionate approval routes, competence and conflicts; the policy framework, exceptions, conformance, business-led technology rules and group application; context, the IT strategy, its link to enterprise objectives, business participation, roadmap, scenarios, sovereignty and concentration, responsible and sustainable technology, communication and outcome review; investment criteria and mix, decision papers, gate and stop authority, funding model, benefit oversight, sourcing direction and strategic suppliers; use of risk appetite, oversight of top technology and cyber risks, compliance, assurance scope and findings; board oversight of AI, delegated authority for AI agents, AI investment value, emerging technology decisions, AI-assisted governance work and shadow AI; strategic KPIs, the board technology report, the decision log, governance cost and value, post-decision review and external reporting; and governance evaluation, stakeholder perception, tooling, framework change control and improvement.
It is the hub of the Technology Governance family and tests governance direction and oversight only. Depth sits with the owners, reached through named Input documents: Enterprise Risk Management, IT Risk Management, Cyber Risk Management, IT Performance Management, IT Budget and Financial Management, Enterprise Architecture, Business Relationship Management, PRINCE2 Aligned Portfolio Management, Service Integration and Management, AI Governance, AI Spend Management, Shadow AI and AI Sprawl Governance, Data Governance and Management, Continual Service Improvement, Value Realization and Investment ROI and IT Compliance and Control Assurance. Terms used: the governing body is the board; the technology governance body is the body set up by the Technology Governance Charter; sub-forums, such as the architecture, risk and investment review boards, act under its delegation and keep decision logs linked to the Governance Decision Log. Each question is scored on whether the practice is Documented, Implemented and Effective.
Each domain is a group of related questions, scored on its own and rolled up into your overall result.
01 · 8 questions
The technology governance framework, the governing body charter, governance principles, the technology operating model and CIO mandate, decision rights and delegation, risk-proportionate approval routes, governing body technology competence and conflicts of interest
02 · 5 questions
The technology policy framework and its lifecycle, policy exceptions and waivers, policy conformance review, rules for business-led technology and group and subsidiary application
03 · 10 questions
Context analysis, the IT strategy, alignment to enterprise objectives, business participation, the strategic roadmap, scenarios and options, sovereignty and concentration direction, responsible and sustainable technology direction, strategy communication, and strategy refresh with outcome review
04 · 7 questions
Investment ranking criteria and mix, the investment decision paper standard, gate and stop authority, the funding model and envelopes, benefit oversight, technology sourcing direction and strategic supplier oversight
05 · 5 questions
Use of risk appetite and tolerances in technology decisions, oversight of top technology and cyber risks, compliance oversight, independent assurance scope and tracking of significant findings
06 · 6 questions
Governing body oversight of AI, delegated authority for AI agents, AI investment and value oversight, emerging technology adoption decisions, controls on AI-assisted governance work and shadow AI oversight
07 · 6 questions
Strategic technology KPIs, the board technology report, the governance decision log and follow-through, governance cost and value, post-decision review and regulator and external reporting
08 · 5 questions
Governance effectiveness evaluation and benchmarking, stakeholder perception of governance, governance workflow tooling, governance framework change control and governance improvement
Measures that show whether the improvements hold.
| KPI |
|---|
| Missed Strategic Outcomes with a Recorded Decision - Share of strategic outcomes that missed their target at the last review with a governing body decision to continue, adjust or stop. Target: 100%. |
| Decisions Made by the Assigned Role - Share of sampled technology decisions made by the role the decision rights matrix assigns at the right threshold. Target: 95% or higher (model target). |
| Stop or Redirect Decisions Taken by the Named Holder - Share of stop or redirect decisions on major initiatives taken by the holder the Gate and Stop Authority names within the time it allows. Target: 100%. |
| Expired Policy Exceptions Still in Use - Number of technology policy exceptions past their expiry date in the quarter neither renewed through approval nor closed. Threshold: 0. |
| Production AI Agents with Delegated Limits - Share of production AI agents with a delegated authority limit and a named accountable person. Target: 100%. |
Questions are written in plain language and mapped to:
Practices this assessment relies on. Assessing them too gives a fuller picture.
An overall score and a score for each of the 8 domains.
A clear view of where current practice falls short, and why it matters.
Prioritized next steps to move each area to the next level.
Results you can share with leadership and track over time.
Register, take the assessment, and get your maturity score with a clear improvement roadmap.
Assessment Platform
Contact us
Business Bay, Dubai, UAE
info@itsgovernance.com
+971 586 697 263
Get Started
© 2026 ITSGovernance, part of SMCE. All rights reserved. Cookie settings