Requirements - Strategic Alignment, Vision, and Roadmap - S01 - Executive Alignment

The solution should be aligned to stated strategy approved at an executive level. e.g. TD Design Authority, P&P DA etc.

Requirement description

This requirement assesses whether the solution is demonstrably supporting an approved strategic direction rather than evolving independently of organisational objectives.

The solution should be traceable to one or more documented strategies, principles, policy positions, roadmaps or architecture directions that have executive sponsorship and approval.

In simple terms:
Can the team clearly demonstrate that the solution exists to deliver an agreed organisational strategy and that architectural decisions remain aligned to it?

Scoring rubric – Strategic Alignment

Score What it looks like Typical evidence Key gaps / risks
0 No identifiable strategy alignment. The team cannot explain which approved strategy the solution supports. No strategy documents.
No approval evidence.
No linkage between solution and strategic objectives. 		Significant risk of investment being misaligned with organisational priorities.
Architecture decisions may be arbitrary or contradictory.
1 Informal references to strategic intent exist, but alignment is largely assumed rather than evidenced. Verbal statements.
Meeting discussions.
Unapproved drafts. 		High risk that strategic assumptions are incorrect or outdated.
Limited governance oversight.
2 Some strategic alignment is documented, but coverage is incomplete or inconsistently applied. Strategy documents referenced in project artefacts.
Partial mapping between objectives and solution scope. 		Significant gaps in traceability.
Unclear stakeholder agreement.
Some solution elements cannot be justified against strategy.
3 Much of the solution can be linked to documented strategic direction and stakeholders generally agree with the alignment. Architecture vision.
Business case references.
Strategic objectives mapped to key solution capabilities.
Evidence of review by directorate-level governance. 		Notable gaps remain.
Some strategic links are weak or undocumented.
Changes in strategy may not be reflected promptly.
4 Strategic alignment is clearly evidenced and actively maintained throughout delivery. Approved strategy documents.
Traceability between strategy, roadmap and solution design.
Governance reviews.
Documented rationale for major architectural decisions. 		Minor gaps only.
Residual risks are understood and managed.
5 Alignment is comprehensive, demonstrable and exemplar. The solution actively helps realise strategic goals and informs future strategic planning. Executive-approved strategy.
Maintained traceability model.
Roadmaps aligned across portfolios.
Regular governance review.
Evidence that strategy directly influences prioritisation and architecture decisions. 		Minimal gaps.
Strategic alignment is embedded in governance, delivery and investment decisions.

What assessors should look for

  1. Documented strategy alignment – Is there a recognised strategy, policy or architectural direction that the solution is supporting?
  2. Executive approval – Has the referenced strategy been approved through appropriate executive governance?
  3. Traceability – Can architectural features, roadmap items or major decisions be linked back to strategic objectives?
  4. Ongoing governance – Is alignment periodically reviewed rather than assumed?
  5. Stakeholder understanding – Do delivery and business stakeholders have a consistent understanding of how the solution supports strategy?

What separates a 3 from a 4 or 5

A score of 3 typically means the team can demonstrate reasonable strategic alignment, but evidence is incomplete, not consistently maintained, or dependent on stakeholder knowledge.

A score of 4 normally requires clear traceability from strategy through to architecture and roadmap, supported by governance evidence.

A score of 5 requires alignment to be actively managed, widely understood, regularly reviewed, and demonstrably influencing investment, prioritisation and architectural decision-making.

Suggested evidence examples (not SAF-mandated artefacts)

  • Strategy papers
  • Architecture vision documents
  • Roadmaps
  • Design authority approvals
  • Business cases
  • Investment papers
  • Architecture decision records
  • Strategic traceability mappings

Updated: 04 September 2026 (SAF Version 1.1)