Power Platform Governance Roadmap
Deliverables
The full register of governance deliverables across all workstreams.
Showing 72 of 72
| Epic | Support | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | S1.1 | Publish the Power Platform Governance Blueprint A short, readable blueprint covering zone denominations and their properties, guardrails, enabled and disabled features, implied costs and responsibilities. Aligned to Ahold Delhaize global architecture principles, with regional deviations deliberately limited. | Phase 1 | P1 | Marius Oprea | ACE Solutioning, Vamsi Namuduri | 3 | Draft | |
| S1 | S1.2 | Power Platform governance RACI A platform-scoped RACI built on the blueprint, defining who is responsible and accountable for each governance activity across the global team, OpCo teams and business owners. | Phase 1 | P1 | Marius Oprea | Dogaru Eduard | 2 | Draft | |
| S1 | S1.3 | Solution intake and lifecycle process An intake route for new solutions with assessment criteria, and a defined lifecycle from build through BAU to decommission. Covers the assessment that determines which zone a solution belongs in. | Phase 1 | P1 | Ovidiu Kislaposi | Marius Oprea | 3 | Draft | |
| S1 | S1.4 | Business criticality classification and catalogue registration Define the criticality scale, who assigns it, and how solutions are registered in the catalogue or CMDB with ownership and data classification. Today only 8% of ADUSA apps are catalogued. | Phase 2 | P2 | Vamsi Namuduri | Ovidiu Kislaposi | 2 | Draft | |
| S1 | S1.5 | Environment naming convention and DTAP standard A naming standard binding environments to OpCo, workload, purpose and stage, replacing the situation where only the OpCo prefix is regular and 87 of 91 production environments are merely assumed to be production. | Phase 1 | P1 | Marius Oprea | — | 1.5 | Draft | |
| S1 | S1.6 | Blueprint maintenance and change control cadence How the blueprint is versioned, reviewed and changed, and how new Microsoft capabilities get a governance position before makers encounter them. | Phase 3 | P3 | ACE Solutioning | Marius Oprea | 1 | Draft | |
| S10 | S10.1 | Licence model options analysis Compare per app, per user and capacity based licensing against the governance features each unlocks. Per app is deprecated for the next renewal and 8,000 are currently in use, with only 53 premium per user licences held. | Phase 1 | P1 | Vamsi Namuduri | Marius Oprea | 3 | Draft | |
| S10 | S10.2 | Scenario decision: which future state Take the decision between Fix the basics, Basics plus upscale and Strategic platform. Every downstream item depends on it, and the cost difference between them is smaller than the control difference. | Phase 1 | P1 | Vamsi Namuduri | Marius Oprea, Dogaru Eduard | 2 | Draft | |
| S10 | S10.3 | Licence entitlement and assignment process Who is entitled to author, how licences are requested, assigned and reclaimed, and how that is enforced through group based licensing. | Phase 2 | P2 | Vamsi Namuduri | John Fernando | 2 | Draft | |
| S10 | S10.4 | Dataverse capacity management and thresholds Thresholds, alerting and an owner for database, log and file capacity. Database capacity currently sits at 77% and is driven by a handful of environments. | Phase 2 | P2 | Dogaru Eduard | Vamsi Namuduri | 1.5 | Draft | |
| S10 | S10.5 | Copilot Studio and AI Builder credit allocation model How Copilot credits and AI Builder capacity are allocated to environments and monitored. Copilot credits are limited at 25,000 and the AI Builder licence type is deprecated for the next renewal. | Phase 2 | P2 | Marius Oprea | Dogaru Eduard | 2 | Draft | |
| S10 | S10.6 | Chargeback and cross-charging approach How platform cost is attributed back to OpCos and business owners, so cost implications are visible to the people creating them. | Phase 3 | P3 | Vamsi Namuduri | Marius Oprea | 3 | Draft | |
| S11 | S11.1 | Global versus local responsibility split Document what AD Group governs, what the OpCo owns and what is explicitly out of scope, before any scope discussion starts. | Phase 1 | P1 | Marius Oprea | Vamsi Namuduri | 2 | Draft | |
| S11 | S11.2 | Governance body and decision rights Establish who takes platform decisions, with what quorum and against what criteria, so environment admins stop changing settings without a governance body knowing. | Phase 1 | P1 | Vamsi Namuduri | Marius Oprea | 2 | Draft | |
| S11 | S11.3 | Resourcing plan for the target operating model The FTE case for the chosen scenario. Fix the basics adds none, Basics plus upscale and Strategic platform each add roughly three across the global and regional teams. | Phase 1 | P1 | Vamsi Namuduri | Marius Oprea | 1.5 | Draft | |
| S11 | S11.4 | Recurring global and regional governance forum A standing forum that brings global and local governance and development teams together on initiatives, governance changes and new features. | Phase 2 | P2 | Ovidiu Kislaposi | Vamsi Namuduri | 1 | Draft | |
| S11 | S11.5 | OpCo onboarding pack for the governance model What a region receives when it adopts the model: the blueprint, the RACI, the tooling, the dashboards and the support route. | Phase 3 | P2 | ACE Solutioning | Ovidiu Kislaposi | 2 | Draft | |
| S11 | S11.6 | Exception register and approval route A register of approved deviations from the blueprint, each with a named approver and an expiry date. | Phase 2 | P2 | Marius Oprea | Ovidiu Kislaposi | 1.5 | Draft | |
| S2 | S2.1 | Enable tenant isolation with tenant rules Turn on tenant isolation in the Power Platform Admin Center and implement approved deviations through tenant rules. Currently not set up, creating data loss risk between untrusted tenants. | Phase 1 | P1 | Vamsi Namuduri | Marius Oprea | 1 | Draft | |
| S2 | S2.2 | Restrict Copilot Studio authors to a trained group Point the Copilot Studio Authors setting at an Entra group of people who have been trained, rather than leaving authoring open across the tenant. | Phase 1 | P1 | Marius Oprea | Vamsi Namuduri | 0.5 | Draft | |
| S2 | S2.3 | Restrict portal and non-admin environment creation Apply the recommended restrictions on portal creation and trial or developer environment creation by non-admin users, in line with the chosen zone model. | Phase 1 | P2 | Vamsi Namuduri | — | 0.5 | Draft | |
| S2 | S2.4 | Enable tenant capacity report for environment admins Change the tenant capacity summary view so environment admins can see and act on their own capacity consumption. | Phase 2 | P3 | Dogaru Eduard | — | 0.5 | Draft | |
| S2 | S2.5 | Restrict support request visibility Turn off support request visibility for all users so support tickets are not exposed tenant-wide. | Phase 1 | P3 | Vamsi Namuduri | — | 0.5 | Draft | |
| S2 | S2.6 | Enable auditing and define log retention Turn on auditing across environments and set retention. Microsoft flags 190 environments without auditing, and audit logging is currently prohibited but inconsistently applied. | Phase 2 | P2 | Dogaru Eduard | Marius Oprea | 2 | Draft | |
| S2 | S2.7 | Security score improvement plan A tracked plan to raise the security score from 37%, sequencing the high-impact items: client application access control, IP firewall and cookie binding, security groups on environments, guest access restriction and admin reduction. | Phase 2 | P2 | Marius Oprea | Vamsi Namuduri, Dogaru Eduard | 2 | Draft | |
| S3 | S3.1 | Confirm the four-zone model and classification criteria Agree Green, Amber, Red and Black as the governance zones, with the business impact and risk assessment criteria that place a solution in each, and the project types that map to them. | Phase 1 | P1 | Marius Oprea | Vamsi Namuduri | 1 | Draft | |
| S3 | S3.2 | Roll out managed environments per zone Apply managed environments to the Red and Black zones first, then Amber, taking the sharing limits, enforced policies and security features that come with them. | Phase 2 | P1 | Marius Oprea | Vamsi Namuduri | 3 | Draft | |
| S3 | S3.3 | Establish environment groups and rules Create environment groups per zone with the associated rules. None exist today. | Phase 2 | P1 | Dogaru Eduard | Marius Oprea | 2 | Draft | |
| S3 | S3.4 | Configure environment routing to personal developer environments Route makers into their own personal development environments rather than the default environment, using the welcome message to set expectations. | Phase 2 | P2 | Ovidiu Kislaposi | Marius Oprea | 1.5 | Draft | |
| S3 | S3.5 | Define shared regional production environments per OpCo Establish the Red zone shared production environments that structurally used and properly supported solutions migrate into, owned by the regional teams. | Phase 2 | P2 | Vamsi Namuduri | Ovidiu Kislaposi | 2 | Draft | |
| S3 | S3.6 | Environment request and provisioning process A standard route to request an environment, including approval, naming, access group provisioning and registration of the responsible owner. | Phase 2 | P2 | Ovidiu Kislaposi | John Fernando | 2 | Draft | |
| S3 | S3.7 | Zone migration path for existing solutions Define and run the route that moves existing solutions out of personal productivity into the zone that matches their actual business impact. | Phase 3 | P3 | ACE Solutioning | Ovidiu Kislaposi | 3 | Draft | |
| S4 | S4.1 | Connector classification standard Classify every connector as business, non-business or blocked, with a documented rationale. Connectors are currently not structurally classified and all 129 policies carry non-business connectors. | Phase 1 | P1 | Marius Oprea | Dogaru Eduard | 2 | Draft | |
| S4 | S4.2 | Design the consolidated zone-based DLP policy set Replace per-environment policies with a small set tied directly to the governance zones. Microsoft guidance is between two and five policies against the current 129. | Phase 1 | P1 | Marius Oprea | Dogaru Eduard | 2 | Draft | |
| S4 | S4.3 | Implement a catchall DLP policy Add the safety fallback policy that applies where environments are not otherwise assigned. None exists today. | Phase 2 | P1 | Dogaru Eduard | — | 0.5 | Draft | |
| S4 | S4.4 | Remediate environments with no DLP policy Bring the 17 environments currently outside any DLP policy under coverage. | Phase 1 | P1 | Dogaru Eduard | — | 1 | Draft | |
| S4 | S4.5 | Retire duplicate and narrow-scope policies Decommission the 4 duplicate policies and consolidate the 125 policies scoped to fewer than five environments, resolving the 62 environments carrying more than one policy. | Phase 2 | P1 | Dogaru Eduard | Marius Oprea | 2.5 | Draft | |
| S4 | S4.6 | Fine-tune DLP for the default environment Tighten the policy covering personal productivity, the riskiest environment, addressing the apps and flows using unrecommended connectors such as HTTP, SQL Server and file system. | Phase 1 | P1 | Marius Oprea | Dogaru Eduard | 1.5 | Draft | |
| S4 | S4.7 | Connector exemption request and approval route A named approver, a documented rationale and an expiry date for every connector exemption. No expiry, no exemption. | Phase 2 | P1 | Ovidiu Kislaposi | Marius Oprea | 1 | Draft | |
| S4 | S4.8 | Include desktop flow actions in DLP Enable desktop flow actions in DLP, having first assessed the impact on the 483 existing desktop flows. Once enabled this setting cannot be disabled. | Phase 2 | P3 | Dogaru Eduard | Marius Oprea | 1 | Draft | |
| S5 | S5.1 | Reduce environment administrator counts Remove excessive environment admin and system administrator roles. Microsoft flags 122 environments for admin reduction; 200 environments carry 25 or more system administrators, and personal productivity alone has 94. | Phase 1 | P1 | Dogaru Eduard | Vamsi Namuduri | 3 | Draft | |
| S5 | S5.2 | Baseline inventory of orphaned assets Establish the reference inventory of orphaned assets across apps, flows, desktop flows, AI Builder models and agents, so cleanup progress can be measured. | Phase 1 | P1 | ACE Solutioning | Dogaru Eduard | 1.5 | Draft | |
| S5 | S5.3 | Cleanup campaign for orphaned and unused assets Run the one-off cleanup of assets eligible for removal: 2,929 apps and 17,527 flows globally, of which 1,963 apps and 13,522 flows sit in the default environment. | Phase 2 | P2 | ACE Solutioning | Ovidiu Kislaposi | 4 | Draft | |
| S5 | S5.4 | Automated purge with retention for the Green zone Replace campaign-based cleanup with an automated purge and 90 day retention in personal productivity, so the estate stays clean without repeated effort. | Phase 2 | P2 | Dogaru Eduard | ACE Solutioning | 2 | Draft | |
| S5 | S5.5 | Assess and migrate the assets flagged for action Handle the 544 apps and 441 flows that need action because they use unrecommended connectors, are shared with 20 or more users, or carry a business criticality of 3 or higher. Decommission or migrate each to the appropriate zone. | Phase 2 | P1 | Ovidiu Kislaposi | Marius Oprea, ACE Solutioning | 4 | Draft | |
| S5 | S5.6 | Maker offboarding process for leavers A process that reassigns or retires assets when a maker leaves. Between 25% and 30% of makers who own assets have already left the company. | Phase 2 | P2 | Vamsi Namuduri | Ovidiu Kislaposi | 1.5 | Draft | |
| S5 | S5.7 | Review apps shared with guests and tenant-wide Assess and remediate the 165 canvas apps shared with guests and the 120 shared tenant-wide. | Phase 2 | P2 | Marius Oprea | Dogaru Eduard | 1 | Draft | |
| S6 | S6.1 | Power Platform service request catalogue in ServiceNow Define and publish the request catalogue entries with their field definitions, covering environment requests, DLP changes, licence assignment and access. | Phase 1 | P1 | John Fernando | Ovidiu Kislaposi | 3 | Draft | |
| S6 | S6.2 | Standard operating procedures per request type The steps and required fields for each request type, written so first line can execute them without escalation. | Phase 1 | P1 | Ovidiu Kislaposi | John Fernando | 3 | Draft | |
| S6 | S6.3 | Support tier model and OpCo routing Decide which items route to which OpCo and where L3 sits. This is a tier ownership decision, not a flow design task, and it blocks several downstream items. | Phase 1 | P1 | John Fernando | Vamsi Namuduri, Ovidiu Kislaposi | 4 | Draft | |
| S6 | S6.4 | SLA definitions aligned to business criticality Publish the SLA offering, with response and recovery targets that align to the RTO requirements of each business criticality level. | Phase 2 | P2 | Vamsi Namuduri | John Fernando | 2 | Draft | |
| S6 | S6.5 | Solution handover and BAU acceptance gate No solution enters BAU without an SoP handed to first and second line and a named third line individual. Define the gate and its acceptance criteria. | Phase 2 | P1 | Ovidiu Kislaposi | John Fernando | 2 | Draft | |
| S6 | S6.6 | Knowledge transfer and support documentation Run the handover sessions and publish the known-error and how-to content that first line needs. | Phase 2 | P2 | John Fernando | ACE Solutioning | 1.5 | Draft | |
| S6 | S6.7 | Self-service portal for platform requests A central place where business users and stakeholders trigger a structured process for environments, DLP changes, licences and access. | Phase 3 | P2 | Ovidiu Kislaposi | ACE Solutioning, John Fernando | 4 | Draft | |
| S7 | S7.1 | CoE Starter Kit upgrade and data quality remediation Bring the CoE Starter Kit current and fix the gaps found during the assessment, including limited flow run data and incomplete Purview coverage. | Phase 1 | P1 | Dogaru Eduard | ACE Solutioning | 2 | Draft | |
| S7 | S7.2 | OpCo attribution model for platform assets Make it possible to attribute every environment, app and flow to a specific OpCo. The assessment could not connect all assets to an OpCo, which undermines every regional view. | Phase 1 | P1 | Dogaru Eduard | Marius Oprea | 2 | Draft | |
| S7 | S7.3 | Central governance dashboard A uniform dashboard giving insight into inventory, usage, compliance to standards and cost, for global teams, regional teams and business owners. | Phase 2 | P1 | Dogaru Eduard | Marius Oprea, ACE Solutioning | 5 | Draft | |
| S7 | S7.4 | Regional views for local governance teams Filtered views of the central dashboard scoped to each OpCo, so local teams can execute their responsibilities against their own estate. | Phase 2 | P2 | Dogaru Eduard | Ovidiu Kislaposi | 2 | Draft | |
| S7 | S7.5 | Compliance monitoring against blueprint standards Automated detection of drift from the blueprint: environments without policies, missing naming conventions, excess admins and unclassified solutions. | Phase 3 | P2 | ACE Solutioning | Dogaru Eduard | 3 | Draft | |
| S7 | S7.6 | Business criticality survey and catalogue automation Replace the manual ADUSA criticality process with an automated route that covers flows as well as apps. | Phase 2 | P2 | Ovidiu Kislaposi | Dogaru Eduard | 2 | Draft | |
| S8 | S8.1 | Solution and publisher naming standards Standard solution structure, publisher prefixes and naming, so solutions are recognisable and portable across environments. | Phase 1 | P2 | Marius Oprea | ACE Solutioning | 1 | Draft | |
| S8 | S8.2 | Power Platform Pipelines for Red and Black zones Native deployment pipelines as the standard promotion route for governed solutions, replacing manual export and import. | Phase 2 | P1 | Marius Oprea | ACE Solutioning | 3 | Draft | |
| S8 | S8.3 | Source control and Git integration approach Define when and how solutions are held in source control, building on what BeCSEE already does with GitHub. | Phase 2 | P2 | ACE Solutioning | Marius Oprea | 2.5 | Draft | |
| S8 | S8.4 | Reusable cleanup automation Tooling that identifies and retires orphaned and unused assets on a schedule, made available to every region. | Phase 2 | P2 | Dogaru Eduard | ACE Solutioning | 2 | Draft | |
| S8 | S8.5 | Application catalogue and classification tooling Tooling for business application identification, classification and catalogue management, feeding the criticality and support model. | Phase 3 | P2 | Ovidiu Kislaposi | Dogaru Eduard | 3 | Draft | |
| S8 | S8.6 | Reuse assessment of existing local ALM initiatives Review what BeCSEE and the Czech team have already built and decide what becomes the global standard rather than rebuilding it. | Phase 1 | P2 | Marius Oprea | Ovidiu Kislaposi | 1 | Draft | |
| S9 | S9.1 | Maker onboarding journey What a new maker sees, signs and learns before they build, including the welcome experience and the routing into their own development space. | Phase 2 | P2 | Ovidiu Kislaposi | ACE Solutioning | 2 | Draft | |
| S9 | S9.2 | Learning paths and building blocks per persona Global frameworks, learning paths and reusable building blocks that regional and local teams implement, raising proficiency and reducing dependency on central support. | Phase 2 | P2 | ACE Solutioning | Ovidiu Kislaposi | 3 | Draft | |
| S9 | S9.3 | Ambassador and champions network per OpCo Identify and support the makers who already carry the community, so they can empower each other rather than working around the absence of guidance. | Phase 3 | P2 | Ovidiu Kislaposi | John Fernando | 2 | Draft | |
| S9 | S9.4 | Maker support model A route for makers to request guidance from an experienced developer before they build something that becomes business critical by accident. | Phase 2 | P2 | John Fernando | Ovidiu Kislaposi | 2 | Draft | |
| S9 | S9.5 | Communication plan for governance changes A simple, repeatable communication plan for DLP changes, environment changes and cleanup activity, so remediation does not land on makers unannounced. | Phase 1 | P1 | Ovidiu Kislaposi | Marius Oprea | 1.5 | Draft | |
| S9 | S9.6 | Copilot Studio managed rollout and maker guidance Continue the phased, managed rollout of Copilot Studio with clear guidance on agent authoring, publishing and authentication. 178 agents already exist, 100 of them in the default environment. | Phase 2 | P1 | Marius Oprea | Vamsi Namuduri | 3 | Draft |