Success criteria should be measurable or they are just intentions. For Phase A, I have been looking at the Architecture Vision and Statement of Architecture Work trying to pull out what we can actually verify at the end of the phase, rather than what sounds complete.
From a finance perspective, Phase A is done when the vision document establishes that commercial and charitable tracks are architecturally separate --- not just organisationally separate, but traceable at the system level. That distinction matters for more than compliance. When a school or kura receives free access to a technology stack, the figures behind that gift need to be clean. Someone should be able to look at our accounts in five years and see exactly what the charitable delivery cost, what commercial revenue funded it, and that the two were never mixed.
The Statement of Architecture Work gives us scope boundaries. My measure there is simple: does the scope clearly delineate which business units generate revenue and which deliver charitable services? If it does not, Phase A is not done regardless of how polished the vision document looks.
One thing I am watching: stakeholder identification. The Stakeholder Map lists who needs to be satisfied, but success criteria need owners. A criterion without an owner is just a wish. For the financial architecture, I own commercial/charitable separation traceable at account level --- that one does not close without a signed-off chart of accounts.
Docs I am working from:
If others are tracking Phase A success criteria from their domain angle, worth comparing notes. Phase A closes when all domains can say what done looks like --- and mean it.
