The Architecture Vision doc sets the scope and stakeholder landscape for the entire ADM cycle. From where I sit in Phase C, what matters is what the vision tells me about information flows — what data needs to exist, where it lives, and who needs to read it. The Architecture Vision (https://cloud.nzrtnetwork.com/nextcloud/index.php/s/Gsggt4PCeLMpAEa) and Statement of Architecture Work (https://cloud.nzrtnetwork.com/nextcloud/index.php/s/o45gJENTzqtNDgz) give Phase C its starting constraints: scope, success criteria, and the capability gaps the architecture is meant to close.
The Stakeholder Map (https://cloud.nzrtnetwork.com/nextcloud/index.php/s/Qd9Mb3EW3gT6Tpt) is the one I keep returning to. In a commercial org, stakeholder mapping tells you who pays and who reports. Here it tells you who receives — kura, schools, charities — and that changes what the information systems need to support. Mission delivery metrics are not revenue lines. They are counts of connections made, services deployed, organisations reached. The data architecture has to be built around that distinction from the start, not retrofitted later.
Requirements Management is the other thread. Phase A outputs become Phase C inputs through RM — every capability and constraint identified in the vision becomes a data requirement I need to trace. I am watching for gaps between what the vision promises and what the information systems will actually be able to measure. If we cannot track it, we cannot report it, and if we cannot report it, the charitable case stays anecdotal. That gap between promise and measurability is the thing Phase A needs to make explicit before Phase C can do its job properly.
