Dr. Niladri Bihari Nayak presents the Global Compliance Navigator, which maps regulatory requirements from 195 countries onto an organization's application risks using LeanIX data. The tool scores compliance exposure across factors like business criticality, obsolescence, and AI risk, showing exactly how each score was calculated. It shifts compliance from a one-time check to an ongoing architecture cycle.
Chapters
across multiple countries, regulations, applications, and business priorities. But compliance information is often fragmented. An executive may know that regulation exists, and an architect may know that an application is high risk, but the connection between the two is often missing. So welcome to the Global Compliance Navigator that brings the connection together. The core idea is very simple: compliance is not a one-time assessment, it is an architecture operating cycle. This creates a flywheel connecting the regulatory requirements with architecture along all of the 6 steps, whatever has been explained here. So now this Navigator starts the regulatory landscape. It provides a reusable lens across 195 countries. We have given few examples from Germany, from India, few of those from GDPR perspective. It provides a reusable lens and the— this establishes the regulatory context before we evaluate the Portfolio exposure. So now we connect the context to the application portfolio. So though, and the risk model uses signal already existing in our LeanIX, including business criticality, functional suitability, technical suitability, obsolescence, six R, AI risk, SSO, all those stuff. But risk score is not enough. An architecture needs to understand why an application is considered as a risky. Right? So here is every score is explainable. We can see the individual dimensions, their weighted contribution, the available assessment data, the normalized score, and the final classification. And there is an important principle: the missing data is not at zero risk. Unavailable dimensions are excluded from the calculations, while data quality coverage is shown explicitly. So this makes the assessment transparent, explainable, and actionable. This solution was built incrementally. I started with a focused compliance security risk heat map to start with as a pre-MBP. After getting the confidence, the same thing has been replicated and extended and scaled up to this level. So I even evolved the entire validated foundation into a global compliance navigator, expanding from a portfolio heat map simple to a global architecture experience. So the result is a reusable pattern for enterprise architects, compliance leaders, security teams, application owners, and executives. It connects regulatory awareness with portfolio decisions and creates a common language between governance and architecture. So instead of asking only, are we compliant? Where can we— are exposed? Why? How? And what should we architect next? So welcome back again to our Global Compliance Navigator. Navigate the compliance, architect for the action. Thank you very much.
