From d840f93aec5a0cac1fbf1f3b7f18948cc83df489 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tanjiha Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2026 19:51:15 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 1/9] Update 125.yaml Wrote the formula and score for action : 125 under issue 23 --- specifications/actions/125.yaml | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/specifications/actions/125.yaml b/specifications/actions/125.yaml index 3525c6b4..d3000094 100644 --- a/specifications/actions/125.yaml +++ b/specifications/actions/125.yaml @@ -1,8 +1,8 @@ Metadata: Proposed: '2025-09-16' Adopted: '2025-11-01' - Modified: '2026-01-12' - Version: 1.5.0 + Modified: '2026-03-13' + Version: 1.6.0 Status: Accepted Approvers: - Name: Victoria Levy @@ -19,12 +19,28 @@ Specification: Implementation Types: - null Weight: 1.0 - Formula: null + Formula: |- + * Weighted sum + TCO (score ×3), + Vendor scoring (score ×3), + Decision document (score ×3), + Rules established (score ×1). + Max raw = 50. Normalised to 0–10. + * TCO_Analysis - Total Cost of Ownership analysis performed (0=None, 1=High-level, 2=Detailed, 3=Validated with Finance) + * Vendor_Scored - Vendor options scored against criteria (0=None, 1=Informal, 2=Structured scorecard, 3=Multi-stakeholder RFP) + * Decision_Doc - Build vs Buy decision formally documented and approved (0=No, 1=Informal note, 2=Formal doc, 3=Exec-approved+reviewed) + * Rules_Est - Guiding rules / policy established for future decsions (0=No rules, 1=Draft, 2=Published+Enforced) + * Output Range (0-10) Scoring: - - Score: 0 - Condition: No rules established - - Score: 10 - Condition: Published policy + - Score: 0.0-3.9 + Condition: Crawl + - Score: 4.0-6.9 + Condition: Walk + - Score: 7.0-8.9 + Condition: Run + - Score: 9.0-10.0 + Condition: Fly + References: - Name: null Link: null From ed2e4d79db598023cae18398c107cf460dc13987 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tanjiha Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2026 15:42:59 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 2/9] Update 126.yaml Updated it with formula and scores for action 126 --- specifications/actions/126.yaml | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/specifications/actions/126.yaml b/specifications/actions/126.yaml index 58348f0a..5ba47d82 100644 --- a/specifications/actions/126.yaml +++ b/specifications/actions/126.yaml @@ -1,8 +1,8 @@ Metadata: Proposed: '2025-09-16' Adopted: null - Modified: '2026-01-12' - Version: 0.5.0 + Modified: '2026-03-14' + Version: 0.6.0 Status: Proposed Approvers: - Name: null @@ -15,11 +15,28 @@ Specification: Slug: 126-implement-config Implementation Types: - null - Weight: 0.0 - Formula: null + Weight: 1.0 + Formula: |- + * Weighted sum + Env coverage (score ×4), + Data Integration (score ×4), + Tag Config (score ×2), + Config Doc (score ×2). + Max raw = 80. Normalised to 0–10. + * Env_Coverage - % of cloud environments covered by deployed tools (0=0%, 1<50%, 2=50-79%, 3=80-94%, 4=95-99%, 5=100%) + * Data_Integr - Data sources integrated (billing, usage, tags, business context) (0=None, 1=Billing Only, 2=+Usage, 3=+Tags, 4=+Business context, 5=All+Automated) + * Tag_Config - Tag/allocation rules configured and enforced tool (0=No, 1=Partial manual, 2=Full manual, 3=Automated enforcement) + * Config_Doc - Tool configuration documented and version-controlled (0=No rules, 1=Informal, 2=Documented, 3=Version-controlled+Reviewed) + * Output Range (0-10) Scoring: - - Score: 0 - Condition: null + - Score: 0.0-3.9 + Condition: Crawl + - Score: 4.0-6.9 + Condition: Walk + - Score: 7.0-8.9 + Condition: Run + - Score: 9.0-10.0 + Condition: Fly References: - Name: null Link: null From b1fe3088c756e5fe679f938077f10c1b621a540f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tanjiha Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2026 21:04:16 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 3/9] Update 125.yaml Made changes as per the Review --- specifications/actions/125.yaml | 34 ++++++++++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) diff --git a/specifications/actions/125.yaml b/specifications/actions/125.yaml index d3000094..8f027cb9 100644 --- a/specifications/actions/125.yaml +++ b/specifications/actions/125.yaml @@ -1,8 +1,8 @@ Metadata: Proposed: '2025-09-16' Adopted: '2025-11-01' - Modified: '2026-03-13' - Version: 1.6.0 + Modified: '2026-03-17' + Version: 2.0.0 Status: Accepted Approvers: - Name: Victoria Levy @@ -25,26 +25,30 @@ Specification: Vendor scoring (score ×3), Decision document (score ×3), Rules established (score ×1). - Max raw = 50. Normalised to 0–10. + Max Raw Score (29) * TCO_Analysis - Total Cost of Ownership analysis performed (0=None, 1=High-level, 2=Detailed, 3=Validated with Finance) * Vendor_Scored - Vendor options scored against criteria (0=None, 1=Informal, 2=Structured scorecard, 3=Multi-stakeholder RFP) * Decision_Doc - Build vs Buy decision formally documented and approved (0=No, 1=Informal note, 2=Formal doc, 3=Exec-approved+reviewed) * Rules_Est - Guiding rules / policy established for future decsions (0=No rules, 1=Draft, 2=Published+Enforced) - * Output Range (0-10) + * Output Range (0 - Max Raw) Scoring: - - Score: 0.0-3.9 - Condition: Crawl - - Score: 4.0-6.9 - Condition: Walk - - Score: 7.0-8.9 - Condition: Run - - Score: 9.0-10.0 - Condition: Fly + - Score: 8 + Condition: Low Maturity + - Score: 17 + Condition: Developing + - Score: 24 + Condition: Established + - Score: 29 + Condition: Optimizing References: - - Name: null - Link: null + - Name: Maturity Definition + Link: https://www.finops.org/framework/maturity-model/ Comment: null Supplemental Guidance: - - null + - CRAWL (0–8) No build-vs-buy process exists. TCO analysis is absent or undocumented, vendor comparisons are informal, and decisions default to familiarity, relationships, or cost alone. + - WALK (9–17) Basic TCO covers licence costs and implementation effort. Vendors are scored against a structured scorecard, and decisions are loosely documented. Finance validation and exec sign-off are inconsistent. + - RUN (18–24) TCO is detailed, covering licencing, implementation, integration, training, support, and build opportunity cost. A multi-stakeholder evaluation process is used, decisions are formally approved, and a guiding policy is published and partially enforced. + - FLY (25–29) TCO is Finance-validated and accounts for multi-year trajectories, exit costs, and strategic optionality. A full RFP with documented rationale is used, decisions are exec-approved and periodically reviewed, and an enforced org-wide policy governs all future build-vs-buy choices. + Overrides: null From 5fd45db153e023657da52e79a292264966651f39 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tanjiha Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2026 21:15:09 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 4/9] Update 126.yaml Made updates as per the review. --- specifications/actions/126.yaml | 29 ++++++++++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) diff --git a/specifications/actions/126.yaml b/specifications/actions/126.yaml index 5ba47d82..ba746dd7 100644 --- a/specifications/actions/126.yaml +++ b/specifications/actions/126.yaml @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ Metadata: Proposed: '2025-09-16' Adopted: null - Modified: '2026-03-14' + Modified: '2026-03-17' Version: 0.6.0 Status: Proposed Approvers: @@ -22,25 +22,28 @@ Specification: Data Integration (score ×4), Tag Config (score ×2), Config Doc (score ×2). - Max raw = 80. Normalised to 0–10. + Max raw (52) * Env_Coverage - % of cloud environments covered by deployed tools (0=0%, 1<50%, 2=50-79%, 3=80-94%, 4=95-99%, 5=100%) * Data_Integr - Data sources integrated (billing, usage, tags, business context) (0=None, 1=Billing Only, 2=+Usage, 3=+Tags, 4=+Business context, 5=All+Automated) * Tag_Config - Tag/allocation rules configured and enforced tool (0=No, 1=Partial manual, 2=Full manual, 3=Automated enforcement) * Config_Doc - Tool configuration documented and version-controlled (0=No rules, 1=Informal, 2=Documented, 3=Version-controlled+Reviewed) - * Output Range (0-10) + * Output Range (0-52) Scoring: - - Score: 0.0-3.9 - Condition: Crawl - - Score: 4.0-6.9 - Condition: Walk - - Score: 7.0-8.9 - Condition: Run - - Score: 9.0-10.0 - Condition: Fly + - Score: 15 + Condition: Low Maturity + - Score: 31 + Condition: Developing + - Score: 44 + Condition: Established + - Score: 52 + Condition: Optimizing References: - Name: null Link: null Comment: null - Supplemental Guidance: - - null + Notes: + - CRAWL Partial environment coverage, billing data only, no tag configuration. + - WALK 50–79% coverage, usage and billing data, partial tagging, informal config documentation. + - RUN 80–94% coverage, tags integrated, full manual tag rules, documented configuration. + - FLY 100% coverage, all data sources automated, automated tag enforcement, version-controlled configuration. Overrides: null From 61330a481d9fced25c67564d74c5278816e89727 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tanjiha Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2026 09:52:18 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 5/9] Update 125.yaml I updated the spellings, I couldn't find an integr, there is integration --- specifications/actions/125.yaml | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/specifications/actions/125.yaml b/specifications/actions/125.yaml index 8f027cb9..515587e2 100644 --- a/specifications/actions/125.yaml +++ b/specifications/actions/125.yaml @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ Metadata: Proposed: '2025-09-16' Adopted: '2025-11-01' - Modified: '2026-03-17' + Modified: '2026-03-30' Version: 2.0.0 Status: Accepted Approvers: @@ -47,8 +47,8 @@ Specification: Comment: null Supplemental Guidance: - CRAWL (0–8) No build-vs-buy process exists. TCO analysis is absent or undocumented, vendor comparisons are informal, and decisions default to familiarity, relationships, or cost alone. - - WALK (9–17) Basic TCO covers licence costs and implementation effort. Vendors are scored against a structured scorecard, and decisions are loosely documented. Finance validation and exec sign-off are inconsistent. - - RUN (18–24) TCO is detailed, covering licencing, implementation, integration, training, support, and build opportunity cost. A multi-stakeholder evaluation process is used, decisions are formally approved, and a guiding policy is published and partially enforced. + - WALK (9–17) Basic TCO covers License costs and implementation effort. Vendors are scored against a structured scorecard, and decisions are loosely documented. Finance validation and exec sign-off are inconsistent. + - RUN (18–24) TCO is detailed, covering licensing, implementation, integration, training, support, and build opportunity cost. A multi-stakeholder evaluation process is used, decisions are formally approved, and a guiding policy is published and partially enforced. - FLY (25–29) TCO is Finance-validated and accounts for multi-year trajectories, exit costs, and strategic optionality. A full RFP with documented rationale is used, decisions are exec-approved and periodically reviewed, and an enforced org-wide policy governs all future build-vs-buy choices. Overrides: null From 2af9b1314180436a0e80f99060368bde40674d99 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tanjiha Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2026 17:07:54 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 6/9] Fixed the Scoring to keep to range (0-10) --- specifications/actions/125.yaml | 18 +++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/specifications/actions/125.yaml b/specifications/actions/125.yaml index 515587e2..1efef35b 100644 --- a/specifications/actions/125.yaml +++ b/specifications/actions/125.yaml @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ Metadata: Proposed: '2025-09-16' Adopted: '2025-11-01' - Modified: '2026-03-30' + Modified: '2026-04-04' Version: 2.0.0 Status: Accepted Approvers: @@ -32,14 +32,14 @@ Specification: * Rules_Est - Guiding rules / policy established for future decsions (0=No rules, 1=Draft, 2=Published+Enforced) * Output Range (0 - Max Raw) Scoring: - - Score: 8 - Condition: Low Maturity - - Score: 17 - Condition: Developing - - Score: 24 - Condition: Established - - Score: 29 - Condition: Optimizing + - Score: 0 + Condition: Low Maturity, Score Range (0-8) + - Score: 4 + Condition: Developing, Score Range (9-17) + - Score: 7 + Condition: Established, Score Range (18-24) + - Score: 10 + Condition: Optimizing, Score Range (25-29) References: - Name: Maturity Definition From 74cc211b476a95906ea70af50fe7a844c8659ab7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tanjiha Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2026 17:13:09 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 7/9] Fixed the Scoring to keep to range (0-10) and updated the spelling from integr to integration --- specifications/actions/126.yaml | 20 ++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/specifications/actions/126.yaml b/specifications/actions/126.yaml index ba746dd7..d5e8e759 100644 --- a/specifications/actions/126.yaml +++ b/specifications/actions/126.yaml @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ Metadata: Proposed: '2025-09-16' Adopted: null - Modified: '2026-03-17' + Modified: '2026-04-04' Version: 0.6.0 Status: Proposed Approvers: @@ -24,19 +24,19 @@ Specification: Config Doc (score ×2). Max raw (52) * Env_Coverage - % of cloud environments covered by deployed tools (0=0%, 1<50%, 2=50-79%, 3=80-94%, 4=95-99%, 5=100%) - * Data_Integr - Data sources integrated (billing, usage, tags, business context) (0=None, 1=Billing Only, 2=+Usage, 3=+Tags, 4=+Business context, 5=All+Automated) + * Data_Integration - Data sources integrated (billing, usage, tags, business context) (0=None, 1=Billing Only, 2=+Usage, 3=+Tags, 4=+Business context, 5=All+Automated) * Tag_Config - Tag/allocation rules configured and enforced tool (0=No, 1=Partial manual, 2=Full manual, 3=Automated enforcement) * Config_Doc - Tool configuration documented and version-controlled (0=No rules, 1=Informal, 2=Documented, 3=Version-controlled+Reviewed) * Output Range (0-52) Scoring: - - Score: 15 - Condition: Low Maturity - - Score: 31 - Condition: Developing - - Score: 44 - Condition: Established - - Score: 52 - Condition: Optimizing + - Score: 0 + Condition: Low Maturity, Score Range (0-15) + - Score: 4 + Condition: Developing, Score Range (16-31) + - Score: 7 + Condition: Established, Score Range (32-44) + - Score: 10 + Condition: Optimizing, Score Range (45-52) References: - Name: null Link: null From 429954d66969af2db380473f105e726d27b2c8cc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tanjiha Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2026 17:27:55 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 8/9] Updated to include - | to write >120 characters --- specifications/actions/126.yaml | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/specifications/actions/126.yaml b/specifications/actions/126.yaml index d5e8e759..2079a11d 100644 --- a/specifications/actions/126.yaml +++ b/specifications/actions/126.yaml @@ -23,10 +23,10 @@ Specification: Tag Config (score ×2), Config Doc (score ×2). Max raw (52) - * Env_Coverage - % of cloud environments covered by deployed tools (0=0%, 1<50%, 2=50-79%, 3=80-94%, 4=95-99%, 5=100%) - * Data_Integration - Data sources integrated (billing, usage, tags, business context) (0=None, 1=Billing Only, 2=+Usage, 3=+Tags, 4=+Business context, 5=All+Automated) - * Tag_Config - Tag/allocation rules configured and enforced tool (0=No, 1=Partial manual, 2=Full manual, 3=Automated enforcement) - * Config_Doc - Tool configuration documented and version-controlled (0=No rules, 1=Informal, 2=Documented, 3=Version-controlled+Reviewed) + - | * Env_Coverage - % of cloud environments covered by deployed tools (0=0%, 1<50%, 2=50-79%, 3=80-94%, 4=95-99%, 5=100%) + - | * Data_Integration - Data sources integrated (billing, usage, tags, business context) (0=None, 1=Billing Only, 2=+Usage, 3=+Tags, 4=+Business context, 5=All+Automated) + - | * Tag_Config - Tag/allocation rules configured and enforced tool (0=No, 1=Partial manual, 2=Full manual, 3=Automated enforcement) + - | * Config_Doc - Tool configuration documented and version-controlled (0=No rules, 1=Informal, 2=Documented, 3=Version-controlled+Reviewed) * Output Range (0-52) Scoring: - Score: 0 From 3f0752fdffe7335ad58a9f2c49e7f48769f61d3c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Travis Salas Cox Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2026 10:10:21 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 9/9] Linting fixes just changing up the code as little as I can to pass the linting. I will add docs for this this week to make it easier. Sorry for not getting those out yet and having this process be a pain right now. --- specifications/actions/125.yaml | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------- specifications/actions/126.yaml | 14 +++++++++----- 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/specifications/actions/125.yaml b/specifications/actions/125.yaml index fa3aade4..dfbe5abe 100644 --- a/specifications/actions/125.yaml +++ b/specifications/actions/125.yaml @@ -26,10 +26,14 @@ Specification: Decision document (score ×3), Rules established (score ×1). Max Raw Score (29) - * TCO_Analysis - Total Cost of Ownership analysis performed (0=None, 1=High-level, 2=Detailed, 3=Validated with Finance) - * Vendor_Scored - Vendor options scored against criteria (0=None, 1=Informal, 2=Structured scorecard, 3=Multi-stakeholder RFP) - * Decision_Doc - Build vs Buy decision formally documented and approved (0=No, 1=Informal note, 2=Formal doc, 3=Exec-approved+reviewed) - * Rules_Est - Guiding rules / policy established for future decsions (0=No rules, 1=Draft, 2=Published+Enforced) + * TCO_Analysis - Total Cost of Ownership analysis performed + (0=None, 1=High-level, 2=Detailed, 3=Validated with Finance) + * Vendor_Scored - Vendor options scored against criteria + (0=None, 1=Informal, 2=Structured scorecard, 3=Multi-stakeholder RFP) + * Decision_Doc - Build vs Buy decision formally documented and approved + (0=No, 1=Informal note, 2=Formal doc, 3=Exec-approved+reviewed) + * Rules_Est - Guiding rules / policy established for future decsions + (0=No rules, 1=Draft, 2=Published+Enforced) * Output Range (0 - Max Raw) Score Type: multi_bucket Scoring: @@ -46,9 +50,18 @@ Specification: Link: https://www.finops.org/framework/maturity-model/ Comment: null Supplemental Guidance: - - CRAWL (0–8) No build-vs-buy process exists. TCO analysis is absent or undocumented, vendor comparisons are informal, and decisions default to familiarity, relationships, or cost alone. - - WALK (9–17) Basic TCO covers License costs and implementation effort. Vendors are scored against a structured scorecard, and decisions are loosely documented. Finance validation and exec sign-off are inconsistent. - - RUN (18–24) TCO is detailed, covering licensing, implementation, integration, training, support, and build opportunity cost. A multi-stakeholder evaluation process is used, decisions are formally approved, and a guiding policy is published and partially enforced. - - FLY (25–29) TCO is Finance-validated and accounts for multi-year trajectories, exit costs, and strategic optionality. A full RFP with documented rationale is used, decisions are exec-approved and periodically reviewed, and an enforced org-wide policy governs all future build-vs-buy choices. - + - |- + CRAWL (0–8) No build-vs-buy process exists. TCO analysis is absent or undocumented, vendor comparisons are + informal, and decisions default to familiarity, relationships, or cost alone. + - | + WALK (9–17) Basic TCO covers License costs and implementation effort. Vendors are scored against a structured + scorecard, and decisions are loosely documented. Finance validation and exec sign-off are inconsistent. + - | + RUN (18–24) TCO is detailed, covering licensing, implementation, integration, training, support, and build + opportunity cost. A multi-stakeholder evaluation process is used, decisions are formally approved, and a guiding + policy is published and partially enforced. + - | + FLY (25–29) TCO is Finance-validated and accounts for multi-year trajectories, exit costs, and strategic + optionality. A full RFP with documented rationale is used, decisions are exec-approved and periodically reviewed, + and an enforced org-wide policy governs all future build-vs-buy choices. Overrides: null diff --git a/specifications/actions/126.yaml b/specifications/actions/126.yaml index ab5cbbfa..ee974db6 100644 --- a/specifications/actions/126.yaml +++ b/specifications/actions/126.yaml @@ -23,10 +23,14 @@ Specification: Tag Config (score ×2), Config Doc (score ×2). Max raw (52) - - | * Env_Coverage - % of cloud environments covered by deployed tools (0=0%, 1<50%, 2=50-79%, 3=80-94%, 4=95-99%, 5=100%) - - | * Data_Integration - Data sources integrated (billing, usage, tags, business context) (0=None, 1=Billing Only, 2=+Usage, 3=+Tags, 4=+Business context, 5=All+Automated) - - | * Tag_Config - Tag/allocation rules configured and enforced tool (0=No, 1=Partial manual, 2=Full manual, 3=Automated enforcement) - - | * Config_Doc - Tool configuration documented and version-controlled (0=No rules, 1=Informal, 2=Documented, 3=Version-controlled+Reviewed) + * Env_Coverage - % of cloud environments covered by deployed tools + (0=0%, 1<50%, 2=50-79%, 3=80-94%, 4=95-99%, 5=100%) + * Data_Integration - Data sources integrated (billing, usage, tags, business context) + (0=None, 1=Billing Only, 2=+Usage, 3=+Tags, 4=+Business context, 5=All+Automated) + * Tag_Config - Tag/allocation rules configured and enforced tool + (0=No, 1=Partial manual, 2=Full manual, 3=Automated enforcement) + * Config_Doc - Tool configuration documented and version-controlled + (0=No rules, 1=Informal, 2=Documented, 3=Version-controlled+Reviewed) * Output Range (0-52) Score Type: multi_bucket Scoring: @@ -42,7 +46,7 @@ Specification: - Name: null Link: null Comment: null - Notes: + Supplemental Guidance: - CRAWL Partial environment coverage, billing data only, no tag configuration. - WALK 50–79% coverage, usage and billing data, partial tagging, informal config documentation. - RUN 80–94% coverage, tags integrated, full manual tag rules, documented configuration.