← Back to portfolio
Assessed 2026-07-13

Roche Letters

Production data · CSCoE / DDC / Molecular Modality
Lead
Agnes Meyder
SMEs
Agnes Meyder
Provider org
CSCoE / DDC / Molecular Modality

Overall coverage

Transitional
65% 89 / 140 points
Coverage = unweighted mean of the 10 dimension coverages (not points ÷ max)

Maturity distribution

Modern 5Transitional 5Tech Debt 0

Coverage vs. portfolio

app vs. avg (dashed)

Score vs. gap by dimension

Prioritized remediation

No recommendations recorded.

Per-question assessment

click a dimension to expand · colored answer chips
FAIR & Discoverability 0 gaps 60%
The dataset or system is findable in a searchable catalog or inventory (e.g., ).
Yes
A named data owner or steward is formally assigned and documented.
Yes
Access and usage conditions, including legal and compliance constraints, are documented and available to users.
Yes
What is the percentage of the data uses standardized terminologies such as RTiS.
0.0
Data lineage is captured for key data flows and is maintained over time.
None
IAM, Privacy & Security 2 gaps 67%
The system uses the approved corporate identity provider for user authentication (e.g., Roche SSO via PingFederate, OAuth 2.0, OpenID Connect).
Yes
Data is encrypted in transit.
Yes
Data is encrypted at rest.
No
Secrets are managed in an approved central vault (e.g., HashiCorp Vault or AWS Secrets Manager).
No
Access rights and permissions are reviewed and formally certified at defined intervals.
Yes
No shared or generic privileged accounts exist in the production environment.
Yes
Platform / Hosting / Infrastructure 1 gap 75%
Infrastructure is provisioned declaratively using Infrastructure as Code.
Partial
The system uses approved shared internal platforms or Golden Paths, where applicable. (e.g., Minerva Application Blueprint)
Yes
Architecture & Interoperability 3 gaps 38%
Can we swap in and out components without modifying the system.
Partial
All application services are exposed through clear and defined interfaces.
Yes
Data contracts are documented and governed.
No
API lifecycle management is actively implemented using Gravitee.
No
Reliability 3 gaps 33%
All critical services have defined SLAs and SLOs.
Partial
Major incidents are followed by systematic postmortems, and resulting corrective actions are tracked to closure in the backlog.
Partial
SLIs are defined and calculated for all established SLAs and SLOs, and are visible to stakeholders and system owners.
No
Scalability & Performance 1 gap 75%
The system supports automated vertical and horizontal scaling based on real-time demand, where applicable.
Partial
Load and performance testing are performed routinely and included in major release cycles.
Yes
Deployment Automation 3 gaps 60%
Core workloads are supported by a complete CI/CD pipeline.
Yes
Builds, tests, and deployments are executed through fully automated processes.
Partial
Automated quality gates are enforced before production deployment. (e.g., SonarQube)
Partial
Production rollback or deployment occurs regularly and within the last 6 months.
No
Build artifacts and dependencies are managed in a traceable and controlled manner.
Yes
Observability 0 gaps 100%
All critical services generate standard telemetry, including logs, metrics, and traces.
Yes
Observability data is available through approved central monitoring and observability tools.
Yes
Incident analysis can be performed across upstream and downstream dependencies.
Yes
Resilience & Recovery 2 gaps 50%
Critical services and data have defined Recovery Time Objective (RTO) and Recovery Point Objective (RPO) targets.
Partial
Backup, restore, and recovery procedures, including assigned roles and responsibilities, are documented and tested.
Partial
Cost Transparency & FinOps 0 gaps 92%
Cost visibility is available at component, system, product family, or domain level.
System
Cost is reviewed regularly together with usage and business value by the owning team.
Yes
Architectural decisions explicitly consider cost as a primary decision variable.
Yes