← Atlassian diagnostics, indexes and grids

Atlassian platform health index

Read the actual health of your Atlassian platform

A platform can remain available while accumulating debt that slows teams, makes change risky and increases administration costs. This index creates a shared view of configuration, usage, operations and governance.

  • 6 observable dimensions
  • 4 capability levels
  • Priorities linked to risk

Assessment grid

Six dimensions to avoid a purely technical diagnosis

Each dimension combines measurable evidence, owner interviews and observation of actual use. A healthy platform must remain manageable, understandable and able to evolve.

01

Architecture and configuration

Does the structure remain coherent as teams and projects grow?

  • Schemes, fields, workflows and screens
  • Standards and exceptions
  • Product and app dependencies
02

Performance and reliability

Do users and administrators encounter slow, failed or unstable processing?

  • Response times and asynchronous processing
  • Failed automations and integrations
  • Recurring incidents and diagnostic capability
03

Security and access

Do permissions match responsibilities and data sensitivity?

  • Groups, roles and external access
  • Accounts, domains, SSO and provisioning
  • Access reviews and traceability
04

Data and lifecycle

Is useful data reliable, discoverable and maintained over time?

  • Quality, duplicates and obsolete fields
  • Archiving, retention and volume
  • Owners and maintenance rules
05

Experience and adoption

Does the platform help teams or force them into workarounds?

  • Journey and form clarity
  • Search, notifications and self-service
  • Support, documentation and satisfaction
06

Governance and operations

Are changes decided, tested and tracked with clear ownership?

  • Product and administration roles
  • Change demand, prioritization and validation
  • Indicators, backlog and continuous improvement

Reading scale

Four levels describing capability, not an absolute value

The same organization can be controlled on security and fragile on data. A dimension profile is more useful than one average.

1

Fragile

Problems are handled case by case. Dependencies, owners and impacts are difficult to establish.

2

Partly controlled

Practices exist but remain uneven, poorly measured or dependent on a few individuals.

3

Controlled

Standards, ownership and controls are explicit. Exceptions are known and change is predictable.

4

Managed and scalable

The platform is governed through value, risk and indicators. It can absorb new uses without recreating debt.

How to use it

Build a defensible profile in four stages

  1. Set boundaries

    Clarify sites, products, populations, integrations and goals in scope.

  2. Establish facts

    Gather configuration, incidents, usage, changes, data and constraints.

  3. Challenge views

    Compare administrator, owner, security and user perspectives.

  4. Prioritize

    Connect each gap to a risk, impact and next decision.

What an actionable assessment should produce

  • Dimension profile and supporting facts
  • Critical risks and dependencies
  • Quick actions separated from structural work
  • Owners, decisions and recommended sequence

Guided assessment

Do you want to objectify your platform health?

Share the products, number of instances and known pain points. Ovyka will propose the right depth of analysis.

Assess the platform with Ovyka