Assess and Improve the Health of Your Atlan Platform

An Atlan health check is a structured review of how an organisation’s Atlan workspace is configured, connected, governed, adopted, and operated. It assesses platform administration, connector workflows, metadata coverage, lineage, glossary usage, access controls, policies, automation, reporting, and operational practices, then converts findings into a prioritised remediation plan.

The scope can include stakeholder discovery, tenant and administration review, connection and workflow assessment, metadata completeness analysis, lineage and glossary review, persona and policy checks, usage and adoption analysis, operational logging review, risk classification, improvement recommendations, and an executive-ready roadmap. Final depth depends on access and agreed scope.

Typical sponsors include chief data officers, heads of data governance, data platform leaders, enterprise architects, analytics leaders, governance programme managers, and technology risk owners. Atlan administrators, data stewards, security teams, connector owners, and representative business users normally contribute evidence and context.

Common triggers include low adoption, failed or unstable metadata crawls, inconsistent ownership, incomplete descriptions, weak lineage coverage, duplicated glossary content, access-control concerns, a major platform expansion, a governance programme reset, preparation for audit, or a transition from implementation into steady-state operations.

The standard health check is assessment-led. Dataconsultant documents findings and recommendations before making changes. Remediation, configuration updates, playbook changes, policy adjustments, connector tuning, or operating-model support can be commissioned separately with agreed approvals, change controls, rollback considerations, and acceptance criteria.

Relevant areas can include connections and workflow runs, asset discovery, metadata enrichment, business glossary and domains, lineage, certifications, ownership, personas, purposes, metadata policies, governance workflows, playbooks, reporting, usage analytics, query and event logs, APIs, integrations, data products, and workspace administration where enabled and in scope.

The assessment can review completeness, consistency, ownership, descriptions, glossary associations, tags, classifications, certifications, custom metadata, lineage coverage, stale or duplicated assets, and evidence of operational maintenance. Samples and platform reports are used to distinguish isolated issues from systematic control or process gaps.

Yes. The service can review roles, groups, personas, purposes, metadata policies, connection administration, privileged access, authentication configuration, user lifecycle processes, audit evidence, and segregation of duties. It does not replace penetration testing, legal advice, formal certification, or an independent statutory audit.

There is no reliable fixed duration without scoping. Timing depends on tenant size, number of connections and workflows, enabled modules, evidence availability, stakeholder access, assessment depth, jurisdictions, risk requirements, and whether remediation design or implementation support is included.

Pricing is influenced by the number of workspaces, users, connections, workflows, business domains, enabled capabilities, evidence sources, interviews, sampling depth, security and compliance requirements, deliverable detail, onsite needs, and the selected engagement model. A written estimate can be prepared after an initial scoping discussion.

Useful inputs include read-only or supervised administrative access, configuration exports where available, connection and workflow inventories, usage and reporting views, policy and persona details, operating procedures, incident records, governance standards, architecture diagrams, and access to accountable stakeholders. Any access constraints are documented as assessment limitations.

The assessment is designed to minimise disruption. Most activities use existing configuration, reports, logs, interviews, and controlled sampling. Any test, workflow rerun, configuration change, or production action should be separately approved and scheduled through the client’s change-management process.

Typical deliverables include an executive summary, assessment scope and evidence register, health scorecard, detailed findings log, risk and impact classification, quick-win recommendations, target operating practices, prioritised remediation backlog, dependency map, KPI framework, and a phased roadmap with accountable decision points.

Yes. Follow-on support can include remediation planning, connector and workflow stabilisation, metadata enrichment, glossary and ownership improvements, access-policy refinement, automation design, reporting setup, governance operating-model support, administrator coaching, and managed platform-health reviews. Scope and responsibilities are agreed separately.

Useful measures can include workflow success and freshness, metadata completeness, ownership and certification coverage, lineage coverage, policy exceptions, issue closure, search and asset engagement, active-user adoption, automation effectiveness, stale-content reduction, and service-response measures. Baselines and calculation rules should be agreed before targets are set.