1. Roll Call East to West

  2. Scribe for call – Rupert Berk

  3. Itana Administration

  4. 2015-2016 Close-out round table 


  • Chris Eagle, University of Michigan
  • Dan Kiskis, University of Michigan
  • JJ Duchateau, University of Wisconsin
  • Louis King, Yale
  •  Jim Phelps, University of Washington
  •  Rupert Berk, University of Washington
  • Ashish Pandit, UCSD


  • API subgroup

    • will resume meeting monthly again in September

    • most recently did roundtable on current state and tooling challenges
    • discussion about how to make API portal more inviting
    • considering white paper on API governance in Fall
  • Itana Fall F2F
    • more planning will happen over summer
  • July 1 meeting is cancelled. Monthly meetings will restart in September.
  • Online group work may continue over the summer on the work from the 2016 Spring F2F

Roundtable Discussion 


  • At Yale, EA has been identified to lead new IT strategy work. Hope to tap into some existing robust communities to do this. 
  • Strategic plan is a point in time of ongoing conversation. So, the important part is how to leverage the conversation that comes out of this.


  • This is similar to the U of M experience in building strategy. We built a strategic plan and then threw it away, but it was very valuable because it got people involved in the conversation.


  • There is a new political construct at Yale. There is a shift from faculty governance committees to provost governance. This is both good and bad. Good insofar as it brings strong leadership, bad in that it disconnects some critical voices. It is now necessary to figure out how to reconnect those voices.


  • The UW is engaged in a similar effort to balance the right voices in strategic planning discussions. The immediate context is providing information to the IT Service Management Board to enable them to govern the mix of services provided by central IT. But to provide this information involves engaging many different IT teams, service owners, business service owners, IT leadership and surfacing understood business outcomes and goals for everyone to see and validate. 
  • The UW is doing this in the context of its ITSM effort.
  • Link to slide deck:  mapping services to strategic towers and capabilities:


  • Yale is also turning towards ITSM and establishing itself as a service-oriented organization.



  • It's not always that an institution cannot do more with metrics; often, there's a lack on desire to do more.
  • We know how to assess learning outcomes, but choose not to in a lot of cases. Sometimes it's antithetical to our R1 culture to focus on instruction over research.


  • We have a new CIO, a big proponent of EA.
  • The big challenge for me is how to do integrations. How do we get to a future state of APIs and microservices, given the distributed nature of the environment and the time it will take to share information and train?


  • University of Wisconsin working on ref models to better inform decision-making.
  • Using EA methods to help assess IT projects, particularly those bigger than a single department.
  • Challenge: How to engage EA with broader efforts in IT and U?
  • For instance, when the CIO has a data governance initiative, how does EA get engaged at the right time? How to move beyond IT?
  • Louis: Would like to follow up on how do we get provost funding for IT initiatives?


  • At Yale, we were put into that position, we didn't request it.
  • The higher ed pendulum swings between centralization (efficiency) and distribution (value-centered). Right now, with a relatively new provost, there's a swing to value-centered, and EA is being asked to help. EA is responding to the provost.


  • We struggle with positioning all the time. We have trouble being perceived as more than solution architects.


  • Outside of higher ed, we see businesses responding to IT trends and drivers, but we don't see that in higher ed.


  • Here are the artifacts that Rupert and Piet are working on to communicate strategy up, down, and across.


  • We are working on enhancing our MESAs to capture more strategy, and where possible, to interact with business partners to do so.


  • I'm working on post-go-live governance for our major HRP project. What needs to be governed, how, what triggers for change come from central and distributed units at different levels.
  • We are deriving governance requirements from process flow analysis.
  • Eventually, from this come implications for our change request management tool (Service Now).
  • Work has gone well by focusing on what governance needs to do (focus on process) without falling into power-grabs and other politics.


  • This is brilliant because it enables a focus on operationalizing governance.


  • It encourages agreement without the food fight.



From the Adobe Connect whiteboard:


From the Adobe Connect chat window:

Ashish Pandit: is the location for f2f finalized?

Louis King - Yale: at educasue in anaheim, ca

Jim Phelps: It will be a pre-conference seminar that you register for separately.

Jim Phelps:

Jim Phelps: It will show up at this link once they push out the agenda

Jim Phelps: The date is Tuesday Oct 25th.

Ashish Pandit: Thanks

Chris Eagle (Michigan):

Chris Eagle (Michigan): one page summary of our Strategy Metrics

Jim Phelps: Chris Eagle should "The amount spent on strategic projects increases over time." be "percentage spent over time instead"?

Chris Eagle (Michigan): yes. however, at this point, some of our metrics are limited by the data we can gather

Chris Eagle (Michigan): we think we might be able to get a list of all projects that advance the strategy, but we're not sure we can (at this time) get full IT spend on campus, in order to make a %

Ashish Pandit: It would be great if you can share the presentation. Thanks



  • No labels