March 10: 10-year anniversary commemoration, including folks involved from its inception. Over 700 people on the list now.
March 24: Women in IT coffee and chat.
Enterprise Architecture maturity model for higher ed
New group that JJ and Louis King are starting up
Review charter and next steps.
Maturity Model purpose:
Baseline against which to benchmark capabilities and progress to an ideal outcome.
Prioritizes efforts for managing improvement efforts.
Characteristics (AKA attributes) and Levels (aka Stages)
CMMI: Capability and Maturity Model Institute definitions:
Maturity: Well defined evolutionary plateau towards achieving a mature process
Each level provides a discrete set of capabilities
Gartner has a maturity model
NASCIO also has one (national assoc. Of State CIO’s)
Several others considered and included at this juncture as well.
Considerations for Gartner and Nascio listed below:
Levels run from 1-5, or 0-5.
Jim: 0 really means “individual heroics.”
Models then work on a matrix, to show characteristics for each level, with characteristics as a column, and level as a row (or vice versa).
So you can measure maturity relative to each particular characteristic.
So which of these things make the most sense for higher education? That’s what the working group is going to work on.
Here’s a list of level characteristics across several different frameworks:
May choose one, or may identify scenarios where one model may be favored over another.
Gartner shows progress to achieving levels for the various characteristics in radar maps, with each characteristic a radial line, and the level measured as a distance from the center.
Jim: Maturity models can point out things that we could do, but won’t. Provides a rich framework for having objective, comprehensive discussions about potential work
Piet: Characteristics are great, but are there materials or techniques to help people achieve these characteristics?
JJ: Models lay out the bars, but leave execution plans to the teams on their own. Not a how to guide, but an assessment.
Piet: Working group could help to build these execution plans or case studies
Louis: Going to discuss approach in next steps.
Louis: Once we agree on the characteristic levels, then we need to align documentation that illustrates the methods used for achieving those characteristics. Becomes a pretty rich guide for moving the needle of maturity for an organization.
Maturity model + an applied practice.
Nothing custom-fit already in place for higher ed. We’ll need to construct it.
Something missing: Readiness factor… What criteria need to be met before an institution is even to be ready to embark on the maturity journey?
Monthly meetings, running March - July 2017
Work and collaborate online to determine the outputs for the group
Get a draft in place for moving into the fall program.
Piet: Monthly call may not be a fast enough cadence to meet these timelines.
Ray: May want to winnow some of the methodologies out of consideration early, to avoid having to work on several models.
Model can work as evidence that EA work is progressing, and achieving agreed-upon benefits. .
Links will be sent out as follow-up items in email.
Can participate by helping define and lay out the framework, or by contributing case study materials.
Fall face to face this year at Educause in Philly in last week of Oct.
Steering Group: No updates
API working group: Have begun working
Book club: Email to the listserv that book club will get started soon. Peter Salvetti is sending out an email
Call to action for IoT whitepaper. (nb: Gartner quote: IoT estimated to reach $2Trillion in revenue by 2020 with more than 20 billion connected things in use).
Whitepaper development working group is just starting to take shape. Idea is just getting started.
Walter Green (Arkansas): Internal program known as TechWatch is not going to focus on everything, but a specific topic each year. This coming year it’s going to be IoT.
Walter, Ray, Louis to get connected to Internet2