Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata



  • Ayodele Carter-Davis, The George Washington University
  • Bob Dein, Miami University (Ohio)
  • Dan Kiskis, University of Michigan
  • Greg Charest, Harvard University
  • J.J. du Chateau, University of Wisconsin
  • Jose Cedeno, Oregon State University
  • Louis King, Yale University (facilitator)
  • Maher Shinouda, University of Waterloo
  • Piet Niederhausen, University of Washington (scribe)


Discussion items

5mRoll Call & Request For ScribeLEK
5mReview of prior meeting and agendaLEK 
25mDiscuss framework and reach consensusAll 
20mDiscuss elements under attributesAll 
5mNext stepsAll 



We reviewed the first page intro to the model.

  • General agreement that this is fine just now

  • Jose suggested there could be a clarifying illustration of where EA fits in the enterprise

  • There could be more on the high level goals and value proposition of EA as a function

  • There could be definitions of terms in a glossary or part of the introduction

We discussed the levels of the model.

  • Agreed on five levels

  • Revised some headings from “ing” to “ed”, to reflect that in the middle levels, the cells will contain criteria for what constitutes maturity at that level -- whereas at level 0, initiation is in progress, and at level 5, continuous improvement is in progress

We discussed the scope of EA.

  • The maturity levels don’t map to scope; scope is a “row”; a high maturity practice could choose to not expand into business domains

  • In general scope of coverage should not be a measure of maturity

We discussed the Coverage section.

  • We probably need to blow out the items here in more detail to make sure we agree on the categories.

We discussed what goes in a cell. Is it:

  • What you are able to do at this level

  • A capability you need to have to be at this level

  • An activity you typically do at this level

  • An activity you need to do to achieve a capability

  • An outcome achieved at this level

Action items