Topic: EA Maturity Model

Day/Time October 20, 2017 - 11AM PST, Noon Mountain, 1PM Central, 2PM Eastern (7PM GMT)

Adobe Connect  -Audio is only on the phone, not Adobe.

Dial-in number+1-734-615-7474 Access Code: 0165350
Agenda for next call
  1. Roll Call (by timezone - East to West)
  2. Scribe Shout-out - It's easy to scribe: How To Scribe Itana Notes
  3. Agenda Bash
  4. EA Maturity Model Discussion
  5. Itana Org Updates
    1. Working Group Updates
      1. EA Maturity Model
      2. IoT Whitepaper
      3. API Working Group
    2. Book club update
    3. Steering Committee Update


EA Maturity model Discussion


Presentation on EAMM-edu

Useful for EA practitioners in HigherEd

Understand stages of maturity of EA practice (Start to optimal stage of maturity) that applies to HigherEd

Started work in May, 2017

Open for Review from broader community

What’s in EAMM-edu?

  • Example scenarios Maturity Model Structure contains 2 dimensions (Attributes vs levels of maturity) 
  • Set of activities to reach a level of maturity 

Discussion Points

  • Level 5 – Improving Level name needs to be resolved (suggestions – adapting, optimizing)
  • Was there a consideration to go with level 0? Yes, but decided on going with level 1 Model recognizes it is open-ended on both sides Qs. Having a conversation around EA – level 0?(Ans. Probably fits in level 1) Qs. 
  • Practice not formally sponsored – level 0? (Ans. Probably fits in level 1) 
  • What processes do institutions have in place to move from “Defined” to “Managed” maturity?
  •  Is there an assessment guide? Group working on one. 
  • Can there be real life scenarios/examples at each of the levels? 
  • Jim started a page to share practices in community. ·
    • These scenarios could be a measure of milestones achieved not necessarily a way to assess how well they are done. 
  • Add an experience/scenario/article/case study/lessons learned to a cell in the maturity model ·
  •  Build a Practice guide with inputs from all. 

Email to ITANA EAMM-edu (insert email) to share feedback

Itana Org Updates

No call on Nov 3rd. Next call in 4 weeks.

New group suggestion. - Business Architecture working group or an ITANA track Chair –

  • Dana Miller (Miami) 
  • Robert Snyder (Penn State) interested in joining. 
  • Someone from Harvard interested in joining. Didn’t catch the name.


Chat Log:

  • Louis King (Yale): EAMM-edu Presentation
  • Louis King (Yale): EAMM-edu Document
  • Louis King (Yale): EAMM-edu Working Group Wiki
  • Jim Phelps: Does Improving = Continous Service Improvement?
  • Jim Phelps: Improving = Adaptive
  • Luke Tracy - UMich: Level 5: Sustaining?
  • Lakshmi Dasari (UCLA): Level 5 - Optimizing? (Trying to gain efficiencies in practices?)
  • Jim Phelps: I like Optimizing
  • Piet Niederhausen (UWash): Good suggestions thank you!
  • Robert Snyder: I like this approach for a new practice
  • Robert Snyder: Would you run the new/target scoping area through the model, there for it can be applied iteratively through the overall growth and maturity cycle?.
  • Piet Niederhausen (UWash): Robert, yes, going back to slide 4 (scenarios) -- in any scenario that changes the scope of the EA practice, we expect that would impact maturity in other attributes.
  • Jim Phelps: Robert - I think that is correct
  • Robert Snyder: Would level zero apply to a practice than has not yet formally been sponsored?
  • Piet Niederhausen (UWash): A practice with no formal sponsorship yet can fit in Level 1 in this model.
  • Robert Snyder: zero = nescient stage.
  • Robert Snyder: Piet, that is good, and I'm not pressing for a Zero. I think as long as nescient stage is accounted for, the name of the level is not important.
  • Lakshmi Dasari (UCLA): Open group suggests that the fact an enterprise (organization) exists and is running, means that EA exists. Even if the practice is not formal. So perhaps it is safe to start at level1?
  • Chris from Miami (the one in Ohio): In my experience, an organization with a formal EA practice does not function the same as one without.
  • Robert Snyder: I would sugggest that starting witth the business and using EA to garner understanding of the goals and needs of the organization then saves IT groups groups from loosing their customers to direct vendor inroads.
  • Piet Niederhausen (UWash): I would agree that EA exists in the sense that the enterprise always has an architecture even if it's not assessed; but the EA practice (for example, as a function that can provide services) may not exist yet.
  • Jim Phelps:
  • Dana Miller Miami of Ohio: Thanks
  • Jim Robert Snyder: sounds good
  • Dana Miller Miami of Ohio: The model looks helpful
  • Ladan Heit: I thought this was a great presentation; I am interested in participating; will just need some time to follow the model and document our experience and then share.
  • Robert Snyder: This is extremely helpful and timely for us
  • Walter Green - Arkansas: Great work/presentation--thanks!
  • No labels