spaces.at.internet2.edu has been upgraded to Confluence 6.12.2. If you have any questions and/or concerns, please contact us at collaboration-support@internet2.edu


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

Agenda

  1. Roll Call (by timezone - East to West)
  2. Scribe Shout-out - It's easy to scribe: How To Scribe Itana Calls Guide
  3. Agenda Bash
  4. Topic: EA Practice Profiles and Maturity Reviews
  5. Itana Org Updates
    1. Working Group Updates
      1. API Working Group
      2. Business Architecture Working Group
      3. EA Maturity Model
    2. Steering Committee Update

Full program on the 2017-2018 Itana Program page.  All calls are listed on the Events page.


Attendees


Announcements - Itana News, Working Group Report out


EA Maturity Model

Links to materials:

EAMM-edu on the Itana Wiki
EA Maturity Model for Higher Education - Itana Call Report Out



ITANA Call 10/19/2018


Precursor to ITANA Meetup at Educause

Enterprise Architecture Maturity Model for Higher Education (Louis King, Yale)

Working Group

Goal is to provide a structured framework for growing in EA maturity.

Scope Agnostic.





JJ Du Chateau: important to understand what realms your EA practice impact is important.  Is it just in scope of IT, or does it encompass Business Architecture?

Sanjay Boolani:  Who gives buy-in for this kind of strategy?

UW: Strategy was written with the experience of multiple years, looking at the current situation + next steps.

Lack of clarity is normal at the beginning; perhaps beneficial.




Light blue indicates that Levels 1 and 5 may not be to scale and may be much longer depending on institutional conditions and history.


Does "formally recognized" necessitate that architecture is on the org chart?  Who should do the formal recognizing, anyway? Yale has a somewhat "federated" group that is distributed.  It is "formal" but perhaps not "defined." It is not communicated widely as Enterprise Architecture. So Yale does not define themselves as Level 3.

Within a practice, there is a matrix for multiple attributes within the practice.  Each row represents a different attribute:


Examples of maturity at each level:


This should guide your self-assessment for each attribute (current → future).

Jim: If you want to contribute your own assessment, you have a couple of ways to do so:  You can create a document and send it to the Itana Steering Committee or you can create it directly in the wiki (preferred).  Follow the Site Contributor Guide to edit the wiki: https://spaces.at.internet2.edu/display/itana/Site+Contributor+Guide


EA Maturity Model Home

Quick Start includes a template for self-assessment

How does this compare to Gartner's maturity model or similar?

  • working group compared 7-8 models and simplified

  • didn't prescribe specific scope areas

  • considered bolting on HE specifics to an amalgam of existing models

    • this approach made more sense and it gives a framework for creating a roadmap to increase maturity

  • gartner model was one of the more open-ended models

    • this HE model doesn't specifically prescribe governance, whereas gartner does


Each attribute has its own maturity ladder and clear steps between them

At Yale, creating this kind of narrative helped drive thinking around the current level of maturity.


Yale has identified specific areas where it wants to move up a level.

Where does the architecture org go after completing the assessment and defining focus?  Yale arch group has a new charge from the CIO around (...) that gives them expanded scope and a clear path to report back to senior leadership on a regular basis.

Any relationships established outside of the IT organization?

  • primary is with one of the colleges, which includes libraries and museums.  they are looking at digital transformation

  • finance is another area where there is outreach.

  • IT is looking to improve trust -- that needs to build before EA can expand its influence.


Intersection with agile practices

  • not necessarily prescribed by architecture, but future discussions could be had around this


UW: This process is great for helping an architecture team understand where they really stand and what needs to improve.  It helps guide decisions by pinning them to maturity goals.  

Within the EA team there may be initial disagreement.  Coming to consensus is really helpful to present a unified architecture picture.

What about having people outside EA do the assessment?


  • No labels