Minutes
ITANA Conference Call
November 2, 2007
**Attendees**
Jim Phelps, University of Wisconsin-Madison (chair)
Paul Hill, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Keith Hazelton, University of Wisconsin
Michael Cerda, UniversityofTexas
Tom Barton, UniversityofChicago
Erik Michelson, University of Wisconsin
Jon Giltner, University of Colorado
Herbert Dias-Flores, University of California-Berkeley
Steve Mullins, UniversityofAlaska
Sue Sharpton, UniversityofAlaska
Brendan Bellina, University of Southern California
Dave Packham, UniversityofUtah
Dean Woodbeck, Internet2 (scribe)
**Agenda**
(0) Roll Call. Agenda Bash.
- Accept minutes of last call
- Internet2 Intellectual Property Framework reminder (Steve O)
- Report out: EDUCAUSE Constituent Group meeting (Jim P, all)
- Next steps from the CG meeting (all)
- Report out of Architecture Tool presentation (Dave P)
- Spring Face 2 Face meeting
- Items on the shelf review
Items on the shelf:
- Architecture Tool discussion (All)
- UC Irvine's open source tool - Protoge
- Chicago's I.T. Ecosystem Tool (Tom B)
- Paul's piece on Standards for Arch Documents - standards for architectural documentation (Paul H)
- UC-Berkeley Roadmap document (Hebert)
- Mellon ESB Assessment - goal? is there date on this? (Mark P)
- Mellon New Initiative: Framework for scholarly studies tools (Keith H)
- Web CMS RFPs (Jim P)
(99) Next steps, next call
**Roadmaps**
Jim Phelps has been gathering roadmaps on the wiki. If you have example roadmaps, please send them to Jim or place them on wiki.
**EDUCAUSE PRESENTATION**
Jim Phelps reported on the recent EDUCAUSE session concerning Enterprise Architecture. There was active discussion around the role of architecture in Business Process Improvement. The CIO survey demonstrated that most believed Business Process Improvement was where EA had the least impact on the enterprise. The reasons included:
- EA is often seen as a technology group with no real input or understanding of the business side of the enterprise.
- EA is often on the technology side and the changes actually need to come from the business side and be made by the business side.
- The business owners often want to re-implement current processes, not adopt new processes. We often make the technology match the current business process rather than changing the business process.
There was discussion about the role of EA in business process change. The consensus on the role of enterprise architecture is to highlight issues, document the current process, outline the potential improvements, then work to lead the discussion around the change.
Those attending EDUCAUSE also discussed EA's role in the enterprise. Some institutions use EA as a gate function; that is, projects don't get the go-ahead without EA's approval or they are allowed to continue with contingencies. Other institutions use EA to guide projects and illuminate issues.
Also at EDUCAUSE, a large part of the conversation was about how EA organizations are structured and their function. There was a range of campuses who are just starting enterprise architecture group and those who have been involved in EA for awhile.
**EA and Change**
The consensus among the working group is that architecture groups must become more involved in the discussion of business processes. EA organizations should not limit themselves to IT discussions only or be pigeonholed as project managers. Rather than fit business processes around IT, or fit IT processes around business models, there should be articulation between both groups and the academic leadership.
In light of the EDUCAUSE discussion and the need for improved communications among EA groups and campus leadership, can we gather a group of case studies about EA. The studies could look at different types of schools and different methods of implementing enterprise architecture. Someone considering starting an EA group could look for a peer institution and see their organizational strategy.
The case studies would need to take into account the differences between institutions and their operating structures - centralized vs. decentralized, IT/EA serving as a gate before projects move forward vs. IT/EA as facilitators and project managers. Other differences, in looking at how institutions implement EA, could involve such variables as whether IT has recently gone through a re-engineering or the purchase of an ERP like PeopleSoft or Banner.
Berkeleymay be ready to write a case study in a year or so. EA is a new concept at Berkeley and there isn't enough experience yet to develop a case study. However, an approach may be to write about how Berkeleyis approaching EA and why. On the other end of the spectrum is the UniversityofWisconsin, which has been engaged in EA for 12 years.
The working group discussed the types of questions to consider when writing a case study. Participants are asked to consider writing a case study and posting it to the wiki (with the file name of the format "Case Study: institution's name" (without the quotes). Questions include:
1. What impacts did re-organizations or large ERP implementations have on the way architecture engages?
2. Did you provide some kind of training throughout the enterprise to demonstrate the purpose of the architecture group being created? If so:
- Were there one-on-one sessions?
- Was the approach to hope for learning by osmosis and example?
- Is/was there a method for communicating the role of architecture to the campus at large prior to implementation?
3. What were the drivers that caused the group to be created?
4. What do you call your architecture group? Is it Enterprise Architecture or something else?
5. At what level does EA exist in the institution - at the executive level or just in IT?
6. Does your model have subject matter experts spread across the organization or just a central group?
- Federated architecture model as an example?
7. Do you use business systems analysts to model and formalize the business processes? This has a lot to do with technical requirements. This is not strategic or priority setting.
8. What other centers of excellence or governance groups do you have that relate to how you do architecture?
- Business process analysis groups
- Portfolio management groups
- Project management groups
- others?
9. Service Level Management - how does that fit in? How do you set service levels - from maintenance of the infrastructure to end-user services like enrollment?
10. How does budget and funding fit with architecture processes?
11. Provide a basic bio/description of your campus (name, # of students, public/private, professional schools, medical school, business model (multi-campus, federated)
12. Tools that you use to manage this stuff
Jim will work on developing a template to use in considering these questions. If you have additional questions to add, please send them to Jim within the next week. The template will provide some pre-populated content to provide the case studies with a common look.
**Architecture Tools **
Dave Packham reported on the UniversityofUtah's entry into the Enterprise Architecture field and their search for tools. They went through some TOGAF (The Open Group Architecture Framework) training, which provides a comprehensive approach to the design, planning, implementation, and governance of an enterprise. They were also searching for tools to track projects. They ran into agilense.com, which provides a $100,000/year hosted solution, but it involves putting everything into a relational database - policies and procedures and a lot of other information. Utah determined that this wasn't what they were looking for.
Others reported on portfolio management tools that they know of. BYU is using an expensive tool called Serena. Chicago has licensed a Mercury module, but there isn't much of a history yet. Wisconsinuses a wiki and a drawing tool called GLIFFY (a plug-in that goes with Confluence). This is a lightweight solution, but it allows everyone to see the drawings and use the tool to create others.
Tom Barton reported that, on a future call, he would like to demonstrate the IT Ecosystem approach that Chicago uses - it is a semantic web approach to mapping dependencies with all the elements in the infrastructure. The university now has 900 elements and 1200 relationships within the model and everyone can update the information.
Sue Sharpton reported that UC-Irvine is using an open source tool called Protégé.
Jim Phelps asked that people to either send him the names and brief descriptions of tools for adding to the wiki. Working group members can also post the information to the wiki themselves.
**Potential Face-to-Face**
Jim Phelps reported that he is trying to set up a spring face-to-face meeting, either in conjunction with the Internet2 Spring Member Meeting or the Spring Common Solutions Group meeting in Ann Arbor. He will keep working group members posted.
Overview
Content Tools