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

DRAFT Minutes
ITANA Conference Call
September 18, 2008

*Attendees*

Jim Phelps, University of Wisconsin (chair)
Jeremiah Adams, University of Colorado
Marina Arseniev, University of California -Irvine
Tom Barton, University of Chicago
Michael Daly, University of Michigan
Tom Dopirak, Carnegie Mellon University
Michael Enstrom, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Mike Fary, University of Chicago
Duffy Gilman, University of Arizona
Scott Hammel, Clemson University
Klara Jelinkova, Duke University
Tim Larrabee, University of Alaska
Chris Phillips, University of Maryland - Baltimore
Sue Sharpton, University of Alaska
John Spadaro, Brown University
Kevin Violette, University of North Carolina - Wilmington
Ann West, Internet2
Philip Wright, Brock University
Steve Olshansky, Internet2
Dean Woodbeck, Internet2 (scribe)

*Agenda*

1. Roll Call
2. Agenda Bash
3. Accept minutes of last call
4. Data Management Survey Results - Klara, Mike F
5. ITIL results
6. Face2Face in Boulder in January
7. Social Software
8. Next steps, next call

**Action Items**

(AI) (Mike Fary) will send a reminder to the DASIG list seeking additional respondents to the data management survey.

(AI) (Jim Phelps) will seek permission to send the data management survey to the EDUCAUSE CIO list.

(AI) (Jim Phelps) will send the data management survey to the ITANA email list.

(AI) (Jim Phelps) will follow-up with the institutions that self-rated at 10 on the data security survey question to determine if they would do case studies in that area.

(AI) (Mike Fary) will follow-up with those institutions self-ranking highly in the governance area to determine if they would be interested in providing case studies.

(AI) (Mike Fary) will graph the survey results by institution, as a way to identify high achievers.

(AI) (Jim Phelps) will follow up with these high achievers, suggesting case studies, online presentations/webinars, and determining whether there are helpful URLs with information about the respondents' areas of achievement.

(AI) (Jim Phelps) will contact Miah Adams off-line to discuss the F2F logistics.

*Data Management Survey*

The data management survey was mailed to the DASIG EDUCAUSE constituent group email list. The survey asks respondents to self-rate in nine data management categories. To date, there have been 21 responses. Results are in a spreadsheet available on the wiki:
https://spaces.at.internet2.edu/download/attachments/2972/data_management_responses.xls

(AI) (Mike Fary) will send a reminder to the DASIG list seeking additional respondents. (AI) (Jim Phelps) will seek permission to send the survey link to the EDUCAUSE CIO list. Jim will also send the survey link to the ITANA email list.

The highest self-ranking are in the data management and data security management areas. The lowest marks are in the data architecture and data warehousing areas. The data governance area has evenly distributed results.

The last question, "which areas are most critical to you and your institution," probably could have been two separate questions; answers for the institutional perspective and the IT perspective may differ. Two areas received more than 50 percent of the votes: data security management, and data warehousing and business intelligence management.

The survey results will be discussed at both the DASIG and ITANA sessions at EDUCAUSE. These face-to-face meetings will provide an opportunity to probe deeper on the items on the survey and hear feedback about which data management topics seem most important right now.

There were other areas of interest:

• The data governance responses are bimodal. What are the similarities among the group at 8 and the group at 4 and under?
• Data warehousing received uniformly low rankings.
• Two institutions self-rated at 10 on the data security issues. (AI) (Jim Phelps) will follow-up with those institutions to determine if they would do case studies in that area.
• There may also be potential case studies for those institutions that self-rank highly in the governance area. (AI) (Mike Fary) will follow-up with those institutions.

One of the next steps, once the survey is completed, is to identify the high achievers and determine whether there are best practices to capture. (AI) As a way to identify those achievers, Mike Fary will graph the survey results by institution.

(AI) (Jim Phelps) will follow up with these high achievers, suggesting case studies, online presentations/webinars, and determining whether there are helpful URLs with information about the respondents' areas of achievement.

*ITIL Service Management Platform*

Jim Phelps reported on a quick email survey he conducted on the adoption of the ITIL framework for service planning, service practice and improvement. He reports the results on the ITANA wiki: https://spaces.at.internet2.edu/display/itana/ITIL+Survey

More than half the respondents are just starting or have adoption in a few key areas. Funding (or lack thereof) seems to be a key issue.

There was also discussion about PRINCE2 (Projects in Controlled Environments), a widely used project management method that navigates you through all the essentials for running a successful project; and TOGAF (The Open Group Architecture Framework), an industry standard architecture framework.

The Open Group has a white paper mapping TOGAF to ITIL: http://www.opengroup.org/bookstore/catalog/w071.htm

Sue Sharpton mentioned that Scott Barnard, who teaches on enterprise architecture, has expressed interest in speaking to ITANA. Jim Phelps mentioned that, if he has slides, this might also be a good candidate for an EDUCUASE webinar.

Marina Arseniev said that the University of California-Irvine is using the DAMA framework and the Zachman EA framework to document their practices.

*Face2Face in Boulder*

Jim Phelps reminded the group of the planned Face2Face in Boulder, to take place the day prior to the CSG meeting in early January.

Based on feedback from the last F2F, the plan is to be much more hands-on. Possible topics include:

• Working on content from the data management survey
• Invite some CIOs from CSG institutions to talk about case studies
• Small group sessions with discussion topics
• Working session on a data management white paper (based on the survey results)
• Frameworks for organizing architecture
• An apparent shift in roles of architects from doing middleware to functioning more as business analysts

*Next Call, Thursday, October 2, 2008, 2:00 p.m. EDT*