ITANA Minutes 18-February-2010


Jim Phelps, University of Wisconsin-Madison (chair)
Marina Arseniev, University of California Berkeley
Tom Barton, University of Chicago
Geoff Boushey, University of California Berkeley
Michael Daley, University of Michigan
Tom Dopirak, Carnegie Mellon University
Scott Fullerton, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Keith Hazelton, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Paul Hobson, Cardiff University
Jim Leous, Penn State University
Piet Niederhausen, Georgetown University
Steve Olshansky, Internet2
Todd Piket, Minnesota State Colleges and Universities
Sue Sharpton, University of Alaska
Rich Stevenson, University of Maryland University College
Ron Thielen, University of Chicago
Ann West, Internet2
Dean Woodbeck, Internet2 (scribe)

Action Items

(AI) Tom will do a problem statement on the U.S. government's OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control) compliance and distribute to ITANA.

(AI) Scott will follow-up with Great Lakes to see what they did in OFAC.

(AI) Tom and Keith will develop ESB Use Cases relative to Jasig.

(AI) Sue S - send Data Center Manager contact to Tom D

(AI) Jim P - ping Scott re: distance learning and Moodle

(AI) Jim will convene a meeting of the small group concerned with the potential F2F (Jim, Mike Daley, Ron, Eric).

Carryover Action Items

(AI) Jim plans to follow up with the email list about who has participated in specific EA training sessions.

(AI) Keith, Ron, and Jim will develop a wiki page on workflow graphical modeling tools that includes sets of facets that will allow for the evaluation and grading of the tools. Update: Keith will talk to Ron and also post some items on the wiki workflow page.

Follow-up from last call

Jim sent questions concerning cloud computing to Shel Waggener and confirmed his participation on the March 18 ITANA call. He has also posted materials to the wiki for background information.

Keith has set up a meeting with the subgroup that will discuss an environmental scan of workflow on campuses.

Marina has started a wiki page on EA framework. Piet and Scott have given good feedback. Next step: assemble a small group to discuss potential interview questions.


Minutes from the last call were approved and will be posted on the wiki.

OFAC Support

Tom Dopirak discussed a scenario concerning compliance with the U.S. Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC). This would require that, before the university pays someone with federal funds, they must be crossp-checked against one or more terrorist and blacklist databases. Tom asked if anyone has encountered this and has a solution. There are a number of companies that will do matches with federal databases; he is looking at a web service. In fact, he would like a group of universities to advocate such use together. (AI) Tom will write a problem statement on this and distribute that statement to ITANA. He also has six use cases he is looking at for adoption at CMU.

Face2Face Discussion

The group used the rest of the time to discuss several questions related to the benefits of F2F meetings and what a potential ITANA F2F might cover. This information, with updates and the opportunity to comment and expand on thoughts, is available on the wiki:

(1) Why do you go to Face2Face meetings? What is it that you get that is unique from meeting Face2Face?

  • Talk with collegues who do similar work and find out what they really do. Learn context, have the in-depth conversation.
  • Getting out of the central time zone
  • It is easier to see and discuss more-detailed information, such as code level reviews. Hands-on demonstrations and interactions are easier, particularly in terms of interacting with the speaker.
  • The focus and separation away from daily activities.
  • The social networking - learning about people, which can lead to better communications after-the-fact
  • Working together, getting instant feedback, saving effort overall by collaborating closely
  • Having a conference call makes it easy to exchange information. Working Face2Face makes it easier to generate new information.
  • Easier to set assumptions and values when you are together
  • Engaging topics - energy that goes into building the program
  • When it is well-organized and runs well. Better planning. Higher expectations.
  • Time and energy that goes into planning and creating value is higher than other media. (On the flip side: It is risky. It is expensive. We must be sure we will hit break-even attendance to cover costs)

(2) If you got to talk to the group about one issue or project, what would you want to discuss?

  • Identity Management, IT Security, the whole-shebang
  • How people are doing with applications through web services. What did people get to work? Where does Business Process Management (Enterprise Workflow) fit into this and are people getting this to work.
  • How are you going to pull Enterprise Workflow together (is there an ESB at the hub? Is there a Best Practice?)
  • Best Practices in Administrative Computing - or the baby steps - pretty good practices that work pretty well
    • Lessons Learned in Administrative Computing
  • Cost of Power in the Data Center or will efficiencies keep up.
  • How to deal with Process or Political issues in an effective manner?
    • How to Lead Up?
    • How to build Influence?
    • The Student Lifecycle as an example
  • The Student Lifecycle as a theme
    • Artifacts, Process, Objectives, Governance
  • Distance Delivery Tools - teaching at a distance
  • How do you evaluate Open Source system against vendor provided stuff (Free like a puppy). There is no vendor to respond to an RFP.
  • The IT Ecosystem (U Chicago) understanding dependency and complexity in the services we provide
  • How are different institutions structuring their EA Practice. Where are they located in the org, how do they engage with governance, how are they engaged, formal request for EA, relationship to PMO, Service Portfolio Management and other things.
    • How long has Arch been a recognized practice at your institution? What was the evolution
    • Drill down on the survey responses

(3) If you got to hear from an expert or set of institutions about one thing, what would that be?

  • EA as S author(s) about their work

The next step is to take this information back to the small group (Jim, Mike Daley, Ron, Eric) and determine what type of meeting might emerge.

Next Meeting - Thursday, March 4
2 p.m. EST / 1 p.m. CST / Noon MST / 11 a.m. PST

  • No labels