ITANA Conference Call Minutes - June 9, 2011

---------------
Attending
Jim Phelps, University of Wisconsin-Madison (chair)
Marina Arsiniev, University of California-Irvine
Vincent Aumont, University of British Columbia
Jason Conley, University of Kentucky
Chris Eagle, University of Michigan
Paul Hobson, University of British Columbia
Matt Kolb, Michigan State University
Nassif Nassif, Case Western Reserve University
Steve Olshansky, Internet2
Karen Hanson, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Scott Fullerton, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Shelly Feran, McGill University
Piet Niederhausen, Georgetown University
Ann Kitalong-Will, Internet2 (scribe)

---------------
Action Items

(AI) - Jim - will put slides from the 5/26 conference call on the wiki.

(AI) - Leo/Jim - will post the Lifecycle Management Tool diagrams on
the Lifecycle wiki.

(AI) - Paul - will revisit UBC’s lifecycle management work on a future call.

---------------
Announcements

Reminder that registration is open for ITANA F2F session at the Educause conference. Registration for the ITANA F2F is separate from the Educause conference.

---------------
Lifecycle Management Tool Mock-Up - Lifecycle Ontology
(Jim Phelps)

See: https://spaces.at.internet2.edu/display/itana/Lifecycle+Management+and+Analysis

Overview of Tool:

  • Building on previous call discussion (Leo Fernig).
  • Main lifecycles captured at UW-Madison: students and researchers.
  • Student lifecycle diagram adapted from Leo’s discussion/model.
  • Use tool to answer questions: e.g. what are teh concerns of a student at a particular stage? what are stakeholder concerns at certain stages throughout the lifecycle?
  • Drill-down: cost of attending data provides costs data from different stakeholders (e.g. bookstores, admissions, etc.).
  • Drill-down: process views (data that supports the processes and services that host those processes).
  • Future state: Do we have a strategic view to support the different processes represented?
  • Strategic View: high-level sketch. e.g. Are services aligned with goals?

Example: A student may need to know which classes they need at particular stages of the lifecycle, with extensive services on campus
providing the data associated with that particular stage.

Open Discussion:

  • Note that some may see Advising as part of the Learner experience.
  • How does one access the data from drill-downs? A tool is needed to be developed, with an ontology to help with designing the database. The tool is intended to communicate needs and landscape to leadership.
  • Question re. Architectural Diagram: Assumes the processes are highly integrated/unified (standardized and related)? Not necessarily the case, but can allow for leadership and stakeholders to see where innovation are needed (e.g. curriculum development), as well as where standardization and seeking efficiencies are needed (e.g. admissions, registration).
  • Where might Learning Management Systems fit in? Possibly as academic support systems?
  • What services should be included in the “nervous system?” How is that determined? Much would depend on input from leadership; the artifact should be meaningful for leadership as this is one tool they can use to make business decisions.
  • Is all the information truly necessary in the “nervous system” portion of the diagram? There may be more information in there than is needed by leadership. The need for this information also depends on who within the leadership team we are talking to.
  • Perhaps the term “nervous system” isn’t an accurate metaphor for what is being described in this portion.
  • The goal is to change the discussion from vertical, top-down discussions to horizontal discussion, which should be more inclusive of all stakeholders--advisers, leaders, students, etc.
  • This can be a helpful tool for discussing projects.
  • Are different researcher roles represented? (e.g. Principle Investigator vs. Graduate Student, etc.) Some researchers may occupy multiple roles (e.g. student, employee, researcher); do we need to delineate all the possible roles for lifecycles?
  • Some roles can be more clearly described as a lifecycle (e.g. student), others may have more grey areas. Mapping out the “Researcher” lifecycle would be a helpful exercise to understanding how deeply a lifecycle should be broken down. There may be intersects/overlaps (e.g. instructor and researcher) that may or may not need to be captured. Consider junior faculty members in particular as there is clear lifecycle here. Is it necessary to represent the complex, embedded relationships in these diagrams?

(AI) - Leo/Jim - will post the Lifecycle Management Tool diagrams on the Lifecycle wiki.

UBC: Student Lifecycle work is ongoing, getting ready to present to registrar, etc. next week. The group will follow-up on this on a future call.

---------------
Defining and Promoting the Architecture Brand - intro
(Scott, UW-Madison)

This seems to be connected to the previous topic (lifecycle), the models seem to be part of communicating and promoting what we do to promote and brand the Architecture’s role.

Discussion/Questions Raised:

  • How can we help us to brand and sell the Architect’s role?
  • How does what the EA do add value to the needs of senior management (e.g. CIO)?
  • How does the EA help to formulate strategic issues for the University?
  • What methods might we as EAs use to help people readily understand what we do, why we do it, and how it adds value to the University?
  • Is this a common issue at other Universities as “architecture” moves up the stack?
  • How does one make the transition from being a Network Architect to an Enterprise Architect?
  • Can a tool similar to the Lifecycle diagrams be used as tools for branding the role of EA?
  • What would a comprehensive picture of the EA’s role look like: business, data, technology, etc. The tool provides a framework for strategy, business decisions, etc.

---------------
Other Topics

(AI) - Paul - will revisit UBC’s lifecycle management work on a future call.

---------------
Next Call: Thursday, July 7, 2011
2:00 p.m. (ET) / 1:00 p.m. (CT) / noon (MT) / 11:00 a.m. (PT)

  • No labels