Page History

...

Announcements - Itana News, Working Group Report out

...

UCLA – by the numbers

Budget $7.5b, but less than 7% of revenue.

Culture of distributed systems and responsibilities.

Herd of cats, no strong central dictate of what people can do.

Brand is important, so risk management is important value of architecture.

IT doesn't tell other departments what to do,.

IT is a microcosm of U: a bunch of units that function somewhat independently.

If IT says we are doing something, others will watch and see if its something worth pursuing.

"Symphonic"

ITAC facilitated by president

U-wide BoK: campus by campus decision whether to adopt artifacts.

Office of President drafts outcomes and departments decide whether to adopt.

Need for certain types of technology agreements e.g. Payroll.

ITAC also has begun to look for best practices that aren't necessary for system implementations.

No central function that can override individual campuses.

Timeline:

2012 IT architecture directed unit
2016 IT architecture relaunched
- no more architecture reviews
- restrict R&D
- restrict collaboration outside UCLA
- new governance with fewer directors but more campus participation
- establish collaborative groups with architectural aids e.g. models to get to value as quick as possible
- rotate leadership quarterly
2017 workshop
- outside consultants to define roadmap
- 2018 state of enterprise architecture (diagram)

Decision to demonstrate value with metrics.

How often are artifacts viewed, reviewed, used ..

The "valuation decline" (see slide)

Potentiality limiters: Lack of political support, getting positions posted, lack of trust between architecture and IT teams ....
Capability limiters: Not having right skills, consistent direction (due to change of leadership).
Influence limiters: Not enough outreach, no public materials or people don't know where they are, lack of presence on campus

Are there metrics we should have about the things we should be doing?