Date

05 Jul 2017

Attendees

• Dan Kiskis

• Louis King

• Jose Cedeno

• Greg Charest

• JJ DuChateau
• Maher Shinouda
• Piet Niederhausen
• Raoul Sevier 

Goals

• Set goals, objectives or some context for this meeting.

Discussion items

Notes

• Reviewed Harvard's Thoughts on EA MM for edu presentation
  • Work based on prior work
  • Thoughts on aligning to existing models in industry
  • Clear definition of maturity model
  • Clear articulation of outcomes
  • Clear articulation of audience
  • Writing style and language to be accessible by intended audience
  • Focus on strategic audience
  • The model should incorporate a scale of maturity and a set of processes domains specific to the capability
  • Metrics are needed for each domain
  • Harvard chose ITIL service lifecycle to define process domains
  • Maturity levels are generic (1-5 or 1-3, etc.) and the processes are from ITIL therefore the actual cells must
    describe the actual characteristics of the service at various stages of maturity
  • Needs measures and assessment mechanisms
• Discussion items
  • The group has discussed definitions, outcomes and use of the model. These need to be documented in
    the initial draft
  • Mapping to ITIL may not be a good choice for all of higher ed as ITIL is a significant lift in its own right
  • Mapping to ITIL could be highly beneficial in that it is an understood and popular framework
  • ITIL might not encompass all of EA functions
  • Performance measures are very interesting
• EEAM-edu Attribute Brainstorming led to reasonable trajectories across each of the attributes
  • The model seems to be working and should move towards documenting
  • Documentation should not be viewed as fixed but still very fluid - a working document
• Writing team should start work
  • Make sure all prior work is incorporated as text or comments in initial draft
  • Include definitions, audience, use, etc.
  • Create a working draft that others will be able to contribute to and that can be restructured as needed
  • See action items for next steps

Action items

• Louis to write up meeting notes and circulate to Working Group
• Louis to add call to action to message to working Group to add thoughts and attributes to brainstorming sheet by Wed., July 12
• Piet to draft initial structure for the EAMM-edu document
• Writing group of JJ, Piet, Louis, Jose and Maher to stake a claim to sections of contribution and to write initial drafts by Fri., July 14th
• Louis to set up a meeting for Fri., July 14th for writing team to discuss progress