Background

What is your name and title?

Louis King, Enterprise Architect
Louis E King (yale.edu)
2018-10-11

How is Enterprise Architecture defined at your institution, and what is the mission of the EA practice?

Enterprise Architecture is not widely understood at Yale. The capability is orchestrated and primarily delivered through the Infrastructure Design Services group. It leverages architects in other departments in a federated approach. The Enterprise Architecture and Design Services capability focuses primarily on the application, data, and technology architecture of enterprise services, architectural governance of solution architecture, and digital transformation in a few areas that the team has deep expertise in the business functions of the University.

Review by Maturity Attribute

In the following sections, for each maturity attribute, please briefly describe your current state and planned changes. The links in the right column further describe each level and attribute.

Once you've reviewed each attribute, in the table below, indicate how you currently see the maturity level of your EA practice. (Please place an X on each row.)

Current State = X, Future State = X

Scope Definition

Our current level is about 2-Informed and we are aiming for 3-Defined.

The EA scope has been refined and reset over years of practice. It is clearly defined however the value proposition is not widely understood or possibly not fully believed.

Examples that illustrate our current state:

• The team and federated architects work closely together to provide architectural design services and guidance on all core services and all major portfolio projects.
• Architectural reviews for new and revised architectures are regularly performed by the Technology Architecture Committee.
• Digital transformation services are provided to select functions of the University.

Things we want to work on:

• Understanding a measure of the value for each of the activities.
• Improving our communications with stakeholders.
• Improving the value proposition measure and communication.

Engagement

Our current level is about 2-Informed and we are aiming for 3-Defined.

Examples that illustrate our current state:

• Senior leadership stakeholders generally recognize value in EA capabilities although those valuations are ambiguous in regard to specific value propositions delivered by the capability.
• Infrastructure Design Services works closely, respectfully, and in harmony with federated architects across ITS and with select IT Partners in other departments of the University.
• Some developers and solution designers are not aware of the EA capability or perceive it as not a good fit for their needs.

Things we want to work on:

• Converting stakeholders to champions.
• Developing additional stakeholders among senior leadership.
• Understanding the needs of developers and solution designers not currently engaged.

Impact Assessment

Our current level is about 2-Informed and we are aiming for 3-Defined.

Examples that illustrate our current state:

• The number, type, and depth of architectural engagements are tracked.
• Architectures are generally proven to be effective when implemented.
• Stakeholders express satisfaction with the value provided.

Things we want to work on:

• Identifying specific KPIs for operational success and organizational impact of EA capabilities.
• Regular recording and review of KPIs.

Delivery

Our current level is about 2-Informed and we are aiming for 3-Defined.

Examples that illustrate our current state:

• Design Services engages with a broad number of stakeholders using a variety of methodologies to advise on and to deliver architectures that are recognized as functionally strong, technically sound, risk appropriate, and administratively viable.
• The Technology Architecture Committee is widely valued among practitioners and has a repeatable engagement process in place.
• EA is engaged with and embedded in the broader work processes of the organization.

Things we want to work on:

• Develop and document clear, repeatable, and consistent methodologies.
• Track and keep a history of key engagements
• Ensure the staffing of the required skills

Management

Our current level is about 3-Defined and we are aiming for 3-Defined.

Examples that illustrate our current state:

• A clear EA value proposition is an open issue
• EA staff and financial resources are clearly defined
• EA effort is tracked by department but not aggregated across departments
• EA capabilities are embedded in the core processes of Information Technology Services
• EA capabilities are requested by select domains of the University and are working towards being part of those stakeholders business processes

Things we want to work on:

• Better tracking of resources against specific engagements
• Feedback regarding constituent satisfaction with EA capabilities
• Clearer definition of EA as a federated capability
• Develop a strong value propostion

Summary

Overall, what are the major challenges and/or opportunities for EA at your institution?

The CIO established a Technology Architecture Standards Team this year. This team, which has appropriate representation across ITS departments, will focus on standards but may also be the organizational structure that can appropriately frame the EA capability within the organization. The EA capability, the Technology Architecture Committee (architectural review board), the Technology Architecture Standards Group, and Infrastructure Design Services will need to rationalize and optimize their specific charges in the context of the broader EA capability and the ITS organization.

Continuing to add value, through EA activities, to core services and major portfolio projects is a clear opportunity to realize.

Sharpening the value proposition and strengthening engagement with key stakeholders will be essential to garnering continued support.

Engaging in digital transformation activities in select domains will continue to be a new capability and what that will need to be nurtured and matured over time.