ea educause midwest 2007 presentation

Building an Building an Enterprise Architecture Program Enterprise Architecture Program

at Saint Louis Universityat Saint Louis University

Building an Building an Enterprise Architecture Program Enterprise Architecture Program

at Saint Louis Universityat Saint Louis University

Copyright 2007 Saint Louis University. This work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the author. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the author.

Agenda

• Introductions• Section 1: EA Overview• Section 2: Getting Started at SLU• Section 3: Advancing EA• Section 4: When We’ve Arrived…

James Hooper

• Bredemeyer-trained Enterprise Architect

• 5 years as Director of Client/Systems Services and lead systems architect

• 5 years+ as a lead systems architect• 15 years IT technical roles• Degrees in Biology and Management

Information Systems

Introductions

Kevin Ballard

• Chief Architect• Department head of Business

Intelligence• Functional DBA and Information

Architect• Corporate IT Background (19 years)

Introductions

John Ashby

• 7 years in IT management: educational technology (classrooms, content/ distribution, computing)

• 12 years academic media management

• 14 years media services roles• 17 years as adjunct faculty• MA - Communication

Introductions

Section One: EA Overview

• What is Enterprise Architecture?• Common Metaphors for EA• Two Manifestations of EA• Questions EA Asks…• Guiding Principles• Everyone has an architecture…

The Purpose of Enterprise Architecture

“EA provides a common basis for understanding and communicating how systems are structured to meet strategic objectives.”

Source: Bredemeyer Consulting

Section 1: EA Overview

More specifically…Enterprise Architecture (EA) is…

• Set of processes for describing the current and future state of the structures and behaviors of an enterprise.

• Includes people, process and technology as architecture components.

• For the purpose of aligning with the University’s strategies.


Insert New Diagram Here

• Jim H.


Common Metaphors

• More Like City Planning – High Level• “Connect the Dots”• The “glue” that connects Business

and Technology.• A “bridge” between business

problems and technology solutions.• EA: The Architecture of Business

Capabilities


EA: Two Major Manifestations

• Establishing “IT Architecture Governance” as a part of “IT Governance”

• Enterprise Architects engaged in “strategic differentiator” projects to ensure alignment.


EA asks the following questions…

• What are the top to bottom linkages between business strategy, processes, projects and technology and where are the gaps?

• What technologies do SLU’s new projects require and do they align with business strategy?


…and EA asks….

• What are the opportunities for reuse and simplification across organizations and projects?

• What is the business impact of planned project or technology changes?

Source: http://www.architectureandgovernance.com/articles/05-reyes.asp


EA Provides Context


http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/jan07/temnenco/index.html

Principles to Guide Architects• Minimalist Architecture Principle

• Keep your architecture decision set as small as it possibly can be, while still meeting your architectural objectives.

• If a decision can be delegated to someone with a more narrow scope of responsibility, then do so!

• Decisions with Teeth Principle• Only make a decision part of your architecture if you can

make it stick• There must be a process to ensure the decision is adhered

to or you must be passionate enough about it to do what it takes.

• Connect-the-Dots Principle• Show how decisions relate to higher level goals or decisions• You must document and communicate this traceability


Section Two: Getting Started at SLU

• Drivers for EA at SLU• First steps: Getting Started at SLU• Initial focus: Organize the IT

architecture• Timeline on next steps

Drivers for EA at SLU

• Mitigate Risk Associated with Banner Upgrade and Related Projects

• SAS 112 / SOX IT control levels• Lack of Standards and Documentation• Inconsistent or Undocumented

Architectural Decisions• Lifecycle (Mis)Management• Lack of Coordination across Technical

Boundaries and organizational silos

Section 2: Getting Started at SLU

How We Got Started

• Our CIO decided to launch EA• We opted to “roll our own”• Formalized “Architect” as a job title

through Broadbanding Classifications• Provided Training (Bredemeyer) to

Enterprise Architects• Separated the Effort Into Two Phases


Phase I – Getting ITS’ House In Order

• Form the Structure• Recruit Architects• Start Producing Results Right Away

– Create a Product Item Master to Document Standards

– Integrate with Project Management Framework

– Introduce Lifecycle Management


42006Q

ODS Upgrade, Axiom, Identity

Management, Desktop Standards

42006Q

Announce / Establish EA Secure Management Support

Evangelize

- 1 22007Q Q

EDW

-2006Dec 2007Jan

Build virtualteam

12007Q

Oracle DBMS Upgrade

- Feb April2007

Establish Governance Model Establish Architecture Board

Integrate with PMO Framework

2007April

Identify and take architectural control

of strategic apps

2007Mar

Build PIM Establish Lifecycle

Management

42006Q

RoadmapEffort

2007July

PPPPP P1

Enterprise Architecture Phase 1 Timeline

-200610124version K. Ballard

- May Jun2007

2Plan Phase

2007Feb

Document currentstate

Initial Structure

• Enterprise Architecture (3 positions)• Architecture Council (19 positions)• Architecture Review Board proposed• Different Governance, Vision, Charters


PIM beginnings…


Phase II – Putting the “E” in EA

• Gather and update University Mission, Values, Strategy documents

• Look Outward to Business Units, Functional Areas, Provost’s Office, etc.

• Adopt a Repository and Templates to support the framework and documentation needed by lines of business

• Identify Savings and ROI measures


Section Three: Advancing EA

• Finishing up Phase 1: Governance Proposal and Validation

• Publish the PIM, Integrate Governance with standards enforcement in IT business practice

• Phase 2 begins Maturity Advancement

IT Governance Relationships

• IT Business Office (purchase screening for standards)

• Change Control Board (standards enforcement in production systems)

• Project Management Office (gate review, design standards review)


Proposed Entity Relationships

Who decides what: RACI diagram*

EA Architecture Architecture CCB, PMO,

Tasks/Roles Review Board Council Others

Owns the PIM A R

Defines process/resolves exceptions to the PIM A R

Provide input/expertise to PIM A R

Propose changes to the PIM A R C

Approves changes to the PIM A R C

Governs Architectural Changes within EA framework A R I

Professional Development Plan for Architects A R

Initiate/propose architectural discussions A R I

Decide or escalate proposed architectural items A R C

Project Initiation Gate Review R

Project Definition Gate Review A R

Project Close-out Meeting Participation R

Execute the processes defined by EA for architectural change control, project gate review, security review, and standards enforcement in business processes A R


* Responsible, Accountable, Consult, Inform

Architecture Council (or members)

Architecture ReviewBoard

Enterprise Architecture(practitioners)

Project Office Change Control Board

2v. - PP2/23/2007 . PPPPP

InputsLegend

DecisionRequest

FYI

Referral

Technology Architecture Standards Governance Model

Deliverables

DecisionRequest

FYI

Referral

Approved

Request forInformation

Deferral ofdecision

Rejected

Conditionaldecision

DecisionRequest

FYI

ArchitectureReview

PIMvariancereview

Submit andAttend ARB

Intake Formand

Documentation

Intake Form andDocumentation

Agenda

Prod changePIM

compliant?

Agenda

Yes

CCB governs

Gate 1Review

No

Gate 2Review

Business Office, Security, Other

Governance Units

Referral

FYI

To Originator

- Add product to PIM- Status move on PIM- Remove item from PIM- Nonstandard use of item

- R&D early eval products- "Heads up" from IT units- Project gate 1 reviews

- IT governance units

Continuing: Addressing the Gaps

• Functional architects identify products and systems lacking architectural oversight, refer to governance

• Variability reduction (sure we have standards- lots of them!)

• Standardizing of architectural issue tracking, documentation templates


Documentation and Repository

• Adopt a framework to guide documentation

• Standard templates and artifacts developed for consistency in documents

• University executive access via web-based repository- all lines of business

• Should all users have access to all artifacts? What is Public on the web?


Repository for E2AF Documentation Framework

Maturing Enterprise Architecture

Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Ad

min

istr

atio

n No architecture governance Need for standards committees identified Need for committees for architecture governance identified; EA articulating roles; committees forming

Architecture governance committees and roles defined; committees aligned and work smoothly

Governance and committees updated to incorporate changes to maturing EA framework; participants take ownership of roles

Committees proactively review activities and improve their processes; EA works with other EA organizations to share governance ideas

Pla

nn

ing No directed future state EA need identified; EA activities informal and

unstructuredEnterprise vision developing; EA tasks and resources being articulated; EA methodology in development

EA Program governance, framework, timelines, budget, and mission well defined; activities match plan.

EA plan reviewed and changed to improve initial EA program; metrics captured to measure progress against plan; goals set for future.

Action plans for process improvements based on captured metrics; EA works with other organizations on best practices and EA future improvements

Fra

mew

ork Architecture, processes, templates

undocumentedNo unified architecture process across technologies, business lines

EA program documented; architecture processes planned-tracked; templates and reusable information in development

Lifecycle management processes documented; architecture process models prepared; templates are used for consistency in documentation

Metrics for EA process & template effectiveness; corrective plans for process-template deficiencies; management meetings to govern framework changes

Lifecycle processes are ingrained in organization; captured metrics inform process improvements before issues are raised administratively; EA works with other organizations to share process and template ideas

Blu

epri

nt Current standards undocumented Documentation of business drivers, technology

strategy and standards informal and inconsistentBusiness drivers and strategy identified; repository need identified to store and disseminate artifacts

Consistent documentation maintained for business drivers, strategy, and classification of existing technology

Documentation of business drivers and strategy has become standard practice; managed products and lifecycle is standard practice; metrics from compliance process drives standards updates

Captured business and technology information is used along with business monitoring and technology trends to proactively improve business; EA works with other organizations to share ideas on business and technology trends

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

Executive level unaware of EA definitions or benefits

Need for EA awareness identified; little institutional communication about architecture processes

Executive level committed to EA definitions and benefits; EA awareness activities underway

Training provided for Senior Management on EA process and benefits; training/professional development for EA committees advanced

Formal communication process established and followed; process reviewed and changes to improve clarity and detail; EA awareness training in employee orientation; metrics document effectiveness of communication

Metrics proactively used to improve communication; EA works with other organizations to share ideas for communication processes

Co

mp

lian

ce No compliance process in organization Need for standards compliance process identified; compliance unstructured-informal-unmeasured

Organization has begun to develop compliance process to assure projects and enhancements are consistent with standards

A formal process is defined, documented, and applied for design and architectural change management; business case required for exceptions

Compliance to architecture standards and processes is common; quality metrics captured from business cases; compliance process reviewed and updated when deficiencies or enhancements are identified

Information gathered in compliance process informs framework and standards changes; architecture metrics inform business cases in development; EA works with other organizations to share best compliance practices

Inte

gra

tio

n No process to integrate IT investments across enterprise

Need to integrate common IT functions with EA planning identified; projects typically designed in isolation of architecture context

Need for Architecture Lifecycle and EA framework identified; basic mapping between EA and organizational business processes

EA program integrated with strategic planning and budgeting; touch points with enterprise management processes well-defined

EA used to guide development and acquisition; metrics document ROI in time and $; costs and benefits weighed in projects across organization; integration procedures reviewed as problems or enhancements require

EA process drives continuous innovation throughout the enterprise; Business influences Technology and vice-versa; metrics proactively drive improvements to integration; EA works with other organizations to share ideas for improved integration including project & procurement practices

Invo

lvem

ent Independent groups may work on single issue; no

program for architectural awarenessOrganization has identified need to make all staff EA-aware

EA educational sessions and materials to organization; EA concepts beginning to appear in normal meetings.

IT teams advance implementation of EA principles in planning, projects and operations; senior management participates in EA committees; business and technical staff participate in EA committees

Personnel across organization understand EA and touch points to their projects; organization captures metrics on staff awareness and satisfaction with EA processes and outcomes

Distributed departments work as contributors to architecture and processes; metrics inform action plans for EA marketing and education; EA works with other organizations to share ideas for distributed involvement in architecture.

Implementation Gaps

Based on the NASCIO (National Association of Chief Information Officers) Enterprise Architecture Maturity Model, adapted to SLU.

Bu

sin

ess

Cap

abili

ties

Organizational Maturity Level CharacteristicsParameters

Str

ateg

y

Strategic differentiators

Alignment of Architecture with organization

Auditable and accountable processes expectation

Need for standards with "teeth", selective focus on strategic activities

Saint Louis University Enterprise Architecture Maturity Model

Control hard-dollar costs driving tuition growth (competition and federal pressure)

Value of integration across activities and hierarchy (data sharing and security mandates)


Working Toward Maturity Level Two…


Organizational Maturity Growth

(up to Level 5)

Metric Level 0 Level 1 Level 2

Administration No architecture governance Need for standards committees identified Need for committees for architecture governance identified; EA articulating roles; committees forming

Planning No directed future state EA need identified; EA activities informal and unstructured

Enterprise vision developing; EA tasks and resources being articulated; EA methodology in development

Framework Architecture, processes, templates undocumented

No unified architecture process across technologies, business lines

EA program documented; architecture processes planned-tracked; templates and reusable information in development

Blueprint Current standards undocumented Documentation of business drivers, technology strategy and standards informal and inconsistent

Business drivers and strategy identified; repository need identified to store and disseminate artifacts

Communication Executive level unaware of EA definitions or benefits

Need for EA awareness identified; little institutional communication about architecture processes

Executive level committed to EA definitions and benefits; EA awareness activities underway

Compliance No compliance process in organization Need for standards compliance process identified; compliance unstructured-informal-unmeasured

Organization has begun to develop compliance process to assure projects & enhancements are standards-based

Integration No process to integrate IT investments across enterprise

Need to integrate common IT functions with EA planning identified; projects typically designed in isolation of architecture context

Need for Architecture Lifecycle and EA framework identified; basic mapping between EA & organizational business processes

Involvement Duplicative work on a single issue; no program for architectural awareness

Organization has identified need to make all staff EA-aware

EA educational sessions and materials to organization; EA concepts beginning to appear in normal meetings.

Section Four: When We’ve Arrived…

• Better, Faster Cheaper• Positive Outcomes / Supporting

SLU’s Value Proposition• Action Architecture

Better, Faster, Cheaper

• “Consulting firm Meta Group Inc. says companies that embrace EA spend 30% less on IT and are more adaptive and make better decisions.”

Source: CFO.com

Section 4: When We’ve Arrived…

Top Outcomes / Supporting SLU’s Value Proposition

• To support decision making• Inform the IT portfolio• Deliver roadmaps for managed

change• Support systems development• Manage complexity and reduce cost

Source: The Institute for Enterprise Architecture Development


EA Becomes “Action Architecture”

• Opening eight application windows to answer a student’s question

• Managers scrambling for information they need to make decisions

• Projects not tied to strategic objectives

• Silos of applications

A mature EA program solves real world problems…


Building an Enterprise Architecture Program at Saint Louis University

Kevin Ballard Chief [email protected]

James Hooper Enterprise [email protected]

John AshbyEnterprise Architect [email protected]

Saint Louis University

Information Technology Services

3690 West Pine Mall

St. Louis, MO 63108-3304

Q&AQ&A

© 2007 Saint Louis University

Recommended Sites

• http://ea.slu.edu• http://www.bredemeyer.com• http://www.togaf.com• http://eajournal.blogspot.com• http://

www.nascio.org/nascioCommittees/ea/EAMM.pdf

ea educause midwest 2007 presentation

Documents

ea section

ea overview section

slu section

architecture governance

architecture components

phases section

traceability section

architecture decision