EA Foundation Programme update

Where are we now...

EA Maturity levels from Ross, Weill, Robertson - ‘Enterprise Architecture as Strategy’ (2006):

1. Business silos
2. Standardised technology
3. Optimised core
4. Business modularity

...well, probably on our way from 1 towards 2 and 3, but no where near 4 yet.

To keep following our EA maturity path will require closer alignment between the University's business and IT, and the ability to deploy enterprise-wide systems or alternative service delivery models, according to a strategic plan (enterprise architecure), controlled by an enhanced IT governance framework, facilitated by a dedicated Enterprise Architect.

Next steps, recruit Enterprise Architect. Start work on establishing enhanced IT governance framework and high-level analysis of enterprise as-is and to-be. Choose a suitable project (SITS improvement project or Document management and workflow) and get stuck-in.

There is a clear need to employ EA where their are overlaps (for example, Blackboard & SITS).

Use as a method to assess solutions - Review, remove, re-implement, re-use or replace, but according to an enterprise architecture strategy.

Needs to link-in with ITIL sevice strategy and service design .

Changes since initial EA Foundations programme event:
1. Enterprise Architect role internally advertised
2. Presented to Portfolio Executive on alternative service delivery models - they showed an interest in looking at HR & payroll area

Next steps:
1. Recruit Enterprise Architect
2. Build scenario for Portfolio Executive
3. Think about how to knit existing BA work with new, more holistic, EA approach
4. Obstacles - time

Building the business case for FSD - Part 3

The outcomes from the FSD Business Case session at the STG Workshop can be found at:

https://fsdsupport.pbworks.com/FSD-Business-Case

What conclusions can I make looking from a Bristol context?

1. There is a real focus at the University on saving costs. But in a sustainable way wherever possible
2. Support Process Review is the main vehicle for looking at organisation and process improvements
   
3. Enterprise Architecture at Bristol is more likely to relate to applications, data and technology domains rather than the business domain, and is more likely to be an approach rather than a distinctive project or programme - A part of our new IT Governance process
4. A business case for FSD (or EA) is needed to communicate the possibilities and to secure organisation commitment
   
5. Support Process Review is likely to expose new systems requirements - Meeting these requirements is likely to include better use of our existing CIS (SITS, Coda, Blackboard, Syllabus Plus, etc.)
6. In an ideal world, we should be looking at all options for service (capability) development (including outsourcing, SaaS / Cloud, etc.)
7. Risks of NOT doing EA - Inability to change quickly; Not meeting customer needs; Duplication for no good reason
8. Managing Change - Still need to be able to innovate; Sell the benefits not the approach
   

Building the business case for FSD - Part 2

I ran a session at a meeting on 10th December of the Strategic Technologies Group (a part of the JISC FSD programme) to discuss the business case for FSD. The meeting attendees split into four groups to discuss the following topics:

1. What strategic (institutional) priorities does FSD address?

• Links to relevant University strategy (vision, strategic plan, etc.)
• Current issues (financial crisis, public sector debt, etc)
• New opportunities brought by FSD (for example, opportunities for innovation and/or collaboration)

2. FSD scope and (measurable) impact?

• EA or SOA specific project
• Business scope, systems scope or technology scope
• Embed FSD in existing processes
• What costs are likely to occur

3. Implementation - timescales, risks, management

• Risks of not doing FSD & risks of doing FSD
• Dependencies
• Phasing to allow for confidence building
• Early wins
• Specific timescales

4. Managing Change - issues, barriers, engagement?

• Cultural issues to overcome
• Business / IT disconnect
• Lack of governance
• Wearing the FD’s hat

The discussions were ably facilitated by others involved in the FSD Programme, from the JISC and The Open Group.

The results of the discussions are still being collated, and so Part 3 of this topic will attempt to distill the outcomes for the session.