David Rose provided an ovevriew of Governance with regards to Enterprise Architecture.
Presented at the first JISC Emerging Practices workshop (2012/03/29).
http://emergingpractices.jiscinvolve.org/wp/doing-ea-workshop/
Exploring Gemini AI and Integration with MuleSoft | MuleSoft Mysore Meetup #45
EA Governance
1. Enterprise Architecture
Enabling Business Change
Management Themes:
Governance
David Rose
29 March 2012
(with thanks to John Townsend, LJMU; Patrick O’Reilly; Bolton; Luke Taylor, Bristol)
http://emergingpractices.jiscinvolve.org
2. IT Governance
IT governance: Specifying the decision rights
and accountability framework to encourage
desirable behaviour in the use of IT.
(Weill and Ross, 2004, IT Governance, HBSP)
11/12/09 EA Workshop Governance 29 March 2012: slide 2
3. IT Governance
IT governance: How Top Performers Manage
IT Decision Rights for Superior results
(Weill and Ross, 2004, IT Governance, HBSP)
11/12/09 EA Workshop Governance 29 March 2012: slide 3
4. Key IT Governance Decisions
IT Principles Decisions
High-level statements about how IT is used in the business
IT Architecture IT Infrastructure IT Investment and
Decisions Decisions Prioritisation decisions
Organising logic for data, Centrally co-ordinated, shared Decisions about how much
applications, and infrastruc- IT services that provide the and where to invest in IT,
foundation for the enterprise’s including project approvals
ture captured in a set of
IT capability. and justification techniques.
policies, relationships, and
technical choices to achieve Business Applications
desired business and Needs
technical standardisation Specifying the business need
And integration for purchasing or internally
developed IT applications.
(Weill and Ross, 2004, IT Governance, HBSP)
11/12/09 EA Workshop Governance 29 March 2012: slide 4
5. Information Principles*
Information is a valuable shared institutional resource and must be managed appropriately
throughout its lifetime.
Information shall be available to those who need it (ideally ‘anytime, anywhere, and
anyhow’) subject to security and acceptable use policies.
University information must be trustworthy (relevant, accurate, timely, secure)
All members of the University community are personally responsible for managing the
information they create and use.
Information management adds value to the University community.
The status of information sources (e.g. definitive/primary, derived/secondary) must be
clearly defined and only definitive/primary sources updated.
Information management must comply with external statutory and regulatory
requirements.
Information management principles inform IT principles.
There is a common vocabulary and data definition.
The University is responsible for assisting staff to work in the most effective ways possible.
University of Wisconsin-Madison Architecture Principles
11/12/09 EA Workshop Governance 29 March 2012: slide 5
6. IT Governance Archetypes
STYLE Who Has Decision or Input Rights?
Business A group of business executives or individual executives (CxOs). Includes
Monarchy committees of senior business executives (may include (CIO), excludes
IT executives acting independently.
IT Monarchy Individuals or groups of IT executives.
Feudal Business unit leaders, key process owners or their delegates.
Federal C-level executives and business groups (eg business units or processes);
may also include IT executives as additional participants. Equivalent of the
central and state governments working together.
IT Duopoly IT executives and one other group (e.g. CxO or business unit or process
leaders).
Anarchy Each individual user.
(Weill and Ross, 2004, IT Governance, HBSP)
11/12/09 EA Workshop Governance 29 March 2012: slide 6
7. LJMU Federal Governance Model
Monitoring Information Architecture
Compliance Management Principles
Review Steering Group
Business Membership
Infrastructure
Business
Applications IT
Needs Membership
Development
IT Steering Group
Programme
Business Membership
‘Doing Business Membership
EA’ Benefits Investment & prioritisation
Methodology : MSP Methodology : ITIL
11/12/09 EA Workshop Governance 29 March 2012: slide 7
8. Bolton
‘Governance by Stealth’
11/12/09 EA Workshop Governance 29 March 2012: slide 8
9. Bristol Governance Structure
CONSULTATION BODIES
STRATEGIC PROGRAMME
BOARD
UPARC (VCAG)
* Programme
PORTFOLIO EXECUTIVE
Senior Users Management
DP (Chair)
Senior Suppliers +
AN/GG/LH/AWP/DC/HG/TP/CN
Support
Management Education
ICT HR Research Finance Estates
Information Development ICT
Prgm Prgm Prgm Prgm Prgm
Prgm Prgm
11/12/09 EA Workshop Governance 29 March 2012: slide 9
10. Questions
• How ‘EA ready’ is your institution’s
information governance set up?
• How does this impact your aims in ‘doing EA’
on projects and programmes?
11/12/09 EA Workshop Governance 29 March 2012: slide 10
Editor's Notes
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09 Here the ISSG has completed its work & handed over to the IMSG. I think it’s important that we talk about Information Management rather than Strategy as I see a key role of this group as owning the whole space & therefore reviewing/monitoring how we’re doing in terms of managing information in a way that supports the strategy, management & operation of the organisation. To be honest, you could just as well talk about Process as Information management, but I think we’re best coming at it from the information end. IMSG membership? Chair – unknown! The ISA Project could certainly handover to it, & again the usual CIS suspects should definitely be there. Further expanding the monitoring idea – the group would receive periodic reports from ITSG & SDPB on service and programme/project delivery and would review performance in these areas. I see the ITSG very much as being responsible for the ICT service (& the kind of service KPIs Deloittes have talked about could come in here), & ITIL could be useful here, & SDPB as being responsible for development, already following the Programme Management approach. Probably as discussed meet a couple of times a year. Still see the investment/prioritisation bit as being shared between ITSG (service investment) and SDPB (development investment) – the lines will be blurred but roughly that. & last point – personally don’t see the dependence on the CIS leadership as the glue in all this as a problem – might be a bit messy, but bound to come down to people anyway, & I think effort to produce a ‘perfect’ solution would be effort wasted – will always be messy anyway.
