• Like
Presentation 2
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
Uploaded on

 

More in: Technology , Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
298
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • 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.

Transcript

  • 1. LJMU Enterprise Architecture Pilot (LEAP)
  • 2. Summary (1)
    • The LJMU Enterprise Architecture Pilot (LEAP) will build on existing work in Information Systems Architecture, Governance and technical web services development to pilot The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF) approach to establishment of a full Enterprise Architecture model
  • 3. Summary (2)
    • LEAP will also incorporate work carried out by the LJMU Process Framework project, which has developed an overall process management model for the University within the context of our strategic commitment to the EFQM Excellence Model, and has produced detailed process maps of many areas of the business with more recently a particular emphasis on student administration. Phase 1 of the pilot will concentrate on developing the architecture model for the Student Recruitment, Development and Support core process identified within the LJMU Process Framework.
  • 4. Draft Work Plan (1)
  • 5. Draft Work Plan (2)
  • 6. Motivation - LJMU
    • Already identified EA work as essential to contextualise other activity eg ISA, Student Administration Review, technical service developments
    • Architecture = key responsibility in new Governance structure
    • Major investment with Oracle predicated on Fusion implementation, requiring SOA approach
    • Opportunity to engage with other practitioners/the Open Group to advance learning & expertise
  • 7. Motivation: LJMU (SMG slide)
    • Opportunity to:
      • define our IT architecture, linking process, data, applications and infrastructure = in essence, defining what services we require now/in future, and which systems deliver/will deliver these services
      • be flexible and future-proofed
      • standardise data and processes
      • benefit from work being carried out elsewhere in the community
  • 8. Key IT Governance Decisions IT Principles Decisions High-level statements about how IT is used in the business IT Investment and Prioritisation decisions Decisions about how much and where to invest in IT, including project approvals and justification techniques. (Weill and Ross, 2004, IT Governance , HBSP) IT Architecture Decisions Organising logic for data, applications, and infrastruc- ture captured in a set of policies, relationships, and technical choices to achieve desired business and technical standardisation and integration IT Infrastructure Decisions Centrally co-ordinated, shared IT services that provide the foundation for the enterprise’s IT capability. Business Applications Needs Specifying the business need for purchasing or internally developed IT applications.
  • 9. LJMU Governance Model Information Management Steering Group Business Membership Development Programme Business Membership IT Steering Group Business Membership Architecture Principles Infrastructure Business Applications Needs IT Membership Investment & prioritisation Methodologies: MSP ITIL Monitoring Compliance Review
  • 10. Motivation: Wider Community
    • Contribute to the development of EA models for the sector
    • Promote the importance of effective Governance structures for EA/SOA implementation
    • Contribute models at various levels to the e-Framework
    • Support the development of shared service approaches
  • 11. What does success look like… for LJMU
    • Senior Management engaged with EA/SOA approach
    • Understanding/model of how things fit together in student administration area
    • Commitment to continuing development
    • Practical implementation of services linked to business objectives
    • Enhanced ability to deliver EA/SOA approach
  • 12. What does success look like… for Programme
    • Enhanced understanding of importance of EA/SOA approaches across the sector
    • Validation (or otherwise!) of TOGAF approach
    • Contribution to e-Framework
    • Learning from early adopters as basis for future work
  • 13. Overlaps & synergies
    • Differences/similarities in Governance structures
    • Combining top-down/bottom-up approaches ref KEAP
    • Impact/significance of supplier engagement eg LJMU/Oracle; Cardiff/IBM
    • Value of pilot in supporting institutional strategic objectives, key to all projects
  • 14. Issues & Questions
    • Not a lot of time
    • Risk of retrofitting TOGAF
    • Meeting project objectives as opposed to JISC requirements (not same thing)
    • Would like some early advice on tool selection (if necessary – currently using Visio)