Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Enterprise Architecture: Partnering, Procurement, and Persuasion


Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Enterprise Architecture: Partnering, Procurement, and Persuasion

  1. 1. Enterprise Architecture: Partnering, Procurement, and Persuasion Copyright 2008 Saint Louis University. This work is the intellectual property of the authors. 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.
  2. 2. Agenda <ul><li>Introductions </li></ul><ul><li>Section 1: EA in Year 1 </li></ul><ul><li>Section 2: Partnering </li></ul><ul><li>Section 3: Procurement </li></ul><ul><li>Section 4: Persuasion </li></ul>
  3. 3. Kevin Ballard <ul><li>Chief Architect </li></ul><ul><li>Department head of Business Intelligence </li></ul><ul><li>Functional DBA and Information Architect </li></ul><ul><li>Corporate IT Background (19 years) </li></ul>Introductions
  4. 4. James Hooper <ul><li>Bredemeyer-trained Enterprise Architect </li></ul><ul><li>5 years as Director of Client/Systems Services and lead systems architect </li></ul><ul><li>5 years+ as a lead systems architect </li></ul><ul><li>16 years IT technical roles </li></ul><ul><li>Degrees in Biology and Management Information Systems </li></ul>Introductions
  5. 5. John Ashby <ul><li>7 years in IT management: educational technology (classrooms, content/ distribution, computing) </li></ul><ul><li>12 years academic media management </li></ul><ul><li>14 years media services roles </li></ul><ul><li>17 years as adjunct faculty </li></ul><ul><li>MA - Communication </li></ul>Introductions
  6. 6. Section One: EA in Year 1 Getting “ITS House in Order” <ul><li>Developed Architecture Governance </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Integrate with Project Management Framework </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Started Producing Results Right Away </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Expand the Product Item Master to Document Standards and Lifecycle </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Identify opportunities for $$ savings </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Evolving Entity Relationships
  8. 8. Governance Structure <ul><li>Enterprise Architecture </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(3 positions, Summer-Fall 2006) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Architecture Council </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(19 positions, December 2006) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Architecture Review Board (ARB) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(principles adopted, began September 2007) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Different Governance, Vision, Charters </li></ul>Section 1: EA in Year 1
  9. 9. PIM beginnings for Standards… Section 1: EA in Year 1
  10. 11. ARBAF as Input Section 1: EA in Year 1
  11. 12. Architecture Review Board Tactics <ul><li>Maintain PIM: boring but essential! </li></ul><ul><li>Publish!!! </li></ul><ul><ul><li>EA Website must become definitive source for ARB decisions, IT standards, processes, design information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Quarterly ARB reports, weekly email </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Stats and metrics </li></ul></ul>Section 1: EA in Year 1
  12. 13. Projects and “Culture of Design” <ul><li>“ EA Buddy” offer </li></ul><ul><li>Advancing the ARB “Build Permit” </li></ul><ul><li>Design review before procurement/construction </li></ul><ul><li>Design Documents Guidelines for PMs and functional architects </li></ul>Section 1: EA in Year 1
  13. 14. Variability Reduction: Forward Plan Examples <ul><li>Desktop Power Management </li></ul><ul><li>SQL Server Consolidation </li></ul><ul><li>Virtualization to address datacenter issues </li></ul><ul><li>Consolidated Server-storage architecture </li></ul>Section 1: EA in Year 1
  14. 15. Potential Savings: Generational Changes in Power Management New Laptops New Desktops 2005 Desktops
  15. 16. Section Two: Partnering <ul><li>IT Business Office relationship </li></ul><ul><li>Ex-officio ARB seats </li></ul><ul><li>EIWG </li></ul><ul><li>Training Vendor relationship </li></ul>
  16. 17. ITS Business Office Supports <ul><li>Asked to approve all SLU computer and software requisitions </li></ul><ul><li>Limited information on purchase requisitions </li></ul><ul><li>Approval based on ???? </li></ul><ul><li>Sure we have standards – lots of them! </li></ul><ul><li>PIM now answers the question of “clearly OK” </li></ul><ul><li>EA responds to requisitions requiring impact analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Coordination of standards bodies: Architecture Council, Desktop Standards Committee </li></ul>Section 2: Partnering Dilemma EA Supports
  17. 18. Ex-officio ARB Seats <ul><li>Information Security Office </li></ul><ul><li>Project Office </li></ul><ul><li>Chair of Change Control Board </li></ul>Section 2: Partnering Mutual Stakeholders in IT Continuity
  18. 19. EIWG (Enterprise Infrastructure Working Group) <ul><li>Novell Zenworks: Enterprise “base PC image” contains – what? </li></ul><ul><li>Central and distributed IT staff stakeholders in computer support </li></ul><ul><li>Chartered to govern desktop system planning and change </li></ul><ul><li>Outcome: “Modular Base Image” </li></ul>Section 2: Partnering
  19. 20. EIWG Image Change Workflow
  20. 21. Training Vendor Relationship <ul><li>IT Training Vendor: space needs </li></ul><ul><li>ITS: Consumer of training, “free” seat allocation </li></ul><ul><li>School of Business: MIS identity expansion opportunty </li></ul><ul><li>Mutual responsibilities </li></ul>Section 2: Partnering
  21. 22. Section 3: Procurement <ul><li>RFI/RFP for servers and storage: forward design and $$ savings </li></ul><ul><li>Standards/eCommerce for commodity servers </li></ul><ul><li>Host Review problem survey/approvals </li></ul><ul><li>Build permit before procurement </li></ul>
  22. 23. Server/storage RFI and RFP <ul><li>History of one-project-at-a-time IT hardware procurement </li></ul><ul><li>No leveraging of distributed server-storage purchase volume </li></ul><ul><li>Forward plan needed for multiple upcoming investments </li></ul>Section 3: Procurement
  23. 24. RFI First: Seeking Best Product Mix <ul><li>Overarching theme: managing datacenter assets across products, projects, and time </li></ul><ul><li>Best of breed directions: virtualization, tiered storage, power management </li></ul><ul><li>Opening our minds to new platforms </li></ul><ul><li>Manufacturer-focus, not VAR </li></ul><ul><li>Helped qualify RFP invitees </li></ul>
  24. 25. Multi-solution architecture
  25. 26. Server/storage RFP process <ul><li>Invitees: Sun, HP, and IBM (VARs their choice if desired) </li></ul><ul><li>5 “Typical” standard commodity servers specified for “apples-to-apples” comparison </li></ul><ul><li>Multiple solutions and options requested </li></ul><ul><li>Central and distributed eval committee </li></ul><ul><li>“ One Winner” intended for SLU </li></ul>Section 3: Procurement
  26. 27. Capabilities Sought Purchase Trends Reports Web e-Commerce Extended Services Special Pricing on Large Purchases Discounts and Product Lifecycle Standards maintenance process Integrate new and legacy systems
  27. 28. Server/storage RFP outcome <ul><li>Committee surprise: a hybrid solution preferred and negotiated </li></ul><ul><li>Winning vendor services and eCommerce solution more important than platform </li></ul><ul><li>Improved existing Volume Pricing Agreement </li></ul><ul><li>$2.2M savings in first 6 months! </li></ul>Section 3: Procurement
  28. 29. Host Products Review: the Business Office Process Problem <ul><li>Can’t see others’ requisitions from ERP approval queue </li></ul><ul><li>Limited information on requisitions: WHO to ask and FOR WHAT? </li></ul><ul><li>Approval criteria: can Business Office understand the products requested? </li></ul><ul><li>With servers and hosted software WHO should approve or review – many stakeholders? </li></ul><ul><li>Every disapproval becomes “political” </li></ul>Section 3: Procurement
  29. 30. Online surveys
  30. 31. Host Product Review Solution: Policy & Procedure <ul><li>Daily email requisition report with detail </li></ul><ul><li>Online survey sent to requisitioner </li></ul><ul><li>Review commences with survey submission by technical contact </li></ul><ul><li>5 working days for Security, Architecture, Network, etc. to comment </li></ul><ul><li>Feedback sent to customer </li></ul><ul><li>Business Office instructed to approve/disapprove </li></ul>Section 3: Procurement
  31. 32. Section 4: Persuasion <ul><li>James Madison story </li></ul><ul><li>Leveraging Across Projects </li></ul><ul><li>Strategic Planning Task Force </li></ul><ul><li>We Need a Policy! </li></ul>
  32. 34. Leveraging Across Projects <ul><li>UCCI/Banner/EHR/Research Bldg </li></ul><ul><li>HP/UX decision </li></ul><ul><li>Identity Management alignment </li></ul><ul><li>Facilities Host Systems Integration </li></ul>Section 4: Persuasion
  33. 37. HP/UX Placeholder
  34. 38. Enterprise Identity Management <ul><li>Driven by Common Requirements </li></ul><ul><li>Reuse of Enterprise Investment </li></ul><ul><li>Agility across data boundaries </li></ul><ul><li>Global Uniqueness </li></ul><ul><li>Unified Password Management </li></ul><ul><li>Local Control </li></ul><ul><li>Dedicated Support </li></ul><ul><li>Driven by requirements of a single application </li></ul><ul><li>Dilute Risk </li></ul>Unified Identity Management Distributed Identity Management
  35. 40. Reengineering Facilities IT Hosting: Illustrating Dependencies & Decisions
  36. 41. Strategic Planning Task Force <ul><li>Data from EA artifacts </li></ul><ul><li>Visualization of Mission, Vision, Strategy </li></ul><ul><li>Collaboration with deans on “user-centric” model </li></ul>Section 4: Persuasion
  37. 42. Saint Louis University’s VISION M I S S I O N Technology SUPPORTS Higher Ed CHALLENGES • Space/growth Technology Strategic Planning Committee VALUES SLU Strategic Technology Direction 5. Enhance & sustain enabling infrastructure 6. Appropriate distributed & centralized tech budgets 4. Expand tech commercialization 2. Tech impact awareness 1. Tech in teaching • User-centric perspective • Aim for the future • Technology funding: distributed AND centralized • Proactive rather than reactive Finest Catholic University in the United States • Banner ERP • Network, Wireless, Internet 2 • College technology investments • Magis/Billiken Infoshield • Grant funds • Affordability • Scalability • Business Continuity • Smaller student pool by 2010 • Madrid Campus • International Students • Diversity by design • Dialog and inquiry in curriculum • Best Practices • Best Value • Research Innovation • Centers of Excellence • Enhanced Athletics • Health Care Brand • Top Research • Five Dimensions • Mission & Ministry • Residential living • Grand Center - Arts District • On-Campus Facilities • Synergy with other educational, research, health institutions • Alumni development • Connecting alumni & student recruiting • Universitas and Web Reputation of Distinction Global Perspective Culture of High Performance Vibrant Urban Location Forever SLU Student Formation Engagement • Classroom/computer refresh Enterprise Architecture 6/1/2007 – John M. Ashby • Security/privacy • Compliance • Assessment 3. Integrate tech & research
  38. 44. Opportunity: “We Need a Policy” <ul><li>Guest Access Policy: started with “shared username” desktop security discussion; Integrated Sign-on added urgency </li></ul><ul><li>Grew into Identity Policy committee, listing all “defined relationships” and deciding who can create/maintain these </li></ul>Section 4: Persuasion
  39. 45. Enterprise Architecture Program at Saint Louis University: Partnering, Procurement, Persuasion Kevin Ballard Chief Architect [email_address] James Hooper Enterprise Architect [email_address] John Ashby Enterprise Architect [email_address] Saint Louis University Information Technology Services 3690 West Pine Mall St. Louis, MO 63108-3304 http:// Q&A
  40. 46. Recommended Sites <ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li>http:// </li></ul>