5/6/20041 Architecture and Institutional Architects “Working Architects Group” WAGv1: Barton,...
-
date post
15-Jan-2016 -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of 5/6/20041 Architecture and Institutional Architects “Working Architects Group” WAGv1: Barton,...
5/6/2004 1
Architectureand
Institutional Architects“Working Architects Group”
WAGv1: Barton, Fullerton, Gettes, Grady, Poepping, Wasley
CSGVirginia.edu, May 2004
5/6/2004 2
“Architecture”
• www.webster.comar·chi·tec·ture
1 : the art or science of building; specifically : the art or practice of designing and building structures …2 a : formation or construction as or as if as the result of conscious act b : a unifying or coherent form or structure
ar·chi·tectEtymology: from Greek architektOn master builder
mas·teran original from which copies can be made
• www.poepping.orgarchitect
one who creatively assembles known components with known behaviors
5/6/2004 3
IT Architecture
• Not-exactly-known Components
• Uncertain Behaviors, Complex Interactions
• Not New but Not Commonly Understood
5/6/2004 4
Thesis
• Domain-specific Architectures become their own stovepipe
• Focus on Institution IT Architecture
5/6/2004 5
Introducing the WAG
• What brought us together– Similar Roles– Similar Ambiguities– Similar Uncertainties– Similar Scotch
• Our Goal – Better Understanding– Architecture Issues and Requirements– Institutional Architect Applicability– Common Issues, Range of Motion– Role/Approach/Skills/Value
• Lots of Interest– Hard Problems, Expensive People
5/6/2004 6
What’s in it for You…
• Our and other CIO’s– Address Expanding Complexity (Velocity)– Increasingly Interdependent Domains– Gap in today’s approach
• Other Architects– Does this help you? Can you help?
• Our Peers are our Institution– “what’s that guy do anyhow?”
5/6/2004 7
What’s in it for Us
• Leverage in Collaboration– Strategy, Models, Method, Artifact– Technical Breadth
• Help in understanding all this stuf
• Benchmarking– Measurement, Improvement– Technologies
• Group Therapy
5/6/2004 8
What’s the Issue?“More”
• More Computing, More Applications– Not just the NOS anymore– SIS, ERP, Email, Cal/Sched– Network Access, VPN, VoIP, IM, Conferencing– CallCenter, Self-Help, Config Mgmt, Auto-Update– CourseWare, Collaboration, Repositories– Portal, Myriad Ad Hoc applets– Research Applications, Advanced Requirements
• More Data– Identity, Privacy, Attributes, Roles, Authorizations– Network, Device, Service: Performance, Diagnostics
5/6/2004 9
And “Less”
• For Users– Fewer, Easier Interfaces– Less Overlap– “Just Works” 7x24…
• For Enterprises– Fewer Systems, Interfaces, Transformations– Reduce Low-Layer Complexity– Reduce Distributed Risk– Enable/Encourage Innovation at Higher Layer
5/6/2004 10
Our Usual Response
• Abstract Commonality into Infrastructure• A Phase in a Cycle
– Co-existent –> Interoperable –> Integrated -> Convergent
• Commonly (Domain-capable)– Network, Platform, Presentation
• Emerging (Cross-domain)– Enterprise Data– Middleware Services and Methods– Diagnostics
5/6/2004 11
Cross-Domain• Institutional Data
– ERP + SIS, but clubs, projects, parking...– Other “data-of-interest”
• Network Connectivity, Registered Devices, Performance
• Middleware– Services
• SSO, Identity/Attribute Management, Authorization, Service Location…
– Methods• Web Services, Standards, Environments• Structured Design – leverage building blocks
• Diagnostics– Management Console – Network plus Services
5/6/2004 12
The Gap:Interdependence and Complexity
• Domain Arch Necessary, Not Sufficient– Convergence Across Disciplines– Complex New Interdependencies– Conflict in Domain-Specific Design Patterns– New Trade-offs Across Disciplines– Language Barriers between Disciplines
• New Security/Privacy Exposures
5/6/2004 13
The Need:Institution Architecture
• Effect– Rationalize Strategies, Focus/Balance Priorities– Inform, Influence Decisions– Improve Predictability
• Role– Leverage Skills in Your Organization– Complement Management Team– Manage Influence
• Capabilities - “Broad Depth”– Technical – Network, Security, Middleware, Systems,
Application– Customer – Requirements Elicitation, Service Definition– Social – Organizational, Inter-personal, Writing, Presentation– Management – Planning, Tracking, Financing, Negotiation
5/6/2004 14
Toward Institution Architecture
• “Common Themes and Range of Motion”– Responsibilities– Approach to Integration– Style/Skills of the Architect– Organizational Placement– Measurement of Value
• A Sampling…
5/6/2004 15
Sample Responsibilities
• Create and Maintain an Architecture– Artifacts/Processes/Templates– Standards/Roadmap/Vision– Team-based Creation (no vacuum)– JIT aspects – respond to Emerging Issues
• Technology/Product Development• Opportunities – Edict or 900lb Gorilla
5/6/2004 16
More Responsibilities
• Communicate and Interpret the Architecture– Evangelize and/or Intervene– Translate, Transform, Project– Consult on Project Definition (discovery)– Consult on Implementation (delivery)
• Integrate the Architecture– Across Drivers; Between Domains; Over Time– Help to set Priorities for Operational Agenda
5/6/2004 17
TechnicalStrategies
People, Projectand Money
Management
Integration
Mission
TechniqueAbility to Execute
Customer Requirements
Research, Analysis,Service Definition;
“Opportunities”
Institutional Goals
Budget
Staff Skills/Expertise
Standards
Practices
Products
Goal
5/6/2004 18
Style/Skills
• Broad Expertise, Pattern-Matcher• Write, Speak, LISTEN• Walk a Fine Line
– Proclaim/Consult– Expert/Strategist– Gadfly/Catalyst– Leader/Facilitator
• Other…– Tom’s Fomenter, Scott’s Omnigraffle Jockey– Michael’s Panache– A descent spellor
5/6/2004 19
Organizational Placement
• Relationship to Management Structure
• Relationship to Strategic Implementation
• Reach: IT-local or Institution-wide
• We are:– An Individual Reporting to CIO– A Small Group Reporting Below the CIO
5/6/2004 20
Measurement of Value
• Click to Add Text
• No, Really..
5/6/2004 21
Measurement of Value
• How?– Empirical
• Saved money• Count Surprises..
– Subjective• Feel Better
• Not much to Share yet..
5/6/2004 22
Promises, Promises..In January we said…
• Explore the Role– Anatomy of Influence; Architecture, but more…
• Articulate and Synthesize– Review/cook approaches we’re trying out– Share the Story
• Motivation, Assumptions, Politics• Scope, Outcomes, Interfaces• Models, Tools, Techniques
– Order the Issues• Common Themes, Range of Motion, What we don’t know..
• 1/8/04 – CSG: Share the Concept• I2 Member mtg – Early models, directed feedback• May CSG – Policy discussion, broaden participation?
5/6/2004 23
What Next?
• Click to add more text
• Your click…
5/6/2004 24
What Next?
• Barton, Gettes: Report at SAC
• Your thoughts?– Worth additional Effort?– Formalism?– Value proposition?
• Actions– Follow-up to CSG CIO’s?
5/6/2004 25
What Else?
• Architect or Usual Suspect– Opportunities Abound – “Call for Participation”– Value of Contribution– External Commitments– Time Management
5/6/2004 26
WAG us
• Please contact:
Michael Gettes [email protected]
Scott Fullerton [email protected]
David Wasley [email protected]
Tom Barton [email protected]
Michael Grady [email protected]
Mark Poepping [email protected]
5/6/2004 27
Institutional Architecture
WAGv1: Barton, Fullerton, Gettes, Grady, Poepping, Wasley
CSG
UVa, May 2004
5/6/2004 28
WAGthe
DOGMAWorking Architects Group
Discovering Organizational Groupthink for Managing Architecture
5/6/2004 29
WAGthe
DOGMAWorking Architects Group
Darn Odd Gamut of Mystifying Attitudes
5/6/2004 30
Institutional Architecture
WAGv1: Barton, Fullerton, Gettes, Grady, Poepping, Wasley
CSG
UVa, May 2004
5/6/2004 31
Architecture
• http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m97-16.html
This memorandum transmits guidance to Federal agencies on the development and implementation of Information Technology Architectures. The Information Technology Architecture (ITA) describes the relationships among the work the agency does, the information the agency uses, and the information technology that the agency needs. It includes standards that guide the design of new systems. An ITA makes it easier to share information internally (e.g., agency-wide e-mail) and to reduce the number of information systems that perform similar functions. The ITA provides the technology vision to guide resource decisions that reduce costs and improve mission performance.