ITANA org updates

API working group (Ashish)

schedule change to 2nd thursday of the month
next call: Feb 11
last meeting: UofM person API model presentation; planning to investigate further
15-20 universities represented
no face-to-face meetings scheduled, but could consider something at BYU unconference Feb 17-18

Spring F2F (Brenda)

April 20-22 W-F
details at https://spaces.at.internet2.edu/display/itana/Spring+Face2Face+2016+Overview+and+Logistics
Sheraton hotel and conference, not terribly near to campus
no signup options yet, nor agenda
focus will likely be on “leading from behind”
cost of F2F is free, but travel and housing not
workshop is very participatory, interactive
normally have 15-25 people and spend much of the time working in groups of 3-5
not an easy thing to do in a remote online way, due to the physical grouping and re-grouping of people
will look into options for people who can’t travel (hangout?)

Educause 2016

Signature Ready Examples (Chris Eagle)

Taxonomies for Higher Education

The ITANA RA for Teaching and Learning (RATL) is a great resource from about 4 years ago.

The teaching and learning capability map was an effort to understand the work without making assumptions about pedagogy and toolsets (LMSs). With T&L, for instance, assessment is about student success. But it also lead to discussions about curriculum management.
Framework helpful for looking at MOOCs for credit at Madison.
Similar capability maps are being used to express capabilities to support in terms of CRM.
Lous: Capability crossover. How do we think about research as component of teaching and learning? How to deal with intersections of capabilities?
Jim: it’s why capability maps are powerful. it allows you to understand what things are impacted by any given change to the environment. it highlights how broad the reach of any given change is and it also makes sure you’re not missing something. With this, we can think of the strategy writ large; it encourages solution designs to be more holistic..
JJ: Does anyone see the benefit of mapping capabilities that support those capabilities?
Jim: these are described as “enabling” capabilities e.g. IAM
Chris: consider also core diagrams

not particularly helpful, but might be a decent starting point, if anyone wants to take it and run with it
got limited use at UMich

Technology Taxonomy (technical capabilities) at UMich -- intended to represent all of the tech, but doesn’t tie to the UMich business capabilities; considered, but was too daunting

University IT strategy over past 5 years built on this capability map
Louis: observation that more buckets for admin than the mission of the University.
value in understanding opportunities to rationalize systems: mapped central and distributed IT onto map -- moved away from mail system to google mail (from 53 mail services to 3); without building the map, it would have been difficult to know of the opportunity
who is the audience of the capability maps? mostly internal to understand opportunities to rationalize; then other artifacts used to build a case for action.
how was the data captured? capability map sent out to units to collect data with instructions to consider your technology and bucket it as you see fit.
Mojgan: what EA tool? Used MS Word initially, then migrated to Google docs.

ITANA Reference Architecture for T&L -- conceptual data model and definitions that provide the information layer to the business capabilities

core/context grid -- risk (how important to university) vs. differentiation (how much it differentiates you, “core” vs “commodity”) -- similar to TIME model
risk/opportunity matrix -- from Gartner presentation on innovation
opportunity on a page (~strategy on a page)
ideation radar -- gartner, further away from center, further away the idea -- bigger the circle, bigger the idea