Page History

...

• Question from Dana Miller not asked:  Did the UW use the enterprise strategy document as a place to start the effort?

• The question still is what is the focus of the central IT organization

• Jim Phelps would like engagement with the business partners but not totally there

• Jenni Laughlin has an opportunity to do business architecture from the business side.  Scaffolding practices need to be curated.  Working through decision practices with a portfolio view.  Capital Projects-Change portfolio.   

• Bob Dein asked if strategy management is incorporated into client engagement?

• A:   Not really yet at UW.  Work with stakeholders to identify business goals and share it across central IT.

• Jim used the platform analogy between IT and the business.  Both are involved in change but one has to be built up first before the other one.  

• Next steps.  

• Maturity Model reveals they have achieved good communication within central IT.
  
  
  

• Louis King of Yale discussed the current state reactionary environment and lack of strategic structure.  Strategic conversations are personal conversations at this point.

• Result:  Missed opportunities.

• New leadership structure over the past few years provides opportunity to engage.
  

• Louis continues doing work in Data Governance.  Decision rarely rolls to an individual.  

• Strategy work is developing common frames for the scaffolding.  If we all understand the scaffolding then we can have a conversation.

• EA group appears to be down to one sad bulldog it appears?

• Many strategic plans:

• Memory organizations (libraries)

• Central IT not really thinking about services across the portfolio.  Independent decisions made in silos and rarely strategic and not transparent.

• The goal is to imbed strategy into the service organization

• Failure of gant chat-like roadmaps

• Use of MESAs as 3 year strategy roadmaps for services used a pilot but having some success

• Engage all stakeholders

• Look at the function the service is delivering

• View of the future state

• Application Portfolio management

• TIME (Tolerate, Invest, Migrate, Eliminate)

• ½ portfolio didn’t know what to do with

• MESAs in place for funding model and have service owner

• Still work to assess application inventory

• What have been the challenges?

• A: Business systems group rolling out WorkDay on July 1st.  Hard to enage.

• A: In a service organization that is siloed (central IT).  The challenge is how dedicated are the leaders reporting to the CIO.  

Chat Box 

Jim Phelps: Future Topics: https://spaces.at.internet2.edu/display/itana/ITANA+2016-2017+Program

Piet Niederhausen (UWash): Slides at: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1O6zZ3-TXCXOGFf81dMovzGiX_e0egSrDNa4JUU2dpAc/

Jim Phelps: That is an interesting finding: the drivers at a big public R1 are similar to an Ivy League private. Do these issues ring true for you all too?

Jim Phelps: Questions or comments? Either use chat or interupt on the call

Jim Phelps: Louis - Comments from Yale?

Jim Phelps: This is true at UW and what we are trying to reform

Dan Kiskis (Michigan): For heavy ITIL folks, another way to think of the TIME axes are Techinical Value = Warranty and Business Value = Utility

Betsy Draper - Kansas State: Louis, really appreciate the comments about hierarchy and service thinking.

Jim Phelps: To quote David Gift, "There are no good org structures, only org structures that are bad in different ways".

Betsy Draper - Kansas State: A framing question I often through into service discussions is "How does our hierarchy help or hinder our services?"

Betsy Draper - Kansas State: sorry ... throw ... not through

Updates

• Book club is starting up on its next book; see the mailing list to join

• API working group is actively working; contact Ashish Pandit to join

• EA maturity model group is active; see the Groups page to join

...