IT Governance and Enterprise Architecture
CAUDIT Enterprise Architecture Symposium – Nov 2006
Leo de Sousa, Enterprise Architect
British Columbia Institute of Technology
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
Historical Governance – IT Decides/IT Pays
A Governance Model and EA’s Role
New Model for IT Governance
IT Needs Assessment Thoughts
Questions
Historical Governance – IT Decides
• business and educational areas submit IT
work/want requests to a work list
• IT Services would revise the list semiannually and make an assessment
• We used a simple 2 dimensional scale
– stakeholder – compliance, students,
faculty, employees, other
– Payback – under 3 mo, 3-6mo,6-12mo,…
Historical Governance – IT Pays
This approach creates problems:
• When IT decides, there is a lack of
transparency to our clients
• IT is accused of playing favourites or only
responding to the “squeaky wheel”
• Ultimately, IT’s reputation in the client
community is poor
** IT should be informing NOT making these
decisions – push back to the business
Changing Client Value Perceptions
“So this is where we get I.T. involved”
As IT organizations attempt to become strategic partners with their
clients, they first need to gain respect & trust
Strategic Governance Model
Funding
Support
Program
Program
Opportunistic
Innovative
Departmental
Enterprise
Program = schools or
departments
Institute = centrally
governed
Institute
Control
IT
Program
Enterprise Architecture Philosophy 100:
When introducing new functions, features, or infrastructure,
we will ALWAYS look at our current vendors and products FIRST.
This will:
• Ensure we are making fiscally sound decisions
• Allow us to leverage existing relationships and licenses
• Avoid unnecessary complexity by introducing yet another
technology to learn and support
• Leverages native integration within existing
vendors/products/features
• Prevent further dilution of ITS staff skill sets
EA100 will then apply the following tests (assuming an existing
vendor or technology can be identified):
• Does the identified solution adequately meet the identified needs
• Is the solution fiscally responsible
If we pass both tests, then we WILL license/implement that solution.
IT Alignment without Governance
Business Strategy
Strategic Directions
IT Strategy
Over-shoot &
Correct
= Strategy Change
Cross Purposes
Misalign
Lagging
Correction
Over Time
= Periods of
“Relative Alignment”
IT Alignment with Governance
Business Strategy
IT Strategy
Strategic Directions
= Strategy Change
Business Leads
IT Strategy
IT Leads
Business Strategy
Over Time
= Periods of
“Relative Alignment”
New Model for IT Governance
• Vice President of Learning and Technology Services chairs the
Technology Committee
• Membership includes all 6 Vice Presidents
• Enterprise Architect acts in an advisory/consulting role
Process
• VPs present proposals for transformative projects
• Proposals that receive approval move to formal Business
Case
• Business Cases are presented to the Technology Committee
for endorsement
• Endorsed Business Cases are submitted to the President’s
Executive Council for funding
IT Needs Assessments thoughts … Relationships
Responsible for
Funding approved
Business Cases
PEC
BCIT
Technology
Committee
Responsible for
large, strategic,
investment initatives
> $1m
IT Services
ITS Operational
Steering
Committee
Facilitated & supported
By ITS
Assigned resources to core
activities and services (the approx
90% of ITS resources) through
existing Operations Planning
Responsible for
considering and priority
ranking all I.T. Needs NOT
considered by Tech. Committee
Pan Institutional representation
at the tactical / operational level
(eg. Director of Finance,
Chaired by non-ITS rep
For objectivity and transparency
Ranked list will be addressed through
the approx 10% of non-core ITS base
funded resources.
All of these
are 100%
incrementally
resourced
IT Needs Assessments thoughts … Processes
I.T. Needs
ATC
Infra.
TEK
IAM
BCP/DR
ITS Worklist
ITS
Liaisons
Still need to:
• ID all channels for work coming to ITS
• Establish firmer criteria for where to
direct work for review (eg. When does
it go to Tech Comm and when does it
go to Op Steering Comm.
• determine cycle frequency for each
process
• how transparent should this be
Filter Criteria
Work is directed to one
of five possible outcomes
based on review and criteria
“No” – we can’t do it
• everything else and whatever is
not resourced in the Ops Steering
Comm list after we have allocated the
10% to the top priority activities
BCIT Tech Comm.
• Strategic
• Transformative
• Investment > $1M
ITS Core Services
• Already doing it
• Marginal impact on
resources & budget
• No incremental Cap Budget
• Resourced in the approx
90% of existing ITS staff
ITS Core Funded Projects
• reviewed by Ops Steering Comm
for ranked priority order
• Resourced by the approx. 10% of
remaining ITS staff
• criteria based ranking (see next page)
Recomm. Alt. Delivery
• ASP Model (pay as you go)
• requires little of no commitment
from ITS
• Opportunity based
IT Needs Assessments thoughts … Criteria
* Mandatory / legal compliance
Expenses
Velocity
Capacity
Satisfaction
Decisioning
Leverage
Market Share
Risk
Innovation
ITS Operational Steering
Committee Criteria for Priority Ranking
(suggestions only)
This committee needs clear terms of
reference and broad membership.
Questions