2010 2nd International Conference on Software Technology and Engineering(ICSTE)
Roadmap for the implementation of an Enterprise Architecture Framework Oriented to Institutions of Higher Education in Ecuador Armando Cabrera, Carlos Román, Marco Abad, Danilo Jaramillo
José Carrillo Departamento de Lenguajes y Sistemas Informáticos e Ingeniería del Software Universidad Politécnica de Madrid Madrid – España
[email protected]
UPSI - Investigaciones tecnológicas Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja Loja – Ecuador {aacabrera, caroman, mpabad, djaramillo} @utpl.edu.ec
Abstract–this paper proposes a comprehensive and integrated roadmap for the implementation of an enterprise architecture framework in the higher education institutions of Ecuador with the purpose to get the best utilization of the resources of IT (to improve the quality of the services, to rationalize the technical administration and to finance the assets of IT, and to improve the management of the resources and project portfolios), through identifying the appropriate current and emerging best practices, methodologies (EA frameworks), and tools for each of the major enterprise architecture components that must be addressed in any approach. Keywords-Higher education, enterprise architecture, framework, technologies of governing information of IT.
I.
INTRODUCTION
The administration and management of the information and communication technologies plays an important role in the organizational structure of the higher education institutions. Handling the technological infrastructure, services, online resources and data, have become some of the main concerns that the leaders of IT should take into consideration in order to satisfy each one of the institutional functions (teaching, research and extension1) and with this to respond to the regulatory changes2, the external environment changes, the growing competence, globalization, and the changing expectations of the society. The comprehension of the interrelations among people, the business processes, applications, data, and underlying technologies will be fundamental to achieve this synergy among all parts of the organization. The development of an Enterprise Architecture (EA) will become fundamental in handling these interdependencies, thus we intend to develop an EA framework that allow them to include an architectural framework that could integrate institutional vision with IT. From this perspective, it will initially be necessary to establish a roadmap that shows us how to come and consolidate the EA framework like a final product. Though it can be affirmed that the entire organization has an informal/empirical EA plan; the adoption of a formal model 1
Consejo Nacional de Educación Superior (CONESUP), De la Constitución, Fines y Objetivos del Sistema Nacional de Educación Superior. Base legal Art. 3. Disponible en http://www.conesup.net/capitulo1.php 2 Consejo Nacional de Educación Superior (CONESUP), Ley Orgánica de Educación Superior. Disponible en: http://www.conesup.net/descargas/PROYECTO_LOES.pdf
978-1-4244-8666-3/10/$26.00
C
2010 IEEE
is necessary in order to the establishment of effective IT Governance. II. DEFININGENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE, PURPOSE AND BENEFITS A. Definition and history The standard ISO/IEC 42010: 2007tell us: “Conceptually IT architecture is the fundamental organization of a system, embodied in its components, their relationships to each other and the environment, and the principles governing its design and evolution.”[1] On the other hand, TOGAF [1] proposes a concept of business undertaking as: "Any collection of organizations that have a common assembly of goals and/or a simple final result". The term “business,” in the context of Enterprise Architecture, can be used to denote both: an entire business (covering the totality of its Information Systems) or a specific area within that business. In both cases, the architecture crosses multiple systems and functional groups inside the business. From this perspective, the concept of EA turns out to be very simple, a concise definition. Klaus Niemann [2] states that"Enterprise architecture refers to a structured, harmonized and dynamic collection of plans for the development of an enterprise’s IT landscape.” But this discipline has not been a product of coincidence nor of rapid development, instead it has involved a slow but steady process that dates back more than two decades when John Zachman published an article in 1987 called, "A framework for the Information Systems Architecture" [3]. So, Zachman established the challenge and the “vision” [10] of enterprise architectures that would orient the discipline for the next 20 years. Due to the undeniable benefits of the EA, several authors and government agencies have developed some EA frameworks like as TAFIM, FEAF, TOGAF, DoDAF 3 , MODAF4, PEAF5, MAGENTA6, AGATE7, CIMOSA8, 3 Department of Defense Architecture Framework. Governmental use. Developed by DoD-EE UU. Available in: http://cionii.defense.gov/sites/dodaf20/ archives.html 4 Ministry of Defense Architectural Framework. Governmental use. Developed by Mood. Available in: http://www.mod.uk/
DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/WhatWeDo/InformationManagement/MODAF/ 5
Pragmatic Enterprise Architecture Framework. Available in official web site: http://www.pragmaticea.com/
V2-7
2010 2nd International Conference on Software Technology and Engineering(ICSTE)
and others which have adopted certain standard metadata methods model to define the critical elements of the architecture and the dependences among them. The MITRE Corporation shows in its publication EABOK [5], a significative analysis on the greater historical developments of the EA (Methodologies) in which it undertakes the majority of the frameworks mentioned and more. B. Dimensions to Consider An architectural approach covers the key areas of the organizational life, including the personnel and their work domains that conforms the organization. There are various approaches in the structuring of the domain of the EA; these are essentially distinguished in terms of the number of architectural levels that they cover, the demarcation of those levels and their granularity. Some representations include more levels or sublevels. These models are mentioned and used by diverse methodologies; and, they cover aspects of security, information, data, and integration of the architecture. A clear reference model can be found in [2]. Each area of analysis that will be involved in the construction of the framework, could be considered like a separated strategy discipline (segmented EA), since it focus on the different levels and areas of the personnel (academic staff, students, employed and industrious 9 ). Often each group has its own tools, methods, rules, principles and politics, etc., as well as different ways to communicate and to share information on each area. So, each should have its "own form" of architecture, that is to say, a particularization in proportion to the global EA that specifies its own form of "carrying things out." C. Purpose The EA will help to create transparency, serving as a base for the delivery of information to the government of the universities10. This information will be essential for making decisions and the establishment of an adequate control. In addition, it will create a solid skeleton to apply a precise IT Governance. As far as the adequate consolidation of an IT strategy under the management given by the government; the EA will be handled as a fundamental axis in association with the management of requirements and project portfolios, as well as with the management of operations and services. D. Architectural lifecycle A “generic lifecycle” like the exposed in [9] shows the basic steps that often take place in the development of an EA. Each methodology has different or equal phases but we can emphasize the most important architectural lifecycles, for 6
Governmental Framework, developed in Singapore. Available in:
http://www.ida.gov.sg/Programmes/20060419144239.aspx?getPagetype=34 7
Atelier de Gestion de l'ArchiTEcture des systèmesd'informationetde communication.Available in: : http://www.ixarm.com/AGATE -framework 8 Computer Integrated Manufacturing Open System Architecture. Available in official web site: http://cimosa. cnt.pl/Docs/Primer/primer1.htm 9 Consejo Nacional de Educación Superior (CONESUP), Forman parte del Sistema Nacional de Educación Superior Ecuatoriano, Base Legal Capitulo 8, 9 y10. Disponible en http://www.conesup.net/ 10 Consejo Nacional de Educación Superior (CONESUP), Del gobierno de las instituciones del sistema nacional de educación superior, Base Legal Capitulo 6. Disponible en: http://www.conesup.net/capitulo6.php
example, ADM [6] of TOGAF and FEA, which utilize a cyclic model based respectively on eleven and seven phases. The governance of the architecture must be integrally supported by IT Governance, and operated on multiple levels. "The areas that are desired to establish or to improve their levels of government will be able to be referred by the Control Objectives of Information and Technologies related as COBIT11, that is as a framework for the management of IT with a similar focus on the standards handled by the PMBOK12 for the management of projects, and ITIL13 for the management of services." [19] E. Advantages and Benefits The advantages and benefits will depend strictly on control model that might be used for developing the EA. In general terms, the premise "Enterprise Architecture supports IT management when it comes to doing the right things in the right way at a minimal risk."[2], guarantees the efficiency and efficacy, while the absence of risks is simply high security. The most significant advantages offered by the development of the architectural-organizational framework will be: IT Efficiency, IT Efficacy and EA Trust. F. How to define it Starting from the initial state “as is” and taking into account the final state “to be” we should consider these two points in the challenge of its development because the final state will be defined by the architectural specification of the framework. We should pay attention and assign resources to consolidate what we want to be in the future (EA objective). Also, the effort should be protected by a high level of consciousness with respect to the current state (assets of existing information, business processes, organizational structures and several infrastructures, etc.). It is vital that the process which specifies the baseline should be taken into account seriously; this will derive the initial actions to take the way to the EA objective. The feedback of the professionals illustrates it´s importance as "It cannot be known where someone is going without clearly knowing where he is himself." [2] Identifying the current state will be useful for identifying gaps, redundancies and assets of hidden data, as well as to show who does what and where inside the higher education institutions. Such process should include any form of strategic analysis of gaps guiding the documentation of the roadmap for the architecture. III. ROADMAP FOR IMPLEMENTING EA Considering EA as a "business asset" [6], it is necessary to establish a plan that would help to higher education institutions to formalize the discipline of EA, and even to generate a critical mass through the establishment of educational and research programs in this area, which 11
Control Objectives for Information and Related Technology. Available in official web site: http://www.isaca.org/Template.cfm?Section=COBIT6&Template=/Tagged Page/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=55&ContentID=7981 12 Project Management Body of Knowledge. Available in official web site: www.unipi.gr/akad_tmhm/biom_dioik_ tech/files/pmbok.pdf 13 Information Technology Infrastructure Library. Available in official web site: http://www.itil-officialsite.com/home/home.asp
V2-8
2010 2nd International Conference on Software Technology and Engineering(ICSTE)
importance is growing significatively. Achieving this will not be an easy task due to the fact that the EA implies an organizational effort which requires management, allocation of resources, continuity, coordination and programs of academic formation. Through team work, a description of operations should be established in which the EA will be applied. In order to get the future vision as well as the IT strategies that will support the compliance of the established goals, three predominant factors should be considered. A.
Obtain support from the government of the university Without support from the corporate government of the university, it will be difficult to maintain the necessary sponsorship for financing and implementing the systems and improved processes. Due to the academic context of the higher education institutions, the main goal is to become one of the participating assets of the EA through a formal, concurrent and integral commitment. As an institutional example of pilot plans / complete projects we can take as a reference, MIT14, Penn State University15, JISC program [7], Monash16, Minnesota17 and Saint Louis18. B.
Establish a management and control structure The direction, control and monitoring of the EA activities, and their progress should be iterative and cyclic. A strong organizational structure will be necessary to facilitate and to accelerate the definitions of the roles and associated responsibilities into the development of the framework. The roles should be evaluated in terms of the size of the organization, the complexity of the business, the architecture negotiated, along with other factors to determine the correlation of adequate roles assigned to the personnel. C.
Products and activities We should consider three essential phases for the establishment of the initial activities: 1) Develop a strategic marketing plan, and a communication plan 2) Develop a Management Plan (MP) 3) Start the Development of the EA With the products developed in the previous points, it is possible to start the project of EA. There are several peripheral activities associated with its creation: To institute the practices of the Management Plan. To establish the processes of development of the EA and management practices. [6] To qualify the participants of EA project. [6]
To build a base line of EA products. [5] To establish the goals expected with the EA products. To create the plan of sequencing. [2] To populate the EA repository. [2] D.
To define the process and the approach The nature of the higher education institutions from Ecuador (financed by the State, co-financed by the State and private funds, self-financed19) and the factors inherent in the architecture, will dictate the approach of change of the architecture that is to be developed. Though an architectural approach is an excellent tool to handle complex and extensive environments, the depth and detail of the EA need to be in proportion to the organization. The goals [8] that are pursued with the process are understand as follows: To build an architecture base “as is” (of reference) To build an objective architecture that shows the vision and strategies of the organization “to be”. To develop a plan of sequencing that describes a progressive strategy for the transition of the base-line to the goal. To publish an EA approved plan that will be accessible by the personnel of the institution of higher education. E.
Adopt a Framework At this point, we have defined at administrative level the structure of the project. The next step is to adopt a framework (whether predefined or developed) that will specify formally each constituent element of the EA. There are various frameworks, but we have considered five of the most important approaches of this discipline which should be contrasted in depth: Zachman [17], FEA [6], TOGAF [1], Gartner [12] and E2AF [11]. For that reason, it is necessary to briefly address each methodology, and to consider the study [18] proposed by Gartner which predicts that 95% of the organizations will support multiple approaches of EA until 2015. Gartner has identified four architectural EA approaches: traditional, federal, medium exterior and diversity negotiated With a combined approach, the higher education institutions will try to determine the appropriate control of their architecture through the application of an appropriate architecture strategy. This means that the EA team will have to determine a decision-making framework which will allow to evaluate, and to consider which approach should be used for any solution that might be given; defining which approach could be appropriated considering the following: technology, information, and aspects of business. F.
14
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Available in: http://web. mit.edu/itag/eag/ 15 Penn State University Enterprise Architecture Initiative Available in: official: http://ea.ist.psu.edu/ 16 Monash University IT Architecture. Available in: http://www.its.monash.edu.au/staff/plans/architecture/ 17 Minnesota Enterprise_Architecture: http://www.state. mn.us/mn/externalDocs/OET/Minnesota_Enterprise_Architecture_Whitepa per_061406104429_MEA Whitepaper.pdf 18 Building an Enterprise Architecture Program at Saint Louis University available in: net.educause.edu/ir/library/powerpoint/MWR07072.pps
Framework selection criteria Due to business context of each one of the frameworks analyzed, we should take into consideration the approach that higher education (teaching, research and extension) proposes. To obtain a personalized methodology, or to 19
Consejo Nacional de Educación Superior (CONESUP), De la Constitución, Fines y Objetivos del Sistema Nacional de Educación Superior. Forman parte del Sistema Nacional de Educación Superior Ecuatoriano. Disponible en http://www.conesup.net/capitulo1.php
V2-9
2010 2nd International Conference on Software Technology and Engineering(ICSTE)
develop a well EA strategy, we recommend considering the relevant associated aspects in the higher education context from each one of the five methodologies, that were considered in the proposal of the Gartner approach [18], See Table I TABLE I.
EA FRAMEWORKS ANALISIS [15], [16] Zachman
Criteria
TOGAF
FEA
Gartner
E2AF
Taxonomy Proceses Reference-model Guidance Practice Guidance Maturity Model Business Focus Governance Guidance Partitioning Guidance Prescriptive Catalog Vendor Neutrality Information Avaibality
4 1 1
2 4 3
2 2 4
1 3 1
2 4 3
1 1 1 1
2 1 2 2
2 3 1 3
4 2 4 3
3 1 2 2
1
2
4
3
2
1
2
4
2
2
1 2
2 4
4 2
2 1
2 2
TOTAL
15
26
31
26
25
Tool selection criteria The tool selection approach should be oriented by the framework on which the work will be done; taking as a reference the two base dimensions presented by the IFEAD [13]: the basic functionality of each tool, and the utility that it will offer to the different professionals involved. Also, we should consider the structural model from [14] based on three dimensions: purpose, content and format. See Table II From development to implementation, how to make the architecture last The implementation by itself lacks sense if one does not establish the basic principles defined in this roadmap, to build an EA that has periodically maintained and continuously evaluated in order to get updates that keep it working efficiently. A strategic model for this step should be like the model purposed in [4]. It is necessary to carry out a lifting of information that will serve to generate the products and to fill the EA repository. Once the architectural base line and the objective approach have been consolidated, the artifacts inherent in the EA will be revised and validated. After this, models should be developed and subsequently these models should be refined. TABLE II. Criterio/ Vendedor Metodologies Models ModelDevelopment Interface Automation Customization Manipulation Repository DeploymentArchitec ture Licencing ArchitectureResults Utility
BizzDesign
EA TOOL ANALISIS SparxSyst ems
IBM – TeleLogic
Troux
3 8 9
10 10 7
10 10 10
5 8 10
10 8 10
9 9 10 9 9
9 8 9 9 7
10 10 10 10 10
10 9 10 10 10
10 9 10 10 10
7 10 8
7 9 8
7 9 6
10 10 10
10 9 8
8,4
9,2
9,2
9,4
Facing the challenge of implementing an EA approach in the higher education institutions in Ecuador requires as a key aspect, to have a clear knowledge of the “as is”, and the “to be” state. The commitment of the institutions should be integral to make the investment of resources necessary for the adoption of the EA. The adequately assignment of resources and the implementation of a strong plan will make the development process more iterative and simplified. Also, it should be taken into account that the architectural life cycle should be carried out in a medium time limit by the constant growth and evolution of the institutions. Finally, the methodology (framework) may be desirable to utilize can be protected by a single approach, but it is convenient to try to join the fortresses of each approach in a hybrid specialized framework for higher education. REFERENCES [1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] [6]
[7]
CaseWise
8,2
Once the gaps and the plans of migration have been identified, the EA should be approved, published and disseminated in the organization that will implement it. With this step, they will begin to formally rotate the gears that will integrate the architectural approach to the organizational processes. It should be considered how to guide to the personnel, to establish the processes and procedures of the application process of the EA. Finally, it should be executed, and the processes should be integrated (EA processes – processes of the higher education institution). [6] IV. CONCLUSIONS
G.
H.
TOTAL
[8]
[9]
V2-10
The Open Group. The Open Group Architecture Framework “TOGAF”. The Open Group, 2009. Version 9. ISBN: 978-90-8753230-7 Niemann D. Klaus.From Enterprise to IT Governance “Elements of Effective IT Management”.GWV Fachverlage GmbH, 2005.ISBN 3528-05856-0. Zachman, A. John. "A Framework for Information Systems Architecture."IBM Systems Journal, Volume 26, Number 3, 1987. Available in: http://www.zachmaninternational.com/ images/stories/ibmsj2603e.pdf Cardiff University. IT Roadmap. Technology brick template. Available in: http://congliffy.cf.ac.uk/display/LeanEA/ Technology+Brick+Template MITRE Corporation. EABOK. Guide to the (Evolving) Enterprise Architecture Body of Knowledge. Mclean, Virginia, 2004. Chief Information Officer Council. Federal Enterprise Architecture. Versión 1.0. 2001. Available in official site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/e-gov/fea/ Joint Information Systems Commitee(JISC). Doing Enterprise Architecture: Enabling the agile institution. 2009. Available in: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/techwatch/jisc_ea_pilot_stud y.pdf Ross W. Jeanne, Weill Peter, Robertson C. David. Enterprise Architecture as Strategy: Creating a Foundation for Business. Harvard Business Press. 2006. ISBN: 978-1591398394 Selig, J. Gad, Waterhouse Pete. IT Governance – An Integrated Framework and Roadmap: How to Plan, Deploy and Sustain for Competitive Advantage. 2006. Available in: http://www.axisgroup.com/downloads/CA_Clarity_IT_governance_w hitepaper.pdf
2010 2nd International Conference on Software Technology and Engineering(ICSTE)
[10] Zachman, John A. "The Framework for Enterprise Architecture: Background, Description and Utility." Zachman Institute for Framework Advancement (ZIFA). Document ID: 810-231-0531 [11] JaapSchekkerman President & Thought Leader IFEAD Institute EA Developments, The Netherlands, Extended Enterprise Architecture Framework Essentials Guide Version 1.5, 2006.E2AF/E2AF%20A0%20New%20Poster%2003-2005% 20versi on%201.4.pdf. [12] Gartner, Gartner Enterprise Architecture Process: Evolution 2005, R. Scott Bittler, Gregg Kreizman, ID: G00130849 [13] Institute for Enterprise Architecture Developments – IFEAD. Enterprise Architecture Tools Selection Guide. J. Schekkerman. Version 5.0. 2009. Available in: http://www.enterprisearchitecture.info/Images/EA%20Tools/Enterprise%20Architecture%2 0Tool%20Selection%20Guide%20v50.pdf [14] Veltman Elise, Reekum Van. Determinig the Quality of Enterprise Architecture Products. Master Tesis. Utrecht University & Sogety Netherlands B.V. 2006. Available in: http://www.dya.info/Images/Thesis%20E_van_Reekum_Determining _Quality_Enterprise_Architecture_Services%20v2_tcm13-24174.pdf [15] Objectwatch Inc. A Comparison of the Top Four EnterpriseArchitecture Methodologies. Sessions Roger. 2007 [16] Pragmatic EA Ltd. PEAF: Framework Comparision. Version 2.0. 2010. Available inwww.pragmaticea.com/docs/peaf-overview1framework-comparison.pdf [17] Zachman A. John. The Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture: A primer for enterprise engineering and manufacturing.Zifa eBook. [18] Gartner. Gartner Predicts 95 Per Cent of Organisations Will Support Multiple Approaches to Enterprise Architecture by 2015. Gartner Analysts to Explore the Right Approaches to Enterprise Architecture at the Gartner Enterprise Architecture Summit 2010, 17-18 May in London. Available in: http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1358913 [19] Monash University. Information Architecture Technology – MITA. 2006. Available in: http://www.its.monash.edu.au/staff/ plans/architecture/mita-2006.pdf
V2-11
