Transcript Enterprise Architecture Applied to Municipal Government Using John A. Zachman’s model and the

Enterprise Architecture
Applied to Municipal
Government
Using John A. Zachman’s model and the
City of Denton, Texas
1
This is not about history, nor a story of
achievement, nor a best practice
methodology
This is about Darwinism and a theory of
evolution in IT, specifically how to
manage increasing complexity and
change
This is about Enterprise Architecture
2
Increasing Complexity and Change
or
How we implemented 24 systems in 4 years
Package Enabled Re-Engineering Model
Focus Teams (4-6 people)
Current Process
(Access Data)
Change
Process
Reports
Gap Analysis
Budgeting
Accounting
Change
Training
Implement
Admin/Decision
Support
Customer Service
Application Process
(New Application)
Billing
Change
Applications
3
Using PER We Achieve





Department Alignment
Short Term ROI/Reduced time to market
Usability
Quality
“Best Practice Re-engineering”
For Organizations without much automation (first
generation) or CIO’s who need short term
results, this methodology is very appealing
4
Using PER We Forgo
Cross-Departmental Integration
 Flexibility
 Inter-operability
 EDI Seamlessness
 Adaptability
 Re-usability
 Synergy and TCO
These consequences are less visible the greater the
stovepipe culture found in the municipality

5
ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE - A FRAMEWORK
DATA
What
FUNCTION
How
NETWORK
Where
PEOPLE
Who
TIME
When
TM
MOTIVATION
Why
SCOPE
(CONTEXTUAL)
List of Things Important
to the Business
List of Processes the
Business Performs
List of Locations in which
the Business Operates
Planner
ENTITY = Class of
Business Thing
Function = Class of
Business Process
Node = Major Business
Location
e.g. Semantic Model
e.g. Business Process Model
e.g. Business Logistics
System
Ent = Business Entity
Reln = Business Relationship
Proc. = Business Process
I/O = Business Resources
Node = Business Location
Link = Business Linkage
e.g. Logical Data Model
e.g. Application Architecture
e.g. Distributed System
Architecture
e.g. Human Interface
Architecture
e.g. Processing Structure
Ent = Data Entity
Reln = Data Relationship
Proc .= Application Function
I/O = User Views
Node = I/S Function
(Processor, Storage, etc)
Link = Line Characteristics
People = Role
Work = Deliverable
Time = System Event
Cycle = Processing Cycle
End = Structural Assertion
Means =Action Assertion
TECHNOLOGY
MODEL
(PHYSICAL)
e.g. Physical Data Model
e.g. System Design
e.g. Technology Architecture
e.g. Presentation Architecture
e.g. Control Structure
e.g. Rule Design
TECHNOLOGY
MODEL
(PHYSICAL)
Builder
Ent = Segment/Table/etc.
Reln = Pointer/Key/etc.
Proc.= Computer Function
I/O = Data Elements/Sets
Node = Hardware/System
Software
Link = Line Specifications
Time = Execute
Cycle = Component Cycle
End = Condition
Means = Action
Builder
e.g. Data Definition
e.g. Program
e.g. Network Architecture
Ent = Field
Reln = Address
Proc.= Language Stmt
I/O = Control Block
Node = Addresses
Link = Protocols
People = Identity
Work = Job
e.g. DATA
e.g. FUNCTION
e.g. NETWORK
e.g. ORGANIZATION
ENTERPRISE
MODEL
(CONCEPTUAL)
Owner
SYSTEM
MODEL
(LOGICAL)
Designer
DETAILED
REPRESENTATIONS
(OUT-OFCONTEXT)
SubContractor
FUNCTIONING
ENTERPRISE
John A. Zachman, Zachman International (810) 231-0531
List of Organizations
Important to the Business
List of Events Significant
to the Business
List of Business Goals/Strat
People = Major Organizations
Time = Major Business Event
Ends/Means=Major Bus. Goal/
Critical Success Factor
e.g. Work Flow Model
e.g. Master Schedule
e.g. Business Plan
Time = Business Event
Cycle = Business Cycle
End = Business Objective
Means = Business Strategy
People = Organization Unit
Work = Work Product
People = User
Work = Screen Format
e.g. Security Architecture
e.g. Timing Definition
Time = Interrupt
Cycle = Machine Cycle
e.g. SCHEDULE
e.g., Business Rule Model
e.g. Rule Specification
End = Sub-condition
Means = Step
e.g. STRATEGY
SCOPE
(CONTEXTUAL)
Planner
ENTERPRISE
MODEL
(CONCEPTUAL)
Owner
SYSTEM
MODEL
(LOGICAL)
Designer
DETAILED
REPRESENTATIONS
(OUT-OF
CONTEXT)
SubContractor
FUNCTIONING
ENTERPRISE
Enterprise Architecture
6 Primitive Questions form Columns
 5 Viewpoints form Rows
To form 30 unique single variable cells
ex: Data column for Muni Court & PD
All cells needed to define enterprise architecture,
with detail being a function of each cell, not a
column
NO COMPOSITS – i.e. Process, dependant upon
static thing/workflow/location

7
The System IS the Enterprise




Narrow in scope descriptions result in
stovepipes (COD’s PER results)
“Buying an enterprise architecture”
from IBM, HTE, JDE, etc.
Heterogeneous = Optimize parts at the
expense of the whole
Interoperability = Optimize whole at the
expense of the parts
8
The System IS the Enterprise
Scope integration – within any cell, or
the antithesis of stovepipes
 Horizontal integration – across any row,
called EFFECTIVENESS
 Vertical Integration – no discontinuity
between rows, called ALIGNMENT
We have a tendency to reduce our
organizational effectiveness to ensure
departmental alignment, and our
technology tools aid this process

9
COD’s Enterprise Architecture
Citizen
Needs
City Vision
Vendor
Trends
10
The Forces of Change




Scope Creep (Vision)
Technology Improvements (Vendors)
State of the Art Advancement (Needs)
To adapt, COD has 3 options
1. Trial and Error
 2. Scrap and Re-work
 3. Don’t change it

11
Diminishing Returns over Time
08
20
06
20
04
20
02
20
00
20
98
19
96
19
94
19
92
19
90
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
19
Systems
Automated Systems
Years
12
How to be Adaptive
Enterprise-wide horizontal/vertical
integrated architecture at an
excruciating level of detail
 This IS NOT a Technology Issue!
 This CANNOT be fixed with Money,
Luck, Loyalty, or by ignoring the
problem!
4000 years of history have taught us that
only through Architecture can we
understand the current state and adapt

13
How to Manage Change

COD’s Tech Service Goals and Objectives
Ease Access to Information
 Close Alignment with Department Visions



We must create LT goals & objs at the
Owner level of the model of broader scope
If you must compromise the long term:
Know that you are doing it
 Know why
 Mitigate the downstream effects
 Make everyone aware of the decision

14
How to Reduce Time to Market

If you Make to Order,


If you Provide from Stock,


Implement As-Is, PER (Issues with cost,
effectiveness – COD AA)
If you Assemble to Order,


Reduce Scope/Simplify (Proliferate legacy
problems – COD BA)
Inventory of Re-usable Assets, made or
bought (resulting in mass-customization)
EA=Assemble to Order
15
Value Proposition for EA




Alignment – Reflect Owner’s Intent
Integration – Messages are successfully
and consistently transmitted to all, all
understand objective/strategy, resulting
in empowerment and interchangeable
parts
Flexibility – change with minimum time,
disruption, and cost
Better IS responsiveness – reduce TTM
16
Observations




If you feel you’re not getting value from
IT investments,
If every change seems to require more
ancillary changes,
If O&M costs increase beyond
justification,
You’re ready for Enterprise
Architecture!
17
Revolution



We must change how we perform our
functions both in Technology and
Management
Someone needs to be working on all 30
models, beginning at the top
If you’re not, you’re a one-trick pony
Which may be why CIO’s only last 3 yrs
 Which may be why department directors
never die, they just fade away

18
How are we going to pay for this




From the Operation and Maintenance
you are already spending
From the Scrap and Re-work you are
undertaking (or about to undertake)
From the next round of “Technology
Investment”
From the next adaptation you must
undertake
19
How do we do this?

Zachman Recommends:
Doug Erickson 614-751-5078
 Clive Finkelstein 011[61](08) 9309-6163
 Stan Locke 905-820-5107
 Zachman International 818-244-3763


I Recommend:
Dr. Leon Kappleman 940-367-0405
 Dennis Harward 407-277-0176
 Joan Nelson 540-951-6479

20
If you are the Technologist

You “Own”
Row 4, Column 3 (legacy technology)
 If you want to try a portal (e-gov, EIS)
 Column 4, Rows 3, 4, and 5


You “Share”


Everything else in rows 3, 4, and 5
You need to get focused on Row 2

If you can’t get support for the need for EA,
that is the need to lift the scope discussion to
enjoin the inter-department and interagency needs, you’re wasting time
21
If you are a Non-Tech Director


You are the Owner in this model
You are the one I most need to influence
on the importance of horizontal
integration:


This is where the trade-off between
department needs and the good of the
municipality is decided
If you can’t get the support for EA from
your peers (other department directors),
your success will be limited
22
If you are a “big picture” guy


You are the Planner in this model
You are in the best and worst position to
bring about organizational change
Cross-boundary evaluations go against most
cultures and common sense
 Detailing scope is a difficult undertaking
 This is the “next thing” that we have to
outlast before life goes back to normal


This will requires sustained effort over a
long period of time (5 to 10 years)
23
In Conclusion:

This may seem to:
Cost too much
 Take too long
 Is too theoretical
 Is too high-risk
 Is too difficult in the Municipal arena


Then don’t complain that:

Systems are not synergistic, or are
inflexible, O&M too high, info is too late, or
24
not available
Conclusions (cont)





Outsourcing won’t fix it
Decentralization won’t fix it
The Internet won’t fix it
This is an engineering problem, not a
technical problem
Only actual work will fix this problem,
and this afternoon would not be too soon
to begin working on it
25