Enterprise Architecture Services Federated Operating Model

Solution

Architects

• Drive the alignment of solutions to Target State

Architecture

• Design solutions aligned to EA Guiding Principles

• Escalate to Head of Architecture

Head of

Architecture

(HOA)

• Leads execution of EA program within CFIT/SSIT

• Escalates to EALT based on governance criteria

Enterprise

Architects

• Proactively lead EA development within CF/SS Domain

• CFIT EA’s are focused on Business Solutions

• SSIT EA’s are focused on Technology Solutions

• Identify opportunities to leverage existing solutions

across the enterprise

CT

O

• Lead EALT

• Lead Domain Teams / Workgroups

• Lead Community of Practice

• Consistency of execution of EA across SSIT/CFIT

Core EA

Team

How is Enterprise Architecture (EA) Organized?

Responsibilities

2

EA Leadership Team (EALT)

CSIS SSS/ALS EUSSSS/IIS EUGG Commercial R&D

Architecture Domain Lead

Chief Enterprise Architect Arc. Performance

SS

IT/ C

FIT

CFITShared Services IT Customer Facing IT

SSIT

Operations

What Services Do We Provide to our Customers?

3

ADL

AS

Architecture Domain Lead

Application StrategyCTO

HOA

EA

SA

Head of Architecture

Enterprise Architect

Solution Architect

CFIT/SSIT

Support strategic, integrated

portfolio planning processes by

alignment with architectural

direction

HOA AS

Enterprise Planning

Evaluate new and existing

technologies for enterprise

adoption; support mobilization

readiness to facilitate target state

enablement and realization

EA ADL

Technology Assessment& Remediation

Test a certain technology or

process element to demonstrate

its feasibility

EA ADLSA

Technology Prototyping & Proofs of Concept

Assist in post-merger technology

and process integration

AS EA

M&A Technical Advisory

Provide as-needed consulting

services to both business and IT

stakeholders

EA SA

SWAT/Consulting

Establish and maintain enterprise

application strategy and roadmap

HOA AS

Application Rationalization

Help establish architectural

solution design in-line with

defined standards and patterns

EA SA

Project Architecture Delivery

Translate the business vision into

an actionable architecture and

technology strategy and multi-

year roadmaps to guide

priorities, projects, budgets and

staffing

EAHOA ADL

Strategies & Blueprinting

Process Activities Value to IT/Business

What Enterprise Processes Will EA Support/Govern?

4

PortfolioPlanning

• Support the Portfolio Planning process by steering solutions toward leveraging enterprise technology standards

• Improved adoption of strategic enterprise standards• Identification of opportunities to share solutions across CFITs

TechnologyAcquisition

• Identify opportunities to re-use existing technologies• Define a decommissioning plan if new technologies are

being proposed for enterprise adoption

• Transparent understanding of current Enterprise Technology standards via the Technology Catalogue

• Improved ROI for existing technologies

TechnologyLifecycleManagement

• Establish a proactive lifecycle plan for enterprise technologies and information

• Collaborate with procurement in the contract extension of major technologies / enterprise license agreements

• Reduce technology and data debt/cost• Reduce number of technologies that provide similar capabilities• Reduce replication of data and complexity of integration• Define a decommissioning plan prior to contract expiration

SolutionDesign

• Maximize the use of enterprise technology standards as part of solution design

• Consistent use of design patterns• Alignment to IT and Business Strategies

• Faster solution implementation when enterprise standards are adopted

• Transparent understanding of value is being delivered to the business

Enterprise Architecture Governance Operating Model

Business & IT IT

• Defines Target State

Architecture

• Defines Enterprise Standards

• Defines Technology Lifecycle

• Defines Reference

Architectures

• Discuss emerging

business demands for

new/emerging

technologies

• Discuss improvement to

Current State

• Reports on Technology

Scorecards

• Review Solution Designs

• Reports Solution Quality

• Request exceptions to

Enterprise Standards

• Approves Enterprise Standards

• Approves Exceptions to

Enterprise Standards

• Ad-Hoc Virtual Teams

• Agile Technology Decisions

• Cross Domain Strategic Decisions

• Enterprise IT Strategies

• Ratifies Enterprise Standards

• Influence Strategic Priorities

5

DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

EA Lead

Executive Sponsor

EA Lead

Executive Sponsor

EA Lead

Executive Sponsor

EA Lead

Executive Sponsor

EA Lead

Executive Sponsor

EA Lead

Executive Sponsor

EA Lead

Executive Sponsor

EA Lead

Executive Sponsor

EA Lead

Executive Sponsor

EA Lead

Executive Sponsor

EA Lead

Executive Sponsor

EA Lead

Executive Sponsor

Future Strategies/Technology Decisions Roadmaps

ITLT Ratification Strategies SET Innovation Alignment EALT Lead (Domain Workgroup) CFIT Lead/EALT Ratified

Data Strategy Data Strategy (2) (C. Day effort)

Integration Strategy

Search

Development Platforms Discovery Development Platforms Recommendation

Big Data/Data Lakes Metadata Management

Learning Management

API Management

Content Management

Machine Learning

Digital Health

IoT—EnterpriseIoT—Digital Manufacturing (1)

Robotics Process Automation

ITLT ITSS Gov ITLT CFIT Gov ITLT F2F

6

Strategy Sprint Process (High-level View)

7

STRATEGY SPRINT PROCESS

+ STRATEGY PORTFOLIO TRACKING

EPMO Portfolio

Planning

Output

• ITLT approval

• Project initiation

document (PID) [high

level business case]

EALT Strategy

Governance

Output

• Strategy roadmap

• Strategy communication

(including EA

SharePoint)

EALT Strategy

Roadmap Review

Activities

• Identify required strategies

• EALT strategy roadmaps

(6 month review cycle)

Input

• Strategy lead appointed

• ITLT sponsor confirmed

• Work group members

identified

• Define target start/

• End time

• Sprint check list and

templates

STAGE 1

Initiate

STAGE 2

Analyze

STAGE 3

Validate

STAGE 4

Approve

Strategy Review Cycle (h)

Typical Strategy Timeline

8

FOUR ITERATION CYCLES

Architecture

Context

INITIATE

Architecture

Delivery

ANALYZE

Transition

Planning

VALIDATE

Architecture

Governance

APPROVE

Strategy Sprint Process (Stage View)

* Guideline duration, dependant on subject matter.9

STAGE 1: INITIATE

Activities• Define scope and design

principles (inc. top key three questions)

• Gartner/CEB overview• Hold Working group

session(s) and agree sprint charter

• Present charter to:–EALT (if required)–ITLT sponsor

Stage Deliverables• Sprint Charter including

timeline• ITLT Sponsor Approval

Duration*

• 1–2 weeks

STAGE 2: ANALYZE

Activities• Establish “AS IS” and “TO

BE” Business Capabilities and Requirements

• Establish “AS IS” IT Capabilities (including YCO)

• Establish Future State “TO BE” IT Architecture options (Pros and Cons including associated Risks)

• Present architecture options to:–EALT–ITLT sponsor

Stage Deliverables• “AS IS” IT Architecture• “TO BE“ IT Architecture

Options presentation• EALT Approval• ITLT Sponsor Review

Duration*

• 2–4 weeks

STAGE 3: VALIDATE

Activities• Carry out Innovation CTO

Team validation AND External Gartner/CEB Validation

• Finalize Strategy Recommendation–Process–People–Technology–Costs–Vendors

Stage Deliverables• Finalized Strategy

Recommendation Presentation

• ITLT Sponsor Review

Duration*

• 2–3 weeks

STAGE 4: APPROVE

Activities• Pre Read and Feedback

(EALT)• EALT Approval• Pre Read and Feedback

(ITLT)• ITLT approval

Stage Deliverables• Strategy Roadmap

Document• Strategy overview video• Sprint Lessons Learned

Duration*

• 2–3 weeks

INPUTEALT Strategy

Roadmap Review

Cycle

OUTPUT• EPMO Portfolio Planning Cycle

• EALT Strategy Governance Cycle

10

Example/Templates:

11

Example/Templates:

12

Example/Templates:

13

Understanding

TOTAL COST OF

OWNERSHIP

Decommissioning

Costs

Implementation

Costs

Yearly Cost of Ownership

14

Understanding

TOTAL COST OF

OWNERSHIP

Decommissioning

Costs

Implementation

Costs

Small

Medium

Large

X-Large

XX-Large

Yearly Cost of Ownership

CustomizationsCosts

SupportCosts (BAU)

Licenses / Maintenance

Costs

15

Understanding

TOTAL COST OF

OWNERSHIP

Decommissioning

Costs

Implementation

Costs

Small

Medium

Large

X-Large

XX-Large

<100K

100K – 250K

250K – 500K

500K – 1M

> 1M

Yearly Cost of Ownership

CustomizationsCosts

SupportCosts (BAU)

Licenses / Maintenance

Costs

16

Understanding

TOTAL COST OF

OWNERSHIP

Decommissioning

Costs

Implementation

Costs

Yearly Cost of Ownership

CustomizationsCosts

SupportCosts (BAU)

Licenses / Maintenance

Costs

4

3

2

1 L

S

XL

S

S

M

M

XL

S

L

M

S

L

S

M

S

L

M

XL

S

17

Example/Templates:

No change needed (Perfect

alignment between current state

and future state)

Agreed future state with no

immediate change (An evolution

strategy meaning “as and when”

approach to change working

towards the defined future target

architecture)

Agreed future state overview

and further investigate needed

(High level sprint breaks down in

to more detailed sprints)

Agreed future state with

immediate change (An Fully

actionable strategy resulting in the

creation of projects and funding)

Agreed future state with mixed

change (Partial actionable

strategy resulting in the creation of

projects and funding to address

certain key areas of the future

target architecture)

Rejected future state

recommendations (Reinitiate

spring analyse phase)

Suggested Possible

Outcomes

EA — Technology Lifecycle Stages

Watch Prove Invest Tolerate Migrate Eliminate

Rejected

Prohibited

AZ are aware of the

technology and are

monitoring the

capability and/or

roadmap

AZ are performing an

evaluation such as Proof

of Concept, Proof of

Technology or Pilot

This technology is

strategic to AZ and is

preferred for deployment

This technology is not

strategic to AZ but is

allowed to be deployed

AZ has this technology

deployed but it is a target

for migration and should

not be used

AZ has this technology

deployed but it is a target

for migration and should

not be used

Retire

AZ has evaluated this

technology but decided

it to be inappropriate

and should not be used

AZ no longer has this

technology in the estate

and it should not be

used

TIL/CFIT/SSIT EALT

18

Integration Pattern / Use Case Technology Watching Proving Invest Tolerate Migrate Eliminate Rejected Prohibited Messaging Oracle SOA

Publish / Subscribe Oracle SOA

Request / Response Oracle SOA

Business Process Orchestration Oracle SOA

Business Process Management Oracle SOA

Request / Response Oracle SOA

Transformation Oracle SOA

Routing & Abstraction Oracle SOA

ESB Oracle SOA

File Transfer GlobalScape

B2B GlobalScape

API Gateway / Security IBM DataPower

API Management IBM DataPower

ESB MuleSoft

API Gateway / Security MuleSoft

API Management MuleSoft

Micro Services MuleSoft

API Management APIGee Sense

API Gateway / Security APIGee Edge

Cloud SnapLogic

Hybrid Integration SnapLogic

Connector SnapLogic

Citizen Integration SnapLogic

Simple ETL SnapLogic

B2B Cyclone

EDI Cyclone

File Transfer Cyclone

File Transfer AZIA

Cloud ETL Talend

On-Premise ETL Talend

Hybrid Integration Talend

Big Data Talend

On Premise ETL Informatica

Cloud ETL Informatica

Big Data Informatica

Data Virtualisation Cisco Composite

Data Federation Cisco Composite

Messaging SAP PI

Request / Response SAP PI

Publish / Subscribe SAP PI

Transformation SAP PI

Routing & Abstraction SAP PI

ESB SAP PI

EDI SAP PI

Enterprise Scheduling Tivoli Workload Scheduler

Enterprise Scheduling BMC Control-M

ETL SAP BODS

Technology Standards Example

19

Invest

Tolerate

Migrate

Eliminate

Retired

Prove

Watch

Reject

Prohibit

Infrastructure Application SecurityCollaborationInformationIntegrationEnterprise

155 626968 2569

Technology Lifecycle Analysis — By Owning Domain Team

20

Total

125(33%)

16(4%)

2(1%)

5(1%)

90(24%)

13(3%)

55(15%)

50(13%)

0(0%)

41(26%)

8(5%)

0(0%)

3(2%)

49(32%)

6(4%)

26(17%)

23(15%)

0(0%)

25(40%)

5(8%)

1(2%)

0(0%)

1(2%)

0(0%)

17(27%)

13(21%)

0(0%)

19(28%)

0(0%)

0(0%)

0(0%)

29(42%)

6(9%)

5(7%)

0(0%)

0(0%)

19(28%)

3(4%)

1(1%)

2(3%)

10(15%)

1(1%)

6(9%)

13(19%)

0(0%)

21(84%)

0(0%)

0(0%)

0(0%)

1(4%)

0(0%)

1(4%)

1(4%)

0(0%)

19(28%)

0(0%)

0(0%)

0(0%)

29(42%)

6(9%)

5(7%)

0(0%)

0(0%)

379

21

Example/Templates:

• Ad-Hoc Virtual Teams

• Agile Technology Decisions

• Cross Domain Strategic Decisions

• Enterprise IT Strategies

• Defines Target State

Architecture

• Defines Enterprise Standards

• Defines Technology Lifecycle

• Defines Reference

Architectures

Business & IT IT

• Review Solution Designs

• Reports Solution Quality

• Request exceptions to

Enterprise Standards

• Approves Enterprise Standards

• Approves Exceptions to

Enterprise Standards

Enterprise Architecture Governance Operating Model

22

• Discuss emerging

business demands for

new/emerging

technologies

• Discuss improvement to

Current State

• Reports on Technology

Scorecards

• Ratifies Enterprise Standards

• Influence Strategic Priorities

Enterprise Architecture Guiding Principles

Assessment Dashboard

24

System NameImplementing

ProjectIT Area

Assessment

Date

Principles

Score

Maintain-

ability

Score

Fit for

Purpose

Score

Standards

Score

Total

Quality

Score

Low Scores In:

System A Project 1 Ops 4/6/2017 4.56 3.90 4.33 5.00 90

System B Project 2 Comm 5/4/2017 4.56 4.33 3.67 5.00 87

System C Project 3 Ops 5/18/2017 4.75 5.00 4.00 3.50 85 Standards - UX Experience (2)

System E Project 5 RDI 4/27/2017 3.56 3.33 4.33 4.50 80Maintainability - Software and Data

Integration (2),

Principles - Foster Reuse (2)

System G Project 7 Ops 5/18/2017 4.56 3.60 3.67 2.75 74Maintainability - Design for Change (2),

Standards - Infrastructure - GIS (2)

System H Project 8 EUGG 4/28/2017 4.00 3.60 3.00 4.00 73

Fit For Purpose - Solution Options

Considered (2),

Maintainability - Appropriately

Documented (2),

Maintainability - Data Quality (1),

Principles - Design from Outside-In (2)

System I Project 9 CSIS 4/6/2017 3.00 3.40 3.33 4.00 68

Fit For Purpose - Solution Options

Considered (2),

Principles - Accessable anytime,

anywhere, any device (2),

Principles - Enterprise First (1),

Principles - Foster Reuse (1)

QUESTIONS

OR COMMENTS?

Leo BarellaVP - Chief Enterprise Architect

THANK YOU

Presentation Designed & Developed by: