Agenda

2. IT Governance and Enterprise ArchitectureCAUDIT Enterprise Architecture Symposium – Nov 2006Leo de Sousa, Enterprise ArchitectBritish Columbia Institute of Technology

3. Agenda • Historical Governance – IT Decides/IT Pays • A Governance Model and EA’s Role • New Model for IT Governance • IT Needs Assessment Thoughts • Questions

4. Historical Governance – IT Decides • business and educational areas submit IT work/want requests to a work list • IT Services would revise the list semi-annually 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,…

5. 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

6. “So this is where we get I.T. involved” Changing Client Value Perceptions As IT organizations attempt to become strategic partners with their clients, they first need to gain respect & trust

7. Opportunistic Innovative Support Program Departmental Control IT Program Strategic Governance Model Funding Program Enterprise Program = schools or departments Institute = centrally governed Institute

8. Enterprise Architecture Philosophy100: • 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.

9. = Strategy Change Cross Purposes Misalign = Periods of “Relative Alignment” Lagging Correction IT Alignment without Governance Business Strategy IT Strategy Over-shoot & Correct Strategic Directions Over Time

10. Business Leads IT Strategy = Strategy Change = Periods of “Relative Alignment” IT Leads Business Strategy IT Alignment withGovernance Business Strategy IT Strategy Strategic Directions Over Time

11. 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

12. IT Needs Assessments thoughts … Relationships PEC Responsible for Funding approved Business Cases BCIT Technology Committee Responsible for large, strategic, investment initatives > $1m All of these are 100% incrementally resourced Reports out to IT Services ITS Operational Steering Committee 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, Facilitated & supported By ITS 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. Assigned resources to core activities and services (the approx 90% of ITS resources) through existing Operations Planning

13. IT Needs Assessments thoughts … Processes I.T. Needs • 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 TEK IAM BCP/DR Infra. ITS Worklist ATC ITS Liaisons 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. ITS Core Services ITS Core Funded Projects Recomm. Alt. Delivery • Strategic • Transformative • Investment > $1M • Already doing it • Marginal impact on • resources & budget • No incremental Cap Budget • Resourced in the approx • 90% of existing ITS staff • reviewed by Ops Steering Comm • for ranked priority order • Resourced by the approx. 10% of • remaining ITS staff • criteria based ranking (see next page) • ASP Model (pay as you go) • requires little of no commitment • from ITS • Opportunity based

14. IT Needs Assessments thoughts … Criteria * Mandatory / legal compliance Expenses ITS Operational Steering Committee Criteria for Priority Ranking (suggestions only) Velocity Capacity This committee needs clear terms of reference and broad membership. Satisfaction Decisioning Leverage Market Share Risk Innovation

15. Questions