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 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,…

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

“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

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

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.

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

Business Strategy IT Strategy IT Alignment with Governance Over Time Strategic Directions = Periods of “Relative Alignment” Business Leads IT Strategy IT Leads Business Strategy = Strategy Change

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

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 I.T. Needs ATC Infra. TEKIAMBCP/DR ITS Worklist ITS Liaisons Work is directed to one of five possible outcomes based on review and criteria 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 “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 IT Needs Assessments thoughts … Processes

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

Questions