Information Technology Architecture Group ITAG, Version 2.0 Or, how our role supports the evolution of interoperable systems February ITLC

Information Technology Architecture Group Some Reasons for Change “ITAG is the connecting tissue among the campuses and UC ITS to identify the development standards (language, library, etc), middleware (identity management, service bus et al), and the shared services required to support common UC systems.” - Dana Roode “It would be helpful if [ITAG] would offer some information regarding the direction, recommended standards, and strategy about middleware set (e.g., workflow, ESB), identity management, data warehouse, network standard and equipment, convergence of phone/voice/video/data systems, admin tools for IaaS/PaaS integration with local infrastructure.” - Min Yao “UC has to make architectural decisions NOW - UCPath being the exemplar … is forcing some decisions that UC will have to live with for many years (decades?) Without major campus engagement on these decisions with Jerome’s team, we’ll end up with poorer results, [and] some locations will be left out in the cold.” - Paul Weiss Through its partnership with ITAG, the Enterprise Architecture Team will ensure a comprehensive approach to UC-wide architecture initiatives. This Enterprise Architecture and ITAG partnership will ensure appropriate vetting of standards and confirm that they are deployed appropriately at both campuses and medical centers. - Chuck Rowley February ITLC 2

Information Technology Architecture Group UC Enterprise Architecture (EA) A practice designed to achieve alignment of people, process and technology in support of the UC mission, vision and strategy. Combined, these support UC’s overarching strategy. UC Enterprise Architecture (EA) A practice designed to achieve alignment of people, process and technology in support of the UC mission, vision and strategy. Combined, these support UC’s overarching strategy. Definition The objective of implementing Enterprise Architecture is to increase the consistency and interoperability of technology, data and processes across the UC. The benefits of a common EA are consistency and interoperability, shorter delivery timelines, improved quality, reduced redundancy and increased reuse across the UC. 3

Information Technology Architecture Group What “2.0” Looks Like Revised ITAG Charter, Membership, and Work Plan A focused plan and resources to work the plan IT and Interoperability Standards to Promote Reuse of Solutions Clear Processes and Framework(s) In partnership with UC Enterprise Architecture (EA) Team Campus Requirements are Appropriately Integrated February ITLC 4

Information Technology Architecture Group What We Do (Our Value Add) Planning and Facilitating UC Deployment Representing the ITLC, ITAG will be responsible for partnering with the Enterprise Architecture Team in facilitating architecture standards for planning and implementation efforts Communication and Enablement The ITAG, in collaboration with the ITLC, sub-committees, EA Team, project specific implementation teams and vendor partners, will broadly communicate UC’s vision for information technology architecture, standards and interoperability to campus and medical center stakeholders. Ongoing Maintenance and Management The ITAG will be responsible for interacting with and advising the EA Team relating to ongoing management of UC-wide architecture requests, proposals, and regular progress updates, and for prioritization of effort and workplans. February ITLC 5

Information Technology Architecture Group Critical Success Factors CIO Responsibilities: Support, leverage, and promote adoption of EA standards at their location Choose to provide (or not) an appropriate ITAG resource at 10-25% FTE level of effort Selection and prioritization of ITAG workplan ITAG resource responsibilities include: Consistent engagement with campus CIO and leadership to assist with planning, outreach and communication Serve as a two-way conduit between campus and system-wide architecture planning Contribute and develop the system wide architectures and standards with the UC Shared Services EA Team Facilitate adoption of standards and multi-location initiatives by working with local implementation teams February ITLC 6

Information Technology Architecture Group Current ITAG Membership? NameLocation Greg BellLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory George AtalaUC Berkeley Curtis BrayUC Davis Marina ArsenievUC Irvine, Chair Albert WuUC Los Angeles, (Co-Chair with Lisa Gardner as Interim) Faust GorhamUC Merced Steve HunterUC Office of the President Russ HarveyUC Riverside Mojgan AminiUC San Diego Dedra ChamberlinUC San Francisco, Incoming Co-Chair for , Ex-Officio - UCTrust Workgroup, Chair Doug DruryUC Santa Barbara Lisa GardnerUC Santa Cruz, Incoming Chair for Jerome McEvoyEx-Officio - UC Shared Technology Services, Enterprise Architect NameLocation Chuck RowleyEx-Officio – Primary ITLC Liaison to ITAG Paul WeissEx-Officio – Secondary ITLC Liaison to ITAG NameLocation TBDUC Davis Medical Center TBDUC Irvine Medical Center TBDUC Los Angeles Medical Center TBDUC San Diego Medical Center TBDUC San Francisco Medical Center 7

Information Technology Architecture Group Current state Start from scratch Redundancy o Data o Infrastructure o Applications o Cost Variances without common standards One-of-a-kind implementations Desired state Reuse of proven approaches & assets Increased interoperability Informed and deliberate variances Easier to collaborate on UC initiatives Roadmap ITLC ITAG and ITS/EA Team Common Administrative Systems Align Campus and System-wide Strategy and Plans 8

Information Technology Architecture Group First prioritySecond priorityThird priority Help EA Team Establish Architecture Framework and Process Add UCTrust Technical Reference Architecture Conduct campus inventories, gaps, and identify unmet needs Standards Principles Reference Architectures for UCPath and beyond Assess Enterprise Service Bus/SOA adoption at UC campuses Together with ITLC and EA Team, establish project intake and tracking process Campus EA/SOA Training and campaign Proposed Work Plan Facilitation of common subject area data definitions What would our deliverables be? 9