1. Information Architecture: Successes From Data Architecture A Presentation to the Data Management Association National Capitol Region May 8, 2001
Thanks for opportunity to speak here
Talk about practical experience with data architecture
Ted Griffin
Office of Science, Department of Energy
Todd Forsythe, Lisa Black, Connie Dowler
Stanley Associates, Inc.

2. Why Listen to Us? Real Experience
Planning
Designing
AND
Implementing
IT and Data Architecture in Federal Civilian Environment,
With User Groups
How many people do you know . .

3. Two Architecture Projects
DOE Office of
Science HQ
(IMSC):
Planning
Design
Implementation
Maintenance
At DOE, however, two arch projects . . .
Chicago
Operations Office:
Planning
Design
Implementation
Maintenance

4. In the Hierarchy
(IMSC)

5. Who We Are Stanley Associates DOE Federal Lead
Todd Forsythe - Functional Architect
Methodology & Context for Data Architecture
Lisa Black – Lead Data Architect
Data Design
Connie Dowler – Data Base Administer
Data Design Implementation
Lisa, Connie with customers
Ted – practical benifits
DOE Federal Lead
Ted Griffin
Benefits and Lessons

6. Methodology Methodology:
Dr. Steven Spewak:
Enterprise Architecture Planning: Developing a Blueprint for Data, Applications and Technology
Initiated in 1997, continually updated and improved

7. Seven Components of Information Architecture
Customer Team
Business
Model
Operating
Plan
Strategic
Application
Architecture
Principles
Technology
Architecture
Example of Principles:
- IM services and systems are an integral part of CH future business strategy.
- Standards will be adopted when they lead to a stable and maintainable environment.
Data
Architecture
Existing
Systems

8. Results of the Initial Strategic Plan
Initial Strategic Plan called for two main applications
Many more applications existed in the whole, but major effort was in the main applications.
Two JAD groups organized to initiate those applications
Managers and Directors organized, trained in JAD/RAD, etc.

9. How We Proceeded Problem analysis Business modeling
Logical data modeling
Normalization
Data integrity issues
Elicitation with managers to Identify problem areas within business practices
Modeling an AS-is business process using IDEF0 methodology
Re-engineering efforts
Creation of a logical data model using the business model
Use of normalization to reduce the redundancy
Data integrity by sharing data between organizations
Referential integrity with lookups, mouse clicks versus typing

10. Business Representatives Change the Course
Revised Plan
Foundation Projects
Defined common data components
Functionality chunking
Strategic Information Planning Group
Strategic Planning and Architecture group
Made up of managers, and directors to assist in identifying the business process and problem areas
Identified that with all business processes there is a core foundation data that runs through all areas
Institutions – that are given awards
Organizations – groups with the Government that monitor the award
Persons – persons within the Institutions, and organizations
Program Areas – Research Areas, Budget and Reporting Codes, Crosscuts, Micro Codes
Projects/Work Elements – level of funding
Identified these areas
Execution work management
Budget Management
Human Resource management
Support services
RAD/JAD process chunked out business process areas to be completed in 6 week time frame
Solicitation
Proposals
Award
Procurement Request

11. Foundation Projects Organization Institution Person
Project (replaced later by Work Element)
Program Area

12. Change in the Way IM Was Done
Organization Administrators Working Together
Cooperation
Communicating
Compromising
Prioritizing
Progressing in this RAD?JAD process identified a need for the Organization administrator, the real user of the system. Reality set in in that the managers and directors had identified roles and responsibilities that were probably not the best suited for real life business
With the 7 different organizations coming together where they had always been separate

13. State
Institution
Country
InstitutionType
InstitutionDetails
InstitutionTypeClassification

14. Foundation Provided Data Repository
Real work could begin
Back to the original applications
Integrated Financial Management Project
Integrated Research Project and Procurement Project
Revise the projects
Execution Work Management (IMSC)
Worksheet Exchange

15. Data Conversion Free form data fields from legacy system
All records imported into IMSC
Identify and reduce duplicate records in IMSC

16. Information Management in the Office of SC (IMSC)
Central Repository provided by Foundation Projects
Additional data integrated into repository
Work toward single application for all users / organizations
Each org had their own thought
Thoughts were actually the same, just different levels of detail, and different definitions (project means different things to different offices)

17. What We Did to the Users
Data Integrity – Users must look for data before they add new data
Referential Integrity – Pick lists provided, editing isn’t allowed (on the fly)
Duplicate Squash – Eliminate duplicate records within IMSC

18. Issue 1: The System Doesn’t Work!
Due to the implementation of Referential Integrity, users attempted to put bad B&R code into the system. System rejected the code and a helpdesk issue was recorded
Users perspective: “I can’t do my job.”
Overall perspective: “Great, we finally have good data.”

20. Issue 2: We Can’t Use This!
Data now has integrity. Prior systems provided ability to overload fields so that queries and reports couldn’t be done on the database. Searches had to be done on unstructured data.
User perspective: “This isn’t right, we define a word as something else.”
Overall perspective: “Finally, a system for all to use.”

21. Issue 3: Less Complex, More Flexible
With the above restrictions, and the ability to aggregate the data, reporting and queries on the data provide the same answers to all users. Separate queries don’t have to be written for each organization.
Smaller number of canned reports
Easier to Query and get Big Picture reports

22. Unsuccessful Efforts
All have in common: Focus is not on service, consequently service did not improve
Total Quality Management
Process Improvement Team
Matrix Management
Partnering
Covey
Management by Objectives
Just-in-Time Service
Reorganization
Re-engineering
Strategic Planning / Planning

23. IM Organization Goals Focus is on service
Customers perform their jobs better

24. Effective IM Service Effective Service Result: Best Process:
Supports customer business activities
Supports customer priorities
Involves the customer
Result:
Focus is on service
Customers do their jobs better
Best Process:
Information Architecture

25. Benefits of SC HQ After Information Architecture
Process:
IM Strategic Plan based on business activities
Budget based on IM Strategic Plan
IM Operating Plan based on IM Strategic Plan & Budget
All IM implemented supports business activities
Technology implemented to support system development
IM Team organization dependent on IA / strategic planning
All decisions based on customer developed principles

26. SC HQ After Information Architecture
Customer Involvement
Business folks engaged
Customer Information Advisory Group (CIAG)
IM Board
Executive Steering Committee (ESC)
Development process requires customer involvement
Business folks decide what IM to implement
Business folks defend budget

27. SC HQ After Information Architecture
Requirements:
Are tied to business activities
Are better identified
Can be traced from identification to product rollout
Are satisfied following one process

28. SC HQ After Information Architecture
Customer Service
Policies developed and followed
One standard image provided
COTS evaluated and selected more easily
Moving towards one data store
Service consistent
Interoperability
Service more responsive
Corporate systems take priority (reduction in systems performing same function)
Communications
Performance measures implemented

29. SC HQ After Information Architecture
Budget / Cost
The provision of IM more cost effective
FY 99, 00, & 01 budgets reflect significant increase
Costly interfaces avoided
Benefits and impacts of IM more easily assessed
Result: Making maximum effective use of available IM funding to provide IM products and service that best enable customers to perform their jobs

30. Information Architecture
Why we like it
Focus is on service
IM Team better able to provide effective service
Customers better able to perform their jobs
Working on the right issues

31. Keys to a Successful Implementation
General
Prior to Project Initiation (IM Organization)
During the Project
After Implementation

32. General
Focus must be on customer service and collaboration to enable them to do their jobs better
IM organization takes ownership

33. Prior to Project Initiation
Obtain top management support
Produce a well designed project plan focusing on IM team and customer jointly producing first seven IA components and transition plan
Conduct top management and customer presentations on IA (project plan and process) to describe benefits and manage expectations
Established customer groups (with time expectations) to work project plan and create customer infrastructure
Manage logistics
Obtain Federal/contractor support experienced in IA implementation

34. During Project
Physically locate IM team (including support) and customer group together
Continue education on IA process with customer groups and how the current project step fits in
Produce each component with the intent of being good not perfect
Provide oral status reports to top management at agreed-to-intervals
Perform good project management

35. After Implementation Institutionalize process Maintain communications
Business customers take ownership
Develop budget request based on strategic plan
Have customers request budget
IM team and customer jointly develop annual operating plan
Become IM consultants and facilitate customer decisions
Maintain communications
Maintain customer infrastructure

36. What Are Ongoing Challenges?
Maintaining collaboration
Ensuring customer understanding of IA process
Providing the right communications
Managing customer involvement, accountability, and expectations
Elimination of us vs. them

37. Contacts
Mr. Ted Griffin, SC-65 Strategic Planning & Architecture Federal Lead, Department of Energy
(301)
Lisa Black, Lead Data Architect, Stanley Associates
(301)
Connie Dowler, Data Base Administrator, Stanley Associates
(301)
Connie
Pat Flannery, DOE Project Manager, Stanley Associates
(301)
Todd Forsythe, Strategic Planning & Architecture, Stanley Associates
(301)