ITAC Activities

Series of Email follow, Subject:
"INFORMATION Architecture" Tiger Team Briefing

____________________________________________

Kathryn, Jessie and I will both push for option B for the reasons you well outlined. We all agree on that I think.

Jessie, you asked me to clarify, but it sounded to me like you explained it right. if others have questions, send them one.

Alan, thanks for your comments. I agree.

Scott, I also am not fully convinced about the value of the full architecture effort. However, I do have a vision for this steering committee and if implemented, i think it will help USGS IT direction. My view, which is currently generally agreed to (Paul Celuzzi and Donna Sholz have been away from most of out team meetings the last few weeks when we finalized this, so I am not sure if they will agree] is:

• high level it direction decisions need to be made by a group like this, composed of high level business [ i guess our team is supposed to be science] people who intimately know the needs of usgs and who have a working knowledge of IT issues, after briefed by a technical staff group.
• they would make decisions like should AD or lotus support or networks or architecture get ___ % of the resource pie, or when is it time to shift from the fading major it software/technology A and switch to up and coming leading software/technology B-- ie bureau level software/hardware big decisions.

This is the essence of the "architecture" activity which is useful-planning, as far as i see it. having the right information collected about our current situation and needs so that those decisions are as good as we can do.

____________________________________________

Sandy, ITAC,

One more comment. Susan just gave me a copy of "A Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise Architecture", February, 2001, that is based on the Zachman framework. It was produced by the Federal Architecture Working Group. Its a good practical guide, I assume the EA team has been using it. It should be recommended reading for ITAC members. I can get the url from Susan if you don't have it. Under the section on EA Core Team, it says the core team should have business line experts and IT experts which I didn't see emphasized in the drafts. Most of the organizational pieces seems to be in place for review and oversight, but the core team working with a contractor is the key to getting something useful.

Alan

____________________________________________

Initially some Tiger group members wanted this number to be about 10...we have whittled it down to 3 or 5. I say 3 or 5 because half of the group wants 3 the other 5.

The Chief Architect needs people ( 2 Program liaisons) to coordinate Architecture efforts with the various USGS Programs (NAWQA, NSIP, etc) I believe there are 22 total and anyone else wanting to create an arquitecture (NMD is trying to kick off this effort in the next few weeks) . Some people in the Arch Tiger team did not think one person alone could do this. I agree that one person might not be able to handle 22 programs at the same time but I personally think that at first there will only be a handful of Programs endorsing Architecture and initially one Program Liaison will do. I will see what I can do to convince the group to start small.

Ok, so the Chief Arch and the 2 program liaisons makes 3 people in the Arch Core Team. Now, here is where the EA Tiger is split. Some think that 2 people (Domain liaisons) are needed to coordinate IT issues with the DOI IT Domain teams and to be a liaison with the IT developments going on with in each Architecture (ie NWIS Arch Team). I find this a bit confusing too...Sandy can you clarify? Anyway, Sandy and I think this part should be handled by someone from the CTO office who is matrixed to the Arch Core Team but others from our EA Tiger group, that are closer to the Bureau level, say that the CTO is already overloaded. This is why the briefing we sent you contains and Option A and an Option B.

Jessie

____________________________________________

Sandy,

I did a quick review of the documents. 5 FTE's for liaison and coordination on the core team seems a little much, 3 should be plenty. The other two should be analysts types to team with the contractor in establishing the baseline and target architecture. From my participation in the OMB 300 processes, this activity appears to be fairly important and may impact the Bureau's ability to get resources for IT infrastructure including NWIS.

Alan

____________________________________________

Jesse, I can't emphasize enough that the Team should "start small," and I agree that they should look more favorably on Option B. Perhaps this would be an opportunity to assign the DOI and Bureau liaison function to indivduals in the CTO as collateral duties, not their sole functions. Otherwise, my assessment is that any function identified as it is in option A will become a full time job whether required or not. USGS simply cannot afford to clear the decks and establish new bureaucratic oversight (let alone liaison) functions in the GIO. I think it will lead to self-fulfilling inefectiveness when working with the science programs.

We need to grow the programs in the GIO just as in the Disciplines based on need, which would include establishing the trust that the office of the GIO adds value. This can only be accomplished if the Bureau liasion functions understand the Discipline Programs and are in support of them. I personally believe Option B provides the most chance of keeping the IT Architecture Staff less burdensome on the organization and keeps IT more helpful to the science programs.

Katherine

____________________________________________

Sandy,

Thanks for doing such a great job on communicating. 5 new FTEs for arch., when we can't get the Bureau to finalize Lotus positions and AD support staff, things we're doing now. I'm cynical because we're taking steps to do this stuff that has uncertain benefit (or detriment) to districts, but we're failing to taking adequate steps to make the existing stuff run efficiently. Why is this activity worth 5 new FTEs?

On a more positive note, the steering committee and the core team provide a forum-- that we've never had before--to agree on standards for the Bureau and with DOI. Is that right? I.e. could you explain the "vision" again.

--Scott

____________________________________________

Things are speeding us for our tiger team because of external forces.

NMD had some contracting money for architecture for 'The National Map' project. They need to get started on right away and so did Karen S. so there is a contract beginning immediately to do some first steps for the USGS architecture and meeting with OMB examiner May 1 to tell what we are doing about getting architecture for USGS.

The statement of work [revised extensively in a few hours by our tiger team a] has been revised already a little but this is the most current copy I have.

So when tiger team met last week in Reston, we had this briefing with Karen Siderelis and Hedy Rossmeisel, ppt presentation. Hope you can understand most of if and get Jessie and I some feedback during April when our tiger team has to wrap up. we have conf. call today and i expect at least 1 a week this month. We will take your suggestions any time in April, but the sooner the better.

p.s. I have asked the tiger team to borrow some bullets on functions from the NWIS ESC tiger team charter for more revisions or additions to the Architecture steering committee charter -- (see current version) - wish I would have thought of that sooner.

____________________________________________

Go ahead Sandy...I would mention that Karen did not say one way or the other whether she would accept the Team's suggestions but she did ask that we work with NMD in setting up a contract that would help the BUREAU complete the initial steps of the EA and a full architecture for NMD's 'The National Map' project.

Jessie

____________________________________________

FROM: Steve Blanchard

I think you should send it. I understood most of it so the other more tech people should easily understand it! Then you can get feedback before your committee wraps up.

Steve

____________________________________________

Jessie/Steve, without the cost. est. slide, can/should i send this to ITAC for comment? or do you think it needs too much verbal explanation. this is impt, tho and our cmte is wrapping up in April, so it may be too late by ITAC mtg.--though it prob. should be on ITAC agenda,

Charlie

____________________________________________