Information Architecture: Successes From

Data Architecture

A Presentation to the Data Management Association

National Capitol RegionMay 8, 2001

Ted GriffinOffice of Science, Department of Energy Todd Forsythe, Lisa Black, Connie DowlerStanley Associates, Inc.

2

Why Listen to Us?

Real Experience Planning

Designing

AND

Implementing

IT and Data Architecture in Federal Civilian Environment,

With User Groups

3

Two Architecture Projects

PlanningDesign

ImplementationMaintenance

PlanningDesign

ImplementationMaintenance

DOE Office ofScience HQ(IMSC):

Chicago Operations Office:

4

In the Hierarchy

Nuclear Security

Lab Lab Lab

CH RegionalOperations O ffice

Regional Operations O ffice

Regional OperationsOffice

Office of ScienceGerm antown, MD

Others . . .

Energy, Science and Environm ent Departm ents & S taff

Departm ent of Energy

(IMSC)

5

Who We Are

Connie Dowler – Data Base Administer• Data Design Implementation

Stanley Associates Todd Forsythe - Functional Architect

• Methodology & Context for Data Architecture

Lisa Black – Lead Data Architect• Data Design

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

Principles

DataArchitecture

BusinessModel

ApplicationArchitecture

ExistingSystems

TechnologyArchitecture

Operating Plan

Strategic Plan

Customer Team

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

10

Business Representatives Change the Course

Revised Plan Foundation Projects

Defined common data components

Functionality chunking

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

13

InstitutionState

Country

InstitutionType

InstitutionTypeClassificationInstitutionDetails

14

Foundation ProvidedData 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.”

19

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 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 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

Mr. Ted Griffin, SC-65 Strategic Planning & Architecture Federal Lead, Department of Energy

(301) 903-4602 Ted.Griffin@Science.doe.gov

Pat Flannery, DOE Project Manager, Stanley Associates(301) 903-9002 Pat.Flannery@science.doe.gov

Lisa Black, Lead Data Architect, Stanley Associates(301) 903-1310Lisa.Black@science.doe.gov

Todd Forsythe, Strategic Planning & Architecture, Stanley Associates

(301) 928-1244 Todd.Forsythe@science.doe.gov

Connie Dowler, Data Base Administrator, Stanley Associates(301) 903-1018 Connie Dowler@science.doe.gov

Contacts