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
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.”
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
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 [email protected]
Pat Flannery, DOE Project Manager, Stanley Associates(301) 903-9002 [email protected]
Lisa Black, Lead Data Architect, Stanley Associates(301) [email protected]
Todd Forsythe, Strategic Planning & Architecture, Stanley Associates
(301) 928-1244 [email protected]
Connie Dowler, Data Base Administrator, Stanley Associates(301) 903-1018 Connie [email protected]
Contacts
Top Related