June 3, 20151 E-Gov and the Federal Enterprise Architecture Presentation to the Ontolog Forum Marion A. Royal November 06, 2003.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Copyright © 2006 Data Access Technologies, Inc. Open Source eGovernment Reference Architecture Approach to Semantic Interoperability Cory Casanave, President.
Advertisements

CPIC Training Session: Enterprise Architecture
Succeeding with Component-based Architectures Industry Advisory Council Enterprise Architecture SIG Draft.
<<Date>><<SDLC Phase>>
Brief History of Architecture Frameworks
Federal Student Aid Technical Architecture Initiatives Sandy England
© 2006 KPMG LLP, the U.S. member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative. All rights reserved. Printed in the U.S.A. KPMG and the KPMG logo are.
Reference Models مدل های مرجع معماری.
Irwin/McGraw-Hill Copyright © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All Rights reserved Whitten Bentley DittmanSYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND DESIGN METHODS6th Edition.
Nov. 14, 2007 Systems Engineering ä System ä A set or arrangement of things so related as to form a unity or organic whole. ä A set of facts, principles,
Chapter 2: IS Building Blocks Objectives
Human Resources Update Academic Senate Coordinating Committee February 2, 2015.
Considering an Enterprise Architecture for the NSDI
Doug Nebert FGDC Secretariat June 2006
The topics addressed in this briefing include:
LEVERAGING THE ENTERPRISE INFORMATION ENVIRONMENT Louise Edmonds Senior Manager Information Management ACT Health.
Enterprise Architecture
1 Data Strategy Overview Keith Wilson Session 15.
Embedding Records Management into Agency Processes The FEA Records Management Profile Laurence Brewer, CRM National Archives and Records Administration.
Proposed EA Assessment Framework 2.0 Chief Architect’s Forum (CAF) Dick Burk Chief Architect and Director of Federal Enterprise Architecture Program, OMB.
Initial slides for Layered Service Architecture
Run your project with Quadruple A Copyright 2007 TL Consulting, LLC. All Rights Reserved. 1 FEA and Content Integration The Gilbane Conference in DC 6.
Bina Nusantara 2 C H A P T E R INFORMATION SYSTEM BUILDING BLOCKS.
FEA DRM Management Strategy 11 October 2006 “Build to Share”
Transforming the Business of Government Through Shared Services JOHN SINDELAR Deputy Associate Administrator United States General Services Administration.
PROJECT NAME: DHS Watch List Integration (WLI) Information Sharing Environment (ISE) MANAGER: Michael Borden PHONE: (703) extension 105.
Transforming Services Creating Efficiencies Empowering Citizens Transforming Services Creating Efficiencies Empowering Citizens Transforming Services Creating.
C W3C Government Linked Data Working Group Cory Casanave 06/30/2011 Cory Casanave Cory-c at modeldriven dot com CEO, Model Driven Solutions Founder,
1-1 System Development Process System development process – a set of activities, methods, best practices, deliverables, and automated tools that stakeholders.
Page 1 Federal Information and Records Managers (FIRM) Council 2007 OMG Government Domain Task Force National Archives and Records Administration.
National Information Exchange Model Presented by : Mini Kanwal June, 09.
Interior Enterprise Architecture (IEA) Department of the Interior (DOI) Presented by: Diane A. Woodson-Reeves, Department Business Architect March, 2008.
Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Data Management, and Data Standardization Efforts at the U.S. Department of Education May 2006 Joe Rose, Chief Architect.
E-government models Lecture 8.
Architecture and Infrastructure Committee (AIC) Briefing to FOSE 2003 April 9, 2003.
FEA DRM Management Strategy Presented by : Mary McCaffery, US EPA.
Search Engine Optimization © HiTech Institute. All rights reserved. Slide 1 What is Solution Assessment & Validation?
EPA Geospatial Segment United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Environmental Information Enterprise Architecture Program Segment Architecture.
U.S. General Services Administration Introducing CORE.GOV The FEA’s Component Center A governmentwide collaborative COMPONENT ORGANIZATION & REGISTRATION.
© 2006 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved Use of the FEA Reference Models for the Continuity Communications Architecture Charlie Martinez, D440.
1 DAS Annual Review June 2008 “Build to Share” Suzanne Acar, US DOIAdrian Gardner, US National Weather ServiceCo-Chair, Federal DAS
EGovOS Panel Discussion CIO Council Architecture & Infrastructure Committee Subcommittee Co-Chairs March 15, 2004.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2007 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Chapter 2 Information System Building Blocks.
2-1 A Federation of Information Systems. 2-2 Information System Applications.
Federal Enterprise BOF Rick Murphy Chief Architect, Blueprint Technologies June 7, 2004.
The FEA Data Reference Model V2.0 Michael C. Daconta, DRM Working Group Lead Susan Turnbull, AIC Representative Mary McCaffery, FEA PMO Representative.
Independent Insight for Service Oriented Practice Summary: Service Reference Architecture and Planning David Sprott.
Government and Industry IT: one vision, one community Vice Chairs April Meeting Agenda Welcome and Introductions GAPs welcome meeting with ACT Board (John.
March 24, 2007 SOA CoP Demo Model Driven Enterprise SOA GSA Financial Management Enterprise Architecture Cory Casanave cory-c (at) modeldriven.com Oct.
© 2006 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved EA in the Federal Enterprise Life Cycle September 2006 Steve Decker MITRE Corporation Center for Enterprise.
The FEA Data Reference Model V1.5 Michael C. Daconta, DRM Working Group Lead Susan Turnbull, AIC Representative Mary McCaffery, FEA PMO Representative.
Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) Architecture Plus Meeting December 4, 2007 Kshemendra Paul (Acting) Chief Architect.
IPDA Architecture Project International Planetary Data Alliance IPDA Architecture Project Report.
Simplifying Information Architecture Alexander Cullen Principal Analyst Forrester Research November 9, Call in at 12:55 p.m. Eastern Time.
Managing Enterprise Architecture
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Statistical Division CSPA: The Future of Statistical Production Steven Vale UNECE
Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA)
The Components of Information Systems
Forest Service Geospatial Enterprise Architecture
Overview of MDM Site Hub
DATA VERTICAL Technical Exchange
Transforming the Business of Government Through Shared Services JOHN SINDELAR Deputy Associate Administrator United States General Services Administration.
Enterprise Architecture Methods
The Components of Information Systems
About The Federal Data Architecture Subcommittee (DAS) 2008
CAF Quarterly Meeting Measuring the Value of an EA Practice
Vijay Rachamadugu and David Snyder September 7, 2006
Information System Building Blocks
Presentation transcript:

June 3, E-Gov and the Federal Enterprise Architecture Presentation to the Ontolog Forum Marion A. Royal November 06, 2003

June 3, The Federal Enterprise Architecture is a business-focused framework The Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) is providing OMB and Federal agencies with a new way of describing, analyzing, and improving the Federal Government and its ability to serve the citizen The FEA will eliminate the organizational obstacles that have historically hindered improvement without forcing reorganization The FEA is a business-focused approach and is not just for IT The FEA provides a common framework for improving a variety of key areas: -Budget allocation -Horizontal and vertical information sharing -Performance measurement and budget/performance integration -Component Based Architecture -Cross-agency collaboration -Improved service to the citizen -e-Government -Process integration -Call center convergence -and more Citizen Centered:Business Line Focus:

June 3, Business Reference Model (BRM) Lines of Business Agencies, Customers, Partners Service Component Reference Model (SRM) Capabilities and Functionality Services and Access Channels Technical Reference Model (TRM) IT Services Standards Data Reference Model (DRM) Business-focused data standardization Cross-Agency Information exchanges Business-Driven Approach Performance Reference Model (PRM) Government-wide Performance Measures & Outcomes Line of Business-Specific Performance Measures & Outcomes The Federal Enterprise Architecture will drive consolidation and transformation Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) Component-Based Architecture

June 3, What Will the FEA Reference Models Do? Provide consistent definitions and constructs of the business, performance and technology of the Federal Government. Serve as a foundation to leverage existing processes, capabilities, components and technologies to build target enterprise architectures. Facilitate cross-agency analysis and the identification of duplicative investments, gaps, and opportunities for collaboration within and across Federal Agencies.

June 3, The Lines of Business of the Federal Government, independent of the agencies Page 5 Version 2.0 of the BRM includes: 4 Business Areas 39 Lines of Business 153 Sub-functions Version 2.0 of the BRM includes: 4 Business Areas 39 Lines of Business 153 Sub-functions

June 3, Regulatory Management Support Delivery of Services Policy and Guidance Devel. Public Comment Tracking Regulatory Development Rule Publication Knowledge Mgmt CRM Content Mgmt Collaboration Search Portal Personalization Business Reference Model ( BRM ) Rule Publication Service Component Reference Model ( SRM ) Technologies Platforms J2EE.NET Windows NT Data Mgmt ODBC JDBC Business Logic Technical Reference Model ( TRM ) Performance Reference Model (PRM) Outcomes, Measurements, Metrics Business lines and functions Supporting technology and standards Enabling capabilities, components, and services Component-Based Architecture Service Layers Service Types Service Components Data and Information Reference Model (DRM) Classification, Categorization, XML, Sharing The FEA is being constructed through a set of inter-related “reference models” Page 6

June 3, FEA Common Process View Background – Development Drivers BRM has not been sufficiently built-out to provide the needed level of detail on work performed Agency approaches to process level definition, decomposition, and depiction vary greatly Limits ability to create meaningful linkages to performance, data, components, IT infrastructure, and security & privacy controls – within and across Agencies Constrains analysis of Federal lines of business and cross-Agency IT investments Impedes identification of opportunities for reform and transformation

June 3, FEA BRM Hierarchy Focus on Decomposition to the Process Level Lines of Business Lead Processes Sub-Functions Internal Functions Business Areas Line Processes Sub-Processes Activities Tasks Process Definition, Decomposition, and Depiction Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level n Business Value Chain Line of Business (BRM) Owner & Sponsor Performance (PRM) Stakeholders Roles & Responsibilities Resources -work force -Components (SRM) -IT infrastructure (TRM) -other assets Location Information Transactions & Exchanges (DRM) Interfaces & Dependencies Timing Controls -governance -business rules -entry & exit conditions -Security & privacy Process Attributes Agency Level of Detail Will not be addressed by the FEA

June 3, Preliminary Approach Determine Path from Processes-Patterns-Components Determine Business Patterns Define and Decompose Business Processes Identify Application Patterns Select Service Components Reuse or Develop Solutions Select, Configure, and Integrate Products Process Types Process Attributes Business Pattern Recognition Questions Application Pattern Recognition Questions Process Types Management Processes Core/Mission Processes Support Processes Process Attributes Line of Business (BRM) Owner & Sponsor Performance (PRM) Stakeholders Roles & Responsibilities Resources -work force -components (SRM) -IT infrastructure (TRM) -other assets Location Information Transactions & Exchanges (DRM) Interfaces & Dependencies Timing Controls -governance -business rules -entry & exit conditions -Security & privacy Reference Architectures Architectural Patterns Design Patterns Analysis Patterns Business Patterns Self-Service Collaboration Information Aggregation Extended Enterprise Access Integration Patterns Application Integration Patterns Application Patterns Runtime Patterns Directory Registry Repository Composite Patterns

June 3, Security & Privacy Directory, Repository, Registry Applications Information Exchange Security & Privacy Subjects & Schema Security & Privacy Interoperability Standards & Specifications Process Definition Decomposition Depiction Security & Privacy Metrics & Indicators Measures Security & Privacy Context & Conditions Workflow Performance Reference Model (PRM) Business Reference Model (BRM) Service Component Reference Model (SRM) Technical Reference Model (TRM) Data Reference Model (DRM) Object Modeling UML, MOF, Meta-Model Object Modeling UML, MOF, Meta-Model Reusable Patterns & Components Preliminary Approach Define Process Attributes Reusable Patterns & Components

June 3, Data & Information Reference Model

June 3, DRM Ownership/Stewardship

June 3, Component Life Cycle AIC Subcommittees (AIC SC) Develop Capabilities Identify Gap Maintain, Update, Retire Use Publish Certify Register Components AIC SC CIO OMB Component Life Cycle Approval Process AIC SC Recommend/ Mandate

June 3,

June 3, Purpose of Process Analysis We want to encourage groups of process owners to answer two questions together How alike are these processes? How are these processes related?

June 3, Process Likeness and Relationships Identity – same purpose and outcome, stakeholders, inputs, outputs, major activities, and performance attributes Shared customer – linked purposes, different outcomes, parallel stakeholder relationships, sometimes links between activities, and potentially shared performance attributes Structural – different purposes, similar outcomes, parallel stakeholder relationships, same type of inputs and outputs, parallel major activities, and similar performance attributes Linked – shared purpose and outcome, same owner but other stakeholders may be in different roles, output of one process an input to the other, different activities, likely shared performance attributes Facing – connected purposes and symmetric outcomes, different owners with each owner a key stakeholder in the other process, key output of one process a key input of the other, different activities but some mirroring is likely, and performance attributes are meaningful in at least one direction if not both directions

June 3, Performance Attributes Outcomes Duration Cost per occurrence Conditions of satisfaction –Process behavior –Rules passed/compliance –Assessment

June 3, Input and output types Document/Report Record Message Physical product Event (mostly input)

June 3, Stakeholder roles Performer Owner Sponsor Inspector Beneficiary Bystander

June 3, Types of process information Demographic – name(s), purpose and outcome, owner, key stakeholders, performance attributes Gross discriminators – input, output, major activities Fine discriminators – input and output type, relationships to other processes, flows between major activities

June 3, Level 0 Questions Who is the chief beneficiary of this process? Who cares chiefly about the outcome? Who must be satisfied for the process to be considered to have completed successfully? –Citizen (G to C) –Business (G to B) –Employee (G to E) –Other government (G to G) Is the chief beneficiary performing the major activities? Is the process responsive to the actions of the chief beneficiary? If yes, self- service.

June 3, Level O Questions – continued If someone other than the chief beneficiary of the process is performing some of the major activities, is the chief beneficiary interacting extensively with that other stakeholder? Is the chief beneficiary receiving communications and making choices during the process? If yes, collaboration. If someone other than the chief beneficiary of the process is performing all or most of the major activities, is that stakeholder drawing primarily on internal or external information? If internal, information aggregation. If external, extended enterprise.

June 3, Business Patterns Self-service: chief beneficiary performs major activities and has significant impact on the process outcome Collaboration: two or more stakeholders interact extensively to achieve a joint outcome Information Aggregation: a performer other than the chief beneficiary of the process draws mostly on capabilities within his or her organization Extended Enterprise: a performer other than the chief beneficiary of the process draws substantially on capabilities from outside his or her organization