Summary of oral comments    (2IH)

Participants:    (2D7)

Real-time discussion notes:    (2EQ)

Gueron: should we agree on the intended output of an EA effort? Or at least the purpose of an EA?    (2GQ)

Disbrow: related: my recent thinking about whole educational curriculum on energy -- in that case with visual, rather than semantic, links    (2GR)

Pitton: how about "order out of chaos" as a goal?    (2GS)

Luke-Boone: goal is getting everyone heading in a common direction -- everyone should be able to answer the question "what are the strategic goals?"    (2GT)

Gueron: OMB wants to optimize IT investments across federal agencies    (2GU)

Disbrow: get an overview and control of assets and liabilities    (2GV)

Gueron: I take exception to that view; IT is too critical to rely on the as-is. Instead, get the strategic view of capabilities and gaps.    (2GW)

Evans: tension between cost-savers / streamliners and strategic planners    (2GX)

Frey: efficiency gains don't really save much compared to radically new kinds of business    (2GY)

Disbrow: e.g. Veteran's Administration case history: no-one thought to use the IT infrastructure to provide a hotline for veterans to correct data records.    (2GZ)

Frey: a major question is, "what is the nterprise for our EA"?    (2H0)

Ruggiero: EA is only a concept @ this point; its goal is to improve quality of service    (2H1)

Disbrow: but gov't funding / budgeting is far from straightforward -- e.g. earmarks -- so you can't just follow funding to determine the priorities & architecture    (2H2)

Gueron: does EA have anything to say about business process in general - - not just automated or IT    (2H3)

Cohen: Yes. One of the difficulties with EA is that it's currently seen as a CIO topic. Collaborative relationships with business architects are key.    (2H4)

Luke-Boone: Yes; an example: In my agency, the IT were asked to state human capital goals! Another example: mission personnel ("hardhat people") are expected to track their compliance to PMA goals like competitive-sourcing!    (2H5)

Gueron: Do we perhaps need an interest group focused on goals other than serving Joe Q Public? This model has been useful; but it's not the only one.    (2H6)

Luke-Boone: Indeed, there are other sides to what the government does, like security. Things like performance metrics are often completely irrelevant (e.g., to Chief Counsel lawyers).    (2H7)

Pitton: Security mgmt. is an essential consideration for Enterprise Architecture    (2H8)

Gueron: complete risk avoidance vs. risk mgmt.; indeed, EA should take security into account; BUT the security folks need more of a risk avoidance mindset.    (2H9)

Gueron: take "sensitive but unclassified" -- could an EA group provide a precise definition of that?    (2HA)

Pitton: EA should take security Certification & Accreditation more fully into account.    (2HB)

Gueron: here's a concept: a "security gradient," an essential part of any metadata; should be carried in the Enterprise data model.    (2HC)

Pitton: take the VA case we heard about earlier: my question: who's taking the risk -- who's the Designated Approving Authority (DAA) who takes responsibility for certification / accreditation? DAA and CIO are sometimes, but not always the same person. Enterprise architects often forget that.    (2HD)

Gueron: at State Dept., daily login procedure requires answering a security question -- force-fed security training!    (2HE)

Disbrow: 1995: DoE put out an EA that was used in a graduate textbook; but later on this was trashed and neever used    (2HF)

What is EA anyway?    (2ED)

Pitton: EA is an attempt to extrude order out of chaos. When you fail, you get Los Alamos!    (2HG)

Gueron: EA is a management tool to rationalize / optimize IT investments.    (2HH)

Cohen: EA structures the whole of the organization    (2HI)

Disbrow: EA is a holistic representation of the whole, layered by core business functions.    (2HJ)

Luke-Boone: blueprint of where you are, where you'd like to be, and how to get there.    (2FV)

Frey: a process for planning and managing IT investments.    (2HK)

Ruggiero: a proposed concept to improve the efficiency and quality of government services    (2HL)

Evans: a standards-based, consensus-based structure whose goal is effectiveness, efficiency, flexibility, and risk mitigation for the long term.    (2HM)

Gueron: I take exception to including interoperability. Only if it serves my agency's need! That topic belongs at a more technical level.    (2HN)

Disbrow: But bringing together the organization's multiple stovepipes is an important EA goal!    (2HO)

Gueron: Gracefully incorporating new technology is an important goal too; whereas standards would seem to preclude innovation.    (2HP)