A Process for the Architecture Standards Review of Enterprise and/or Mission Critical Technologies or Projects at UC Berkeley

Dr. Hebert Diaz-Flores Chief Technology Architect

Approved By: Information Technology Architecture Committee

October, 2007

Background
UC Berkeley needs to develop and adopt a process by which enterprise and/or mission critical technologies or projects are reviewed against adopted architectural standards. The campus also needs a process for adopting certain technologies as campus standards when such standards do not exist. The benefits of defining and adhering to standards for enterprise and/or mission critical technologies are many. Some of these benefits include an increase of the efficiency in the use of resources needed to develop and support Berkeleys IT environment; a more stable and predictable environment; higher availability of skills to support the environment; increased collaboration across the campus; and more certainty for IT units in planning investments and future IT-related work. The first thing needed to develop a process for standards review and adoption is to define which technologies or projects will need to go through this process. In a university environment, there are numerous technologies and IT projects being deployed on campus that will not need to follow this type of review.

Enterprise and/or Mission Critical Projects that Must Follow Architectural Review
For purposes of the standards review process, a campus enterprise and/or mission critical system meets one or more of the following qualifications: It is widely used across the campus Unsuccessful operation of the system will result in a major disruption of mission-critical campus activities If not widely used on campus, use of the system is encouraged to meet campus wide strategic objectives The system or technology is part of a technology reference set included in a campus enterprise architecture roadmap. Examples of campus enterprise and/or mission critical systems that are expected to follow architectural standards review include, but are not limited to, the following: Business Applications (email, calendaring, student information systems, financial systems, online electronic payment systems, payroll and human resources systems, asset management applications, etc.) Campus identity management infrastructure (authentication, authorization, directory services, master person data management) Network infrastructure (hardware purchases, wireless expansions, network applications) Information management applications (enterprise data warehouse, reporting and analysis tools, imaging and document management systems, content management systems, customer relationship management systems, etc.) The campus student learning and course management systems 2

Enterprise collaboration applications SOA infrastructure applications Enterprise portal environments Any tools used to develop or maintain enterprise and/or mission critical systems, including modeling tools, version control and change management systems, issue tracking or ticketing systems, testing tools, etc.

The Review Process

UC Berkeley Technology Architecture Standards Review Process

Proposed or Existing Technology/System

System Decomposition into Core Technologies

Technology X

Technology Life Cycle Matrix

Technology X in Enterprise Architecture Roadmap and Appropriately Tagged in Technology Life Cycle Matrix? NO YES

Enterprise Architecture Roadmaps

NO Have all Core Technologies Been Reviewed? YES YES Alternative Standard Technology Exists in Enterprise Architecture Roadmap and Technology Life Cycle Matrix?

NO

Technology/System Meets Standards

Propose Technology as Campus Standard and Include in Roadmap and Technology Life Cycle Documents

YES

Can Proposed System Use Alternative Standard?

NO

Propose Use of Alternative Campus Standard

Seek Standards Exception or Flag System as Does Not Meet Standards

System Decomposition into Core Technologies

The standards review process must take place at the Core Technology level. Core technologies include, but are not limited to, the following: Server platform and operating system Desktop platform and operating system Business process modeling and workflow system Relational Database management system Multidimensional database management system Data integration platform Reporting and data analysis platform Application platform Programming/scripting language Testing/monitoring tools Business rules engine User interface platform Enterprise service bus or enterprise application integration platform Authentication and authorization Services registry Portal platform Web services protocol Web services framework Network infrastructure Network protocols

Enterprise Architecture Roadmaps and Technology Life Cycle Matrices

Review of technology standards is based on approved architectural roadmaps and technology life cycle matrices maintained by the campus Information Technology Architecture Committee (ITAC). Architectural roadmaps identify core reference technologies that the campus supports in the pursuit of strategic institutional goals. Technology life cycle matrices describe the assessment of alternative core technologies by campus top technology experts. For example, the campus Enterprise Information Architecture (EIA) roadmap may define that the campus needs to standardize on a common database management platform to support an enterprise data warehouse system geared to providing data to enhance decision support across campus. A technology life cycle matrix for database management systems will have assessments of alternative database management systems used for enterprise decision support. In this matrix, there will be a technology tagged Invest which will be the recommended standard for new projects as well as a technology tagged Maintain which will be recommended for existing systems.

Who is in Charge of this Process?

The process of architectural review of enterprise and/or mission critical technologies or projects is owned by ITAC. Managers of enterprise and/or mission critical systems should submit a copy of their project proposals to the chair of ITAC for review if the project meets one or more of the following criteria: The project needs central funds Either the campus CIO or the implementing department requests review of the project by ITAC The project requires interfacing with centrally-managed campus systems. In addition, campus departments deploying enterprise applications that do not meet the above criteria may still request an ITAC review to assess the projects alignment with the strategic direction of the University. Managers should submit project proposals with enough detail to allow ITAC to be able to decompose the project into the core technologies listed in this document. ITACs chair and the project manager will agree on the appropriate timing for review. In general, most projects are expected to be reviewed as part of the Campus Technology Council (CTC) IT funding review process. As such, reviews will be performed in a timely manner within the CTC review schedule. ITAC findings will be provided in a brief communication to the project manager with a copy to the campus CIO.

Exceptions from Standards

There will be cases when an enterprise and/or mission critical technology or project that needs to be deployed on campus does not meet architectural standards. This finding should be communicated back to the project manager and the campus CIO. The CIO should negotiate with the affected party to formalize consequences of available options, including bringing the system into compliance over time or allowing the system to remain out-of-compliance.