wiki

Changes

Archived Enterprise Solutions material (view source)

Revision as of 14:22, 15 September 2021

6,170 bytes added ,  14:22, 15 September 2021
→‎Mandate[edit | edit source]
Line 21: Line 21:  
|[[Governance for Digital Solutions]]
 
|[[Governance for Digital Solutions]]
 
|}
 
|}
 +
 +
== Mandate ==
 +
Develop and implement methods to deliver enterprise IT solutions across the GC to support departments’ digital needs while improving service delivery.
 +
 +
== Enterprise Solutions definition ==
 +
Enterprise solutions are internal and external Government of Canada assets capable of being re-used again or repeatedly. The Business Capability Model will be used as a baseline to describe the functionality of the GC re-usable asset.
 +
 +
Re-usable assets can include and are not limited to:
 +
 +
* User journeys and business process models
 +
* Information and data standards
 +
* Application software and accelerators
 +
* Technology solutions
 +
* Security and privacy standards and guardrails
 +
* Procurement vehicles
 +
 +
=== Benefits of Enterprise solutions: ===
 +
 +
* provide a more cohesive digital experience for users and other stakeholders,
 +
* reduce the total cost of ownership to provision external and internal services
 +
* enhance integration and collaboration, create transferable skill sets, and leverage innovative work across the GC and the private sector.
 +
 +
== Decision Making Framework for Enterprise Solutions ==
 +
Presented at GC EARB on June 4th, 2020
 +
 +
Under the Policy on Service and Digital, departmental CIO’s are responsible for “submitting to GC EARB, proposals concerned with the design, development, installation and implementation of digital initiatives”. They are also responsible for “adopting, as applicable, '''enterprise solutions within their respective department'''.”
 +
 +
Decision Making Framework
 +
 +
Increasingly, a number of departmental digital initiatives propose solutions that address matters with common business capabilities, resulting in a diverse range of applications in operations across the GC IT landscape. TBS has recognized a need to provide assistance to departmental CIO’s to inform decision-making with respect to the '''adoption of enterprise solutions'''.
 +
 +
The following presentation is the first iteration of a working draft of a decision making framework that will be used as a guide for the adoption of enterprise solutions. The framework will be added to the revised GC EARB presenter template. Please send us your feedback on the decision making framework for enterprise solutions to the
    
== Branding ==
 
== Branding ==
Line 46: Line 78:  
Enterprise or shared IT solutions, assets, and services.  
 
Enterprise or shared IT solutions, assets, and services.  
    +
== Value proposition ==
 +
* '''For''' Government of Canada employees,
 +
 +
* '''Who''' are involved in modernizing their departmental programs and services.
 +
 +
* '''Enterprise solutions re-usability framework''' is a classification framework and registry of GC reusable assets based on common business capabilities and user journeys,
 +
* '''That''' enables employees to provision reusable assets when modernizing their departmental programs and services and to contribute reusable assets for others to reuse.
 +
 +
* '''Unlike today''' where there is limited guidance for reusability resulting in GC departments implementing duplicated assets.
 +
* '''The Enterprise solutions re-usability framework''' establishes an operational framework to increase reusability across GC departments that will result in the following benefits:
 +
 +
== Reusability Classification Framework ==
 +
{| class="wikitable"
 +
|+
 +
!Option
 +
!Description
 +
!Illustration
 +
|-
 +
|Centralizated
 +
|These reusable assets are standardized to the entire GC in a consolidated manner, governed by a centralized authority and are provisioned by a single centralized service provider. It maximizes utility of major investments which address common business needs, have Enterprise-wide scope, long durations, and require participation from all departments and agencies.
 +
Example: SSC Secure Cloud Enablement and Defense (SCED)​, desktop standards, data standards
 +
 +
Pros: Enables cohesive, horizontal integration across Enterprise to enables consistent frictionless utilization by stakeholders and administration. Maximizes consistency of technology.
 +
 +
Cons: Increases risk of vendor lock in. Does not allow for department specific customizations to address non-standardized business processes.
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|Distributed
 +
|These reusable assets are identified by common departmental needs, governed by those departments and are provisioned through distributions and shared/clustered instances of the assets. This model leverages enterprise standards, product owners, departmental clusters, governance and oversight. This model may also leverage distributed technical infrastructure to support solution clusters.
 +
Examples: FMT accelerators / Product Owner guardrails / Open Source toolkits, distributions, and templates, M365 (MS Teams) – Federated via DCAM tenants.
 +
 +
Pros: Recognizes layered approach of Enterprise Architecture Framework and enables governance of one or many aspects of Business, Information/Data, Application, Technology, Security, and Privacy for reuse by departments with similar business processes or non-functional requirements.
 +
 +
Cons: Although the risk of vendor lock in is mitigated comparted to the Enterprise Service Model, it may be challenging to replace technology components that span multiple departments.
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|Interoperable
 +
|Reusable assets are developed by departments using standards and published for provisioning by others. This stand alone, or decentralized option allows departments to implement their own unique assets but publish and consume APIs and Open Source software centrally led guidance and standards.
 +
Examples: IBM Curam (BDM – Public Cloud-hosted Containterized microservices exposed as APIs)
 +
 +
Pros: Enables reactive solutions to address business processes not shared across departments. Limited risk of vendor lock in.
 +
 +
Cons: Limits reuse across departments. Talent supporting technology components in the federated model have fewer opportunities to build skill sets useful across the Enterprise.
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|Departmental
 +
|Reusable assets are developed for provisioning within a department or are not reusable at all as there is are no common business capabilities and user journeys.
 +
This option allows departments to implement one-off, niche services, with reuse within their department or none at all.
 +
 +
Examples: Agriculture Canada SeqDB – Botany, Mycology, and Entomology Collection Management
 +
 +
Pros: Enables maximum flexibility for departments
 +
 +
Cons: Does not easily allow for reuse. Encourages niche skills not portable across the GC
 +
|
 +
|}
 +
 +
== Registry of GC reusable assets ==
 +
{| class="wikitable"
 +
|+Proposed model for registry
 +
!Classification
 +
!
 +
!Business capabilities addressed
 +
!User Journeys addressed
 +
!Source of assett
 +
|-
 +
|Centralizated
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
|asset name
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
|asset name
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|Distributed
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
|asset name
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
|asset name
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|Interoperable
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
|asset name
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
|asset name
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|Departmental
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
|asset name
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
|asset name
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|}
 +
 +
== Detailed Enterprise Solution Fact Sheet ==
 +
Any truly enterprise solution should be able to easily describe itself and it's qualities & properties.  Use the following fact sheet to hold and maintain the quick reference information for any solution that has merit for the enterprise.  The values can then be used by anyone either looking to compare potential alternatives or looking to improve / extend the existing enterprise solution.  The information in this chart also provides an indirect guideline for those involved with the enterprise solution to highlight gaps and develop a roadmap towards a more well rounded solution.
 +
{| class="wikitable"
 +
|+
 +
! colspan="4" |General
 +
|-
 +
|Name:
 +
| colspan="3" |
 +
|-
 +
|Major Business Capability:
 +
|
 +
|Business Owner:
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|Minor Business Capability:
 +
|
 +
|Service Owner:
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|Specific Business Capability:
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|Nuanced Business Capability:
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|Date endorsed by GC EARB:
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|Website:
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|How many departments use it?
 +
|
 +
|How many users?
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
! colspan="4" |Operational Costs
 +
|-
 +
|Last Year CAP EX ($k)
 +
|
 +
|Last Year OP EX ($k)
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|This Year CAP EX ($k)
 +
|
 +
|This Year OP EX ($k)
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|Next Year CAP EX($k)
 +
|
 +
|Next Year OP EX ($k)
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|# of people to operate:
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|Last Year:
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|This Year:
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|Next Year:
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
! colspan="4" |Information
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|}
 
== DRAFT: Framework for Enterprise Solutions Options ==
 
== DRAFT: Framework for Enterprise Solutions Options ==
 
'''JOHN to update!'''
 
'''JOHN to update!'''
Line 251: Line 520:  
|'''''Discretion'''''
 
|'''''Discretion'''''
 
|''Participation is mandatory.''
 
|''Participation is mandatory.''
−
|''(Not applicable.)''
+
|
 
|}
 
|}
−
  −
== When to Pursue an Enterprise Solution ==
  −
If a potential initiative meets the five criteria for enterprise-wide initiatives, as outlined above, the decision whether to pursue such an approach will be based on the assessment of seven additional criteria which address value for money and feasibility. Overall, decisions will be based on net value (overall) as individual criteria might be in conflict.
  −
  −
'''''Value for Money'''''
  −
* '''Value:''' Does it represent a net improvement in value for money—i.e. economy, efficiency and effectiveness—as compared to the status quo/other options? (See Annex 1 for specific checklist.)
  −
  −
* '''Interdependencies:''' Is an enterprise-wide approach required to support other interconnected initiatives?
  −
  −
* '''Risk:''' Does it reduce operational risk through enhanced operational security and integrity? Are the respective risks of pursuing an enterprise-wide approach less than those of adopting department-specific approaches?
  −
'''''Feasibility'''''
  −
* '''Timing:''' Is the timing favourable for such an initiative given the current context and competing priorities?
  −
  −
* '''Equity''': Will it result in equitable and consistent treatment across departments?
  −
  −
* '''Funding:''' Is funding available, aligned with current priorities, and recommendable in light of opportunity costs? Are the long-term total costs of not proceeding (e.g. continuing to pay for the maintenance of silo’d legacy infrastructure) greater than those of adopting an enterprise-wide approach? Are the individual and collective financial impacts on departments a net benefit?
  −
  −
* '''Capacities:''' Is there an existing organization (e.g. a common service organization) that could provide the service? Is there a lead organization or cluster with the necessary resources, expertise and commitment to successfully execute?
  −
  −
== Operationalization of Enterprise Solutions ==
      
== Service & Digital Target Enterprise Architecture ==
 
== Service & Digital Target Enterprise Architecture ==
Retrieved from "https://wiki.gccollab.ca/Special:MobileDiff/36912...53162"