| Line 126: |
Line 126: |
| | * '''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? | | * '''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? |
| | | | |
| − | == Enterprise Solutions/Shared Services Guiding principles == | + | == Enterprise Solutions Criteria == |
| | Any solution that is worthy of of use across the entire GC should allow the consumers to successfully achieve their objectives by providing an accessible, enabling, extendable, fast, monitored, reliable, scalable, secure, and self-service common base service in an open, cost-competitive, collaborative, iterative, proactive, timely and transparent manner. | | Any solution that is worthy of of use across the entire GC should allow the consumers to successfully achieve their objectives by providing an accessible, enabling, extendable, fast, monitored, reliable, scalable, secure, and self-service common base service in an open, cost-competitive, collaborative, iterative, proactive, timely and transparent manner. |
| | | | |
| Line 332: |
Line 332: |
| | * '''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? | | * '''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? |
| | | | |
| − | ==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'''.”
| |
| − | [[File:Decision Making Framework.png|alt=Decision Making Framework|thumb|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 [https://gcconnex.gc.ca/file/view/64955800/gc-earb-2020-06-04-02-tbs-decision-framework-for-enterprise-solutions-pdf?language=en 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 [[Images/1/1a/GC EARB Presenter Template-BETA Release Aug 18 2020.pptx|GC EARB presenter template]]. Please send us your feedback on the decision making framework for enterprise solutions to the [mailto:EA.AE@tbs-sct.gc.ca TBS Enterprise Architecture team]
| |
| | == Input from Gartner == | | == Input from Gartner == |
| | In a '''shared services''' model, the customers of the shared services are part of the formal board of directors, governing the strategic intent of the shared services organization and determining what service levels will be provided. | | In a '''shared services''' model, the customers of the shared services are part of the formal board of directors, governing the strategic intent of the shared services organization and determining what service levels will be provided. |
| Line 347: |
Line 338: |
| | | | |
| | There are occasional exceptions to both of these situations, but creating a centralization model in the '''parliamentary form of government''' is extremely challenging because the parliamentary model usually doesn’t envision enterprise authority vested in any one person. | | There are occasional exceptions to both of these situations, but creating a centralization model in the '''parliamentary form of government''' is extremely challenging because the parliamentary model usually doesn’t envision enterprise authority vested in any one person. |
| − |
| |
| − | == DRAFT: Patterns and Practices regarding Enterprise Solutions/Shared Services: Spectrum of Options ==
| |
| − | Enterprise Solutions may be governed using three general models that provide relative advantages in terms of addressing technical debt, minimizing total cost of ownership, maximizing use of talent, maximizing consistency of technology and business processes, and optimizing infrastructure.
| |
| − | {| class="wikitable"
| |
| − | |+
| |
| − | !Model
| |
| − | !Illustration
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |'''Enterprise Service Provider Model.''' This model provides all services to the entire Enterprise in a consolidated manner, governed by a centralized authority, and is fully integrated across all instances. 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.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | '''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.
| |
| − | |[[File:Centralized.png|alt=Centralized Model Icon|thumb|100x100px|Centralized Model Icon]]
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |'''Product Owner''' '''Model.''' This model uses departmental clusters or business owners to govern distributed instances of enterprise solutions. This model leverages enterprise standards, product owners, departmental clusters, governance and oversight. This model may also leverage distributed technical infrastructure to support solution clusters.
| |
| − | '''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.
| |
| − | |[[File:Decentralized Model Icon.png|alt=Decentralized Model Icon|thumb|100x100px|Decentralized Model Icon]]
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |'''Federated Model.''' This stand alone, or decentralized model allows departments to implement their own stack components, influenced by standards, using APIs via interoperability standards. Governance manages exemptions from the Standard; however, a decentralized enterprise with multiple service delivery methods and business units may be successful in finding justifications for significant deviations for standards.
| |
| − | '''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.
| |
| − | |[[File:Federated Model Icon.png|alt=Federated Model Icon|thumb|100x100px|Federated Model Icon]]
| |
| − | |}
| |
| | | | |
| | == Health Canada classification model == | | == Health Canada classification model == |
| Line 392: |
Line 356: |
| | | | |
| | * This re-use is enabled through the use of published APIs shared across government. This approach allows GC to focus on improving its service delivery to Canadians while addressing the challenges with legacy systems. | | * This re-use is enabled through the use of published APIs shared across government. This approach allows GC to focus on improving its service delivery to Canadians while addressing the challenges with legacy systems. |
| − | == Enterprise Solutions/Shared Services and the EA Framework == | + | == Enterprise Solutions and the EA Framework == |
| | The Business Architecture layer of the the EA Framework has the following assessment criteria for GC EARB reviews: | | The Business Architecture layer of the the EA Framework has the following assessment criteria for GC EARB reviews: |
| | * Promote Horizontal Enablement of the Enterprise | | * Promote Horizontal Enablement of the Enterprise |