Date post: | 04-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | francine-daniels |
View: | 215 times |
Download: | 2 times |
1
Internal Revenue Service
Achieving SOA Governance through Organizational Consensus
SOA e-Government Conference Hosted by MITRE and The Federal SOA Community of Practice
September 30, 2008
2
Internal Revenue Service
1. Governance 2. Challenges Federal Agencies face in selling & executing SOA 3. Why Governance4. When is the time right5. Executive Support – Defining the Value Proposition6. Stakeholder Incentive7. Identifying key stakeholders8. Identify strategies to overcome knowledge gaps and inertia9. Workshop Format – The Tool for Developing Organizational
Concurrence10.Strawman Models11. Integrating Services Governance into the organization12.Q & A13.Appendix
Achieving SOA Governance through Organizational Consensus
3
Internal Revenue Service
Governance – A Central Pillar of SOA
Co
mm
on
Ser
vice
s
Pla
tfo
rms
& T
oo
ls
Go
vern
ance
Go
vern
ance
EnterpriseArchitectureGuidance
Center of Excellence
Design Patterns
Messaging
SOA Principles
SOA Roadmap
4
Internal Revenue Service
Resource Constraints
Organizational Silos
Technology Transfer
Resistance to Change
System Silos
Incentive: What’s in it for me?
Challenges Federal Agencies face in selling & executing SOA
5
Internal Revenue Service
SOA Governance defines the principles, processes, and roles required to manage, use and update the Service-Oriented Architecture. Key considerations include compliance with external requirements (FEA, OMB, etc.) and extension of existing life-cycle process details and control/quality gates.
Supports SOA rollout success by providing a well defined and accepted set of principles,
– Provide clear definition of the development process,
– Enhances lines of communication across project teams that know the business, and
– Organizational support for governance and policy enforcement.
Lack of Governance will promote new silos (Why? When individual business units/groups make their own decisions about what and how to develop applications,. they create silos; because these decisions may be incompatible with one-another and certainly don't take into account the needs of other business units. Why do I care? With centralized governance, we make decisions that make sense for the entire enterprise while taking into account the needs of all groups.
Service Orientation is becoming more popular and we want to “catch the horse before it leave the barn”
Why Governance?
6
Internal Revenue Service
Governance – When is the time right?
Establish a Light-weight Governance Model up front.– You do not know everything at once– You cannot do everything at once– You do not want to inhibit innovation, growth or adoption, but you don’t want to recreate the Wild
West
Establish, and experiment with, some SOA Building Blocks– Design, Develop, and Implement an initial set of Services– Develop initial design patterns– Put a very basic SOA Platform in place
Using your experience, develop an SOA Roadmap– Define what you want to achieve– Establish your priorities– Develop a realistic plan on how you want to get there
Your Roadmap should reflect a Capability Model that allows your organization to grow in your targeted areas at a pace that your organization can absorb. There is no one-size-fits-all answer.
7
Internal Revenue Service
Obtaining Executive Support“Significant change initiatives require strong support from executive leadership. This typically only happens when there is a compelling need to make the change and the senior management of the organization understands the need and drives the change.” (Practical Guide to Federal SOA, section 4.1.2, http://smw.osera.gov/pgfsoa/index.php/Welcome)
Common Services are enterprise assets that must be developed with enterprise quality according to enterprise standards and policies to ensure ongoing operations, reduce integration costs and complexities, and mitigate risks.
Governance provides the mechanisms necessary to ensure Common Services conform to and deliver on stated promises:
Enterprise standards and expectations of Integration,
Reduced Costs,
Increased Business Agility,
Extend lifetime of legacy systems while facilitating Orderly Transition from Legacy to Modernized Systems
Ensures consideration of provider by consumer
Ensures consideration of the consumer by the provider
Service Level Agreements
Executive Support –Defining the value proposition of Common Services Governance
8
Internal Revenue Service
Stakeholder Incentive: SOA Success promotes Organizational SuccessA key challenge is to make Service Ownership and consumption desirable
While the Service consumer (and the organization as a whole) has a clear advantage to reuse, the Service provider currently has little or no incentive to develop services. After all, in a Project-oriented culture, a Service provider is generally provided budget to develop individual projects, not Common Services.
Providers and Consumer need to know they are not wasting their time working on Enterprise Services, Governance Coordinates Design/Development/Implementation
For the Executive - Concentrates limited resources where and when needed on Enterprise level Common Services
For the Developers – Governance insulate them from polarizing prioritization issues and other non development issues in a multi-consumer environment
For the Business – Realize some capabilities sooner, aggregate cost of services between organizations
Conclusion: Implementation of SOA concepts and execution provides benefits to all stakeholders, but an initial investment is required.
9
Internal Revenue Service
Identifying key stakeholders
Who should be part of developing governance?
Anybody who has to live by it…
Developers
Project Managers
Technical Advisors
Engineers
Infrastructure
Operations
Security
Enterprise Architects
Platforming & Tooling Expert
Go
vern
ance
Go
vern
ance
10
Internal Revenue Service
Start Collaborating
– Determining key technology stakeholders
One on one meetings to discuss issues, develop consensus for the approach with key stakeholders (confirm stakeholder-ship or get recommendations, repeat if necessary with appropriate stakeholders)
Obtain commitment to support effort, to be or send representatives
– Determine specific individuals to participate
Right people from the right organizations within the Enterprise
They know how the organization functions
Ability to determine transition path
Decision authority on behalf of their organization
Ability to communicate and excite their organization
Identifying key stakeholders (continued)
11
Internal Revenue Service
Identifying strategies to overcome knowledge gaps and inertia
First identify the objectives:
– Light weight integrate
– Integrated with existing organization
– Limit creating new committees or governance bodies
Define process to use to develop consensus
– Baseline existing governance
– Integrate new governance into existing IT Governance
– Workshop format
– Present high level “strawman” of entry points and processes
– Lead group through thought processes and use cases to develop governance
12
Internal Revenue Service
Workshop Format – The Tool for Developing Organizational Concurrence
Preparation for Integrated Governance Workshops
Gather SOA Specific Information
Gather Existing Lifecycle and Governance Information
Integrated Governance Workshops
Discussion of what happens at each stage for each use case
– SOA Concepts– Service Definitions– SOA Specific Roles and Responsibilities– SOA Tools (Registry / Repository/ etc.)– SOA Use Cases
– Enterprise Life Cycle processes– ELC Roles and Responsibilities– Policies– ELC Artifacts
– Identify the actors– Identify the roles and responsibilities– Identify new and changed processes– Identify the policies– Identify Services Attributes for the Service
RegistryCommon Services Life Cycle - Service Identification, Service Re-Use, Service Design, Service Compliance and Validation, Service Development / Testing, and Service Deployment
13
Internal Revenue Service
Strawman Models – see appendix for full size examples
14
Internal Revenue Service
Achieving Common Services Governance through Organizational Concurrence provides
Organizational Buy-In to a process that they helped develop
A governance process that is reasonable, integrated into the existing proven processes
Co
mm
on
Ser
vic
es
Pla
tfo
rms
& T
oo
ls
Go
vern
ance
Go
vern
ance
EnterpriseArchitectureGuidance
Center of Excellence
Design Patterns
Messaging
SOA Principles
SOA Roadmap
15
Internal Revenue Service
Q & A
Panelist
– Sam Kneppar [email protected]
– Kimberly Rabe [email protected]
– Frank Tirado [email protected]
16
Internal Revenue Service
Appendix – Workshop StrawmanThe IRS Services Life Cycle
Service Registry(design-time)
Service Registry(design-time)
Submit Service definition to Service Registry
for review(after Service design)
Service Registry(design-time)
Review/ApproveService definition
(compliance validation against standards)
Search / Export / DeployService definition
Submit Service
definition
Resubmit Service
definition
Providefeedback
Review for compliance /Approve Service
definition for developmentSearch/Download
Role: EDMO
SOA WGEA
MA / SPO / ITSA&E
Discover Service via· MV&S process· Top-down process· Bottom-up process (CPE decomposition)
Input conceptualService definition
Service compliance and
validationService Re-use
Service identification
Service Registry(run-time)
Assess/evaluate potential re-use of existing Services
Search/Retrieve/Optionally DownloadService definition for
development
Search / Export / Deploy
Deploy Service for run-time
configurationand execution
Role: Service Provider
Service Registry AdminIA&E
TestingEOPS
EA SOA WGEDMO
Cyber Security
Role: Service Provider
Service ConsumerSA&E
EA SOA WG
EDMOMA / SPO / ITSA&E
Manage / Administer Service Registry
content
Role: MV&S team
EASOA WG
Service deployment
Fundingsecured
Physical design
complete
Service ready for deployment
Manage / Administer Service Registry
content
versioning
versioning
a
b
c
Service developmentand Testing
(of Service Consumer and Service Provider)
Search/Download
Role: Application Development (AD)
TestingSA&E
MA / SPO / ITSA&E
Service development / testing
Service development / testing initiated
versioning
d
1
3
4
5
6
2
Service Design
17
Internal Revenue Service
Appendix – Workshop StrawmanThe IRS’ Role and Responsibilities during a services life cycle
#
Ser
vice
Lif
ecyc
le
stag
es
Ser
vice
Go
vern
ance
T
asks
rel
ated
to
S
ervi
ce R
egis
try
Act
ion
En
terp
rise
A
rch
itec
ture
Co
mm
on
Bu
sin
ess
Ser
vice
s (C
BS
) te
am
Co
mm
on
Ser
vice
A
dvi
sory
Bo
ard
En
gin
eeri
ng
En
terp
rise
Dat
a
Infr
astr
uct
ure
Engin
eering
Sys
tem
s A
ccre
ditat
ion
Cer
tifica
tion
Op
erat
ion
s
Ser
vice
Pro
vid
er
Ser
vice
Co
nsu
mer
Sec
uri
ty
So
ftw
are
Dev
elo
per
s C
ou
nci
l
Register Service (in ‘Tentative’ status) Create R R A R R R R R R R R R
Notify stakeholders of Service Registration Inform I I A I I I Review and promote Service to ‘Candidate’ status or
reject using ‘Rejected’ status Update R S A S I S
Update Service definition (i.e., fill out extended Service attributes)
Update S R A R S S S S
1 Service Identification
Review and promote Service to ‘Target’ status Update R R A S I I I I I I I Promote Service to ‘Funded’ status
(i.e., Upon funding and when assigned to Project) Update I I A I I I I I I I I I
Update Service definition from Requirements/analysis activity Update R R A R S S R S S
Register Service Consumer for Service usage Create I I I S I I I I S A I S 2 Service Re-use
determination
Approve Service Consumer for Service usage Update I I I I I R R A R I I
Promote Service to ‘In Design’ status Update I I I I I I I I A I I I 3 Service design
(logical and physical) Update Service definition from design artifacts Update I I I S S S I I A I I I
Review/Validate Service definition for compliance Update S S A S R R S S I R S 4 Service compliance
and validation1 Notify stakeholders of compliance issues Inform I I A I I I I I I I I I
Promote Service to ‘In Development’ status Update I I I I I I I I A I I I
Update Service definition with WSDL, and other artifacts such as Interface Control Documents
Update S S S S R S A S 5 Service development/ testing
Assess and promote Service to ‘In Testing’ status Update I I I I I R R2 I A I I R
Assess and promote Service to ‘Deployed’ status Update I I I I I S I A R I I I
Promote Service to ‘Deprecated’ status Update S I A I I S I S S S I S 6 Service deployment/ maintenance
Promote Service to ‘Retired’ status Update S I A I I S I S S S I S
R – Responsible (delegated authority to resolve an issue or complete an activity) S – Supportive C – Consulted A – Accountable (governance, approval, and delegation authority, as well as ownership of the outcome – includes implicit R) I – Informed
1 may include requirements analysis, impact analysis, design, processing of content, etc. 2 for involvement in Security Testing and Evaluation (ST&E) and for the development of security risk assessment
18
Internal Revenue Service
Appendix – The IRS’ Strawman Use Cases examples
19
Internal Revenue Service
Appendix – Workshop Strawman The IRS’ Strawman Use Cases examples (continued)
ELC
Yes
No
ServiceOpportunit
yIdentified