Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Architecture Review Board - DOC


									Architecture Review Board
Meeting Notes

Wednesday, May 22, 2002
9:00 A.M. to 12:00 A.M.
Conference Room B
Office of Technology

In Attendance:

Reggie David, OT
Ken Hasledalen, Children Family and Learning
Janet Cain, Public Safety
Ed Meyer, Pollution Control
Jack Shea, Natural Resources
Neil Beltt, Revenue
Tim Willson, Finance
Steve Ring, Health
Denton Peterson, Health
Jean Henning, Finance
Steve Stedman, Revenue
Lee Peterson Veterans Affairs
Bill Schnellman, InterTech
Mike Ryan, OT

Not in Attendance:

Johanna Berg, Human Services
Mary Welfling, Transportation


Proposed Agenda

1. Questions about the organization
    Memo from David Fisher
    Public Information
         o Meeting Closed or Open
    Peter Weinhold’s Role
         o Documenting the Architecture Document
         o Staying on top of new technologies
         o Other duties
2. Processes
    Charter to IPC
         o Standards and Guidelines Processes
    Domain Teams
         o SNAP
         o DIGIT
         o HIPAA
         o Technology Areas
    Periodic Review
         o Timeframe
    Exception
3. Audit Trail
    Versions
    Documentation
Next Meeting Dates

This was the final organizational meeting of the Architecture Review Board
(ARB). Ed Meyer presided over the meeting.

There were two nonmembers in attendance:
Peter Weinhold, OT
Mark Ouska, Commerce

1. Questions about the organization

     The letter from David Fisher was discussed. The board felt that a letter
      to the Agency heads that evangelized the architecture would create a more
      positive outcome. A thank you to the participants would be very helpful.
      The current letter was perceived by some as somewhat negative.
      Proposal was made: Mike Ryan will write up a new letter and have input
      from the board before sending it on to David Fisher for publication.
      The board approved by consensus.
    The ARB had requested that Mike Ryan check into whether the meeting was
      open or closed. The message he received was that the meeting could be
      operated as closed. Vendors would not be able to present to the ARB.
      Mike Ryan and the Architecture office will present to the board. This was
      an informational point but a consensus was requested.
      The board approved by consensus.
    The next item discussed was Peter Weinhold’s role within the Enterprise
      Architecture. Architecture Documenter is the role. He will do reviews of
      the Technology areas (domains) and if changes are needed Peter will start
      that process. He will stay abreast of technology changes and communicate
      the significant areas to Mike Ryan.
      Peter has other duties as well, for example, he and Mike work on the
      payment engine and Peter is the liaison between SRIMP and the Enterprise
      This was a point of information and so no consensus was requested.
2. Processes

      Charter to the IPC
       Mike Ryan had a question of whether the charter should be updated to
       incorporate the resolutions and the consensus compromise.   The Board
       believed it was best to leave the charter as is and to revisit in a year.
       The charter did allow for the board to organize itself.
        The board approved by consensus.
      Domain Teams
       The Board answered some questions dealing with the relationship of the
       Domain teams to the ARB.    Outside groups such as Snap, Chief
       Information Security Officers, Digit and HIPAA, while formed under the
       authority of the IPC are not part of the architecture structure.
       Redundancy of activities is the worry and the board proposed to have Mike
       Ryan meet with the chairs of these groups and discuss coordination and
       conflicts. Further the board wanted to make certain that the domain teams
       would be used for updating the architecture within the periodic review
       process and adding standards or guidelines to the architecture.
      The board reviewed the Periodic Review Process . for the most part it
      worked but one point of confusion was how the domain teams would fit in.
      Mike Ryan will redo the process and include those teams and then issue the
      process map at that time.   Further, it was proposed that the periodic
      review be set at two years and coincide with the budget cycle. This means
      it would be best completed by the January of the last Fiscal Year of the
      The board approved by consensus.
    The board discussed the standards and policy process as it is now handled
      through the IPC. The discussion revolved around how this would work with
      the architecture process. The current process is now a placeholder for
      architecture. The recommendation is that the current processes be changed
      so that guidelines and standards would be run through the Architecture and
      the ARB. Once accepted by the ARB the standard or guideline would be
      There are two issues. The first is changing the current process to be a
      process within the Architecture Review Board . The second is how will the
      current standards and guidelines be migrated to the Architecture. The
      solution arrived at was that in the first case a new process would go
      through the ARB and in the second case, Eileen McCormack of the Office of
      Technology would review the current standards and recommend acceptance or
      no action to Mike Ryan. He would then present it to the ARB for approval.
      Mike Ryan will present this at the IPC meeting on June 20, 2002.
      The board approve by consensus. Exception Process was okay but the board
      requested a template for initiating the process rather than a memo. Mike
      Ryan and Peter Weinhold will put together a template form to replace the
      memo and send it out for ARB approval.
      The board approved by consensus.
    .
3. Audit Trail
    The architecture audit trails and versioning of the documentation will be
      managed by the Office of Technology and reviews of those will be the
      responsibility of the ARB

   Tentative meeting times will be forwarded.

That completed the business of the meeting.

To top