VIEWS: 28 PAGES: 3 POSTED ON: 4/24/2010
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 Architecture. 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 biennium. 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 formalized. 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.
Pages to are hidden for
"Architecture Review Board - DOC"Please download to view full document