All or Nothing Approach Some organizations believe that to achieve data architecture success, they must take a “boil the ocean” approach in attempting to resolve all data governance issues in single effort, which often becomes overwhelming and requires a time investment of several years, with costs escalating before any true return is realized. Top-Down Approach The most common approach to statewide data architecture and exchange in other states begins with developing a vision at the statewide level. The support for this effort must come from the very highest levels (Governor, Legislature) and be supported by incorporating it into the priorities of government. Many states have attempted to move in this direction, and without support at the very highest level, the efforts are not successful. Data architecture and exchange must be a priority for the state in order to make sustainable forward movement in this area. States that are seeing positive impacts in this area are driven by a directive or executive order to put the cultural shift into action. The approach takes significant time and cannot be accomplished overnight. Many of the states showing progress have been working on this effort for several years. This approach requires the coordinated efforts of information technology, business management, finance, and other functional units. Examples of states that have in this direction and have years of experience under their belt that can be used as resources are California, Missouri, Connecticut, and Michigan. All have used a phased in approach and their efforts started at the top. While most experts acknowledge the importance and need for enterprise data architecture in state government support from the Governor and Legislators, capacity to undertake this effort at a statewide level, and funding to pay for a major data architecture initiative are essential to be successful. Recommendations The recommended strategy for Washington state government is to take an iterative approach to data architecture with the objective of achieving data sharing using the principles of Master Data Management (MDM) and Customer Data Integration (CDI). The decisive factors contributing to this recommendation arise in the following areas: Authorizing environment, which is likely to be changed substantially and permanently by the shared services initiative currently under way Economic conditions, which are historically poor for the public sector and may well not improve for 2-3 years Maturity level of the state in this area, which we assess as low, despite previous steps toward improved data management and business planning Growth from existing roots, which we feel will occur at a limited level even without a major initiative Adopting and promoting principles and methods from private industry and the federal government Seeking opportunities for external seed funding where and when possible
Financial Lower data maintenance costs Lower data storage costs Storage cost reduced. < 50 % of the existing storage and maintenance costs. Storage cost tracking DIS/Agencies Not Applicable Customer Single version of data More control over data Customer service Customer satisfaction Single point of customer data entry Customer relations and satisfaction. Data Governance Committee Not Applicable Internal Customer data integration (CDI). Master data management (MDM). Reduce redundancy of data. Reduce altering of the meaning of data. Single view of customer data. Identified owners of data. Reduced maintenance on data. Increased data integrity. Single identity for the core data elements identified across the state. Single point of origin for customer data without altering the meaning of data. Data Governance committee. Data stewards. Not Applicable Learning Education of state agencies the concept of MDM and CDI. % of state agencies sharing core data. 50 % of MDM & CDI achieved in 3 years; 100% in 5 years. CDI and MDM training for data architects. CIO’s of each agency. Training vendors. Roadmap to achieving a Statewide Data Architecture and Exchange References
Topic Short Name Citation Link Shared Services Michigan's Successful Experience With Centralizing Government IT Gartner, Industry Research, Publication Date: 12 January 2006 ID Number: G00136603 Proprietary Data Standards Interview: Chris Kemp, Manager, Data Management Services, WSDOT WSDOT Data Standards.doc Data Standards Interview: Tim Crabb; Infrastructure Services Manager, WSDOT WSDOT Data Standards.doc Data Standards Interview: Noel Morgan, IT Enterprise Implementation Manager, WSDOT WSDOT Data Standards.doc Successful and Unsuccessful Data Standards Strategies in Private Business and Government Entities. Data Standards Interview: Gordon Kennedy, IT Information Resource Manager, WSDOT WSDOT Data Standards.doc Data Project Management U.K. Dept of Health: Prescription for Disaster Baseline Magazine, November 13, 2006. Risk Chapter 1. The risks of IT innovation in government Book: Making Smart IT Choices: Understanding Value and Risk in Government IT Investments Data Standards by DIS State Enterprise Data Standards Initiative Charter scanned in copy. This is a copy of the original charter used by the ISB Data Standards Committee chaired by Paul Warren Douglas Dis.wa.gov or isb.wa.gov
History of WSDOT Data Standards WSDOT Data Standards.doc WSDOT Data Standards.doc Data Standards Charter WSDOT Data Council Charter WSDOT Data Council Charter-Revised.doc Data Strategy State of California Data Strategy Report State of California’s Data Strategy Report IT Strategic Plan State of California’s IT Strategic Plan State of California’s IT Strategic Plan http://www.itsp.ca.gov/ Data Standards Federal Data Standards Federal data standards related to Payroll, HR & Training EA Strategies Conneticut EA Strategies State of Conneticut’s Enterprise Architecture Strategies; & Conceptual Architecture Principles IT Consolidation Missouri IT Consolidation State of Missouri’s Auditor’s Yellow Sheet on IT Consolidation Report EA Strategic Approach State of Michigan EA State of Michigan’s EA Strategic Approach Strategic Plan State of Michigan IT Strategic Plan State of Michigan’s Strategic Plan 2008-2012 Used references Appendix A & N Enterprise Architecture State of Michigan Enterprise Architecture State of Michigan’s Enterprise Architecture – Strategic Approach Integration Competency Center Designing an ICC How to Design and Implement an Integration Competency Center (ICC) Identity Mgt. User-Centric Identities Gartner Research, Publication Date: 26 May 2010 ID Number: G00200800 “User-Centric Identities Need Identity Proofing and Other Controls for Sensitive Data Access” Proprietary