The first release of the cross-Government Enterprise Architecture (xGEA) focussed on building the initial portfolio of opportunities to share. The following items were identified to support this:
- An xGEA Reference Model (xGEARM) to enable communication through an agreed set of terms and definitions
- A repository with Enterprise Architecture assets captured for all government to use
- An opportunity portfolio of potential exemplars
- A set of processes based on industry practices for describing the exemplars and the EA models
The CTO Council has continued to focus on the necessary technical work which underpins the development and adoption of the xGEA. Work is now in progress on:
- Common infrastructure based on the open standards and proven interoperability implemented with commercial off the shelf products
- Common standards to help facilitate reuse and sharing
- Inclusion of Information Assurance into all aspects of design and build
- Rationalising government data and voice networks
- Adopting a consistent approach to identity management
This section appears to be completely devoid of any identifiable content!
Utter drivel.
Nothing in here about selected architectural frameworks (e.g. the MoD flavour of TOGAF called MODAF)
Nothing about architectural principles (e.g. Promoting reuse, investment cases made through demonstratable ROI)
Nothing about eventual end point of strategy (e.g. Cheaper support costs, Higher customer satisfaction scores).
It should not be about what but why and how.
I find it amusing that they have dropped every single EA buzzword in these paragraphs including reuse but then created their own unique EA ‘framework’.
Oh that one, “I am okay you are ok”
Enterprise Architecture for a national government described in only 16 lines of text? They cannot possibly be serious.
Also ‘Common infrastructure based on the open standards and proven interoperability implemented with commercial off the shelf products’. Elsewhere much has been made of the supposed superiority of open source, so there is an inconsistency here.
“* Common infrastructure based on the open standards and proven interoperability implemented with commercial off the shelf products” – Absolutely obvious. A four year-old could have told you that.
“* Common standards to help facilitate reuse and sharing” – Again, absolutely obvious. It seems that the Government needs to have a policy that reads: ‘A working computer monitor to enable users to view content’
“* Inclusion of Information Assurance into all aspects of design and build” – Define Information Assurance? No, didn’t think so. What the Government meant to say was: ‘Ensure that information is correct, complete and relevant.’ Again, blatantly obvious.
“* Rationalising government data and voice networks” – This statement does not make sense.
“* Adopting a consistent approach to identity management” – What total nonsense! Does the Government normally follow an inconsistent tapproach?! Again, complete nonsense.
Seriously, the recommendations made in this report are so blatantly obvious that it is not surprising that the Government overspends on IT. In fact, it is likely that the Government paid $10 million to be told that information should be accurate. Pathetic. I imagine consultants must relish the opportunity to work for the Government – they seems to be willing to pay very large amounts of money to receive information that would be plainly obvious to the man on the street.