august 3, 2010etdd architecture grouppage 1 enforcement targeting & data division (etdd)...

August 3, 2010 ETDD Architecture Group

Enforcement Targeting & Data Division (ETDD) Architecture

Scope, Accomplishments, Challenges


Topics

• What we’re doing

• What we’ve accomplished

• Our challenges


The charge to the ETDD Architecture Group

• per the Office of Compliance A/B/C priority list…“Continue planning and implementation of ETDD Information Architecture”

or, as we see it… • “Develop an initial ETDD architecture that

will meet the needs of OC and its customers”


What that means…

This is the part we’re doing, but just for an ETDD Architecture(not for the entire Enforcement & Compliance segment)


What that also means…

We’re addressing boxes 1 and 2 only


Our Overall Approach

• Using architecture as our methodology:– Confirm our strategic intent for the project– Describe our baseline state, – Identify our desired target state,– Develop an actionable plan for moving from

baseline to target, and– Propose an approach for maintaining the

architecture over time.


What we’ve accomplished

• Developed a collaboration site, core team, management team

• Drafted a charter and project plan • Obtained advice and education• Reviewed last year’s architecture thoughts• Explored ETDD’s functions, drivers, challenges• Developed some initial priority principles• Worked to clarify our strategic intent, begin

documenting our baseline, and begin identifying strategic improvement opportunities


What we’ve accomplished – selected artifacts –

• Major drivers for ETDD

• Initial priority principles (coming from our internal pain points)

• Charter and project plan

• Product-stakeholder lists, and matrix

• Operational context diagram(s)

• SWOT analysis


Some Drivers and ChallengesBusiness drivers• Shrinking federal/state

budgets• New enforcement goals &

evolving programmatic needs

• Push for more transparency (of data, of our processes)

• Increasing pace of technological change

• Increased desire to manage from data

Some Other Challenges

• E&C performance measures are constantly changing

• Other organizations want us to implement their prototypes

• CWA Enforcement Action Plan’s many new ideas

• Push for universal e-reporting from permittees

• Demand for increased agility

• Competition from other solutions providers

Design drivers• Portable devices• Virtual & cloud computing• Savvy, demanding users with high expectations for speed, capability & ease of use• Privacy & security concerns


Draft Architecture Principles

• Common Vocabulary & Data Definitions – data are defined consistently throughout the enterprise, and the definitions are understandable and available to all users.

• Primacy of Requirements – all plans made and actions taken are in satisfaction of requirements, and all requirements are identified and prioritized.

• Design for Concepts (technology independence) – we design for the concepts and remain independent of specific technologies.

• Control Technical Diversity – we use unified toolsets & technologies to minimize the cost of maintaining expertise in, and connectivity between, multiple processing environments.

• Enterprise Perspective – we manage our data, applications, websites, IT services, IT infrastructure, and IT contracts as one division.


Architecture Group Charter

• Mission alignment for the program purpose

• A challenging goal for the project

• Ambitious objectives

• Few assumptions, but many serious constraints

• A clear scope and approach


Overall Project Plan

We also have a detailed draft project plan in Microsoft Project


ETDD’s Major Stakeholders• General Public & Interest Groups

• Regulated Community

• Co-Regulators

• OECA Offices

• Other EPA Offices

• Other Federal Government (Agencies, Branches, Departments)


ETDD’s Major Products

• Specified, raw datasets• Information and reports (derived from data)• Systems, software, and databases• Customer service products• Policies and guidance


Product-Stakeholder matrix

Who receives the product/service --->Administrator, OECA, & OC

Other EPA Offices and Regions

Oversight Offices (Congress, GAO, OMB, OIG…) DOJ

States & Tribes

Other Federal agencies (CDC, NOAA, etc.)

Other govts (foreign, local)

Public (educators, students, interest groups, journalists, etc)

Regulated Community

What ETDD provides, produces or performs:Specified, Raw DatasetsCertified data (midyear and end of year) Data pulls/extracts (for FOIAs & other data requests)

Posted/published datasets (IDEA downloads, ICISCOPY) Information & Reports (derived from data)Annual results Compliance determinations Compliance screens Maps National enforcement trends (NETs) Other data analyses State review framework reports Targeting analyses Trip reports Customer Service ProductsCommunications and outreach materials (newsletters, websites, etc) Community facilitation (workgroups, meetings, blogs, collaboration spaces)

Consultation, guidance & technical support Training courses, materials, user documentation Data Management WorkData quality assurance / error correction Databases (extracts, transfers, loads, refreshes) Metadata management Software & Systems Management WorkAlgorithms, interfaces, models, modules, tools Application systems

System development & modernization

System operations & maintenance (O&M) Technical documentation Other Major Functions and ProductsContracts and grants management Policies & guidance (e.g., Reporting Plan, NPDES eReporting Rule) Quality management/assurance Resource management (fiscal, human, capital, etc) Surveys, studies, plans

Government Entities


SWOT analysisObjective: Having a division capable of making enterprise-level decisions about our portfolio, with everyone pulling in the same direction. Strengths: unified leadership, technical expertise, small size of organization, tight budget, we have the information, solidity of the enforcement & compliance business area, diverse expertise among staff, responsiveness, action orientation, management support, common goals and mission, people (in general), high level of knowledge internal to the division

Weaknesses: unclear rewards for sharing, our history/track record/baggage, independent branches, independent sections, ETDD independent of OC, reputation – blame, unagile technology, too many masters, reactivity, application orientation, stovepiped approach to budgeting, certain people, CTS and other systemic constraints, lack of training in new technologies, lack of documentation of our systems, low level of knowledge/awareness about all divisional systems, tunnel vision, inconsistency in systems, communications gaps (lack of awareness)

Opportunities: partnering, re-use, new technology, growth in senior management’s reliance on data for decision-making, new generation of people, senior management support for enterprise approach, budget, Congressional direction, government-wide requirements, Agency requirements, Open government, “One EPA”

Threats: unreasonable and ill-informed external expectations, inter-Office turf battles, staffing and hiring process, EPA culture of new initiatives (rather than following through on old ones), inadequate funding for agreed-upon direction, senior leadership turnover, quick-turn external mandates, political climate


Our challenges (for now)

• What strategic/performance improvements do we really want to end up with?

• What artifacts are essential for our sub-segment?

• How can we do this at a level commensurate with the resources dedicated to it?

• How can we get ahead of the investment decision-making?

• What should we do next?

august 3, 2010etdd architecture grouppage 1 enforcement targeting & data division (etdd)...

Documents

initial etdd architecture

etdd architecture groupper

transparency of data

etdd architecturenot

strategic intent

weve accomplisheddeveloped

primacy of requirements

satisfaction of requirements