IRD goes it alone on enterprise architecture
Subscribe now for $100 (23 issues) and save more than 37% off the cover price!
Get the latest news from Computerworld delivered via email.
Sign up now
Inland Revenue has issued a request for proposal (RFP) for appointment of a panel of suppliers of enterprise architecture services, but at this stage is proceeding on the basis of its own needs.
This is despite enterprise architecture being one focal point for the effort to rationalise ICT across government agencies where possible. A project is under way to develop a Government Enterprise Architecture for New Zealand (GEA-NZ), as part of the Directions and Priorities policy in government ICT.
GEA-NZ is intended to be “a single unifying framework that will provide a common ICT language including architecture, models/patterns, standards, techno-economics, and common definitions across government,” says the pertinent section of the ict.govt.nz website.
The Government Enterprise Architecture Group (GEAG) is coordinating the development of the architecture and will govern it once it is developed.
The IRD request, however, is to satisfy an immediate need, says a spokesperson. “Inland Revenue is an active contributor to the opportunities occurring in the all-of-government procurement environment,” the IRD says. “At this stage our procurement process is designed to meet our current enterprise architecture requirements.
However, the spokesperson adds, “we will continue to be part of cross-government procurement processes in the future.”
The appointment of a panel of EA suppliers to IRD is intended to centralise and streamline the process for procuring EA services, to encourage “compliance in procuring EA services for delivery of work which cannot be met by IR’s permanent EA resource pool.’ It also aims to achieve “timely resource assignment turnaround to those requesting EA services where requested resources or skill sets are not available from the permanent pool of EA resources,” says the RFP.
Cost containment and cost visibility is seen as another benefit, as is “building a mutually beneficial business relationship between IR and EA services panel suppliers.”
As Computerworld went to press, spokespeople for GEAG were unavailable to comment on how procurement efforts will be harmonised in the longer term.
Posted by Anonymous at 10:08:46 on July 20, 2012
Posted by Henk at 20:12:32 on July 18, 2012
Posted by Anonymous at 9:09:38 on July 18, 2012
Posted by Anonymous at 12:33:46 on July 18, 2012
Posted by Anonymous at 20:10:40 on July 18, 2012
Posted by Anonymous at 8:12:17 on July 18, 2012
Rather its the senior executives that pay lip service to the approach whilst actively defeating the purpose for the sake of their own pet projects
Posted by Anonymous at 20:03:29 on July 18, 2012
Posted by Anonymous at 9:50:16 on July 18, 2012
I'd add to that the fact that an "all of Government" EA is misleading at best in its intention as the best we can hope for IMHO is a framework for EA, which will probably be rehashed from FEAF or the Australian Government Architecture Reference Models any way.
That unified view has value in standarding language, thinking and elements of EA, but an organisation must own its own Architecture. Vendors can provide some important IP, but the architecture thinking must be something the organisation has deeply embedded and implemented everywhere, from business to technology infrastructure.
Posted by Anonymous at 12:12:26 on July 18, 2012