In 2014, I began to question some of the products and decision-making processes of my district’s Technology Architecture, which is directly correlated to the infrastructure of our Business Architecture: Why do we only have Hewlett-Packard products as our PCs on campus? Why is our firewall, or network regulation, so strong? Why do some schools have 45 MB/s network download speeds, and we only have 10 (metrics/measures)? And why do “HelpDesk” tickets (services) have to be so structured and detailed? It’s interesting that after learning about Business Architecture in our assigned readings, some lightbulbs turned on in my mind that point to the core elements of BA: every decision made is intended to “improve business capabilities.”
In September, 2015, as I began to pursue the adoption of a Chromebook pilot program in my own classroom, the answers to my questions began to flood my mind through inferential reasoning. Our district really does abide by its vision and mission statements. And the LCAP goals are so well-outlined that the budget is strategically arranged to maximize the accomplishment of our district’s goals. Furthermore, every person I spoke to along the chain-of-command seemed to share that vision and played a particular role in answering my questions. Our district had a design in place for updating and improving certain technologies every school, and the key players had a schedule to uphold.
I spoke with an IT technician on Friday, as 26 of our teachers were scheduled for a new computer replacement (after 5 years). He said the average technician in the district oversees about 4000 devices! In most organizations, that’s unheard of; with such a structured architecture, however, it’s possible.
A Guide to the Business Architecture Body of Knowledge [PDF]. (2013). Business Architecture Guide. Retrieved February 7, 2016 from http://www2.mitre.org/public/eabok/pdf/BIZBOK-V3.5-Part1-Introduction.pdf