Evaluating Enterprise Architecture Frameworks Using Essential Elements

Enterprise architecture (EA) frameworks offer principles, models, and guidance to help one develop an EA program. Due to EA’s flexible and abstract nature, there is a proliferation of EA frameworks in practice. Yet, comparison studies to make sense of them are far from satisfactory in that they lack a theoretical foundation for comparison criteria and do not meaningfully interpret the differences. In this paper, I propose a comparison approach using EA essential elements—the underlying key features of EA programs—to distinguish EA frameworks. Based on the extant literature, I identify eight elements, each with its own theoretical justification and empirical evidence. I illustrate how to use these elements to evaluate eight popular EA frameworks. The results show three ideal types of EA frameworks: technical, operational, and strategic EA. Each type has a different focus, set of assumptions, and historical context. The essential elements offer a more systematic way to evaluate EA frameworks. In addition, they shift attention from the maturity models often used in EA development to focus on particular EA elements being implemented by organizations

2023 Crummer Truist Portfolio Recommendations: Crummer Investment Management 24th Anniversary

We would like to thank you for your service to the Crummer Truist Portfolio. Without your participation, Crummer students would not benefit from the unique insight you bring to managing an active portfolio. We have been fortunate to listen and learn from some outstanding guest speakers who have been generous with their time and expertise: Phillip Rich, Chief Investment Officer, Seaside Bank; Sarah Passero, Senior Consultant, EY; Shawn Fletcher, Financial Analyst, The Walt Disney Company; Ryan Abronski, Venture Capital Associate, Morgan Creek Digital; Robert Zhang, Senior Research Analyst, DePrince, Race and Zollo; Dr. William Seyfried, Professor, Crummer Graduate School of Business; Marc Miller, Partner, DePrince, Race and Zollo; Rick Ahl, President, Ahl Investment Management; Dr. Rob Roy, Senior VP and Chief Investment Officer, AdventHealth; Jay Menozzi, Principal and Chief Investment Officer, Orange Investment Advisors, LLC; Sean Warrington, Partner & Portfolio Manager, Gresham Partners. SunTrust (now Truist) endowed this portfolio to provide scholarships for future Crummer students and to give current students a practical, hands-on learning opportunity. This year, we are pleased to be able to disburse $55,000 to be used for scholarships. We are extremely grateful for SunTrust’s generosity and investment in higher education. We have all learned a great deal from this experience and the responsibility of managing real money. Our first challenge is to establish a portfolio position that takes advantage of economic opportunities while avoiding unnecessary risk and conforming to the Crummer Truist Investment Policy Statement (IPS). We are also tasked by the IPS to operate at two levels simultaneously – tactical for the near term, and strategic for the long run. Additionally, this portfolio presents some unusual portfolio management challenges by trading only once a year, in early April. Our tactical approach began with a top-down sector analysis. We established an economic forecast based on research and consultation with economists, including Professor William Seyfried of the Crummer School and Philip Rich of Seaside Bank. We based our equity and fixed income split on that forecast with a 20% allocation to bonds, at the highest level allowed by the IPS. That forecast also drove our allocation among the eleven S&P sectors: Communication Services, Consumer Discretionary, Consumer Staples, Energy, Financials, Healthcare, Industrials, Information Technology, Materials, Real Estate, and Utilities. Within the next twelve-month period, we forecast stagnant economic growth that will not quite be a recession. Accordingly, we tilted the allocation towards sectors that should do well in such a macro environment while paying attention to ongoing recovery from inflationary pressures as well as other issues such as the ongoing war in Ukraine. Our asset class allocation embodies the long-run strategy of our portfolio. The IPS sets asset class ranges from low to moderate risk to keep the portfolio from being whipsawed by transitory market cycles. Our equity allocations signify a heightened level of risk, consistent with our view that the stock market will relatively underperform the fixed income market through the end of March 2024. We maintain an allocation to a sector ETF in each sector to ensure diversification. Due to enrollment constraints, we actively manage eight sectors this year with a limit of two individual stocks in each sector. The remaining sectors are invested 100% in their sector ETF. Fixed income is our anchor sector, providing a hedge against the risk of an economic slowdown adversely impacting our equity holdings. Consistent with our non-parallel shifting yield curve projection, we are at the high end of our IPS range for fixed income at 20%, but towards the lower end of the permissible duration level. Furthermore, we have continued to incorporate the theme of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investing into our portfolio selection process. While ESG investing has become a lightning rod and ESG ratings have been under heavy criticism for lack of consistency, the fund flows into this domain have continued to grow globally. Regardless of a security’s consistency with this theme, all recommendations must be undervalued after rigorous quantitative and qualitative analysis. In other words, our intent is not to maximize the ESG impact of our portfolio but to tilt towards this factor. Specifically, the proposed equity holdings in this year’s portfolio have a weighted average FTSE ESG score of 3.56 out of 5, while S&P 500 holdings have a cap-weighted average score of 3.34. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have witnessed three extraordinary and unpredictable years in many respects. Inflation levels that have not been seen in the past 40 years, supply chain problems, the Russian-Ukrainian war, and interest rate hikes at an unprecedented pace have all contributed to an increased uncertainty. We do not intend to simply follow the crowd. Yet, echoing the philosophy of Warren Buffett, “our opinions and beliefs, grounded in economics and guided by all of those who have counseled us,” lead us to a strategy that is not significantly different from many investors. Even so, we accept responsibility for our investment decisions. We are investing for the long-term and we have been conservative in our forecasts and recommendations. Simultaneously, in the short term, we are mindful of the need to protect the portfolio’s commitment to scholarships. We thank you for your time and participation in this important endeavor. - Sincerely, The Crummer Investment Management Tea

Enterprise architecture as tool for managing operational complexity in organizations

Different types of companies and organizations around the world, in spite its size, economic activity, nature, capital managed by them, and many more aspects, are heading towards diverse daily challenges that must be overcomed agilely, in order to compete successfully in a globalized world operating under highly dynamic environments. In this sense, the fact that companies in its internal operation, must be prepared well enough to respond efficiently, agile and innovative to the challenges and needs they face is taking more relevance. This paper states the importance of information technologys and the development of an enterprise architecture model, as an instrument that allows companies to face challenges related to complexity which is represented in the organization's operative environment

ATTRACTING AND RETAINING INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION STUDENTS: IRELAND. ESRI RESEARCH SERIES NUMBER 88 MAY 2019

International student mobility has grown significantly worldwide over the past two decades, increasing from two million to five million between 1999 and 2016 (OECD, 2018). The EU is one of the main destinations for international students, with 1.6 million international students enrolled in the EU in 2016 (OECD, 2018). The importance of attracting international students was most recently highlighted in EU Directive 2016/801 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purpose of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing.1 While Ireland has not opted into the Directive, the publication of two international education strategies since 2010 and reform of the non-EEA student immigration framework reflect the importance now being attached to promoting the higher education of non-EEA students in Ireland. Immigration of non-EEA nationals for the purposes of higher education in Ireland grew by 45 per cent between 2013, when 9,325 first residence permits were issued to students, and 2017, when 13,519 such permits were issued.2 This study examines policy, law and practice in Ireland relating to non-EEA students undertaking a full-time course of study leading to a higher education qualification in public and private third-level institutions. The study focuses on recent developments in policy on the internationalisation of higher education and changes to the student immigration framework that took place between 2012 and 2018. In particular, it looks at measures to attract non-EEA students to Ireland and retain those students following the completion of their studies.3 Non-EEA nationals enrolled in English language and further education programmes are outside the scope of this study

Education Reform for the Digital Era

Will the digital-learning movement repeat the mistakes of the charter-school movement? How much more successful might today's charter universe look if yesterday's proponents had focused on the policies and practices needed to ensure its quality, freedom, and resources over the long term? What mistakes might have been avoided? Damaging scandals forestalled? Missed opportunities seized

Electronic security - risk mitigation in financial transactions : public policy issues

This paper builds on a previous series of papers (see Claessens, Glaessner, and Klingebiel, 2001, 2002) that identified electronic security as a key component to the delivery of electronic finance benefits. This paper and its technical annexes (available separately at http://www1.worldbank.org/finance/) identify and discuss seven key pillars necessary to fostering a secure electronic environment. Hence, it is intended for those formulating broad policies in the area of electronic security and those working with financial services providers (for example, executives and management). The detailed annexes of this paper are especially relevant for chief information and security officers responsible for establishing layered security. First, this paper provides definitions of electronic finance and electronic security and explains why these issues deserve attention. Next, it presents a picture of the burgeoning global electronic security industry. Then it develops a risk-management framework for understanding the risks and tradeoffs inherent in the electronic security infrastructure. It also provides examples of tradeoffs that may arise with respect to technological innovation, privacy, quality of service, and security in designing an electronic security policy framework. Finally, it outlines issues in seven interrelated areas that often need attention in building an adequate electronic security infrastructure. These are: 1) The legal framework and enforcement. 2) Electronic security of payment systems. 3) Supervision and prevention challenges. 4) The role of private insurance as an essential monitoring mechanism. 5) Certification, standards, and the role of the public and private sectors. 6) Improving the accuracy of information on electronic security incidents and creating better arrangements for sharing this information. 7) Improving overall education on these issues as a key to enhancing prevention.Knowledge Economy,Labor Policies,International Terrorism&Counterterrorism,Payment Systems&Infrastructure,Banks&Banking Reform,Education for the Knowledge Economy,Knowledge Economy,Banks&Banking Reform,International Terrorism&Counterterrorism,Governance Indicators

The Next Wave: Federal Regulatory, Intellectual Property, and Tort Liability Considerations for Medical Device Software, 2 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 259 (2003)

Counsel for the medical software technologist faces an unusually complex, ongoing, high-stakes challenge. Counsel operates in a special field of commercial, legal and regulatory forces: (1) intellectual property laws which govern the expression and protection of commercial rights derived from advances in medical science and technology; (2) existing and proposed contracts/warranty laws that govern technological commercial relationships; (3) negligence, professional liability, and product liability laws that govern the marketing of medical technologies; and, (4) a new body of regulation derived from the power of the federal government to indirectly provide for the safety, effectiveness, privacy, and security of medical technologies offered to the American public. Against that backdrop, the author provides an illustration of the commercialization of a new medical software technology and suggests a general approach to resolving the primary issues facing the medical software technologist