Author Archives: The Open Group Blog

The Internet of Things is the New Media

By Dave Lounsbury, Chief Technical Officer, The Open Group

A tip of the hat to @artbourbon for pointing out the article “Principles for Open Innovation and Open Leadingship” by Peter Vander Auwera, which led to a TED Talk by Joi Ito with his “Nine Principles of the Media Lab”. Something in this presentation struck me:

“Media is plural for Medium, Medium is something in which you can express yourself. The medium was hardware, screens, robots, etc. Now the medium is society, ecosystem, journalism,… Our work looks more like social science.”

Great changes in society often go hand-in-hand with advances in communications, which in turn are tied to improvements in scale or portability of media. Think the printing press, television or even the development of paint in tubes which allowed impressionist painters to get out of the studios to paint water lilies and wheat fields.

295px-Vincent_Van_Gogh_0020

We are seeing a similar advance in the next generation of the Internet. Traditionally, humans interact with computer systems and networks through visual media, like screens of varying sizes and printed material. However, this is changing: Sensors and actuators are shrinking in size and price, and there has been an explosion of devices, new services and applications that network these together into larger systems  to increase their value through Metcalfe’s law. We interact with the actions of these sensors not just with our eyes, but other senses as well – a simple example is the feeling of warmth as your house adjusts its temperature as you arrive home.

These devices, and the platforms that orchestrate their interactions, are the media in which the next generation of the internet will be painted. We call it the Internet of Things today, or maybe the Internet of Everything – but in long run, it will become just be the Internet. The expression of connectivity through sensors and devices will soon become as commonplace as social media is today.

Join the conversation! @theopengroup #ogchat

lounsburyDavid is Chief Technical Officer (CTO) and Vice President, Services for The Open Group. As CTO, he ensures that The Open Group’s people and IT resources are effectively used to implement the organization’s strategy and mission.  As VP of Services, David leads the delivery of The Open Group’s proven collaboration processes for collaboration and certification both within the organization and in support of third-party consortia.

David holds a degree in Electrical Engineering from Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and is holder of three U.S. patents.

Leave a comment

Filed under digital technologies, Future Technologies, Internet of Things, Open Platform 3.0, Uncategorized

Q&A with Marshall Van Alstyne, Professor, Boston University School of Management and Research Scientist MIT Center for Digital Business

By The Open Group

The word “platform” has become a nearly ubiquitous term in the tech and business worlds these days. From “Platform as a Service” (PaaS) to IDC’s Third Platform to The Open Group Open Platform 3.0™ Forum, the concept of platforms and building technology frames and applications on top of them has become the next “big thing.”

Although the technology industry tends to conceive of “platforms” as the vehicle that is driving trends such as mobile, social networking, the Cloud and Big Data, Marshall Van Alstyne, Professor at Boston University’s School of Management and a Research Scientist at the MIT Center for Digital Business, believes that the radical shifts that platforms bring are not just technological.

We spoke with Van Alstyne prior to The Open Group Boston 2014, where he presented a keynote, about platforms, how they have shifted traditional business models and how they are impacting industries everywhere.

The title of your session at the Boston conference was “Platform Shift – How New Open Business Models are Changing the Shape of Industry.” How would you define both “platform” and “open business model”?

I think of “platform” as a combination of two things. One, a set of standards or components that folks can take up and use for production of goods and services. The second thing is the rules of play, or the governance model – who has the ability to participate, how do you resolve conflict, and how do you divide up the royalty streams, or who gets what? You can think of it as the two components of the platform—the open standard together with the governance model. The technologists usually get the technology portion of it, and the economists usually get the governance and legal portions of it, but you really need both of them to understand what a ‘platform’ is.

What is the platform allowing then and how is that different from a regular business model?

The platform allows third parties to conduct business using system resources so they can actually meet and exchange goods across the platform. Wonderful examples of that include AirBnB where you can rent rooms or you can post rooms, or eBay, where you can sell goods or exchange goods, or iTunes where you can go find music, videos, apps and games provided by others, or Amazon where third parties are even allowed to set up shop on top of Amazon. They have moved to a business model where they can take control of the books in addition to allowing third parties to sell their own books and music and products and services through the Amazon platform. So by opening it up to allow third parties to participate, you facilitate exchange and grow a market by helping that exchange.

How does this relate to the concept of the technology industry is defining the “third platform”?

I think of it slightly differently. The tech industry uses mobile and social and cloud and data to characterize it. In some sense this view offers those as the attributes that characterize platforms or the knowledge base that enable platforms. But we would add to that the economic forces that actually shape platforms. What we want to do is give you some of the strategic tools, the incentives, the rules that will actually help you control their trajectory by helping you improve who participates and then measure and improve the value they contribute to the platform. So a full ecosystem view is not just the technology and the data, it also measures the value and how you divide that value. The rules of play really become important.

I think the “third platform” offers marvelous concepts and attributes but you also need to add the economics to it: Why do you participate, who gets what portions of the value, and who ultimately owns control.

Who does control the platform then?

A platform has multiple parts. Determining who controls what part is the art and design of the governance model. You have to set up control in the right way to motivate people to participate. But before we get to that, let’s go back and complete the idea of what’s an ‘open platform.’

To define an open platform, consider both the right of access and the right to manipulate platform resources, then consider granting those rights to four different parties. One is the user—can they access one another, can they access data, can they access system resources? Another group is developers—can they manipulate system resources, can they add new features to it, can they sell through the platform? The third group is the platform providers. You often think of them as those folks that facilitate access across the platform. To give you an example, iTunes is a single monolithic store, so the provider is simply Apple, but Android, in contrast, allows multiple providers, so there’s a Samsung Android store, an LTC Android store, a Google Android store, there’s even an Amazon version that uses a different version of Android. So that platform has multiple providers each with rights to access users. The fourth group is the party that controls the underlying property rights, who owns the IP. The ability modify the underlying standard and also the rights of access for other parties is the bottom-most layer.

So to answer the question of what is ‘open,’ you have to consider the rights of access of all four groups—the users, developers, the providers and IP rights holders, or sponsors, underneath.

Popping back up a level, we’re trying to motivate different parties to participate in the ecosystem. So what do you give the users? Usually it’s some kind of value. What do you give developers? Usually it’s some set of SDKs and APIs, but also some level of royalties. It’s fascinating. If you look back historically, Amazon initially tried a publishing royalty where they took 70% and gave a minority 30% back to developers. They found that didn’t fly very well and they had to fall back to the app store or software-style royalty, where they’re taking a lower percentage. I think Apple, for example, takes 30 percent, and Amazon is now close to that. You see ranges of royalties going anywhere from a few percent—an example is credit cards—all the way up to iStock photo where they take roughly 70 percent. That’s an extremely high rate, and one that I don’t recommend. We were just contracting for designs at 99Designs and they take a 20 percent cut. That’s probably more realistic, but lower might perhaps even be better—you can create stronger network effect if that’s the case.

Again, the real question of control is how you motivate third parties to participate and add value? If you are allowing them to use resources to create value and keep a lot of that value, then they’re more motivated to participate, to invest, to bring their resources to your platform. If you take most of the value they create, they won’t participate. They won’t add value. One of the biggest challenges for open platforms—what you might call the ‘Field of Dreams’ approach—is that most folks open their platform and assume ‘if you build it, they will come,’ but you really need to reward them to do so. Why would they want to come build with you? There are numerous instances of platforms that opened but no developer chooses to add value—the ecosystem is too small. You have to solve the chicken and egg problem where if you don’t have users, developers don’t want to build for you, but if you don’t have developer apps, then why do users participate? So you’ve got a huge feedback problem. And those are where the economics become critical, you must solve the chicken and egg problem to build and roll out platforms.

It’s not just a technology question; it’s also an economics and rewards question.

Then who is controlling the platform?

The answer depends on the type of platform. Giving different groups a different set of rights creates different types of platform. Consider the four different parties: users, developers, providers, and sponsors. At one extreme, the Apple Mac platform of the 1980s reserved most rights for development, for producing hardware (the provider layer), and for modifying the IP (the sponsor layer) all to Apple. Apple controlled the platform and it remained closed. In contrast, Microsoft relaxed platform control in specific ways. It licensed to multiple providers, enabling Dell, HP, Compaq and others to sell the platform. It gave developers rights of access to SDKs and APIs, enabling them to extend the platform. These control choices gave Microsoft more than six times the number of developers and more than twenty times the market share of Apple at the high point of Microsoft’s dominance of desktop operating systems. Microsoft gave up some control in order to create a more inclusive platform and a much bigger market.

Control is not a single concept. There are many different control rights you can grant to different parties. For example, you often want to give users an ability to control their own data. You often want to give developers intellectual property rights for the apps that they create and often over the data that their users create. You may want to give them some protections against platform misappropriation. Developers resent it if you take their ideas. So if the platform sees a really clever app that’s been built on top of its platform, what’s the guarantee that the platform simply doesn’t take it or build a competing app? You need to protect your developers in that case. Same thing’s true of the platform provider—what guarantees do they provide users for the quality of content provided on their ecosystem? For example, the Android ecosystem is much more open than the iPhone ecosystem, which means you have more folks offering stores. Simultaneously, that means that there are more viruses and more malware in Android, so what rights and guarantees do you require of the platform providers to protect the users in order that they want to participate? And then at the bottom, what rights do other participants have to control the direction of the platform growth? In the Visa model, for example, there are multiple member banks that help to influence the general direction of that credit card standard. Usually the most successful platforms have a single IP rights holder, but there are several examples of that have multiple IP rights holders.

So, in the end control defines the platform as much as the platform defines control.

What is the “secret” of the Internet-driven marketplace? Is that indeed the platform?

The secret is that, in effect, the goal of the platform is to increase transaction volume and value. If you can do that—and we can give you techniques for doing it—then you can create massive scale. Increasing the transaction value and transactions volume across your platform means that the owner of the platform doesn’t have to be the sole source of content and new ideas provided on the platform. If the platform owner is the only source of value then the owner is also the bottleneck. The goal is to consummate matches between producers and consumers of value. You want to help users find the content, find the resources, find the other people that they want to meet across your platform. In Apple’s case, you’re helping them find the music, the video, the games, and the apps that they want. In AirBnB’s case, you’re helping them find the rooms that they want, or Uber, you’re helping them find a driver. On Amazon, the book recommendations help you find the content that you want. In all the truly successful platforms, the owner of the platform is not providing all of that value. They’re enabling third parties to add that value, and that’s one reasy why The Open Group’s ideas are so important—you need open systems for this to happen.

What’s wrong with current linear business models? Why is a network-driven approach superior?

The fundamental reason why the linear business model no longer works is that it does not manage network effects. Network effects allow you to build platforms where users attract other users and you get feedback that grows your system. As more users join your platform, more developers join your platform, which attracts more users, which attracts more developers. You can see it on any of the major platforms. This is also true of Google. As advertisers use Google Search, the algorithms get better, people find the content that they want, so more advertisers use it. As more drivers join Uber, more people are happier passengers, which attracts more drivers. The more merchants accept Visa, the more consumers are willing to carry it, which attracts more merchants, which attracts more consumers. You get positive feedback.

The consequence of that is that you tend to get market concentration—you get winner take all markets. That’s where platforms dominate. So you have a few large firms within a given category, whether this is rides or books or hotels or auctions. Further, once you get network effects changing your business model, the linear insights into pricing, into inventory management, into innovation, into strategy breakdown.

When you have these multi-sided markets, pricing breaks down because you often price differently to one side than another because one side attracts the other. Inventory management practices breakdown because you’re selling inventory that you don’t even own. Your R&D strategies breakdown because now you’re motivating innovation and research outside the boundaries of the firm, as opposed to inside the internal R&D group. And your strategies breakdown because you’re not just looking for cost leadership or product differentiation, now you’re looking to shape the network effects as you create barriers to entry.

One of the things that I really want to argue strenuously is that in markets where platforms will emerge, platforms beat product every time. So the platform business model will inevitably beat the linear, product-based business model. Because you’re harnessing new forces in order to develop a different kind of business model.

Think of it the following way–imagine that value is growing as users consume your product. Think of any of the major platforms, as more folks use Google, search gets better, the more recommendations improve on Amazon, and the easier it is to find a ride on Uber, so more folks want to be on there. It is easier to scale network effects outside your business than inside your business. There’s simply more people outside than inside. The moment that happens, the locus control, the locus of innovation, moves from inside the firm to outside the firm. So the rules change. Pricing changes, your innovation strategies change, your inventory policies change, your R&D changes. You’re now managing resources outside the firm, rather than inside, in order to capture scale. This is different than the traditional industrial supply economies of scale.

Old systems are giving away to new systems. It’s not that the whole system breaks down, it’s simply that you’re looking to manage network effects and manage new business models. Another way to see this is that previously you were managing capital. In the industrial era, you were managing steel, you were managing large amounts of finance in banking, you were managing auto parts—huge supply economies of scale. In telecommunications, you were managing infrastructure. Now, you’re managing communities and these are managed outside the firm. The value that’s been created at Facebook or WhatsApp or Instagram or any of the new acquisitions, it’s not the capital that’s critical, it’s the communities that are critical, and these are built outside the firm.

There is a lot of talk in the industry about the Nexus of Forces as Gartner calls it, or Third Platform (IDC). The Open Group calls it Open Platform 3.0. Your concept goes well beyond technology—how does Open Platform 3.0 enable new business models?

Those are the enablers—they’re shall we say necessary, but they’re not sufficient. You really must harness the economic forces in addition to those enablers—mobile, social, Cloud, data. You must manage communities outside the firm, that’s the mobile and the social element of it. But this also involves designing governance and setting incentives. How are you capturing users outside the organization, how are they contributing, how are they being motivated to participate, why are they spreading your products to their peers? The Cloud allows it to scale—so Instagram and What’s App and others scale. Data allows you to “consummate the match.” You use that data to help people find what they need, to add value, so all of those things are the enablers. Then you have to harness the economics of the enablers to encourage people to do the right thing. You can see the correct intuition if you simply ask what happens if all you offer is a Cloud service and nothing more. Why will anyone use it? What’s the value to that system? If you open APIs to it, again, if you don’t have a user base, why are developers going to contribute? Developers want to reach users. Users want valuable functionality.

You must manage the motives and the value-add on the platform. New business models come from orchestrating not just the technology but also the third party sources of value. One of the biggest challenges is to grow these businesses from scratch—you’ve got the cold start chicken and egg problem. You don’t have network effects if you don’t have a user base, if you don’t have users, you don’t have network effects.

Do companies need to transform themselves into a “business platform” to succeed in this new marketplace? Are there industries immune to this shift?

There is a continuum of companies that are going to be affected. It starts at one end with companies that are highly information intense—anything that’s an information intensive business will be dramatically affected, anything that’s community or fashion-based business will be dramatically affected. Those include companies involved in media and news, songs, music, video; all of those are going to be the canaries in the coalmine that see this first. Moving farther along will be those industries that require some sort of certification—those include law and medicine and education—those, too, will also be platformized, so the services industries will become platforms. Farther down that are the ones that are heavily, heavily capital intensive where control of physical capital is paramount, those include trains and oil rigs and telecommunications infrastructure—eventually those will be affected by platform business models to the extent that data helps them gain efficiencies or add value, but they will in some sense be the last to be affected by platform business models. Look for the businesses where the cost side is shrinking in proportion to the delivery of value and where the network effects are rising as a proportional increase in value. Those forces will help you predict which industries will be transformed.

How can Enterprise Architecture be a part of this and how do open standards play a role?

The second part of that question is actually much easier. How do open standards play a role? The open standards make it much easier for third parties to attach and incorporate technology and features such that they can in turn add value. Open standards are essential to that happening. You do need to ask the question as to who controls those standards—is it completely open or is it a proprietary standard, a published standard but it’s not manipulable by a third party.

There will be at least two or three different things that Enterprise Architects need to do. One of these is to design modular components that are swappable, so as better systems become available, the better systems can be swapped in. The second element will be to watch for components of value that should be absorbed into the platform itself. As an example, in operating systems, web browsing has effectively been absorbed into the platform, streaming has been absorbed into the platform so that they become aware of how that actually works. A third thing they need to do is talk to the legal team to see where it is that the third parties property rights can be protected so that they invest. One of the biggest mistakes that firms make is to simply assume that because they own the platform, because they have the rights of control, that they can do what they please. If they do that, they risk alienating their ecosystems. So they should talk to their potential developers to incorporate developer concerns. One of my favorite examples is the Intel Architecture Lab which has done a beautiful job of articulating the voices of developers in their own architectural plans. A fourth thing that can be done is an idea borrowed from SAP, that builds Enterprise Architecture—they articulate an 18-24 month roadmap where they say these are the features that are coming, so you can anticipate and build on those. Also it gives you an idea of what features will be safe to build on so you won’t lose the value you’ve created.

What can companies do to begin opening their business models and more easily architect that?

What they should do is to consider four groups articulated earlier— those are the users, the providers, the developers and the sponsors—each serve a different role. Firms need to understand what their own role will be in order that they can open and architect the other roles within their ecosystem. They’ll also need to choose what levels of exclusivity they need to give their ecosystem partners in a different slice of the business. They should also figure out which of those components they prefer to offer themselves as unique competencies and where they need to seek third party assistance, either in new ideas or new resources or even new marketplaces. Those factors will help guide businesses toward different kinds of partnerships, and they’ll have to be open to those kinds of partners. In particular, they should think about where are they most likely to be missing ideas or missing opportunities. Those technical and business areas should open in order that third parties can take advantage of those opportunities and add value.

 

vanalstynemarshallProfessor Van Alstyne is one of the leading experts in network business models. He conducts research on information economics, covering such topics as communications markets, the economics of networks, intellectual property, social effects of technology, and productivity effects of information. As co-developer of the concept of “two sided networks” he has been a major contributor to the theory of network effects, a set of ideas now taught in more than 50 business schools worldwide.

Awards include two patents, National Science Foundation IOC, SGER, SBIR, iCorp and Career Awards, and six best paper awards. Articles or commentary have appeared in Science, Nature, Management Science, Harvard Business Review, Strategic Management Journal, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal.

1 Comment

Filed under architecture, Cloud, Conference, Data management, digital technologies, Enterprise Architecture, Governance, Open Platform 3.0, Standards, Uncategorized

Discussing Enterprise Decision-Making with Penelope Everall Gordon

By The Open Group

Most enterprises today are in the process of jumping onto the Big Data bandwagon. The promise of Big Data, as we’re told, is that if every company collects as much data as they can—about everything from their customers to sales transactions to their social media feeds—executives will have “the data they need” to make important decisions that can make or break the company. Not collecting and using your data, as the conventional wisdom has it, can have deadly consequences for any business.

As is often the case with industry trends, the hype around Big Data contains both a fair amount of truth and a fair amount of fuzz. The problem is that within most organizations, that conventional wisdom about the power of data for decision-making is usually just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how and why organizational decisions are made.

According to Penelope Gordon, a consultant for 1Plug Corporation who was recently a Cloud Strategist at Verizon and was formerly a Service Product Strategist at IBM, that’s why big “D” (Data) needs to be put back into the context of enterprise decision-making. Gordon, who spoke at The Open Group Boston 2014, in the session titled “Putting the D Back in Decision” with Jean-Francois Barsoum of IBM, argues that a focus on collecting a lot of data has the potential to get in the way of making quality decisions. This is, in part, due to the overabundance of data that’s being collected under the assumption that you never know where there’s gold to be mined in your data, so if you don’t have all of it at hand, you may just miss something.

Gordon says that assuming the data will make decisions obvious also ignores the fact that ultimately decisions are made by people—and people usually make decisions based on their own biases. According to Gordon, there are three types of natural decision making styles—heart, head and gut styles—corresponding to different personality types, she said; the greater the amount of data the more likely that it will not balance the natural decision-making style.

Head types, Gordon says, naturally make decisions based on quantitative evidence. But what often happens is that head types often put off making a decision until more data can be collected, wanting more and more data so that they can make the best decision based on the facts. She cites former President Bill Clinton as a classic example of this type. During his presidency, he was famous for putting off decision-making in favor of gathering more and more data before making the decision, she says. Relying solely on quantitative data also can mean you may miss out on other important factors in making optimal decisions based on either heart (qualitative) or instinct. Conversely, a gut-type presented with too much data will likely just end up ignoring data and acting on instinct, much like former President George W. Bush, Gordon says.

Gordon believes part of the reason that data and decisions are more disconnected than one might think is because IT and Marketing departments have become overly enamored with what technology can offer. These data providers need to step back and first examine the decision objectives as well as the governance behind those decisions. Without understanding the organization’s decision-making processes and the dynamics of the decision-makers, it can be difficult to make optimal and effective strategic recommendations, she says, because you don’t have the full picture of what the stakeholders will or will not accept in terms of a recommendation, data or no data.

Ideally, Gordon says, you want to get to a point where you can get to the best decision outcome possible by first figuring out the personal and organizational dynamics driving decisions within the organization, shifting the focus from the data to the decision for which the data is an input.

“…what you’re trying to do is get the optimal outcome, so your focus needs to be on the outcome, so when you’re collecting the data and assessing the data, you also need to be thinking about ‘how am I going to present this data in a way that it is going to be impactful in improving the decision outcomes?’ And that’s where the governance comes into play,” she said.

Governance is of particular importance now, Gordon says, because decisions are increasingly being made by individual departments, such as when departments buy their own cloud-enabled services, such as sales force automation. In that case, an organization needs to have a roadmap in place with compensation to incent decision-makers to adhere to that roadmap and decision criteria for buying decisions, she said.

Gordon recommends that companies put in place 3-5 top criteria for each decision that needs to be made so that you can ensure that the decision objectives are met. This distillation of the metrics gives decision-makers a more comprehensible picture of their data so that their decisions don’t become either too subjective or disconnected from the data. Lower levels of metrics can be used underneath each of those top-level criteria to facilitate a more nuanced valuation. For example, if an organization needing to find good partner candidates scored and ranked (preferably in tiers) potential partners using decision criteria based on the characteristics of the most attractive partner, rather than just assuming that companies with the best reputation or biggest brands will be the best, then they will expeditiously identify the optimal partner candidates.

One of the reasons that companies have gotten so concerned with collecting and storing data rather than just making better decisions, Gordon believes, is that business decisions have become inherently more risky. The required size of investment is increasing in tandem with an increase in the time to return; time to return is a key determinant of risk. Data helps people feel like they are making competent decisions but in reality does little to reduce risk.

“If you’ve got lots of data, then the thinking is, ‘well, I did the best that I could because I got all of this data.’ People are worried that they might miss something,“ she said. “But that’s where I’m trying to come around and say, ‘yeah, but going and collecting more data, if you’ve got somebody like President Clinton, you’re just feeding into their tendency to put off making decisions. If you’ve got somebody like President Bush and you’re feeding into their tendency to ignore it, then there may be some really good information, good recommendations they’re ignoring.”

Gordon also says that having all the data possible to work with isn’t usually necessary—generally a representative sample will do. For example, she says the U.S Census Bureau takes the approach where it tries to count every citizen; consequently certain populations are chronically undercounted and inaccuracies pass undetected. The Canadian census, on the other hand, uses representative samples and thus tends to be much more accurate—and much less expensive to conduct. Organizations should also think about how they can find representative or “proxy” data in cases where collecting data that directly addresses a top-level decision criteria isn’t really practical.

To begin shifting the focus from collecting data inputs to improving decision outcomes, Gordon recommends clearly stating the decision objectives for each major decision and then identifying and defining the 3-5 criteria that are most important for achieving the decision objectives. She also recommends ensuring that there is sufficient governance and a process in place for making decisions including mechanisms for measuring the performance of the decision-making process and the outcomes resulting from the execution of that process. In addition, companies need to consider whether their decisions are made in a centralized or decentralized manner and then adapt decision governance accordingly.

One way that Enterprise Architects can help to encourage better decision-making within the organizations in which they work is to help in developing that governance rather than just providing data or data architectures, Gordon says. They should help stakeholders identify and define the important decision criteria, determine when full population rather than representative sampling is justified, recognize better methods for data analysis, and form decision recommendations based on that analysis. By gauging the appropriate blend of quantitative and qualitative data for a particular decision maker, an Architect can moderate gut types’ reliance on instinct and stimulate head and heart types’ intuition – thereby producing an optimally balanced decision. Architects should help lead and facilitate execution of the decision process, as well as help determine how data is presented within organizations in order to support the recommendations with the highest potential for meeting the decision objectives.

Join the conversation – #ogchat

penelopegordonPenelope Gordon recently led the expansion of the channel and service packaging strategies for Verizon’s cloud network products. Previously she was an IBM Strategist and Product Manager bringing emerging technologies such as predictive analytics to market. She helped to develop one of the world’s first public clouds.

 

 

2 Comments

Filed under architecture, Conference, Data management, Enterprise Architecture, Governance, Professional Development, Uncategorized

Case Study – ArchiMate®, An Open Group Standard: Public Research Centre Henri Tudor and Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg

By The Open Group

The Public Research Centre Henri Tudor is an institute of applied research aimed at reinforcing the innovation capacity at organizations and companies and providing support for national policies and international recognition of Luxembourg’s scientific community. Its activities include applied and experimental research; doctoral research; the development of tools, methods, labels, certifications and standards; technological assistance; consulting and watch services; and knowledge and competency transfer. Its main technological domains are advanced materials, environmental, Healthcare, information and communication technologies as well as business organization and management. The Centre utilizes its competencies across a number of industries including Healthcare, industrial manufacturing, mobile, transportation and financial services among others.

In 2012, the Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg allowed Tudor to experiment with an access rights management system modeled using ArchiMate®, an Open Group standard. This model was tested by CRP Tudor to confirm the approach used by the hospital’s management to grant employees, nurses and doctors permission to access patient records.

Background

The Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg is a public hospital that focuses on severe pathologies, medical and surgical emergencies and palliative care. The hospital also has an academic research arm. The hospital employs a staff of approximately 2,000, including physicians and specialized employees, medical specialists, nurses and administrative staff. On average the hospital performs more than 450,000 outpatient services, 30,000 inpatient services and more than 60,000 adult and pediatric emergency services, respectively, per year.

Unlike many hospitals throughout the world, the Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg is open and accessible 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Accessing patient records is required at the hospital at any time, no matter the time of day or weekend. In addition, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has a system where medical emergencies are allocated to one hospital each weekend across each of the country’s three regions. In other words, every two weeks, one hospital within a given region is responsible for all of the incoming medical emergencies on its assigned weekend, affecting patient volume and activity.

Access rights management

As organizations have become not only increasingly global but also increasingly digital, access rights management has become a critical component of keeping institutional information secure so that it does not fall into the wrong hands. Managing access to internal information is a critical component of every company’s security strategy, but it is particularly important for organizations that deal with sensitive information about consumers, or in the case of the Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg, patients.

Modeling an access rights management system was important for the hospital for a number of reasons. First, European privacy laws dictate that only the people who require information regarding patient medical files should be allowed access to those files. Although privacy laws may restrict access to patient records, a rights management system must be flexible enough to grant access to the correct individuals when necessary.

In the case of a hospital such as the Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg, access to information may be critical for the life of the patient. For instance, if a patient was admitted to the emergency room, the emergency room physician will be able to better treat the patient if he or she can access the patient’s records, even if they are not the patient’s primary care physician. Admitting personnel may also need access to records at the time of admittance. Therefore, a successful access rights management system must combine a balance between restricting information and providing flexible access as necessary, giving the right access at the right time without placing an administrative burden on the doctors or staff.

The project

Prior to the experiment in which the Public Research Centre Henri Tudor tested this access rights management model, the Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg had not experienced any problems in regard to its information sharing system. However, its access rights were still being managed by a primarily paper-based system. As part of the scope of the project, the hospital was also looking to become compliant with existing privacy laws. Developing an access rights management model was intended to close the gap within the hospital between restricting access to patient information overall and providing new rights, as necessary, to employees that would allow them to do their work without endangering patient lives. From a technical perspective, the access rights management system also needed not only to work in conjunction with existing applications, such as the ERP system, used within the hospital but also support rights management at the business layer.

Most current access rights managements systems provide information access to individuals based on a combination of the functional requirements necessary for employees to do their jobs and governance rights, which provide the protections that will keep the organization and its information safe and secure. What many existing models have failed to take into account is that most access control models and rights engineering methods don’t adequately represent both sides of this equation. As such, determining the correct level of access for different employees within organizations can be difficult.

Modeling access rights management

Within the Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg, employee access rights were defined based on individual job responsibilities and job descriptions. To best determine how to grant access rights across an hospital, the Public Research Centre Henri Tudor needed to create a system that could take these responsibilities into account, rather than just rely on functional or governance requirements.

To create an access rights management model that would work with the hospital’s existing processes and ERP software, the Public Research Centre Henri Tudor first needed to come up with a way to model responsibility requirements instead of just functional or governance requirements. According to Christophe Feltus, Research Engineer at the Public Research Centre, defining a new approach based on actor or employee responsibilities was the first step in creating a new model for the hospital.

Although existing architecture modeling languages provide views for many different types of stakeholders within organizations—from executives to IT and project managers—no modeling language had previously been used to develop a view dedicated to access rights management, Feltus says. As such, that view needed to be created and modeled anew for this project.

To develop this new view, the Public Research Centre needed to find an architecture modeling language that was flexible enough to accommodate such an extension. After evaluating three separate modeling languages, they chose ArchiMate®, an Open Group Standard and open and independent modeling language, to help them visualize the relationships among the hospital’s various employees in an unambiguous way.

Much like architectural drawings are used in building architecture to describe the various aspects of construction and building use, ArchiMate provides a common language for describing how to construct business processes, organizational structures, information flows, IT systems and technical infrastructures. By providing a common language and visual representation of systems, ArchiMate helps stakeholders within organizations design, assess and communicate how decisions and changes within business domains will affect the organization.

According to Feltus, Archimate provided a well-formalized language for the Public Research Centre to portray the architecture needed to model the access rights management system they wanted to propose for Centre Hospitalier. Because ArchiMate is a flexible and open language, it also provided an extension mechanism that could accommodate the responsibility modeling language (ReMMo) that the engineering team had developed for the hospital.

In addition to providing the tools and extensions necessary for the engineering team to properly model the hospital’s access rights system, the Public Research Centre also chose ArchiMate because it is an open and vendor-neutral modeling language. As a publically funded institution, it was important that the Public Research Centre avoided using vendor-specific tools that would lock them in to a potentially costly cycle of constant version upgrades.

“What was very interesting [about ArchiMate] was that it was an open and independent solution. This is very important for us. As a public company, it’s preferable not to use private solutions. This was something very important,” said Feltus.

Feltus notes that using ArchiMate to model the access rights project was also a relatively easy and intuitive process. “It was rather easy,” Feltus said. “The concepts are clear and recommendations are well done, so it was easy to explore the framework.” The most challenging part of the project was selecting which extension mechanism would best portray the design and model they wanted to use.

Results

After developing the access rights model using ArchiMate, the responsibility metamodel was presented to the hospital’s IT staff by the Public Research Centre Henri Tudor. The Public Research Centre team believes that the responsibility model created using ArchiMate allows for better alignment between the hospital’s business processes defined at the business layer with their IT applications being run at the application layer. The team also believes the model could both enhance provisioning of access rights to employees and improve the hospital’s performance. For example, using the proposed responsibility model, the team found that some employees in the reception department had been assigned more permissions than they required in practice. Comparing the research findings with the reality on the ground at the hospital has shown the Public Research Centre team that ArchiMate is an effective tool for modeling and determining both responsibilities and access rights within organizations.

Due to the ease of use and success the Public Research Centre Henri Tudor experienced in using ArchiMate to create the responsibility model and the access rights management system for the hospital, Tudor also intends to continue to use ArchiMate for other public and private research projects as appropriate.

Follow The Open Group @theopengroup, #ogchat and / or let us know your thoughts on the blog here.

 

4 Comments

Filed under ArchiMate®, Healthcare, Standards, Uncategorized

The Open Group Boston 2014 – Day Two Highlights

By Loren K. Bayes, Director, Global Marketing Communications

Enabling Boundaryless Information Flow™  continued in Boston on Tuesday, July 22Allen Brown, CEO and President of The Open Group welcomed attendees with an overview of the company’s second quarter results.

The Open Group membership is at 459 organizations in 39 countries, including 16 new membership agreements in 2Q 2014.

Membership value is highlighted by the collaboration Open Group members experience. For example, over 4,000 individuals attended Open Group events (physically and virtually whether at member meetings, webinars, podcasts, tweet jams). The Open Group website had more than 1 million page views and over 105,000 publication items were downloaded by members in 80 countries.

Brown also shared highlights from The Open Group Forums which featured status on many upcoming white papers, snapshots, reference models and standards, as well as individiual Forum Roadmaps. The Forums are busy developing and reviewing projects such as the Next Version of TOGAF®, an Open Group standard, an ArchiMate® white paper, The Open Group Healthcare Forum charter and treatise, Standard Mils™ APIs and Open Fair. Many publications are translated into multiple languages including Chinese and Portuguese. Also, a new Forum will be announced in the third quarter at The Open Group London 2014 so stay tuned for that launch news!

Our first keynote of the day was Making Health Addictive by Joseph Kvedar, MD, Partners HealthCare, Center for Connected Health.

Dr. Kvedar described how Healthcare delivery is changing, with mobile technology being a big part. Other factors pushing changes are reimbursement paradigms and caregivers being paid to be more efficient and interested in keeping people healthy and out of hospitals. The goal of Healthcare providers is to integrate care into the day-to-day lives of patients. Healthcare also aims for better technologies and architecture.

Mobile is a game-changer in Healthcare because people are “always on and connected”. Mobile technology allows for in-the-moment messaging, ability to capture health data (GPS, accelerator, etc.) and display information in real time as needed. Bottom-line, smartphones are addictive so they are excellent tools for communication and engagement.

But there is a need to understand and address the implications of automating Healthcare: security, privacy, accountability, economics.

The plenary continued with Proteus Duxbury, CTO, Connect for Health Colorado, who presented From Build to Run at the Colorado Health Insurance Exchange – Achieving Long-term Sustainability through Better Architecture.

Duxbury stated the keys to successes of his organization are the leadership and team’s shared vision, a flexible vendor being agile with rapidly changing regulatory requirements, and COTS solution which provided minimal customization and custom development, resilient architecture and security. Connect for Health experiences many challenges including budget restraints, regulation and operating in a “fish bowl”. Yet, they are on-track with their three-year ‘build to run’ roadmap, stabilizing their foundation and gaining efficiencies.

During the Q&A with Allen Brown following each presentation, both speakers emphasized the need for standards, architecture and data security.

Brown and DuxburyAllen Brown and Proteus Duxbury

During the afternoon, track sessions consisted of Healthcare, Enterprise Architecture (EA) & Business Value, Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA), Security & Risk Management, Professional Development and ArchiMate Tutorials. Chris Armstrong, President, Armstrong Process Group, Inc. discussed Architecture Value Chain and Capability Model. Laura Heritage, Principal Solution Architect / Enterprise API Platform, SOA Software, presented Protecting your APIs from Threats and Hacks.

The evening culminated with a reception at the historic Old South Meeting House, where the Boston Tea Party began in 1773.

photo2

IMG_2814Networking Reception at Old South Meeting House

A special thank you to our sponsors and exhibitors at The Open Group Boston 2014: BiZZdesign, Black Duck, Corso, Good e-Learning, Orbus and AEA.

Join the conversation #ogBOS!

Loren K. BaynesLoren K. Baynes, Director, Global Marketing Communications, joined The Open Group in 2013 and spearheads corporate marketing initiatives, primarily the website, blog and media relations. Loren has over 20 years experience in brand marketing and public relations and, prior to The Open Group, was with The Walt Disney Company for over 10 years. Loren holds a Bachelor of Business Administration from Texas A&M University. She is based in the US.

Leave a comment

Filed under Accreditations, Boundaryless Information Flow™, Business Architecture, COTS, Data management, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Transformation, Healthcare, Information security, Open FAIR Certification, OTTF, RISK Management, Service Oriented Architecture, Standards, Uncategorized

The Open Group Boston 2014 – Day One Highlights

By Loren K. Baynes, Director, Global Marketing Communications

The Open Group kicked off Enabling Boundaryless Information Flow™  July 21 at the spectacular setting of the Hyatt Boston Harbor. Allen Brown, CEO and President of The Open Group, welcomed over 150 people from 20 countries, including as far away as Australia, Japan, Saudi Arabia and India.

The first keynote speaker was Marshall Van Alstyne, Professor at Boston University School of Management & Researcher at MIT Center for Digital Business, known as a leading expert in business models. His presentation entitled Platform Shift – How New Open Business Models are Changing the Shape of Industry posed the questions “What does ‘openness’ mean? Why do platforms beat products every time?”.

Van AlstyneMarshall Van Alstyne

According to “InterBrand: 2014 Best Global Brands”, 13 of the top 31 companies are “platform companies”. To be a ‘platform’, a company needs embeddable functions or service and allow 3rd party access. Alystyne noted, “products have features, platforms have communities”. Great standalone products are not sufficient. Positive changes experienced by a platform company include pricing/profitability, supply chains, internal organization, innovation, decreased industry bottlenecks and strategy.

Platforms benefit from broad contributions, as long as there is control of the top several complements. Alstyne commented, “If you believe in the power of community, you need to embrace the platform.”

The next presentation was Open Platform 3.0™ – An Integrated Approach to the Convergence of Technology Platforms, by Dr. Chris Harding, Director for Interoperability, The Open Group. Dr. Harding discussed how society has developed a digital society.

1970 was considered the dawn of an epoch which saw the First RAM chip, IBM introduction of System/370 and a new operating system – UNIX®. Examples of digital progress since that era include driverless cars and Smart Cities (management of traffic, energy, water, communication).

Digital society enablers are digital structural change and corporate social media. The benefits are open innovation, open access, open culture, open government and delivering more business value.

Dr. Harding also noted, standards are essential to innovation and enable markets based on integration. The Open Group Open Platform 3.0™ is using ArchiMate®, an Open Group standard, to analyze the 30+ business use cases produced by the Forum. The development cycle is understanding, analysis, specification, iteration.

Dr. Harding emphasized the importance of Boundaryless Information Flow™, as an enabler of business objectives and efficiency through IT standards in the era of digital technology, and designed for today’s agile enterprise with direct involvement of business users.

Both sessions concluded with an interactive audience Q&A hosted by Allen Brown.

The last session of the morning’s plenary was a panel: The Internet of Things and Interoperability. Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, moderated the panel. Participating in the panel were Said Tabet, CTO for Governance, Risk and Compliance Strategy, EMC; Penelope Gordon, Emerging Technology Strategist, 1Plug Corporation; Jean-Francois Barsoum, Senior Managing Consultant, Smarter Cities, Water & Transportation, IBM; and Dave Lounsbury, CTO, The Open Group.

IoT PanelIoT Panel – Gardner, Barsoum, Tabet, Lounsbury, Gordon

The panel explored the practical limits and opportunities of Internet of Things (IoT). The different areas discussed include obstacles to decision-making as big data becomes more prolific, openness, governance and connectivity of things, data and people which pertain to many industries such as smart cities, manufacturing and healthcare.

How do industries, organizations and individuals deal with IoT? This is not necessarily a new problem, but an accelerated one. There are new areas of interoperability but where does the data go and who owns the data? Openness is important and governance is essential.

What needs to change most to see the benefits of the IoT? The panel agreed there needs to be a push for innovation, increased education, move beyond models of humans managing the interface (i.e. machine-to-machine) and determine what data is most important, not always collecting all the data.

A podcast and transcript of the Internet of Things and Interoperability panel will be posted soon.

The afternoon was divided into several tracks: Boundaryless Information Flow™, Open Platform 3.0™ and Enterprise Architecture (EA) & Enterprise Transformation. Best Practices for Enabling Boundaryless Information Flow across the Government was presented by Syed Husain, Consultant Enterprise Architecture, Saudi Arabia E-government Authority. Robert K. Pucci, CTO, Communications Practice, Cognizant Technology Solutions discussed Business Transformation Justification Leveraging Business and Enterprise Architecture.

The evening concluded with a lively networking reception at the hotel.

Join the conversation #ogBOS!

Loren K. BaynesLoren K. Baynes, Director, Global Marketing Communications, joined The Open Group in 2013 and spearheads corporate marketing initiatives, primarily the website, blog and media relations. Loren has over 20 years experience in brand marketing and public relations and, prior to The Open Group, was with The Walt Disney Company for over 10 years. Loren holds a Bachelor of Business Administration from Texas A&M University. She is based in the US.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under ArchiMate®, Boundaryless Information Flow™, Business Architecture, Conference, Data management, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Transformation, Healthcare, Interoperability, Open Platform 3.0, Professional Development, Standards, Uncategorized

The Open Group Boston 2014 – Q&A with Proteus Duxbury, Connect for Health Colorado

By The Open Group

The U.S. healthcare industry is undergoing a major sea change right now due in part to the Affordable Care Act, as well as the need to digitize legacy systems that have remained largely paper-based in order to better facilitate information exchange.

Proteus Duxbury, the CTO for the state of Colorado’s health insurance exchange, Connect for Health Colorado, has a wide and varied background in healthcare IT ranging from IT consulting and helping to lead a virtual health medicine group to his current position running the supporting technologies operating the Colorado exchange. Duxbury joined Connect for Health Colorado early 2014 as the exchange was going through its first major enrollment period.

We spoke to Duxbury in advance of his keynote on July 22 at The Open Group Boston 2014 conference about the current state of healthcare IT and how Enterprise Architecture will play an integral part in the Connect for Health Colorado exchange moving forward as the organizations transitions from a start-up culture to a maintenance and run mode.

Below is a transcript of that conversation.

What factors went into making the roll-out of Connect for Health Colorado healthcare exchange a success?

There were three things. The first is we have an exceptional leadership team. The CEO, especially, is a fantastic leader and was able to create a strong vision and have her team rally quickly behind it. The executive team was empowered to make decisions quickly and there was a highly dedicated work force and a powerful start-up culture. In addition, there was a uniformly shared passion to see healthcare reform successfully implemented in Colorado.

The second reason for success was the flexibility and commitment of our core vendor—which is CGI—and their ability to effectively manage and be agile with rapidly changing regulatory requirements and rapidly changing needs. These systems had never been built anywhere else before; it really was a green field program of work. There was a shared commitment to achieving success and very strong contracting in place ensuring that we were fully protected throughout the whole process.

The third is our COTS (Commercial Off-The-Shelf) solution that was selected. Early on, we established an architecture principle of deploying out-of-the-box products rather than trying to build from scratch, so there was minimal customization and development effort. Scope control was tight. We implemented the hCentive package, which is one of the leading health insurance exchange software packages. Best-of-breed solutions were implemented around the edges where it was necessary to meet a niche need, but we try to build as much into the single product as we can. We have a highly resilient and available architecture. The technical architecture scales well and has been very robust and resilient through a couple of very busy periods at the end of open enrollment, particularly on March 31st and toward the end of December, as the deadline for enrollment in 2014 plans approached.

Why are you putting together an Enterprise Architecture for the exchange?

We’re extremely busy right now with a number of critical projects. We’re still implementing core functionality but we do have a bit of a breather on the horizon. Going into next year things will get lighter, and now is the time for a clear roadmap to achieve the IT strategic objectives that I have set for the organization.

We are trying to achieve a reduction in our M&O (maintenance and operations) expense because we need to be self-sustaining from a budgetary point of view. Our federal funding will be going away starting 2015 so we need to consolidate architecture and systems and gain additional efficiencies. We need to continue to meet our key SLAs, specifically around availability—we have a very public-facing set of systems. IT needs to be operationalized. We need to move from the existing start-up culture to the management of IT in a CMM (Capability Maturity Model) or ITIL-type fashion. And we also need to continue to grow and hold on to our customer base, as there is always a reasonable amount of churn and competing services in a relatively uncertain marketplace. We need to continue to grow our customer base so we can be self-sustaining. To support this, we need to have a more operationalized, robust and cost-efficient IT architecture, and we need a clear roadmap to get there. If you don’t have a roadmap or design that aligns with business priorities, then those things are difficult to achieve.

Finally, I am building up an IT team. To date, we’ve been highly reliant on contractors and consultants to get us to where we are now. In order to reduce our cost base, we are building out our internal IT team and a number of key management roles. That means we need to have a roadmap and something that we can all steer towards—a shared architecture roadmap.

What benefits do you expect to see from implementing the architecture?

Growing our customer base is a critical goal—we need to stabilize the foundations of our IT solution and use that as a platform for future growth and innovation. It’s hard to grow and innovate if you haven’t got your core IT platform stabilized. By making our IT systems easier to be maintained and updated we hope to see continued reduction in IT M&O. High availability is another benefit I expect to see, as well as closer alignment with business goals and business processes and capabilities.

Are there any particular challenges in setting up an Enterprise Architecture for a statewide health exchange? What are they?

I think there are some unique challenges. The first is budget. We do need to be self-sustaining, and there is not a huge amount of budget available for additional capital investments. There is some, but it has to be very carefully allocated, managed and spent diligently. We do work within a tightly controlled federal set of regulations and constraints and are frequently under the spotlight from auditors and others.

There are CMS (Center for Medicaid Services) regulations that define what we can and cannot do with our technology. We have security regulations that we have to exist within and a lot of IRS requirements that we have to meet and be compliant with. We have a complex set of partners to work with in Colorado and nationally—we have to work with Colorado state agencies such as the Department of Insurance and Medicaid (HCPF), we have to work very closely with a large number—we’ve currently got 17—of carriers. We have CMS and the federal marketplace (Federal Data Services Hub). We have one key vendor—CGI—but we are in a multi-vendor environment and all our projects involve having to manage multiple different organizations towards success.

The final challenge is that we’re very busy still building applications and implementing functionality, so my job is to continue to be focused on successful delivery of two very large projects, while ensuring our longer term architecture planning is completed, which is going to be critical for our long-term sustainability. That’s the classic Enterprise Architecture conundrum. I feel like we’ve got a handle on it pretty well here—because they’re both critical.

What are some of the biggest challenges that you see facing the Healthcare industry right now?

Number one is probably integration—the integration of data especially between different systems. A lot of EMR (electronic medical record) systems are relatively closed to the outside world, and it can be expensive and difficult to open them up. Even though there are some good standards out there like HL7 and EDI (Electronic Data Interchange), everyone seems to be implementing them differently.

Personal healthcare tech (mHealth and Telehealth) is not going to take off until there is more integration. For example, between whatever you’re using to track your smoking, blood pressure, weight, etc., it needs to be integrated seamlessly with your medical records and insurance provider. And until this data can be used for meaningful analytics and care planning, until they solve this integration nightmare, it’s going to be difficult really to make great strides.

Security is the second challenge. There’s a huge proliferation of new technology endpoints and there’s a lot of weak leaks around people, process and technology. The regulators are only really starting to catch up, and they’re one step behind. There’s a lot of personal data out there and it’s not always technology that’s the weak leak. We have that pretty tightly controlled here because we’re highly regulated and are technology is tightly controlled, but on the provider side especially, it’s a huge challenge and every week we see a new data breach.

The third challenge is ROI. There’s a lot of investment being made into personal health technology but because we’re in a private insurance market and a private provider market, until someone has really cracked what the ROI is for these initiatives, whether it’s tied to re-admissions or reimbursements, it’s never going to really become mainstream. And until it becomes part of the fabric of care delivery, real value is not going to be realized and health outcomes not significantly improved.

But models are changing—once the shift to outcome-based reimbursement takes hold, providers will be more incentivized to really invest in these kind of technologies and get them working. But that shift hasn’t really occurred yet, and I’ve yet to see really compelling ROI models for a lot of these new investments. I’m a believer that it really has to be the healthcare provider that drives and facilitates the engagement with patients on these new technologies. Ultimately, I believe, people, left to their own devices, will experiment and play with something for a while, but unless their healthcare provider is engaging them actively on it, it’s not something that they will persist in doing. A lot of the large hospital groups are dipping their toe in the water and seeing what sticks, but I don’t really see any system where these new technologies are becoming part of the norm of healthcare delivery.

Do you feel like there are other places that are seeing more success in this outside of the US?

I know in the UK, they’re having a lot of success with their Telehealth pilots. But their primary objective is to make people healthier, so it’s a lot easier in that environment to have a good idea, show that there’s some case for improving outcomes and get funding. In the US, proving outcomes currently isn’t enough. You have to prove that there’s some revenue to be made or cost to be saved. In some markets, they’ve experienced problems similar to the US and in some markets it’s probably been easier. That doesn’t mean they’ve had an easy time implementing them—the UK has had huge problems with integration and with getting EMR systems deployed and implemented nationally. But a lot of those are classical IT problems of change management, scope control and trying to achieve too much too quickly. The healthcare industry is about 20 years behind other industries. They’re going through all the pain with the EMR rollouts that most manufacturing companies went through with ERP 20 years ago and most banks went through 40 years ago.

How can organizations such as The Open Group and its Healthcare Forum better work with the Healthcare industry to help them achieve better results?

I think firstly bringing a perspective from other industries. Healthcare IT conferences and organizations tend to be largely made up of people who have been in healthcare most of their working lives. The Open Group brings in perspective from other industries. Also reference architectures—there’s a shortage of good reference architectures in the healthcare space and that’s something that is really The Open Group’s strong point. Models that span the entire healthcare ecosystem—including payers, providers, pharma and exchanges, IT process and especially IT architecture process—can be improved in healthcare. Healthcare IT departments aren’t as mature as other industries because the investment has not been there until now. They’re in a relative start-up mode. Enterprise Architecture—if you’re a large healthcare provider and you’re growing rapidly through M&O (like so many are right now), that’s a classic use case for having a structured Enterprise Architecture process.

Within the insurance marketplace movement, things have grown very quickly; it’s been tough work. A handful of the states have been very successful, and I think we’re not unique in that we’re a start-up organization and it’s going to be several years until we mature to fully functional, well measured l IT organization. Architecture rigor and process is key to achieving sustainability and maturity.

Join the conversation – #ogchat #ogBOS

duxbury_0Proteus Duxbury joined Connect for Health Colorado as Chief Technology Officer in February 2014, directing technology strategy and operations. Proteus previously served at Catholic Health Initiatives, where he led all IT activities for Virtual Health Services, a division responsible for deploying Telehealth solutions throughout the US. Prior to that, Proteus served as a Managing Consultant at the PA Consulting Group, leading technology change programs in the US and UK primarily in the healthcare and life science industry. He holds a Bachelor of Science in Information Systems Management from Bournemouth University.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under COTS, Enterprise Architecture, Healthcare, Professional Development, Strategy, Uncategorized

The Open Group Boston 2014 Preview: Talking People Architecture with David Foote

By The Open Group

Among all the issues that CIOs, CTOs and IT departments are facing today, staffing is likely near the top of the list of what’s keeping them up at night. Sure, there’s dealing with constant (and disruptive) technological changes and keeping up with the latest tech and business trends, such as having a Big Data, Internet of Things (IoT) or a mobile strategy, but without the right people with the right skills at the right time it’s impossible to execute on these initiatives.

Technology jobs are notoriously difficult to fill–far more difficult than positions in other industries where roles and skillsets may be much more static. And because technology is rapidly evolving, the roles for tech workers are also always in flux. Last year you may have needed an Agile developer, but today you may need a mobile developer with secure coding ability and in six months you might need an IoT developer with strong operations or logistics domain experience—with each position requiring different combinations of tech, functional area, solution and “soft” skillsets.

According to David Foote, IT Industry Analyst and co-founder of IT workforce research and advisory firm Foote Partners, the mash-up of HR systems and ad hoc people management practices most companies have been using for years to manage IT workers have become frighteningly ineffective. He says that to cope in today’s environment, companies need to architect their people infrastructure similar to how they have been architecting their technical infrastructure.

“People Architecture” is the term Foote has coined to describe the application of traditional architectural principles and practices that may already be in place elsewhere within an organization and applying them to managing the IT workforce. This includes applying such things as strategy and capability roadmaps, phase gate blueprints, benchmarks, performance metrics, governance practices and stakeholder management to human capital management (HCM).

HCM components for People Architecture typically include job definition and design, compensation, incentives and recognition, skills demand and acquisition, job and career paths, professional development and work/life balance.

Part of the dilemma for employers right now, Foote says, is that there is very little job title standardization in the marketplace and too many job titles floating around IT departments today. “There are too many dimensions and variability in jobs now that companies have gotten lost from an HR perspective. They’re unable to cope with the complexity of defining, determining pay and laying out career paths for all these jobs, for example. For many, serious retention and hiring problems are showing up for the first time. Work-around solutions used for years to cope with systemic weaknesses in their people management systems have stopped working,” says Foote. “Recruiters start picking off their best people and candidates are suddenly rejecting offers and a panic sets in. Tensions are palpable in their IT workforce. These IT realities are pervasive.”

Twenty-five years ago, Foote says, defining roles in IT departments was easier. But then the Internet exploded and technology became far more customer-facing, shifting basic IT responsibilities from highly technical people deep within companies to roles requiring more visibility and transparency within and outside the enterprise. Large chunks of IT budgets moved into the business lines while traditional IT became more of a business itself.

According to Foote, IT roles became siloed not just by technology but by functional areas such as finance and accounting, operations and logistics, sales, marketing and HR systems, and by industry knowledge and customer familiarity. Then the IT professional services industry rapidly expanded to compete with their customers for talent in the marketplace. Even the architect role changed: an Enterprise Architect today can specialize in applications, security or data architecture among others, or focus on a specific industry such as energy, retail or healthcare.

Foote likens the fragmentation of IT jobs and skillsets that’s happening now to the emergence of IT architecture 25 years ago. Just as technical architecture practices emerged to help make sense of the disparate systems rapidly growing within companies and how best to determine the right future tech investments, a people architecture approach today helps organizations better manage an IT workforce spread through the enterprise with roles ranging from architects and analysts to a wide variety of engineers, developers and project and program managers.

“Technical architecture practices were successful because—when you did them well—companies achieved an understanding of what they have systems-wise and then connected it to where they were going and how they were going to get there, all within a process inclusive of all the various stakeholders who shared the risk in the outcome. It helped clearly define enterprise technology capabilities and gave companies more options and flexibility going forward,” according to Foote.

“Right now employers desperately need to incorporate in human capital management systems and practice the same straightforward, inclusive architecture approaches companies are already using in other areas of their businesses. This can go a long way toward not just lessening staffing shortages but also executing more predictably and being more agile in face of constant uncertainties and the accelerating pace of change. Ultimately this translates into a more effective workforce whether they are full-timers or the contingent workforce of part-timers, consultants and contractors.

“It always comes down to your people. That’s not a platitude but a fact,” insists Foote. “If you’re not competitive in today’s labor marketplace and you’re not an employer where people want to work, you’re dead.”

One industry that he says has gotten it right is the consulting industry. “After all, their assets walk out the door every night. Consulting groups within firms such as IBM and Accenture have been good at architecting their staffing because it’s their job to get out in front of what’s coming technologically. Because these firms must anticipate customer needs before they get the call to implement services, they have to be ahead of the curve in already identifying and hiring the bench strength needed to fulfill demand. They do many things right to hire, develop and keep the staff they need in place.”

Unfortunately, many companies take too much of a just-in-time approach to their workforce so they are always managing staffing from a position of scarcity rather than looking ahead, Foote says. But, this is changing, in part due to companies being tired of never having the people they need and being able to execute predictably.

The key is to put a structure in place that addresses a strategy around what a company needs and when. This applies not just to the hiring process, but also to compensation, training and advancement.

“Architecting anything allows you to be able to, in a more organized way, be more agile in dealing with anything that comes at you. That’s the beauty of architecture. You plan for the fact that you’re going to continue to scale and continue to change systems, the world’s going to continue to change, but you have an orderly way to manage the governance, planning and execution of that, the strategy of that and the implementation of decisions knowing that the architecture provides a more agile and flexible modular approach,” he said.

Foote says organizations such as The Open Group can lend themselves to facilitating People Architecture in a couple different ways. First, through extending the principles of architecture to human capital management, and second through vendor-independent, expertise and experience driven certifications, such as TOGAF® or OpenCA and OpenCITS, that help companies define core competencies for people and that provide opportunities for training and career advancement.

“I’m pretty bullish on many vendor-independent certifications in general, particularly where a defined book of knowledge exists that’s achieved wide acceptance in the industry. And that’s what you’ve got with The Open Group. Nobody’s challenging the architectural framework supremacy of TOGAF that that I’m aware of. In fact, large vendors with their own certifications participated actively in developing the framework and applying it very successfully to their business models,” he said.

Although the process of implementing People Architecture can be difficult and may take several years to master (much like Enterprise Architecture), Foote says it is making a huge difference for companies that implement it.

To learn more about People Architecture and models for implementing it, plan to attend Foote’s session at The Open Group Boston 2014 on Tuesday July 22. Foote’s session will address how architectural principles are being applied to human capital so that organizations can better manage their workforces from hiring and training through compensation, incentives and advancement. He will also discuss how career paths for EAs can be architected. Following the conference, the session proceedings will be available to Open Group members and conference attendees at www.opengroup.org.

Join the conversation – #ogchat #ogBOS

footeDavid Foote is an IT industry research pioneer, innovator, and one of the most quoted industry analysts on global IT workforce trends and multiple facets of the human side of technology value creation. His two decades of groundbreaking deep research and analysis of IT-business cross-skilling and technology/business management integration and leading the industry in innovative IT skills demand and compensation benchmarking has earned him a place on a short list of thought leaders in IT human capital management.

A former Gartner and META Group analyst, David leads the research and analytical practice groups at Foote Partners that reach 2,300 customers on six continents.

Leave a comment

Filed under architecture, Conference, Open CA, Open CITS, Professional Development, Standards, TOGAF®, Uncategorized

New Health Data Deluges Require Secure Information Flow Enablement Via Standards, Says The Open Group’s New Healthcare Director

By The Open Group

Below is the transcript of The Open Group podcast on how new devices and practices have the potential to expand the information available to Healthcare providers and facilities.

Listen to the podcast here.

Dana Gardner: Hello, and welcome to a special BriefingsDirect Thought Leadership Interview coming to you in conjunction with The Open Group’s upcoming event, Enabling Boundaryless Information Flow™ July 21-22, 2014 in Boston.

GardnerI’m Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions and I’ll be your host and moderator for the series of discussions from the conference on Boundaryless Information Flow, Open Platform 3.0™, Healthcare, and Security issues.

One area of special interest is the Healthcare arena, and Boston is a hotbed of innovation and adaption for how technology, Enterprise Architecture, and standards can improve the communication and collaboration among Healthcare ecosystem players.

And so, we’re joined by a new Forum Director at The Open Group to learn how an expected continued deluge of data and information about patients, providers, outcomes, and efficiencies is pushing the Healthcare industry to rapid change.

WJason Lee headshotith that, please join me now in welcoming our guest. We’re here with Jason Lee, Healthcare and Security Forums Director at The Open Group. Welcome, Jason.

Jason Lee: Thank you so much, Dana. Good to be here.

Gardner: Great to have you. I’m looking forward to the Boston conference and want to remind our listeners and readers that it’s not too late to sign up. You can learn more at http://www.opengroup.org.

Jason, let’s start by talking about the relationship between Boundaryless Information Flow, which is a major theme of the conference, and healthcare. Healthcare perhaps is the killer application for Boundaryless Information Flow.

Lee: Interesting, I haven’t heard it referred to that way, but healthcare is 17 percent of the US economy. It’s upwards of $3 trillion. The costs of healthcare are a problem, not just in the United States, but all over the world, and there are a great number of inefficiencies in the way we practice healthcare.

We don’t necessarily intend to be inefficient, but there are so many places and people involved in healthcare, it’s very difficult to get them to speak the same language. It’s almost as if you’re in a large house with lots of different rooms, and every room you walk into they speak a different language. To get information to flow from one room to the other requires some active efforts and that’s what we’re undertaking here at The Open Group.

Gardner: What is it about the current collaboration approaches that don’t work? Obviously, healthcare has been around for a long time and there have been different players involved. What’s the hurdle? What prevents a nice, seamless, easy flow and collaboration in information that gets better outcomes? What’s the holdup?

Lee: There are many ways to answer that question, because there are many barriers. Perhaps the simplest is the transformation of healthcare from a paper-based industry to a digital industry. Everyone has walked into an office, looked behind the people at the front desk, and seen file upon file and row upon row of folders, information that’s kept in a written format.

When there’s been movement toward digitizing that information, not everyone has used the same system. It’s almost like trains running on a different gauge track. Obviously if the track going east to west is a different gauge than going north to south, then trains aren’t going to be able to travel on those same tracks. In the same way, healthcare information does not flow easily from one office to another or from one provider to another.

Gardner: So not only do we have disparate strategies for collecting and communicating health data, but we’re also seeing much larger amounts of data coming from a variety of new and different places. Some of them now even involve sensors inside of patients themselves or devices that people will wear. So is the data deluge, the volume, also an issue here?

Lee: Certainly. I heard recently that an integrated health plan, which has multiple hospitals involved, contains more elements of data than the Library of Congress. As information is collected at multiple points in time, over a relatively short period of time, you really do have a data deluge. Figuring out how to find your way through all the data and look at the most relevant for the patient is a great challenge.

Gardner: I suppose the bad news is that there is this deluge of data, but it’s also good news, because more data means more opportunity for analysis, a better ability to predict and determine best practices, and also provide overall lower costs with better patient care.

So it seems like the stakes are rather high here to get this right, to not just crumble under a volume or an avalanche of data, but to master it, because it’s perhaps the future. The solution is somewhere in there too.

Lee: No question about it. At The Open Group, our focus is on solutions. We, like others, put a great deal of effort into describing the problems, but figuring out how to bring IT technologies to bear on business problems, how to encourage different parts of organizations to speak to one another and across organizations to speak the same language, and to operate using common standards and language. That’s really what we’re all about.

And it is, in a large sense, part of the process of helping to bring healthcare into the 21st Century. A number of industries are a couple of decades ahead of healthcare in the way they use large datasets — big data, some people refer to it as. I’m talking about companies like big department stores and large online retailers. They really have stepped up to the plate and are using that deluge of data in ways that are very beneficial to them, and healthcare can do the same. We’re just not quite at the same level of evolution.

Gardner: And to your point, the stakes are so much higher. Retail is, of course, a big deal in the economy, but as you pointed out, healthcare is such a much larger segment and portion. So just making modest improvements in communication, collaboration, or data analysis can reap huge rewards.

Lee: Absolutely true. There is the cost side of things, but there is also the quality side. So there are many ways in which healthcare can improve through standardization and coordinated development, using modern technology that cannot just reduce cost, but improve quality at the same time.

Gardner: I’d like to get into a few of the hotter trends, but before we do, it seems that The Open Group has recognized the importance here by devoting the entire second day of their conference in Boston, that will be on July 22, to Healthcare.

Maybe you could give us a brief overview of what participants, and even those who come in online and view recorded sessions of the conference at http://new.livestream.com/opengroup should expect? What’s going to go on July 22nd?

Lee: We have a packed day. We’re very excited to have Dr. Joe Kvedar, a physician at Partners HealthCare and Founding Director of the Center for Connected Health, as our first plenary speaker. The title of his presentation is “Making Health Additive.” Dr. Kvedar is a widely respected expert on mobile health, which is currently the Healthcare Forum’s top work priority. As mobile medical devices become ever more available and diversified, they will enable consumers to know more about their own health and wellness. A great deal of data of potentially useful health data will be generated. How this information can be used–not just by consumers but also by the healthcare establishment that takes care of them as patients, will become a question of increasing importance. It will become an area where standards development and The Open Group can be very helpful.

Our second plenary speaker, Proteus Duxbury, Chief Technology Officer at Connect for Health Colorado,will discuss a major feature of the Affordable Care Act—the health insurance exchanges–which are designed to bring health insurance to tens of millions of people who previously did not have access to it. Mr. Duxbury is going to talk about how Enterprise Architecture–which is really about getting to solutions by helping the IT folks talk to the business folks and vice versa–has helped the State of Colorado develop their Health Insurance Exchange.

After the plenaries, we will break up into 3 tracks, one of which is Healthcare-focused. In this track there will be three presentations, all of which discuss how Enterprise Architecture and the approach to Boundaryless Information Flow can help healthcare and healthcare decision-makers become more effective and efficient.

One presentation will focus on the transformation of care delivery at the Visiting Nurse Service of New York. Another will address stewarding healthcare transformation using Enterprise Architecture, focusing on one of our Platinum members, Oracle, and a company called Intelligent Medical Objects, and how they’re working together in a productive way, bringing IT and healthcare decision-making together.

Then, the final presentation in this track will focus on the development of an Enterprise Architecture-based solution at an insurance company. The payers, or the insurers–the big companies that are responsible for paying bills and collecting premiums–have a very important role in the healthcare system that extends beyond administration of benefits. Yet, payers are not always recognized for their key responsibilities and capabilities in the area of clinical improvements and cost improvements.

With the increase in payer data brought on in large part by the adoption of a new coding system–the ICD-10–which will come online this year, there will be a huge amount of additional data, including clinical data, that become available. At The Open Group, we consider payers—health insurance companies (some of which are integrated with providers)–as very important stakeholders in the big picture..

In the afternoon, we’re going to switch gears a bit and have a speaker talk about the challenges, the barriers, the “pain points” in introducing new technology into the healthcare systems. The focus will return to remote or mobile medical devices and the predictable but challenging barriers to getting newly generated health information to flow to doctors’ offices and into patients records, electronic health records, and hospitals data keeping and data sharing systems.

We’ll have a panel of experts that responds to these pain points, these challenges, and then we’ll draw heavily from the audience, who we believe will be very, very helpful, because they bring a great deal of expertise in guiding us in our work. So we’re very much looking forward to the afternoon as well.

Gardner: It’s really interesting. A couple of these different plenaries and discussions in the afternoon come back to this user-generated data. Jason, we really seem to be on the cusp of a whole new level of information that people will be able to develop from themselves through their lifestyle, new devices that are connected.

We hear from folks like Apple, Samsung, Google, and Microsoft. They’re all pulling together information and making it easier for people to not only monitor their exercise, but their diet, and maybe even start to use sensors to keep track of blood sugar levels, for example.

In fact, a new Flurry Analytics survey showed 62 percent increase in the use of health and fitness application over the last six months on the popular mobile devices. This compares to a 33 percent increase in other applications in general. So there’s an 87 percent faster uptick in the use of health and fitness applications.

Tell me a little bit how you see this factoring in. Is this a mixed blessing? Will so much data generated from people in addition to the electronic medical records, for example, be a bad thing? Is this going to be a garbage in, garbage out, or is this something that could potentially be a game-changer in terms of how people react to their own data and then bring more data into the interactions they have with care providers?

Lee: It’s always a challenge to predict what the market is going to do, but I think that’s a remarkable statistic that you cited. My prediction is that the increased volume of person- generated data from mobile health devices is going to be a game-changer. This view also reflects how the Healthcare Forum members (which includes members from Capgemini, Philips, IBM, Oracle and HP) view the future.

The commercial demand for mobile medical devices, things that can be worn, embedded, or swallowed, as in pills, as you mentioned, is growing ever more. The software and the applications that will be developed to be used with the devices is going to grow by leaps and bounds. As you say, there are big players getting involved. Already some of the pedometer type devices that measure the number of steps taken in a day have captured the interest of many, many people. Even David Sedaris, serious guy that he is, was writing about it recently in ‘The New Yorker’.

What we will find is that many of the health indicators that we used to have to go to the doctor or nurse or lab to get information on will become available to us through these remote devices.

There will be a question, of course, as to reliability and validity of the information, to your point about garbage in, garbage out, but I think standards development will help here This, again, is where The Open Group comes in. We might also see the FDA exercising its role in ensuring safety here, as well as other organizations, in determining which devices are reliable.

The Open Group is working in the area of mobile data and information systems that are developed around them, and their ability to (a) talk to one another and (b) talk to the data devices/infrastructure used in doctors’ offices and in hospitals. This is called interoperability and it’s certainly lacking in the country.

There are already problems around interoperability and connectivity of information in the healthcare establishment as it is now. When patients and consumers start collecting their own data, and the patient is put at the center of the nexus of healthcare, then the question becomes how does that information that patients collect get back to the doctor/clinician in ways in which the data can be trusted and where the data are helpful?

After all, if a patient is wearing a medical device, there is the opportunity to collect data, about blood sugar level let’s say, throughout the day. And this is really taking healthcare outside of the four walls of the clinic and bringing information to bear that can be very, very useful to clinicians and beneficial to patients.

In short, the rapid market dynamic in mobile medical devices and in the software and hardware that facilitates interoperability begs for standards-based solutions that reduce costs and improve quality, and all of which puts the patient at the center. This is The Open Group’s Healthcare Forum’s sweet spot.

Gardner: It seems to me a real potential game-changer as well, and that something like Boundaryless Information Flow and standards will play an essential role. Because one of the big question marks with many of the ailments in a modern society has to do with lifestyle and behavior.

So often, the providers of the care only really have the patient’s responses to questions, but imagine having a trove of data at their disposal, a 360-degree view of the patient to then further the cause of understanding what’s really going on, on a day-to-day basis.

But then, it’s also having a two-way street, being able to deliver perhaps in an automated fashion reinforcements and incentives, information back to the patient in real-time about behavior and lifestyles. So it strikes me as something quite promising, and I look forward to hearing more about it at the Boston conference.

Any other thoughts on this issue about patient flow of data, not just among and between providers and payers, for example, or providers in an ecosystem of care, but with the patient as the center of it all, as you said?

Lee: As more mobile medical devices come to the market, we’ll find that consumers own multiple types of devices at least some of which collect multiple types of data. So even for the patient, being at the center of their own healthcare information collection, there can be barriers to having one device talk to the other. If a patient wants to keep their own personal health record, there may be difficulties in bringing all that information into one place.

So the interoperability issue, the need for standards, guidelines, and voluntary consensus among stakeholders about how information is represented becomes an issue, not just between patients and their providers, but for individual consumers as well.

Gardner: And also the cloud providers. There will be a variety of large organizations with cloud-modeled services, and they are going to need to be, in some fashion, brought together, so that a complete 360-degree view of the patient is available when needed. It’s going to be an interesting time.

Of course, we’ve also looked at many other industries and tried to have a cloud synergy, a cloud-of-clouds approach to data and also the transaction. So it’s interesting how what’s going on in multiple industries is common, but it strikes me that, again, the scale and the impact of the healthcare industry makes it a leader now, and perhaps a driver for some of these long overdue structured and standardized activities.

Lee: It could become a leader. There is no question about it. Moreover, there is a lot Healthcare can learn from other companies, from mistakes that other companies have made, from lessons they have learned, from best practices they have developed (both on the content and process side). And there are issues, around security in particular, where Healthcare will be at the leading edge in trying to figure out how much is enough, how much is too much, and what kinds of solutions work.

There’s a great future ahead here. It’s not going to be without bumps in the road, but organizations like The Open Group are designed and experienced to help multiple stakeholders come together and have the conversations that they need to have in order to push forward and solve some of these problems.

Gardner: Well, great. I’m sure there will be a lot more about how to actually implement some of those activities at the conference. Again, that’s going to be in Boston, beginning on July 21, 2014.

We’ll have to leave it there. We’re about out of time. We’ve been talking with a new Director at The Open Group to learn how an expected continued deluge of data and information about patients and providers, outcomes and efficiencies are all working together to push the Healthcare industry to rapid change. And, as we’ve heard, that might very well spill over into other industries as well.

So we’ve seen how innovation and adaptation around technology, Enterprise Architecture and standards can improve the communication and collaboration among Healthcare ecosystem players.

It’s not too late to register for The Open Group Boston 2014 (http://www.opengroup.org/boston2014) and join the conversation via Twitter #ogchat #ogBOS, where you will be able to learn more about Boundaryless Information Flow, Open Platform 3.0, Healthcare and other relevant topics.

So a big thank you to our guest. We’ve been joined by Jason Lee, Healthcare and Security Forums Director at The Open Group. Thanks so much, Jason.

Lee: Thank you very much.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Boundaryless Information Flow™, Cloud, Conference, Data management, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Transformation, Healthcare, Information security, Interoperability, Open Platform 3.0, Standards, Uncategorized

The Enterprise Architecture Kaleidoscope

By Stuart Boardman, Senior Business Consultant, Business & IT Advisory, KPN Consulting

Last week I attended a Club of Rome (Netherlands) debate about a draft report on sustainability and social responsibility. The author of the report described his approach as being like a kaleidoscope, because the same set of elements can form quite different pictures.

EA 1

Some people had some difficulty with this. They wanted a single picture they could focus on. To me it felt quite natural, because that’s very much what we try to do in Enterprise Architecture (EA) – produce different views of the same whole for the benefit of different stakeholders. And suddenly I realized how to express the relationship between EA and a broader topic like sustainability. That matters to me, because sustainability is something I’m passionate about and I’d like my work to be some small contribution to achieving that.

Before that, I’d been thinking that EA obviously has a role to play in a sustainable enterprise but I hadn’t convinced myself that the relationship was so fundamental – it felt a bit too much like wishful thinking on my part.

When we talk about sustainability today, we need to be clear that we’re not just talking about environmental issues and we’re certainly not talking about “greenwashing”. There’s an increasing awareness that a change needs to occur (and is to some extent occurring) in how we work, how we do business, how we relate to and value each other and how we relate to and value our natural environment.

This is relevant too for The Open Group Open Platform 3.0™. Plenty is written these days about the role that the Internet of Things and Big Data Analytics can play in sustainability. A lot is actually happening. Too much of this fails to take any account of the kaleidoscope and offers a purely technological and resource centric view of a shining future. People are reduced to being the happy consumers of this particular soma. By bringing other factors and in particular social media and locating the discussion in The Open Group’s traditions of Enterprise Architecture (and see also The Open Group’s work on Identity), these rather dangerous limitations can be overcome.

EA 2

 

 

 

 

EA 3

 Source: Wikipedia

Success in any one of these areas is dependent on success in the others. That was really the message of the Club of Rome discussion.

And that’s where EA comes in – the architecture of a global enterprise. There are multiple stakeholders with multiple concerns. They range from a CEO with a company to keep afloat to a farming community, whose livelihood is threatened by a giant coal mine. They also include those whose livelihood is threatened by closing that mine and governments saddled with crippling national debt. They include the people working to achieve change. These people also have their own areas of focus within the overall picture. There are people designing the new solutions – technological or otherwise. There are the people who will have to operate the changed situation. There are the stewards for the natural environment and the non-human inhabitants of platform Earth.

Now Enterprise Architects are in a sense always concerned with sustainability, at least at the micro level of one organization or enterprise. We try to develop an architecture in which the whole enterprise (and all its parts) can achieve its goals – with a minimum of instability and with the ability to respond effectively to change. That in and of itself requires us to be aware of what’s going on in the world outside our organization’s direct sphere of influence, so it’s a small step to looking at a broader picture and wondering what the future of the enterprise might be in a non-sustainable world.

The next step is an obvious one for any Enterprise Architect – well actually any architect at all in any kind of enterprise. This isn’t a political or moral question (although architects have as much right as anyone to else to such considerations) but really just one of drawing conclusions, which are logical and obvious – unless one is merely driven by short-term considerations. What you do with those conclusions is up to you and constrained by your own situation. You do what you can. You can take the campaigning viewpoint or look for collateral lack of damage or just facilitate sustainability when it’s on the agenda – look for opportunities for re-use or repair. And if your situation is one where nothing is possible, you might want to be thinking about moving on.

Sustainability is not conservatism. Some things reach the end of their useful life or can’t survive unexpected and/or dramatic changes. Some things actually improve as a result of taking a serious knock – what Nicholas Nassim Taleb calls anti-fragility. That’s true in nature at both micro and macro levels and it’s particularly true in nature. It’s not surprising that the ideas of biomimicry are rapidly gaining traction in sustainability circles.

EA 4

 

 

 

 

 

Stickybot

In this sense, agile is really about sustainability. When we work with agile methods, we’re not trying to create something changeless. We’re trying to create a way of working in which our enterprise or some small part of it, can change and adapt so as to continue to fulfill its mission for so long as that remains relevant in the world.

So yes, there’s a lot an (enterprise) architect can do towards achieving a sustainable world and there are more than enough reasons that’s consistent with our role in the organizations and enterprises we serve.

Agreed? Not? Please comment one way or the other and let’s continue the discussion.

SONY DSCStuart Boardman is a Senior Business Consultant with KPN Consulting where he leads the Enterprise Architecture practice and consults to clients on Cloud Computing, Enterprise Mobility and The Internet of Everything. He is Co-Chair of The Open Group Open Platform 3.0™ Forum and was Co-Chair of the Cloud Computing Work Group’s Security for the Cloud and SOA project and a founding member of both The Open Group Cloud Computing Work Group and The Open Group SOA Work Group. Stuart is the author of publications by KPN, the Information Security Platform (PvIB) in The Netherlands and of his previous employer, CGI as well as several Open Group white papers, guides and standards. He is a frequent speaker at conferences on the topics of Open Platform 3.0 and Identity.

1 Comment

Filed under Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Transformation, Identity Management, Professional Development, Uncategorized

The Open Group Boston 2014 to Explore How New IT Trends are Empowering Improvements in Business

By The Open Group

The Open Group Boston 2014 will be held on July 21-22 and will cover the major issues and trends surrounding Boundaryless Information Flow™. Thought-leaders at the event will share their outlook on IT trends, capabilities, best practices and global interoperability, and how this will lead to improvements in responsiveness and efficiency. The event will feature presentations from representatives of prominent organizations on topics including Healthcare, Service-Oriented Architecture, Security, Risk Management and Enterprise Architecture. The Open Group Boston will also explore how cross-organizational collaboration and trends such as big data and cloud computing are helping to make enterprises more effective.

The event will consist of two days of plenaries and interactive sessions that will provide in-depth insight on how new IT trends are leading to improvements in business. Attendees will learn how industry organizations are seeking large-scale transformation and some of the paths they are taking to realize that.

The first day of the event will bring together subject matter experts in the Open Platform 3.0™, Boundaryless Information Flow™ and Enterprise Architecture spaces. The day will feature thought-leaders from organizations including Boston University, Oracle, IBM and Raytheon. One of the keynotes is from Marshall Van Alstyne, Professor at Boston University School of Management & Researcher at MIT Center for Digital Business, which reveals the secret of internet-driven marketplaces. Other content:

• The Open Group Open Platform 3.0™ focuses on new and emerging technology trends converging with each other and leading to new business models and system designs. These trends include mobility, social media, big data analytics, cloud computing and the Internet of Things.
• Cloud security and the key differences in securing cloud computing environments vs. traditional ones as well as the methods for building secure cloud computing architectures
• Big Data as a service framework as well as preparing to deliver on Big Data promises through people, process and technology
• Integrated Data Analytics and using them to improve decision outcomes

The second day of the event will have an emphasis on Healthcare, with keynotes from Joseph Kvedar, MD, Partners HealthCare, Center for Connected Health, and Connect for Health Colorado CTO, Proteus Duxbury. The day will also showcase speakers from Hewlett Packard and Blue Cross Blue Shield, multiple tracks on a wide variety of topics such as Risk and Professional Development, and Archimate® tutorials. Key learnings include:

• Improving healthcare’s information flow is a key enabler to improving healthcare outcomes and implementing efficiencies within today’s delivery models
• Identifying the current state of IT standards and future opportunities which cover the healthcare ecosystem
• How Archimate® can be used by Enterprise Architects for driving business innovation with tried and true techniques and best practices
• Security and Risk Management evolving as software applications become more accessible through APIs – which can lead to vulnerabilities and the potential need to increase security while still understanding the business value of APIs

Member meetings will also be held on Wednesday and Thursday, June 23-24.

Don’t wait, register now to participate in these conversations and networking opportunities during The Open Group Boston 2014: http://www.opengroup.org/boston2014/registration

Join us on Twitter – #ogchat #ogBOS

Leave a comment

Filed under ArchiMate®, Boundaryless Information Flow™, Business Architecture, Cloud/SOA, Conference, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Transformation, Healthcare, Information security, Open Platform 3.0, Professional Development, RISK Management, Service Oriented Architecture, Standards, Uncategorized

The Power of APIs – Join The Open Group Tweet Jam on Wednesday, July 9th

By Loren K. Baynes, Director, Global Marketing Communications, The Open Group

The face of technology is evolving at breakneck speed, driven by demand from consumers and businesses alike for more robust, intuitive and integrated service offerings. APIs (application programming interfaces) have made this possible by offering greater interoperability between otherwise disparate software and hardware systems. While there are clear benefits to their use, how do today’s security and value-conscious enterprises take advantage of this new interoperability without exposing them themselves?

On Wednesday, July 9th at 9:00 am PT/12:00 pm ET/5:00 pm GMT, please join us for a tweet jam that will explore how APIs are changing the face of business today, and how to prepare for their implementation in your enterprise.

APIs are at the heart of how today’s technology communicates with one another, and have been influential in enabling new levels of development for social, mobility and beyond. The business benefits of APIs are endless, as are the opportunities to explore how they can be effectively used and developed.

There is reason to maintain a certain level of caution, however, as recent security issues involving open APIs have impacted overall confidence and sustainability.

This tweet jam will look at the business benefits of APIs, as well as potential vulnerabilities and weak points that you should be wary of when integrating them into your Enterprise Architecture.

We welcome The Open Group members and interested participants from all backgrounds to join the discussion and interact with our panel of thought-leaders from The Open Group including Jason Lee, Healthcare and Security Forums Director; Jim Hietala, Vice President of Security; David Lounsbury, CTO; and Dr. Chris Harding, Director for Interoperability and Open Platform 3.0™ Forum Director. To access the discussion, please follow the hashtag #ogchat during the allotted discussion time.

Interested in joining The Open Group Security Forum? Register your interest, here.

What Is a Tweet Jam?

A tweet jam is a 45 minute “discussion” hosted on Twitter. The purpose of the tweet jam is to share knowledge and answer questions on relevant and thought-provoking issues. Each tweet jam is led by a moderator and a dedicated group of experts to keep the discussion flowing. The public (or anyone using Twitter interested in the topic) is encouraged to join the discussion.

Participation Guidance

Here are some helpful guidelines for taking part in the tweet jam:

  • Please introduce yourself (name, title and organization)
  • Use the hashtag #ogchat following each of your tweets
  • Begin your tweets with the question number to which you are responding
  • Please refrain from individual product/service promotions – the goal of the tweet jam is to foster an open and informative dialogue
  • Keep your commentary focused, thoughtful and on-topic

If you have any questions prior to the event or would like to join as a participant, please contact George Morin (@GMorin81 or george.morin@hotwirepr.com).

We look forward to a spirited discussion and hope you will be able to join!

 

3 Comments

Filed under Data management, digital technologies, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Transformation, Information security, Open Platform 3.0, real-time and embedded systems, Standards, Strategy, Tweet Jam, Uncategorized

Strategic Alignment Survey

These days organizations operate in a dynamic and fast changing environment which makes formulating a consistent strategy a challenging task and executing that strategy even more difficult. More than half of organizations surveyed in previous economic studies indicated that they have not been successful at executing strategic initiatives. Moreover, a majority of organizations face problems when executing their strategic vision.

In an environment where competition and globalization of markets is intensifying, managing and surviving change becomes increasingly important. A business strategy determines the decisions and course of action that businesses take to achieve competitive advantage and is therefore crucial to survive change. Nonetheless, several economic studies indicated that many organizations fail to implement strategic alternatives. Therefore, it is important to know more about the reasons underlying the difficulties of organizations to reach strategic alignment.

Strategic alignment
Organizations develop and implement strategies to achieve (strategic) goals. The development of a strategy is about formulating what should be changed to evolve from the current situation to the desired future state. Strategy implementation is about translating the strategic plans into clear actions to execute the strategy. Strategic alignment is the ability to create a fit or synergy between the position of the organization within the environment (business) and the design of the appropriate business processes, resources and capabilities (IT) to support the execution. Strategic alignment cannot be reached when strategy development is considered to be a separate process from strategy implementation. Strategy development and strategy implementation are intertwined processes which both need to be successful for superior firm performance.

Strategy1

The way how organizations move from strategy development to strategy implementation is influenced by many factors. Consequently, strategic alignment is influenced by several factors which all contribute to the successful development and implementation of a strategy. We distinguish three categories in which several factors are combined that influence strategic alignment. How organizations manage the factors within these three categories determine whether they are able to reach strategic alignment or not. These three categories are:

  • Culture and shared beliefs: the collective thoughts and actions of employees towards the strategic orientation of the organization determine whether strategy implementation will be successful or not. Consequently, all the employees must be clear on the what, why, when and how of the strategy. According to previous studies the inability of management to overcome resistance to change is an important obstacle to strategy execution.
  • Organizational capabilities: capabilities, resources, systems and processes should be aligned with the strategy to be able to execute the strategy properly. An organization needs to consider their existing and needed capabilities and resources during strategy development and implementation. Strategic change gets obstructed when long-term strategic goals are not translated to short-term objectives or actions.
  • Communication: creating understanding throughout the organization about the strategy, like why it is developed and how it is implemented, is essential for developing and implementing a strategy. There should be a clear definition of purpose, values and behaviors to guide the implementation process. A poor or vague strategy makes it nearly impossible to successfully execute a strategy which makes it a killer of strategy implementation.strategy2

Strategic Alignment Survey

In order to gain a better understanding of the strategic alignment efforts of individual organizations, BiZZdesign has created a Strategic Alignment survey. We want to understand more about the way in which organizations move from strategy development to strategy implementation. The information gathered from this survey contributes to the work done on improving strategic alignment within organizations. We would like to learn from your organization’s experiences regarding strategy development and implementation and its efforts towards strategic alignment. For this reason we kindly ask you to fill in the survey: http://alignment-eng.enquete.com/.

BiZZdesign (along with our partners The Open Group, NAF and the University of Twente) would be grateful if you could complete this Strategic Alignment survey to help us get a better understanding of the strategic alignment efforts of organizations.

The survey will be available on-line until the end of June 2014. All results will be analysed and reported in an anonymous way.

The results of this survey will then be published in a White Paper by The Open Group. If you leave us your contact email, then you will also receive the e-book ‘Strategizer – The Method’, in which initial results on strategic alignment are documented, and you have a chance to win a book voucher worth €200.

We really appreciate your time and effort. Thank you in advance.

franken_henryHenry Franken M.Sc. Ph.D, is CEO of BiZZdesign and chair of The ArchiMate Forum at The Open Group. Henry is a speaker at many conferences. Henry has co-authored several international journal and conference publications and Open Group whitepapers.

At BiZZdesign, Henry is also responsible for research and innovation. Alignment with and contribution to open standards are key. BiZZdesign has contributed to and edited the ArchiMate 2 specification. BiZZdesign is involved in the workgroup working towards the next version of TOGAF® and its further hand-in-pocket alignment with ArchiMate®.

BiZZdesign offers native tooling, certification training and consultancy for TOGAF® and ArchiMate®, both standards of The Open Group. BiZZdesign offers complete and integrated solutions (tools, methods, consultancy and training) to design and improve organizations. Business models, enterprise architecture, business requirements management and process business analysis and management are important ingredients in the solutions.

1 Comment

Filed under Strategy

Brand Marketing of Standards

By Allen Brown, President and CEO, The Open Group

Today everyone is familiar with the power of brands. Managed well, they can develop strong biases amongst customers for the product or service, resulting in greatly increased revenues and profits. Managed badly, they can destroy a product or an organization.

I was sitting in San Francisco International Airport one day. A very loud couple was looking for somewhere to get coffee. The wife said, “There’s a Peet’s right here.” Angrily the husband replied, “I don’t want Peet’s, I want Starbucks!”

A jewelry retailer in the UK had grown, in six years, from having 150 stores to more than 2,000, with 25,000 staff and annual sales of £1.2 billion. Then at the Institute of Directors conference at the Royal Albert Hall in 1991, he told an audience of 5,000 business leaders the secret of his success. Describing his company’s products, he said: ‘We also do cut-glass sherry decanters complete with six glasses on a silver-plated tray that your butler can serve you drinks on, for £4.95. People say “How can you sell this for such a low price?”  I say, because it’s total crap.’  As if that were not enough, he added that his stores’ earrings were ‘cheaper than a prawn sandwich, but probably wouldn’t last as long’.

It was a joke that he had told before but this time it got into the press. Hordes of people queued at his stores, immediately that word got out, to return everything from earrings to engagement rings. The company was destroyed.

The identity of a brand emerges through communication backed up by a promise to customers. That promise can be a promise of quality or service or innovation or style. Or it can be much less tangible: “people like you buy this product”, for example.

Early in my career, I worked for a company that was in the business of manufacturing and marketing edible oils and fats – margarines, cooking oils and cooking fat.   When first developed, margarine was simply a substitute for the butter that was in short supply in the UK during wartime. But when butter once again became plentiful, the product needed to offer other advantages to the consumer. Research focused on methods to improve the quality of margarine–such as making it easier to spread, more flavorful and more nutritious.

At the time there were many brands all focused on a specific niche which together amounted to something like a 95% market share. Stork Margarine was promoted as a low cost butter substitute for working class households, Blue Band Margarine was positioned slightly up-market, Tomor Margarine for the kosher community, Flora Margarine was marketed as recommended by doctors as being good for the heart and so on. Today, Unilever continues to market these brands, amongst many others, successfully although the positioning may be a little different.

Creating, managing and communicating brands is not inexpensive but the rewards can be significant. There are three critical activities that must be done well. The brand must be protected, policed and promoted.

Protection starts with ensuring that the brand is trademarked but it does not end there. Consistent and correct usage of the brand is essential – without that, a trademark can be challenged and the value of the brand and all that has been invested in it can be lost.

Policing is about identifying and preventing unauthorized or incorrect usage of the mark by others. Unauthorized usage can range from organizations using the brand to market their own products or services, all the way up to counterfeit copies of the branded products. Cellophane is a registered trademark in the UK and other countries, and the property of Innovia Films. However, in many countries “cellophane” has become a generic term, often used informally to refer to a wide variety of plastic film products, even those not made of cellulose,such as plastic wrap, thereby diminishing the value of the brand to its owner. There are several other well-known and valuable marks that have been lost through becoming generic – mostly due to the brand owner not insisting on correct usage.

Promotion begins with identifying the target market, articulating the brand promise and the key purchase factors and benefits. The target market can be consumers or organizations but at the end of the day, people buy products or services or vote for candidates seeking election and it is important to segment and profile the target customers sufficiently and develop key messages for each segment.

Profiling has been around for a long time: the margarine example shows how it was used in the past.   But today consumers, organization buyers and voters have a plethora of messages targeted at them and through a broader than ever variety of media, so it is critical to be as precise as possible. Some of the best examples of profiling, such as soccer moms and NASCAR dads have been popularized as a result of their usage in US presidential election campaigns.

In the mid-1990’s X/Open (now part of The Open Group) started using branding to promote the market adoption of open standards. The members of X/Open had developed a set of specifications aimed at enabling portability of applications between the UNIX® systems of competing vendors, which was called the X/Open Portability Guide, or XPG for short.

The target market was the buyers of UNIX systems. The brand promise was that any product that was supplied by the vendors that carried the X/Open brand conformed to the specification, would always conform and, in the event of any non-conformance being found, the vendor would, at their own cost, rectify the non-conformance for the customer within a prescribed period of time. To this day, there has only ever been one report of non-conformance, an obscure mathematical result, reported by an academic. The vendor concerned quickly rectified the issue, even though it was extremely unlikely that any customer would ever be affected by it.

The trademark license agreement signed by all vendors who used the X/Open brand carried the words “warrant and represent” in support of the brand promise. It was a significant commitment on the part of the vendors as it also carried with it significant risk and potential liability.   For these reasons, the vendors pooled their resources to fund the development of test suite software, so they could better understand the commitment they had entered into. These test suites were developed in stages and, over time, their coverage of the set of specifications grew.

It was only later that products had to be tested and certified before they could carry the X/Open brand.

The trademark was, of course protected, policed and promoted. Procurements that could be identified, which were mostly government procurements, were recorded and totaled in excess of $50bn in a short period of time. Procurements by commerce and industry were more difficult to track, but were clearly significant.

The XPG brand program was enormously successful and has evolved to become the UNIX® brand program and, in spite of challenges from open source software, continues to deliver revenues for the vendors in excess of $30bn per annum.

When new brand programs are contemplated, an early concern of both vendors and customers is the cost. Customers worry that the vendors will pass the cost on to them; vendors worry that they will have to absorb the cost. In the case of XPG and UNIX, both sides looked not at the cost but at the benefits. For customers, even if the vendors had passed on the cost, the savings that could be achieved as a result of portability in a heterogeneous environment were orders of magnitude greater. For vendors, in a competitive environment, the price that they can charge customers, for their products, is dictated by the market, so their ability to pass on the costs of the branding program, directly to the customer, is limited. However, the reality is that the cost of the branding program pales into insignificance when spread over the revenue of related products. For one vendor we estimate the cost to be less than 100th of 1% of related revenue. Combine that with a preference from customers for branded products and everybody wins.

So the big question for vendors is: Do you see certification as a necessary cost to be kept as low as possible or do you see brand marketing of open standards, of which certification is a part, as a means to grow the market and your share of that market?

The big question for customers is: Do you want to negotiate and enforce a warranty with every vendor and in every contract or do you want the industry to do that for you and spread the cost over billions of dollars of procurements?

brown-smallAllen Brown is President and CEO of The Open Group – a global consortium that enables the achievement of business objectives through IT standards.  For over 15 years, Allen has been responsible for driving The Open Group’s strategic plan and day-to-day operations, including extending its reach into new global markets, such as China, the Middle East, South Africa and India. In addition, he was instrumental in the creation of the Association of Enterprise Architects (AEA)., which was formed to increase job opportunities for all of its members and elevate their market value by advancing professional excellence.

 

 

3 Comments

Filed under Brand Marketing, Certifications, Standards, Uncategorized, UNIX

The Open Group Open Platform 3.0™ Starts to Take Shape

By Dr. Chris Harding, Director for Interoperability, The Open Group

The Open Group published a White Paper on Open Platform 3.0™ at the start of its conference in Amsterdam in May 2014. This article, based on a presentation given at the conference, explains how the definition of the platform is beginning to emerge.

Introduction

Amsterdam is a beautiful place. Walking along the canals is like moving through a set of picture postcards. But as you look up at the houses beside the canals, and you see the cargo hoists that many of them have, you are reminded that the purpose of the arrangement was not to give pleasure to tourists. Amsterdam is a great trading city, and the canals were built as a very efficient way of moving goods around.

This is also a reminder that the primary purpose of architecture is not to look beautiful, but to deliver business value, though surprisingly, the two often seem to go together quite well.

When those canals were first thought of, it might not have been obvious that this was the right thing to do for Amsterdam. Certainly the right layout for the canal network would not be obvious. The beginning of a project is always a little uncertain, and seeing the idea begin to take shape is exciting. That is where we are with Open Platform 3.0 right now.

We started with the intention to define a platform to enable enterprises to get value from new technologies including cloud computing, social computing, mobile computing, big data, the Internet of Things, and perhaps others. We developed an Open Group business scenario to capture the business requirements. We developed a set of business use-cases to show how people are using and wanting to use those technologies. And that leads to the next step, which is to define the platform. All these new technologies and their applications sound wonderful, but what actually is Open Platform 3.0?

The Third Platform

Looking historically, the first platform was the computer operating system. A vendor-independent operating system interface was defined by the UNIX® standard. The X/Open Company and the Open Software Foundation (OSF), which later combined to form The Open Group, were created because companies everywhere were complaining that they were locked into proprietary operating systems. They wanted applications portability. X/Open specified the UNIX® operating system as a common application environment, and the value that it delivered was to prevent vendor lock-in.

The second platform is the World Wide Web. It is a common services environment, for services used by people browsing web pages or for web services used by programs. The value delivered is universal deployment and access. Any person or company anywhere can create a services-based solution and deploy it on the web, and every person or company throughout the world can access that solution.

Open Platform 3.0 is developing as a common architecture environment. This does not mean it is a replacement for TOGAF®. TOGAF is about how you do architecture and will continue to be used with Open Platform 3.0. Open Platform 3.0 is about what kind of architecture you will create. It will be a common environment in which enterprises can do architecture. The big business benefit that it will deliver is integrated solutions.

ChrisBlog1

Figure 1: The Third Platform

With the second platform, you can develop solutions. Anyone can develop a solution based on services accessible over the World Wide Web. But independently-developed web service solutions will very rarely work together “out of the box”.

There is an increasing need for such solutions to work together. We see this need when looking at The Open Platform 3.0 technologies. People want to use these technologies together. There are solutions that use them, but they have been developed independently of each other and have to be integrated. That is why Open Platform 3.0 has to deliver a way of integrating solutions that have been developed independently.

Common Architecture Environment

The Open Group has recently published its first thoughts on Open Platform 3.0 in the Open Platform 3.0 White Paper. This lists a number of things that will eventually be in the Open Platform 3.0 standard. Many of these are common architecture artifacts that can be used in solution development. They will form a common architecture environment. They are:

  • Statement of need, objectives, and principles – this is not part of that environment of course; it says why we are creating it.
  • Definitions of key terms – clearly you must share an understanding of the key terms if you are going to develop common solutions or integrable solutions.
  • Stakeholders and their concerns – an understanding of these is an important aspect of an architecture development, and something that we need in the standard.
  • Capabilities map – this shows what the products and services that are in the platform do.
  • Basic models – these show how the platform components work with each other and with other products and services.
  • Explanation of how the models can be combined to realize solutions – this is an important point and one that the white paper does not yet start to address.
  • Standards and guidelines that govern how the products and services interoperate – these are not standards that The Open Group is likely to produce, they will almost certainly be produced by other bodies, but we need to identify the appropriate ones and probably in some cases coordinate with the appropriate bodies to see that they are developed.

The Open Platform 3.0 White Paper contains an initial statement of needs, objectives and principles, definitions of some key terms, a first-pass list of stakeholders and their concerns, and half a dozen basic models. The basic models are in an analysis of the business use-cases for Open Platform 3.0 that were developed earlier.

These are just starting points. The white paper is incomplete: each of the sections is incomplete in itself, and of course the white paper does not contain all the sections that will be in the standard. And it is all subject to change.

An Example Basic Model

The figure shows a basic model that could be part of the Open Platform 3.0 common architecture environment.

ChrisBlog 2

Figure 2: Mobile Connected Device Model

This is the Mobile Connected Device Model: one of the basic models that we identified in the snapshot. It comes up quite often in the use-cases.

The stack on the left is a mobile device. It has a user, it has apps, it has a platform which would probably be Android or iOS, it has infrastructure that supports the platform, and it is connected to the World Wide Web, because that’s part of the definition of mobile computing.

On the right you see, and this is a frequently encountered pattern, that you don’t just use your mobile device for running apps. Maybe you connect it to a printer, maybe you connect it to your headphones, maybe you connect it to somebody’s payment terminal, you can connect it to many things. You might do this through a Universal Serial Bus (USB). You might do it through Bluetooth. You might do it by Near Field Communications (NFC). You might use other kinds of local connection.

The device you connect to may be operated by yourself (e.g. if it is headphones), or by another organization (e.g. if it is a payment terminal). In the latter case you typically have a business relationship with the operator of the connected device.

That is an example of the basic models that came up in the analysis of the use-cases. It is captured in the White Paper. It is fundamental to mobile computing and is also relevant to the Internet of Things.

Access to Technologies

This figure captures our understanding of the need to obtain information from the new technologies, social media, mobile devices, sensors and so on, the need to process that information, maybe on the cloud, to manage it and, ultimately, to deliver it in a form where there is analysis and reasoning that enables enterprises to take business decisions.

ChrisBlog 3

Figure 3: Access to Technologies

The delivery of information to improve the quality of decisions is the source of real business value.

User-Driven IT

The next figure captures a requirement that we picked up in the development of the business scenario.

ChrisBlog 4

Figure 4: User-Driven IT

Traditionally, you would have had the business use in the business departments of an enterprise, and pretty much everything else in the IT department. But we are seeing two big changes. One is that the business users are getting smarter, more able to use technology. The other is they want to use technology themselves, or to have business technologists closely working with them, rather than accessing it indirectly through the IT department.

The systems provisioning and management is now often done by cloud service providers, and the programming and integration and helpdesk by cloud brokers, or by an IT department that plays a broker role, rather than working in the traditional way.

The business still needs to retain responsibility for the overall architecture and for compliance. If you do something against your company’s principles, your customers will hold you responsible. It is no defense to say, “Our broker did it that way.” Similarly, if you break the law, your broker does not go to jail, you do. So those things will continue to be more associated with the business departments, even as the rest is devolved.

In short, businesses have a new way of using IT that Open Platform 3.0 must and will accommodate.

Integration of Independently-Developed Solutions

The next figure illustrates how the integration of independently developed solutions can be achieved.

ChrisBlog 5

Figure 5: Architecture Integration

It shows two solutions, which come from the analysis of different business use-cases. They share a common model, which makes it much easier to integrate them. That is why the Open Platform 3.0 standard will define common models for access to the new technologies.

The Open Platform 3.0 standard will have other common artifacts: architectural principles, stakeholder definitions and descriptions, and so on. Independently-developed architectures that use them can be integrated more easily.

Enterprises develop their architectures independently, but engage with other enterprises in business ecosystems that require shared solutions. Increasingly, business relationships are dynamic, and there is no time to develop an agreed ecosystem architecture from scratch. Use of the same architecture platform, with a common architecture environment including elements such as principles, stakeholder concerns, and basic models, enables the enterprise architectures to be integrated, and shared solutions to be developed quickly.

Completing the Definition

How will we complete the definition of Open Platform 3.0?

The Open Platform 3.0 Forum recently published a set of 22 business use-cases – the Nexus of Forces in Action. These use-cases show the application of Social, Mobile and Cloud Computing, Big Data, and the Internet of Things in a wide variety of business areas.

ChrisBlog 6

Figure 6: Business Use-Cases

The figure comes from that White Paper and shows some of those areas: multimedia, social networks, building energy management, smart appliances, financial services, medical research, and so on.

Use-Case Analysis

We have started to analyze those use-cases. This is an ArchiMate model showing how our first business use-case, The Mobile Smart Store, could be realized.

ChrisBlog 7

Figure 7: Use-Case Analysis

As you look at it you see common models. Outlined on the left is a basic model that is pretty much the same as the original TOGAF Technical Reference Model. The main difference is the addition of a business layer (which shows how enterprise architecture has moved in the business direction since the TRM was defined).

But you also see that the same model appears in the use-case in a different place, as outlined on the right. It appears many times throughout the business use-cases.

Finally, you can see that the Mobile Connected Device Model has appeared in this use-case (outlined in the center). It appears in other use-cases too.

As we analyze the use-cases, we find common models, as well as common principles, common stakeholders, and other artifacts.

The Development Cycle

We have a development cycle: understanding the value of the platform by considering use-cases, analyzing those use-cases to derive common features, and documenting the common features in a specification.

ChrisBlog 8

Figure 8: The Development Cycle

The Open Platform 3.0 White Paper represents the very first pass through that cycle, further passes will result in further White Papers, a snapshot, and ultimately The Open Platform 3.0 standard, and no doubt more than one version of that standard.

Conclusions

Open Platform 3.0 provides a common architecture environment. This enables enterprises to derive business value from social computing, mobile computing, big data, the Internet-of-Things, and potentially other new technologies.

Cognitive computing, for example, has been suggested as another technology that Open Platform 3.0 might in due course accommodate. What would that lead to? There would be additional use-cases, which would lead to further analysis, which would no doubt identify some basic models for cognitive computing, which would be added to the platform.

Open Platform 3.0 enables enterprise IT to be user-driven. There is a revolution in the way that businesses use IT. Users are becoming smarter and more able to use technology, and want to do so directly, rather than through a separate IT department. Business departments are taking in business technologists who understand how to use technology for business purposes. Some companies are closing their IT departments and using cloud brokers instead. In other companies, the IT department is taking on a broker role, sourcing technology that business people use directly.Open Platform 3.0 will be part of that revolution.

Open Platform 3.0 will deliver the ability to integrate solutions that have been independently developed. Businesses typically exist within one or more business ecosystems. Those ecosystems are dynamic: partners join, partners leave, and businesses cannot standardize the whole architecture across the ecosystem; it would be nice to do so but, by the time it was done, the business opportunity would be gone. Integration of independently developed architectures is crucial to the world of business ecosystems and delivering value within them.

Call for Input

The platform will deliver a common architecture environment, user-driven enterprise IT, and the ability to integrate solutions that have been independently developed. The Open Platform 3.0 Forum is defining it through an iterative process of understanding the content, analyzing the use-cases, and documenting the common features. We welcome input and comments from other individuals within and outside The Open Group and from other industry bodies.

If you have comments on the way Open Platform 3.0 is developing or input on the way it should develop, please tell us! You can do so by sending mail to platform3-input@opengroup.org or share your comments on our blog.

References

The Open Platform 3.0 White Paper: https://www2.opengroup.org/ogsys/catalog/W147

The Nexus of Forces in Action: https://www2.opengroup.org/ogsys/catalog/W145

TOGAF®: http://www.opengroup.org/togaf/

harding

Dr. Chris Harding is Director for Interoperability at The Open Group. He has been with The Open Group for more than ten years, and is currently responsible for managing and supporting its work on interoperability, including SOA and interoperability aspects of Cloud Computing, and the Open Platform 3.0™ Forum. He is a member of the BCS, the IEEE and the AEA, and is a certified TOGAF® practitioner.

 

 

 

 

 

2 Comments

Filed under architecture, Boundaryless Information Flow™, Cloud, Cloud/SOA, digital technologies, Open Platform 3.0, Service Oriented Architecture, Standards, TOGAF®, Uncategorized

The Digital Ecosystem Paradox – Learning to Move to Better Digital Design Outcomes

By Mark Skilton, Professor of Practice, Information Systems Management, Warwick Business School

Does digital technologies raise quality and improve efficiencies but at the same time drive higher costs of service as more advanced solutions and capabilities become available demanding higher entry investment and maintenance costs?

Many new digital technologies introduce step change in performance that would have been cost prohibitive in the previous technology generations. But in some industries the technology cost per outcome have be steadily rising in some industries.

In the healthcare market the cost per treatment of health care technology was highlighted in a MIT Technology Review article (1). In areas such as new drugs for treating depression, left-ventricular assistance devices, or implantable defibrillators may be raising the overall cost of health, yet how do we value this if patient quality of life is improving and life extending. While lower cost drugs and vaccines may be enabling better overall patient outcomes

In the smart city a similar story is unfolding where governments and organizations are seeking paths to use digitization to drive improvements in jobs productivity, better lifestyles and support of environmental sustainability. While there are several opportunities to reduce energy bills, improve transport and office spaces exist with savings of 40% to 60% consumption and efficiencies complexity costs of connecting different residential, corporate offices, transport and other living spaces requires digital initiatives that are coordinated and managed. (U-city experience in South Korea (2)).

These digital paradoxes represent the digital ecosystem challenge to maximise what these new digital technologies can do to augment every objects, services, places and spaces while taking account of the size and addressable market that all these solutions can serve.

Skilton1

What we see is that technology can be both a driver of the physical and digital economy through lowering of price per function in computer storage, compute, access and application technology and creating new value; conversely the issues around driving new value is having different degrees of success in industries.

Creating value in the digital economy

The digital economy is at a tipping point, a growing 30% of business is shifting online to search and engage with consumers, markets and transactions taking account of retail , mobile and impact on supply channels (3);  80% of transport, real estate and hotelier activity is processed through websites (4); over 70% of companies and consumers are experiencing cyber-privacy challenges (5), (6) yet the digital media in social, networks, mobile devices, sensors and the explosion of big data and cloud computing networks is interconnecting potentially everything everywhere – amounting to a new digital “ecosystem.

Disruptive business models across industries and new consumer innovation are increasingly built around new digital technologies such as social media, mobility, big data, cloud computing and the emerging internet of things sensors, networks and machine intelligence. (MISQ Digital Strategy Special Issue (7)).

These trends have significantly enhanced the relevance and significance of IT in its role and impact on business and market value at local, regional and global scale.

With IT budgets increasing shifting more towards the marketing functions and business users of these digital services from traditional IT, there is a growing role for technology to be able to work together in new connected ways.

Driving better digital design outcomes

The age of new digital technologies are combining in new ways to drive new value for individuals, enterprise, communities and societies. The key is in understanding the value that each of these technologies can bring individually and in the mechanisms to creating additive value when used appropriately and cost effectively to drive brand, manage cyber risk, and build consumer engagement and economic growth.

Skilton2

Value-in-use, value in contextualization

Each digital technology has the potential to enable better contextualization of the consumer experience and the value added by providers.   Each industry market has emerging combinations of technologies that can be developed to enable focused value.

Examples of these include.

  • Social media networks

o   Creating enhanced co-presence

  • Big data

o   Providing uniqueness profiling , targeting advice and preferences in context

  • Mobility

o   Creating location context services and awareness

  • Cloud

o   Enabling access to resources and services

  • Sensors

o   Creating real time feedback responsiveness

  • Machine intelligence

o   Enabling insight and higher decision quality

Together these digital technologies can build generative effects that when in context can enable higher value outcomes in digital workspaces.

Skilton3

Value in Contextualization

The value is not in whether these technologies, objects, consumers or provider inside or outside the enterprise or market. These distinctions are out-of-context from relating them to the situation and the consumer needs and wants. The issue is how to apply and put into context the user experience and enterprise and social environment to best use and maximise the outcomes in a specific setting context rom the role perspective.

With the medical roles of patient and clinician, the aim in digitization is how mobile devices, wearable monitoring can be used most efficiently and effectively to raise patient outcome quality and manage health service costs. Especially in the developing countries and remote areas where infrastructure and investment costs, how can technologies reach and improve the quality of health and at an effective cost price point.

This phenomena is wide spread and growing across all industry sectors such as: the connected automobile with in-car entertainment, route planning services; to tele-health that offers remote patient care monitoring and personalized responses; to smart buildings and smart cities that are optimizing energy consumption and work environments; to smart retail where interactive product tags for instant customer mobile information feedback and in-store promotions and automated supply chains. The convergence of these technologies requires a response from all businesses.

These issues are not going to go away, the statistics from analysts describe a new era of a digital industrial economy (8). What is common is the prediction in the next twenty to fifty years suggest double or triple growth in demand for new digital technologies and their adoption.

Skilton4

Platforming and designing better digital outcomes

Developing efective digital workspaces will be fundamental to the value and use of these technologies. There will be not absolute winners and losers as a result of the digital paradox. What is at state is in how the cost and inovation of these technologies can be leveraged to fit specific outcomes.

Understanding the architecting practices will be essentuial in realizing the digitel enterprise. Central to this is how to develop ways to contextualize digital technologies to enable this value for consumers and customers (Value and Worth – creating new markets in the digital economy (9)).Skilton5Platforming will be a central IT strategy that we see already emerging in early generations of digital marketplaces, mobile app ecosystems and emerging cross connecting services in health, automotive, retail and others seeking to create joined up value.

Digital technologies will enable new forms of digital workspaces to support new outcomes. By driving contextualized offers that meet and stimulate consumer behaviors and demand , a richer and more effective value experience and growth potential is possible.

Skilton6The challenge ahead

The evolution of digital technologies will enable many new types of architect and platforms. How these are constructed into meaningful solutions is both the opportunity and the task ahead.

The challenge for both business and IT practitioners is how to understand the practical use and advantages as well as the pitfalls and challenges from these digital technologies

  • What can be done using digital technologies to enhance customer experience, employee productivity and sell more products and services
  • Where to position in a digital market, create generative reinforcing positive behavior and feedback for better market branding
  • Who are the beneficiaries of the digital economy and the impact on the roles and jobs of business and IT professionals
  • Why do enterprises and industry marketplaces need to understand the disruptive effects of these digital technologies and how to leverage these for competitive advantage.
  • How to architect and design robust digital solutions that support the enterprise, its supply chain and extended consumers, customers and providers

References

  1. http://www.technologyreview.com/news/518876/the-costly-paradox-of-health-care-technology/.
  2. http://www.kyoto-smartcity.com/result_pdf/ksce2014_hwang.pdf.
  3. http://www.smartinsights.com/digital-marketing-strategy/online-retail-sales-growth/
  4. http://www.statisticbrain.com/internet-travel-hotel-booking-statistics/
  5. http://www.fastcompany.com/3019097/fast-feed/63-of-americans-70-of-milennials-are-cybercrime-victims
  6. https://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/cyber-crime.pdf
  7. http://www.misq.org/contents-37-2
  8. http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2602817
  9. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/wmg/mediacentre/wmgnews/?newsItem=094d43a23d3fbe05013d835d6d5d05c6

 

Skilton7Digital Health

As the cost of health care, the increasing aging population and the rise of medical advances enable people to live longer and improved quality of life; the health sector together with governments and private industry are increasingly using digital technologies to manage the rising costs of health care while improve patient survival and quality outcomes.

Digital Health Technologies

mHealth, TeleHealth and Translation-to-Bench Health services are just some of the innovative medical technology practices creating new Connected Health Digital Ecosystems.

These systems connect Mobile phones, wearable health monitoring devices, remote emergency alerts to clinician respond and back to big data research for new generation health care.

The case for digital change

UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs

“World population projected to reach 8.92 billion for 2050 and 9.22 Million in 2075. Life expectance is expected to range from 66 to 97 years by 2100.”

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

The cost of Health care in developing countries is 8 to 17% of GDP in developed countries. But overall Health car e spending is falling while population growth and life expectancy and aging is increasing.

 

Skilton8Smart cities

The desire to improve buildings, reduce pollution and crime, improve transport, create employment, better education and ways to launch new business start-ups through the use of digital technologies are at the core of important outcomes to drive city growth from “Smart Cities” digital Ecosystem.

Smart city digital technologies

Embedded sensors in building energy management, smart ID badges, and mobile apps for location based advice and services supporting social media communities, enabling improved traffic planning and citizen service response are just some of the ways digital technologies are changing the physical city in the new digital metropolis hubs of tomorrow.

The case for digital change

WHO World Health Organization

“By the middle of the 21st century, the urban population will almost double globally, By 2030, 6 out of every 10 people will live in a city, and by 2050, this proportion will increase to 7 out of 10 people.”

UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC

“In 2010, the building sector accounted for around 32% final energy use with energy demand projected to approximately double and CO2 emissions to increase by 50–150% by mid-century”

IATA International Air Transport Association

“Airline Industry Forecast 2013-2017 show that airlines expect to see a 31% increase in passenger numbers between 2012 and 2017. By 2017 total passenger numbers are expected to rise to 3.91 billion—an increase of 930 million passengers over the 2.98 billion carried in 2012.”

Mark Skilton 2 Oct 2013Professor Mark Skilton,  Professor of Practice in Information Systems Management , Warwick Business School has over twenty years’ experience in Information Technology and Business consulting to many of the top fortune 1000 companies across many industry sectors and working in over 25 countries at C level board level to transform their operations and IT value.  Mark’s career has included CIO, CTO  Director roles for several FMCG, Telecoms Media and Engineering organizations and recently working in Global Strategic Office roles in the big 5 consulting organizations focusing on digital strategy and new multi-sourcing innovation models for public and private sectors. He is currently a part-time Professor of practice at Warwick Business School, UK where he teaches outsourcing and the intervention of new digital business models and CIO Excellence practices with leading Industry practitioners.

Mark’s current research and industry leadership engagement interests are in Digital Ecosystems and the convergence of social media networks, big data, mobility, cloud computing and M2M Internet of things to enable digital workspaces. This has focused on define new value models digitizing products, workplaces, transport and consumer and provider contextual services. He has spoken and published internationally on these subjects and is currently writing a book on the Digital Economy Series.

Since 2010 Mark has held International standards body roles in The Open Group co-chair of Cloud Computing and leading Open Platform 3.0™ initiatives and standards publications. Mark is active in the ISO JC38 distributed architecture standards and in the Hubs-of-all-things HAT a multi-disciplinary project funded by the Research Council’s UK Digital Economy Programme. Mark is also active in Cyber security forums at Warwick University, Ovum Security Summits and INFOSEC. He has spoken at the EU Commission on Digital Ecosystems Agenda and is currently an EU Commission Competition Judge on Smart Outsourcing Innovation.

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Data management, digital technologies, Enterprise Architecture, Future Technologies, Healthcare, Open Platform 3.0, Uncategorized

Business Capabilities – Taking Your Organization into the Next Dimension

By Stuart Macgregor, Chief Executive, Real IRM Solutions

Decision-makers in large enterprises today face a number of paradoxes when it comes to implementing a business operating model and deploying Enterprise Architecture:

- How to stabilize and embed concrete systems that ensure control and predictability, but at the same time remain flexible and open to new innovations?

- How to employ new technology to improve the productivity of the enterprise and its staff in the face of continual pressures on the IT budget?

- How to ensure that Enterprise Architecture delivers tangible results today, but remains relevant in an uncertain future environment.

Answering these tough questions requires an enterprise to elevate its thinking beyond ‘business processes’ and develop a thorough understanding of its ‘business capabilities’. It demands that the enterprise optimizes and leverages these capabilities to improve every aspect of the business – from coal-face operations to blue-sky strategy.

Business capabilities articulate an organization’s inner-workings: the people, process, technology, tools, and content (information). Capabilities map the ways in which each component interfaces with each other, developing an intricate line-drawing of the entire organizational ecosystem at a technical and social level.  By understanding one’s current business capabilities, an organization is armed with a strategic planning tool. We refer to what is known as the BIDAT framework – which addresses the business, information, data, applications and technology architecture domains.

From this analysis, the journey to addressing the organization’s Enterprise Architecture estate begins. This culminates in the organization being able to dynamically optimize, add and improve on its capabilities as the external environment shifts and evolves. A BIDAT approach provides a permanent bridge between the two islands of business architecture and technology architecture.

Put another way, business capability management utilizes the right architectural solutions to deliver the business strategy. In this way, Enterprise Architecture is inextricably linked to capability management. It is the integrated architecture (combined with effective organizational change leadership) that develops the business capabilities and unleashes their power.

This can at times feel very conceptual and hard to apply to real-world environments. Perhaps the best recent example of tangible widespread implementations of a capability-based Enterprise Architecture approach is in South Africa’s minerals and mining sector.

Known as the Exploration and Mining Business Capability Reference Map, and published as part of a set of standards, this framework was developed by The Open Group Exploration, Mining, Metals and Minerals (EMMM™) Forum.  Focusing on all levels of mining operations, from strategic planning, portfolio planning, program enablement and project enablement – and based on the principles of open standards – this framework provides miners with a capability-based approach to information, processes, technology, and people.

The Reference Map isolates specific capabilities within mining organizations, analyzes them from multiple dimensions, and shows their various relationships to other parts of the organization. In the context of increased automation in the mining sector, this becomes an invaluable tool in determining those functions that are ripe for automation.

In this new dimension, this new era of business, there is no reason why achievements from the EMMM’s Business Capability Reference Map cannot be repeated in every industry, and in every mid- to large-scale enterprise throughout the globe.

For more information on joining The Open Group, please visit:  http://www.opengroup.org/getinvolved/becomeamember

For more information on joining The Open Group EMMM™ Forum, please visit:  http://opengroup.co.za/emmm

Photo - Stuart #2Stuart Macgregor is the Chief Executive of the South African company, Real IRM Solutions. Through his personal achievements, he has gained the reputation of an Enterprise Architecture and IT Governance specialist, both in South Africa and internationally.

Macgregor participated in the development of the Microsoft Enterprise Computing Roadmap in Seattle. He was then invited by John Zachman to Scottsdale Arizona to present a paper on using the Zachman framework to implement ERP systems. In addition, Macgregor was selected as a member of both the SAP AG Global Customer Council for Knowledge Management, and of the panel that developed COBIT 3rd Edition Management Guidelines. He has also assisted a global Life Sciences manufacturer to define their IT Governance framework, a major financial institution to define their global, regional and local IT organizational designs and strategy. He was also selected as a core member of the team that developed the South African Breweries (SABMiller) plc global IT strategy.

Stuart, as the lead researcher, assisted the IT Governance Institute map CobiT 4.0 to TOGAF® This mapping document was published by ISACA and The Open Group. More recently, he participated in the COBIT 5 development workshop held in London during May 2010.

 

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under EMMMv™, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Transformation, Standards, Uncategorized

The Onion & The Open Group Open Platform 3.0™

By Stuart Boardman, Senior Business Consultant, KPN Consulting, and Co-Chair of The Open Group Open Platform 3.0™

Onion1

The onion is widely used as an analogy for complex systems – from IT systems to mystical world views.Onion2

 

 

 

It’s a good analogy. From the outside it’s a solid whole but each layer you peel off reveals a new onion (new information) underneath.

And a slice through the onion looks quite different from the whole…Onion3

What (and how much) you see depends on where and how you slice it.Onion4

 

 

 

 

The Open Group Open Platform 3.0™ is like that. Use-cases for Open Platform 3.0 reveal multiple participants and technologies (Cloud Computing, Big Data Analytics, Social networks, Mobility and The Internet of Things) working together to achieve goals that vary by participant. Each participant’s goals represent a different slice through the onion.

The Ecosystem View
We commonly use the idea of peeling off layers to understand large ecosystems, which could be Open Platform 3.0 systems like the energy smart grid but could equally be the workings of a large cooperative or the transport infrastructure of a city. We want to know what is needed to keep the ecosystem healthy and what the effects could be of the actions of individuals on the whole and therefore on each other. So we start from the whole thing and work our way in.

Onion5

The Service at the Centre of the Onion

If you’re the provider or consumer (or both) of an Open Platform 3.0 service, you’re primarily concerned with your slice of the onion. You want to be able to obtain and/or deliver the expected value from your service(s). You need to know as much as possible about the things that can positively or negatively affect that. So your concern is not the onion (ecosystem) as a whole but your part of it.

Right in the middle is your part of the service. The first level out from that consists of other participants with whom you have a direct relationship (contractual or otherwise). These are the organizations that deliver the services you consume directly to enable your own service.

One level out from that (level 2) are participants with whom you have no direct relationship but on whose services you are still dependent. It’s common in Platform 3.0 that your partners too will consume other services in order to deliver their services (see the use cases we have documented). You need to know as much as possible about this level , because whatever happens here can have a positive or negative effect on you.

One level further from the centre we find indirect participants who don’t necessarily delivery any part of the service but whose actions may well affect the rest. They could just be indirect materials suppliers. They could also be part of a completely different value network in which your level 1 or 2 “partners” participate. You can’t expect to understand this level in detail but you know that how that value network performs can affect your partners’ strategy or even their very existence. The knock-on impact on your own strategy can be significant.

We can conceive of more levels but pretty soon a law of diminishing returns sets in. At each level further from your own organization you will see less detail and more variety. That in turn means that there will be fewer things you can actually know (with any certainty) and not much more that you can even guess at. That doesn’t mean that the ecosystem ends at this point. Ecosystems are potentially infinite. You just need to decide how deep you can usefully go.

Limits of the Onion
At a certain point one hits the limits of an analogy. If everybody sees their own organization as the centre of the onion, what we actually have is a bunch of different, overlapping onions.

Onion6

And you can’t actually make onions overlap, so let’s not take the analogy too literally. Just keep it in mind as we move on. Remember that our objective is to ensure the value of the service we’re delivering or consuming. What we need to know therefore is what can change that’s outside of our own control and what kind of change we might expect. At each visible level of the theoretical onion we will find these sources of variety. How certain of their behaviour we can be will vary – with a tendency to the less certain as we move further from the centre of the onion. We’ll need to decide how, if at all, we want to respond to each kind of variety.

But that will have to wait for my next blog. In the meantime, here are some ways people look at the onion.

Onion7   Onion8

 

 

 

 

SONY DSCStuart Boardman is a Senior Business Consultant with KPN Consulting where he leads the Enterprise Architecture practice and consults to clients on Cloud Computing, Enterprise Mobility and The Internet of Everything. He is Co-Chair of The Open Group Open Platform 3.0™ Forum and was Co-Chair of the Cloud Computing Work Group’s Security for the Cloud and SOA project and a founding member of both The Open Group Cloud Computing Work Group and The Open Group SOA Work Group. Stuart is the author of publications by KPN, the Information Security Platform (PvIB) in The Netherlands and of his previous employer, CGI as well as several Open Group white papers, guides and standards. He is a frequent speaker at conferences on the topics of Open Platform 3.0 and Identity.

3 Comments

Filed under Cloud, Cloud/SOA, Conference, Enterprise Architecture, Open Platform 3.0, Service Oriented Architecture, Standards, Uncategorized

ArchiMate® Users Group Meeting

By The Open Group

During a special ArchiMate® users group meeting on Wednesday, May 14 in Amsterdam, Andrew Josey, Director of Standards within The Open Group, presented on the ArchiMate certification program and adoption of the language. Andrew is currently managing the standards process for The Open Group, and has recently led the standards development projects for TOGAF® 9.1, ArchiMate 2.1, IEEE Std 1003.1-2008 (POSIX), and the core specifications of the Single UNIX Specification, Version 4.

ArchiMate®, a standard of The Open Group, is an open and independent modeling language for Enterprise Architecture that is supported by different vendors and consulting firms. ArchiMate provides instruments to enable Enterprise Architects to describe, analyze and visualize the relationships among business domains in an unambiguous way. ArchiMate is not an isolated development. The relationships with existing methods and techniques, like modeling languages such as UML and BPMN, and methods and frameworks like TOGAF and Zachman, are well-described.

In this talk, Andrew provided an overview of the ArchiMate 2 certification program, including information on the adoption of the ArchiMate modeling language. He gave an overview of the major milestones in the development of Archimate and referred to the Dutch origins of the language. The Dutch Telematica Institute created the Archimate language in the period 2002-2004 and the language is now widespread. There have been over 41,000 downloads of different versions of the ArchiMate specification from more than 150 countries. At 52%, The Netherlands is leading the “Top 10 Certifications by country”. However, the “Top 20 Downloads by country” is dominated by the USA (19%), followed by the UK (14%) and The Netherlands (12%). One of the tools developed to support ArchiMate is Archi, a free open-source tool created by Phil Beauvoir at the University of Bolton in the UK. Since its development, Archi also has grown from a relatively small, home-grown tool to become a widely used open-source resource that averages 3,000 downloads per month and whose community ranges from independent practitioners to Fortune 500 companies. It is no surprise that again, Archi is mostly downloaded in The Netherlands (17.67%), the United States (12.42%) and the United Kingdom (8.81%).

After these noteworthy facts and figures, Henk Jonkers took a deep dive into modeling risk and security. Henk Jonkers is a senior research consultant, involved in BiZZdesign’s innovations in the areas of Enterprise Architecture and engineering. He was one of the main developers of the ArchiMate language, an author of the ArchiMate 1.0 and 2.0 Specifications, and is actively involved in the activities of the ArchiMate Forum of The Open Group. In this talk, Henk showed several examples of how risk and security aspects can be incorporated in Enterprise Architecture models using the ArchiMate language. He also explained how the resulting models could be used to analyze risks and vulnerabilities in the different architectural layers, and to visualize the business impact that they have.

First Henk described the limitations of current approaches – existing information security and risk management methods do not systematically identify potential attacks. They are based on checklists, heuristics and experience. Security controls are applied in a bottom-up way and are not based on a thorough analysis of risks and vulnerabilities. There is no explicit definition of security principles and requirements. Existing systems only focus on IT security. They have difficulties in dealing with complex attacks on socio-technical systems, combining physical and digital access, and social engineering. Current approaches focus on preventive security controls, and corrective and curative controls are not considered. Security by Design is a must, and there is always a trade-off between the risk factor versus process criticality. Henk gave some arguments as to why ArchiMate provides the right building blocks for a solid risk and security architecture. ArchiMate is widely accepted as an open standard for modeling Enterprise Architecture and support is widely available. ArchiMate is also suitable as a basis for qualitative and quantitative analysis. And last but not least: there is a good fit with other Enterprise Architecture and security frameworks (TOGAF, Zachman, SABSA).

“The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from”, emeritus professor Andrew Stuart Tanenbaum once said. Using this quote as a starting point, Gerben Wierda focused his speech on the relationship between the ArchiMate language and Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN). In particular he discussed Bruce Silver’s BPMN Method and Style. He stated that ArchiMate and BPMN can exist side by side. Why would you link BPMN and Archimate? According to Gerben there is a fundamental vision behind all of this. “There are unavoidably many ‘models’ of the enterprise that are used. We cannot reduce that to one single model because of fundamentally different uses. We even cannot reduce that to a single meta-model (or pattern/structure) because of fundamentally different requirements. Therefore, what we need to do is look at the documentation of the enterprise as a collection of models with different structures. And what we thus need to do is make this collection coherent.”

Gerben is Lead Enterprise Architect of APG Asset Management, one of the largest Fiduciary Managers (± €330 billion Assets under Management) in the world, with offices in Heerlen, Amsterdam, New York, Hong Kong and Brussels. He has overseen the construction of one of the largest single ArchiMate models in the world to date and is the author of the book “Mastering ArchiMate”, based on his experience in large scale ArchiMate modeling. In his speech, Gerben showed how the leading standards ArchiMate and BPMN (Business Process Modeling Notation, an OMG standard) can be used together, creating one structured logically coherent and automatically synchronized description that combines architecture and process details.

Marc Lankhorst, Managing Consultant and Service Line Manager Enterprise Architecture at BiZZdesign, presented on the topic of capability modeling in ArchiMate. As an internationally recognized thought leader on Enterprise Architecture, he guides the development of BiZZdesign’s portfolio of services, methods, techniques and tools in this field. Marc is also active as a consultant in government and finance. In the past, he has managed the development of the ArchiMate language for Enterprise Architecture modeling, now a standard of The Open Group. Marc is a certified TOGAF9 Enterprise Architect and holds an MSc in Computer Science from the University of Twente and a PhD from the University of Groningen in the Netherlands. In his speech, Marc discussed different notions of “capability” and outlined the ways in which these might be modeled in ArchiMate. In short, a business capability is something an enterprise does or can do, given the various resources it possesses. Marc described the use of capability-based planning as a way of translating enterprise strategy to architectural choices and look ahead at potential extensions of ArchiMate for capability modeling. Business capabilities provide a high-level view of current and desired abilities of the organization, in relation to strategy and environment. Enterprise Architecture practitioners design extensive models of the enterprise, but these are often difficult to communicate with business leaders. Capabilities form a bridge between the business leaders and the Enterprise Architecture practitioners. They are very helpful in business transformation and are the ratio behind capability based planning, he concluded.

For more information on ArchiMate, please visit:

http://www.opengroup.org/subjectareas/enterprise/archimate

For information on the Archi tool, please visit: http://www.archimatetool.com/

For information on joining the ArchiMate Forum, please visit: http://www.opengroup.org/getinvolved/forums/archimate

 

1 Comment

Filed under ArchiMate®, Certifications, Conference, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Transformation, Professional Development, Standards, TOGAF®

The Open Group Summit Amsterdam 2014 – Day Three Highlights

By Loren K. Baynes, Director, Global Marketing Communications, The Open Group

May 14, day three of The Open Group Summit Amsterdam, was another busy day for our attendees and presenters.  Tracks included ArchiMate®The Open Group Open Platform 3.0™-Big Data, Open CITS, TOGAF®, Architecture Methods and Professional Development.

Mark Skilton, Professor of Practice, Information Systems Management, Warwick Business School, UK presented “Creating Value in the Digital Economy”. Skilton discussed how the digital media in social, networks, mobile devices, sensors and the explosion of big data and cloud computing networks is interconnecting potentially everything everywhere – amounting to a new digital ecosystem.  These trends have significantly enhanced the importance of IT in its role and impact on business and market value locally, regionally and globally.

Other notable speakers included Thomas Obitz, Principal Advisor, KPMG, LLK, UK, and Paul Bonnie, Head of Architecture Office, ING, The Netherlands, who shared how standards, such as TOGAF®, an Open Group standard, are necessary and effective in the financial services industry.

During a special users group meeting in the evening, Andrew Josey, Director of Standards within The Open Group, presented the ArchiMate certification program and adoption of the language. . Andrew is currently managing the standards process for The Open Group, and has recently led the standards development projects for TOGAF® 9.1, ArchiMate 2.1, IEEE Std 1003.1-2008 (POSIX), and the core specifications of the Single UNIX Specification, Version 4.

Andrew provided an overview of the ArchiMate 2 certification program, including information on the adoption of the ArchiMate modeling language. He discussed the major milestones in the development of ArchiMate and referred to the Dutch origins of the language. The ArchiMate language was developed beginning in 2002 and is now widespread.  There have been over 41,000 downloads of ArchiMate specifications from more than 150 countries.

Henk Jonkers, senior research consultant involved in BiZZdesign’s innovations in Enterprise Architecture (EA) and one of the main developers of the ArchiMate language, took a deep dive into modeling risk and security.

Henk JonkersHenk Jonkers, BiZZdesign

As a final farewell from Amsterdam, a special thanks goes to our sponsors and exhibitors during this dynamic summit:  BiZZdesign, MEGA, ARCA Strategic Group, Good e-Learning, Orbus Software, Corso, Van Haren, Metaplexity, Architecting the Enterprise, Biner and the Association of Enterprise Architects (AEA).

For those of you who attended the Summit, please give us your feedback! https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/AMST2014

Stay tuned for Summit proceedings to be posted soon!  See you at our event in Boston, Massachusetts July 21-22!

 

Comments Off

Filed under ArchiMate®, Certifications, Conference, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Transformation, Open CITS, Open Platform 3.0, Standards, TOGAF®, Uncategorized