Author Archives: The Open Group Blog

Business Benefit from Public Data

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

Public bodies worldwide are making a wealth of information available, and encouraging its commercial exploitation. This sounds like a bonanza for the private sector at the public expense, but entrepreneurs are holding back. A healthy market for products and services that use public-sector information would provide real benefits for everyone. What can we do to bring it about?

Why Governments Give Away Data

The EU directive of 2003 on the reuse of public sector information encourages the Member States to make as much information available for reuse as possible. This directive was revised and strengthened in 2013. The U.S. Open Government Directive of 2009 provides similar encouragement, requiring US government agencies to post at least three high-value data sets online and register them on its data.gov portal. Other countries have taken similar measures to make public data publicly available.

Why are governments doing this? There are two main reasons.

One is that it improves the societies that they serve and the governments themselves. Free availability of information about society and government makes people more effective citizens and makes government more efficient. It illuminates discussion of civic issues, and points a searchlight at corruption.

The second reason is that it has a positive effect on the wealth of nations and their citizens. The EU directive highlights the ability of European companies to exploit the potential of public-sector information, and contribute to economic growth and job creation. Information is not just the currency of democracy. It is also the lubricant of a successful economy.

Success Stories

There are some big success stories.

If you drive a car, you probably use satellite navigation to find your way about, and this may use public-sector information. In the UK, for example, map data that can be used by sat-nav systems is supplied for commercial use by a government agency, the Ordnance Survey.

When you order something over the web for delivery to your house, you often enter a postal code and see most of the address auto-completed by the website. Postcode databases are maintained by national postal authorities, which are generally either government departments or regulated private corporations, and made available by them for commercial use. Here, the information is not directly supporting a market, but is contributing to the sale of a range of unrelated products and services.

The data may not be free. There are commercial arrangements for supply of map and postcode data. But it is available, and is the basis for profitable products and for features that make products more competitive.

The Bonanza that Isn’t

These successes are, so far, few in number. The economic benefits of open government data could be huge. The McKinsey Global Institute estimates a potential of between 3 and 5 trillion dollars annually. Yet the direct impact of Open Data on the EU economy in 2010, seven years after the directive was issued, is estimated by Capgemini at only about 1% of that, although the EU accounts for nearly a quarter of world GDP.

The business benefits to be gained from using map and postcode data are obvious. There are other kinds of public sector data, where the business benefits may be substantial, but they are not easy to see. For example, data is or could be available about public transport schedules and availability, about population densities, characteristics and trends, and about real estate and land use. These are all areas that support substantial business activity, but businesses in these areas seldom make use of public sector information today.

Where are the Products?

Why are entrepreneurs not creating these potentially profitable products and services? There is one obvious reason. The data they are interested in is not always available and, where it is available, it is provided in different ways, and comes in different formats. Instead of a single large market, the entrepreneur sees a number of small markets, none of which is worth tackling. For example, the market for an application that plans public transport journeys across a single town is not big enough to justify substantial investment in product development. An application that could plan journeys across any town in Europe would certainly be worthwhile, but is not possible unless all the towns make this data available in a common format.

Public sector information providers often do not know what value their data has, or understand its applications. Working within tight budgets, they cannot afford to spend large amounts of effort on assembling and publishing data that will not be used. They follow the directives but, without common guidelines, they simply publish whatever is readily to hand, in whatever form it happens to be.

The data that could support viable products is not available everywhere and, where it is available, it comes in different formats. (One that is often used is PDF, which is particularly difficult to process as an information source.) The result is that the cost of product development is high, and the expected return is low.

Where is the Market?

There is a second reason why entrepreneurs hesitate. The shape of the market is unclear. In a mature market, everyone knows who the key players are, understands their motivations, and can predict to some extent how they will behave. The market for products and services based on public sector information is still taking shape. No one is even sure what kinds of organization will take part, or what they will do. How far, for example, will public-sector bodies go in providing free applications? Can large corporations buy future dominance with loss-leader products? Will some unknown company become an overnight success, like Facebook? With these unknowns, the risks are very high.

Finding the Answers

Public sector information providers and standards bodies are tackling these problems. The Open Group participates in SHARE-PSI, the European network for the exchange of experience and ideas around implementing open data policies in the public sector. The experience gained by SHARE-PSI will be used by the World-Wide Web Consortium as a basis for standards and guidelines for publication of public sector information. These standards and guidelines may be used, not just by the public sector, but by not-for-profit bodies and even commercial corporations, many of which have information that they want to make freely available.

The Open Group is making a key contribution by helping to map the shape of the market. It is using the Business Scenario technique from its well-known Enterprise Architecture methodology TOGAF® to identify the kinds of organization that will take part, and their objectives and concerns.

There will be a preview of this on October 22 at The Open Group event in London which will feature a workshop session on Open Public Sector Data. This workshop will look at how Open Data can help business, present a draft of the Business Scenario, and take input from participants to help develop its conclusions.

The developed Business Scenario will be presented at the SHARE-PSI workshop in Lisbon on December 3-4. The theme of this workshop is encouraging open data usage by commercial developers. It will bring a wide variety of stakeholders together to discuss and build the relationship between the public and private sectors. It will also address, through collaboration with the EU LAPSI project, the legal framework for use of open public sector data.

Benefit from Participation!

If you are thinking about publishing or using public-sector data, you can benefit from these workshops by gaining an insight into the way that the market is developing. In the long term, you can influence the common standards and guidelines that are being developed. In the short term, you can find out what is happening and network with others who are interested.

The social and commercial benefits of open public-sector data are not being realized today. They can be realized through a healthy market in products and services that process the data and make it useful to citizens. That market will emerge when public bodies and businesses clearly understand the roles that they can play. Now is the time to develop that understanding and begin to profit from it.

Register for The Open Group London 2014 event at http://www.opengroup.org/london2014/registration.

Find out how to participate in the Lisbon SHARE-PSI workshop at http://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/workshop/lisbon/#Participation

 

Chris HardingDr. 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.

Leave a comment

Filed under big data, Cloud, digital technologies, Enterprise Architecture, Open Platform 3.0, TOGAF®, Uncategorized

The Open Group London 2014: Open Platform 3.0™ Panel Preview with Capgemini’s Ron Tolido

By The Open Group

The third wave of platform technologies is poised to revolutionize how companies do business not only for the next few years but for years to come. At The Open Group London event in October, Open Group CTO Dave Lounsbury will be hosting a panel discussion on how The Open Group Open Platform 3.0™ will affect Enterprise Architectures. Panel speakers include IBM Vice President and CTO of U.S. Federal IMT Andras Szakal and Capgemini Senior Vice President and CTO for Application Services Ron Tolido.

We spoke with Tolido in advance of the event about the progress companies are making in implementing third platform technologies, the challenges facing the industry as Open Platform 3.0 evolves and the call to action he envisions for The Open Group as these technologies take hold in the marketplace.

Below is a transcript of that conversation.

From my perspective, we have to realize: What is the call to action that we should have for ourselves? If we look at the mission of Boundaryless Information Flow™ and the need for open standards to accommodate that, what exactly can The Open Group and any general open standards do to facilitate this next wave in IT? I think it’s nothing less than a revolution. The first platform was the mainframe, the second platform was the PC and now the third platform is anything beyond the PC, so all sorts of different devices, sensors and ways to access information, to deploy solutions and to connect. What does it mean in terms of Boundaryless Information Flow and what is the role of open standards to make that platform succeed and help companies to thrive in such a new world?

That’s the type of call to action I’m envisioning. And I believe there are very few Forums or Work Groups within The Open Group that are not affected by this notion of the third platform. Firstly, I believe an important part of the Open Platform 3.0 Forum’s mission will be to analyze, to understand, the impacts of the third platform, of all those different areas that we’re evolving currently in The Open Group, and, if you like, orchestrate them a bit or be a catalyst in all the working groups and forums.

In a blog you wrote this summer for Capgemini’s CTO Blog you cited third platform technologies as being responsible for a renewed interest in IT as an enabler of business growth. What is it about the Third Platform is driving that interest?

It’s the same type of revolution as we’ve seen with the PC, which was the second platform. A lot of people in business units—through the PC and client/server technologies and Windows and all of these different things—realized that they could create solutions of a whole new order. The second platform meant many more applications, many more uses, much more business value to be achieved and less direct dependence on the central IT department. I think we’re seeing a very similar evolution right now, but the essence of the move is not that it moves us even further away from central IT but it puts the power of technology right in the business. It’s much easier to create solutions. Nowadays, there are many more channels that are so close in business that it takes business people to understand them. This explains also why business people like the third platform so much—it’s the Cloud, it’s mobile, social, it’s big data, all of these are waves that bring technology closer to the business, and are easy to use with very apparent business value that haven’t seen before, certainly not in the PC era. So we’re seeing a next wave, almost a revolution in terms of how easy it is to create solutions and how widely spread these solutions can be. Because again, as with the PC, it’s many more applications yet again and many more potential uses that can be connected through these applications, so that’s the very nature of the revolution and that also explains why business people like the third platform so much. So what people say to me these days on the business side is ‘We love IT, it’s just these bloody IT people that are the problem.’

Due to the complexities of building the next wave of platform computing, do you think that we may hit a point of fatigue as companies begin to tackle everything that is involved in creating that platform and making it work together?

The way I see it, that’s still the work of the IT community and the Enterprise Architect and the platform designer. It’s the very nature of the platform is that it’s attractive to use it, not to build it. The very nature of the platform is to connect to it and launch from it, but building the platform is an entirely different story. I think it requires platform designers and Enterprise Architects, if you like, and people to do the plumbing and do the architecting and the design underneath. But the real nature of the platform is to use it and to build upon it rather than to create it. So the happy view is that the “business people” don’t have to construct this.

I do believe, by the way, that many of the people in The Open Group will be on the side of the builders. They’re supposed to like complexity and like reducing it, so if we do it right the users of the platform will not notice this effort. It’s the same with the Cloud—the problem with the Cloud nowadays is that many people are tempted to run their own clouds, their own technologies, and before they know it, they only have additional complexity on their agenda, rather than reduced, because of the Cloud. It’s the same with the third platform—it’s a foundation which is almost a no-brainer to do business upon, for the next generation of business models. But if we do it wrong, we only have additional complexity on our hands, and we give IT a bad name yet again. We don’t want to do that.

What are Capgemini customers struggling with the most in terms of adopting these new technologies and putting together an Open Platform 3.0?

What you currently see—and it’s not always good to look at history—but if you look at the emergence of the second platform, the PC, of course there were years in which central IT said ‘nobody needs a PC, we can do it all on the mainframe,’ and they just didn’t believe it and business people just started to do it themselves. And for years, we created a mess as a result of it, and we’re still picking up some of the pieces of that situation. The question for IT people, in particular, is to understand how to find this new rhythm, how to adopt the dynamics of this third platform while dealing with all the complexity of the legacy platform that’s already there. I think if we are able to accelerate creating such a platform—and I think The Open Group will be very critical there—what exactly should be in the third platform, what type of services should you be developing, how would these services interact, could we create some set of open standards that the industry could align to so that we don’t have to do too much work in integrating all that stuff. If we, as The Open Group, can create that industry momentum, that, at least, would narrow the gap between business and IT that we currently see. Right now IT’s very clearly not able to deliver on the promise because they have their hands full with surviving the existing IT landscape, so unless they do something about simplifying it on the one hand and bridging that old world with the new one, they might still be very unpopular in the forthcoming years. That’s not what you want as an IT person—you want to enable business and new business. But I don’t think we’ve been very effective with that for the past ten years as an industry in general, so that’s a big thing that we have to deal with, bridging the old world with the new world. But anything we can do to accelerate and simplify that job from The Open Group would be great, and I think that’s the very essence of where our actions would be.

What are some of the things that The Open Group, in particular, can do to help affect these changes?

To me it’s still in the evangelization phase. Sooner or later people have to buy it and say ‘We get it, we want it, give me access to the third platform.’ Then the question will be how to accelerate building such an actual platform. So the big question is: What does such a platform look like? What types of services would you find on such a platform? For example, mobility services, data services, integration services, management services, development services, all of that. What would that look like in a typical Platform 3.0? Maybe even define a catalog of services that you would find in the platform. Then, of course, if you could use such a catalog or shopping list, if you like, to reach out to the technology suppliers of this world and convince them to pick that up and gear around these definitions—that would facilitate such a platform. Also maybe the architectural roadmap—so what would an architecture look like and what would be the typical five ways of getting there? We have to start with your local situation, so probably also several design cases would be helpful, so there’s an architectural dimension here.

Also, in terms of competencies, what type of competencies will we need in the near future to be able to supply these types of services to the business? That’s, again, very new—in this case, IT Specialist Certification and Architect Certification. These groups also need to think about what are the new competencies inherent in the third platform and how does it affect things like certification criteria and competency profiles?

In other areas, if you look at TOGAF®, and Open Group standard, is it really still suitable in fast paced world of the third platform or do we need a third platform version of TOGAF? With Security, for example, there are so many users, so many connections, and the activities of the former Jericho Forum seem like child’s play compared to what you will see around the third platform, so there’s no Forum or Work Group that’s not affected by this Open Platform 3.0 emerging.

With Open Platform 3.0 touching pretty much every aspect of technology and The Open Group, how do you tackle that? Do you have just an umbrella group for everything or look at it through the lens of TOGAF or security or the IT Specialist? How do you attack something so large?

It’s exactly what you just said. It’s fundamentally my belief that we need to do both of these two things. First, we need a catalyst forum, which I would argue is the Open Platform 3.0 Forum, which would be the catalyst platform, the orchestration platform if you like, that would do the overall definitions, the call to action. They’ve already been doing the business scenarios—they set the scene. Then it would be up to this Forum to reach out to all the other Forums and Work Groups to discuss impact and make sure it stays aligned, so here we have an orchestration function of the Open Platform 3.0 Forum. Then, very obviously, all the other Work Groups and Forums need to pick it up and do their own stuff because you cannot aspire to do all of this with one and the same forum because it’s so wide, it’s so diverse. You need to do both.

The Open Platform 3.0 Forum has been working for a year and a half now. What are some of the things the Forum has accomplished thus far?

They’ve been particularly working on some of the key definitions and some of the business scenarios. I would say in order to create an awareness of Open Platform 3.0 in terms of the business value and the definitions, they’ve done a very good job. Next, there needs to be a call to action to get everybody mobilized and setting tangible steps toward the Platform 3.0. I think that’s currently where we are, so that’s good timing, I believe, in terms of what the forum has achieved so far.

Returning to the mission of The Open Group, given all of the awareness we have created, what does it all mean in terms of Boundaryless Information Flow and how does it affect the Forums and Work Groups in The Open Group? That’s what we need to do now.

What are some of the biggest challenges that you see facing adoption of Open Platform 3.0 and standards for that platform?

They are relatively immature technologies. For example, with the Cloud you see a lot of players, a lot of technology providers being quite reluctant to standardize. Some of them are very open about it and are like ‘Right now we are in a niche, and we’re having a lot of fun ourselves, so why open it up right now?’ The movement would be more pressure from the business side saying ‘We want to use your technology but only if you align with some of these emerging standards.’ That would do it or certainly help. This, of course, is what makes The Open Group as powerful as not only technology providers, but also businesses, the enterprises involved and end users of technology. If they work together and created something to mobilize technology providers, that would certainly be a breakthrough, but these are immature technologies and, as I said, with some of these technology providers, it seems more important to them to be a niche player for now and create their own market rather than standardizing on something that their competitors could be on as well.

So this is a sign of a relatively immature industry because every industry that starts to mature around certain topics begins to work around open standards. The more mature we grow in mastering the understanding of the Open Platform 3.0, the more you will see the need for standards arise. It’s all a matter of timing so it’s not so strange that in the past year and a half it’s been very difficult to even discuss standards in this area. But I think we’re entering that era really soon, so it seems to be good timing to discuss it. That’s one important limiting area; I think the providers are not necessarily waiting for it or committed to it.

Secondly, of course, this is a whole next generation of technologies. With all new generations of technologies there are always generation gaps and people in denial or who just don’t feel up to picking it up again or maybe they lack the energy to pick up a new wave of technology and they’re like ‘Why can’t I stay in what I’ve mastered?’ All very understandable. I would call that a very typical IT generation gap that occurs when we see the next generation of IT emerge—sooner or later you get a generation gap, as well. Which has nothing to do with physical age, by the way.

With all these technologies converging so quickly, that gap is going to have to close quickly this time around isn’t it?

Well, there are still mainframes around, so you could argue that there will be two or even three speeds of IT sooner or later. A very stable, robust and predictable legacy environment could even be the first platform that’s more mainframe-oriented, like you see today. A second wave would be that PC workstation, client/server, Internet-based IT landscape, and it has a certain base and certain dynamics. Then you have this third phase, which is the new platform, that is more dynamic and volatile and much more diverse. You could argue that there might be within an organization multiple speeds of IT, multiple speeds of architectures, multi-speed solutioning, and why not choose your own speed?

It probably takes a decade or more to really move forward for many enterprises.

It’s not going as quickly as the Gartners of this world typically thinks it is—in practice we all know it takes longer. So I don’t see any reason why certain people wouldn’t certainly choose deliberately to stay in second gear and don’t go to third gear simply because they think it’s challenging to be there, which is perfectly sound to me and it would bring a lot of work in many years to companies.

That’s an interesting concept because start-ups can easily begin on a new platform but if you’re a company that has been around for a long time and you have existing legacy systems from the mainframe or PC era, those are things that you have to maintain. How do you tackle that as well?

That’s a given in big enterprises. Not everybody can be a disruptive start up. Maybe we all think that we should be like that but it’s not the case in real life. In real life, we have to deal with enterprise systems and enterprise processes and all of them might be very vulnerable to this new wave of challenges. Certainly enterprises can be disruptive themselves if they do it right, but there are always different dynamics, and, as I said, we still have mainframes, as well, even though we declared their ending quite some time ago. The same will happen, of course, to PC-based IT landscapes. It will take a very long time and will take very skilled hands and minds to keep it going and to simplify.

Having said that, you could argue that some new players in the market obviously have the advantage of not having to deal with that and could possibly benefit from a first-mover advantage where existing enterprises have to juggle several balls at the same time. Maybe that’s more difficult, but of course enterprises are enterprises for a good reason—they are big and holistic and mighty, and they might be able to do things that start-ups simply can’t do. But it’s a very unpredictable world, as we all realize, and the third platform brings a lot of disruptiveness.

What’s your perspective on how the Internet of Things will affect all of this?

It’s part of the third platform of course, and it’s something Andras Szakal will be addressing as well. There’s much more coming, both at the input sites, everything is becoming a sensor essentially to where even your wallpaper or paint is a sensor, but on the other hand, in terms of devices that we use to communicate or get information—smart things that whisper in your ears or whatever we’ll have in the coming years—is clearly part of this Platform 3.0 wave that we’ll have as we move away from the PC and the workstation, and there’s a whole bunch of new technologies around to replace it. The Internet of Things is clearly part of it, and we’ll need open standards as well because there are so many different things and devices, and if you don’t create the right standards and platform services to deal with it, it will be a mess. It’s an integral part of the Platform 3.0 wave that we’re seeing.

What is the Open Platform 3.0 Forum going to be working on over the next few months?

Understanding what this Open Platform 3.0 actually means—I think the work we’ve seen so far in the Forum really sets the way in terms of what is it and definitions are growing. Andras will be adding his notion of the Internet of Things and looking at definitions of what is it exactly. Many people already intuitively have an image of it.

The second will be how we deliver value to the business—so the business scenarios are a crucial thing to consider to see how applicable they are, how relevant they are to enterprises. The next thing to do will pertain to work that still needs to be done in The Open Group, as well. What would a new Open Platform 3.0 architecture look like? What are the platform services? What are the ones we can start working on right now? What are the most important business scenarios and what are the platform services that they will require? So architectural impacts, skills impacts, security impacts—as I said, there are very few areas in IT that are not touched by it. Even the new IT4IT Forum that will be launched in October, which is all about methodologies and lifecycle, will need to consider Agile, DevOps-related methodologies because that’s the rhythm and the pace that we’ve got to expect in this third platform. So the rhythm of the working group—definitions, business scenarios and then you start to thinking about what does the platform consist of, what type of services do I need to create to support it and hopefully by then we’ll have some open standards to help accelerate that thinking to help enterprises set a course for themselves. That’s our mission as The Open Group to help facilitate that.

Tolido-RonRon Tolido is Senior Vice President and Chief Technology Officer of Application Services Continental Europe, Capgemini. He is also a Director on the board of The Open Group and blogger for Capgemini’s multiple award-winning CTO blog, as well as the lead author of Capgemini’s TechnoVision and the global Application Landscape Reports. As a noted Digital Transformation ambassador, Tolido speaks and writes about IT strategy, innovation, applications and architecture. Based in the Netherlands, Mr. Tolido currently takes interest in apps rationalization, Cloud, enterprise mobility, the power of open, Slow Tech, process technologies, the Internet of Things, Design Thinking and – above all – radical simplification.

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under architecture, Boundaryless Information Flow™, Certifications, Cloud, digital technologies, Enterprise Architecture, Future Technologies, Information security, Internet of Things, Open Platform 3.0, Security, Service Oriented Architecture, Standards, TOGAF®, Uncategorized

Open FAIR Blog Series – An Introduction to Risk Analysis and the Open FAIR Body of Knowledge

By Jim Hietala, VP, Security and Andrew Josey, Director of Standards, The Open Group

This is the first in a four-part series of blogs introducing the Open FAIR Body of Knowledge. In this first blog. we look at what the Open FAIR Body of Knowledge provides, and why a taxonomy is needed for Risk Analysis.

An Introduction to Risk Analysis and the Open FAIR Body of Knowledge

The Open FAIR Body of Knowledge provides a taxonomy and method for understanding, analyzing and measuring information risk. It allows organizations to:

  • Speak in one language concerning their risk using the standard taxonomy and terminology, and communicate risk effectively to senior management
  • Consistently study and apply risk analysis principles to any object or asset
  • View organizational risk in total
  • Challenge and defend risk decisions
  • Compare risk mitigation options

What does FAIR stand for?

FAIR is an acronym for Factor Analysis of Information Risk.

Risk Analysis: The Need for an Accurate Model and Taxonomy

Organizations seeking to analyze and manage risk encounter some common challenges. Put simply, it is difficult to make sense of risk without having a common understanding of both the factors that (taken together) contribute to risk, and the relationships between those factors. The Open FAIR Body of Knowledge provides such a taxonomy.

Here’s an example that will help to illustrate why a standard taxonomy is important. Let’s assume that you are an information security risk analyst tasked with determining how much risk your company is exposed to from a “lost or stolen laptop” scenario. The degree of risk that the organization experiences in such a scenario will vary widely depending on a number of key factors. To even start to approach an analysis of the risk posed by this scenario to your organization, you will need to answer a number of questions, such as:

  • Whose laptop is this?
  • What data resides on this laptop?
  • How and where did the laptop get lost or stolen?
  • What security measures were in place to protect the data on the laptop?
  • How strong were the security controls?

The level of risk to your organization will vary widely based upon the answers to these questions. The degree of overall organizational risk posed by lost laptops must also include an estimation of the frequency of occurrence of lost or stolen laptops across the organization.

In one extreme, suppose the laptop belonged to your CTO, who had IP stored on it in the form of engineering plans for a revolutionary product in a significant new market. If the laptop was unprotected in terms of security controls, and it was stolen while he was on a business trip to a country known for state-sponsored hacking and IP theft, then there is likely to be significant risk to your organization. On the other extreme, suppose the laptop belonged to a junior salesperson a few days into their job, it contained no customer or prospect lists, and it was lost at a security checkpoint at an airport. In this scenario, there’s likely to be much less risk. Or consider a laptop which is used by the head of sales for the organization, who has downloaded Personally Identifiable Information (PII) on customers from the CRM system in order to do sales analysis, and has his or her laptop stolen. In this case, there could be Primary Loss to the organization, and there might also be Secondary Losses associated with reactions by the individuals whose data is compromised.

The Open FAIR Body of Knowledge is designed to help you to ask the right questions to determine the asset at risk (is it the laptop itself, or the data?), the magnitude of loss, the skill level and motivations of the attacker, the resistance strength of any security controls in place, the frequency of occurrence of the threat and of an actual loss event, and other factors that contribute to the overall level of risk for any specific risk scenario.

In our next blog in this series, we will consider 5 reasons why you should use The Open FAIR Body of Knowledge for Risk Analysis.

The Open FAIR Body of Knowledge consists of the following Open Group standards:

  • Risk Taxonomy (O-RT), Version 2.0 (C13K, October 2013) defines a taxonomy for the factors that drive information security risk – Factor Analysis of Information Risk (FAIR).
  • Risk Analysis (O-RA) (C13G, October 2013) describes process aspects associated with performing effective risk analysis.

These can be downloaded from The Open Group publications catalog at http://www.opengroup.org/bookstore/catalog.

Our other publications include a Pocket Guide and a Certification Study Guide.

62940-hietalaJim Hietala, CISSP, GSEC, is the Vice President, Security for The Open Group, where he manages all IT Security, Risk Management and Healthcare programs and standards activities. He participates in the SANS Analyst/Expert program and has also published numerous articles on Information Security, Risk Management, and compliance topics in publications including The ISSA Journal, Bank Accounting & Finance, Risk Factor, SC Magazine, and others.

 

andrew-small1Andrew Josey is Director of Standards within The Open Group. He is currently managing the standards process for The Open Group, and has recently led the standards development projects for TOGAF® 9.1, ArchiMate® 2.0, IEEE Std 1003.1-2008 (POSIX), and the core specifications of the Single UNIX® Specification, Version 4. Previously, he has led the development and operation of many of The Open Group certification development projects, including industry-wide certification programs for the UNIX system, the Linux Standard Base, TOGAF, and IEEE POSIX. He is a member of the IEEE, USENIX, UKUUG, and the Association of Enterprise Architects.

1 Comment

Filed under Data management, digital technologies, Identity Management, Information security, Open FAIR Certification, RISK Management, Security, Standards, Uncategorized

The Open Group Panel: Internet of Things – Opportunities and Obstacles

Below is the transcript of The Open Group podcast exploring the challenges and ramifications of the Internet of Things, as machines and sensors collect vast amounts of data.

Listen to the podcast.

Dana Gardner: Hello, and welcome to a special BriefingsDirect thought leadership interview series coming to you in conjunction with recent The Open Group Boston 2014 on July 21 in Boston.

Dana Gardner I’m Dana Gardner, principal analyst at Interarbor Solutions, and I’ll be your host and moderator throughout these discussions on Open Platform 3.0 and Boundaryless Information Flow.

We’re going to now specifically delve into the Internet of Things with a panel of experts. The conference has examined how Open Platform 3.0™ leverages the combined impacts of cloud, big data, mobile, and social. But to each of these now we can add a new cresting wave of complexity and scale as we consider the rapid explosion of new devices, sensors, and myriad endpoints that will be connected using internet protocols, standards and architectural frameworks.

This means more data, more cloud connectivity and management, and an additional tier of “things” that are going to be part of the mobile edge — and extending that mobile edge ever deeper into even our own bodies.

When we think about inputs to these social networks — that’s going to increase as well. Not only will people be tweeting, your device could be very well tweet, too — using social networks to communicate. Perhaps your toaster will soon be sending you a tweet about your English muffins being ready each morning.

The Internet of Things is more than the “things” – it means a higher order of software platforms. For example, if we are going to operate data centers with new dexterity thanks to software-definited networking (SDN) and storage (SDS) — indeed the entire data center being software-defined (SDDC) — then why not a software-defined automobile, or factory floor, or hospital operating room — or even a software-defined city block or neighborhood?

And so how does this all actually work? Does it easily spin out of control? Or does it remain under proper management and governance? Do we have unknown unknowns about what to expect with this new level of complexity, scale, and volume of input devices?

Will architectures arise that support the numbers involved, interoperability, and provide governance for the Internet of Things — rather than just letting each type of device do its own thing?

To help answer some of these questions, The Open Group assembled a distinguished panel to explore the practical implications and limits of the Internet of Things. So please join me in welcoming Said Tabet, Chief Technology Officer for Governance, Risk and Compliance Strategy at EMC, and a primary representative to the Industrial Internet Consortium; Penelope Gordon, Emerging Technology Strategist at 1Plug Corporation; Jean-Francois Barsoum, Senior Managing Consultant for Smarter Cities, Water and Transportation at IBM, and Dave Lounsbury, Chief Technical Officer at The Open Group.

Jean-Francois, we have heard about this notion of “cities as platforms,” and I think the public sector might offer us some opportunity to look at what is going to happen with the Internet of Things, and then extrapolate from that to understand what might happen in the private sector.

Hypothetically, the public sector has a lot to gain. It doesn’t have to go through the same confines of a commercial market development, profit motive, and that sort of thing. Tell us a little bit about what the opportunity is in the public sector for smart cities.

Barsoum_Jean-FrancoisJean-Francois Barsoum: It’s immense. The first thing I want to do is link to something that Marshall Van Alstyne (Professor at Boston University and Researcher at MIT) had talked about, because I was thinking about his way of approaching platforms and thinking about how cities represent an example of that.

You don’t have customers; you have citizens. Cities are starting to see themselves as platforms, as ways to communicate with their customers, their citizens, to get information from them and to communicate back to them. But the complexity with cities is that as a good a platform as they could be, they’re relatively rigid. They’re legislated into existence and what they’re responsible for is written into law. It’s not really a market.

Chris Harding (Forum Director of The Open Group Open Platform 3.0) earlier mentioned, for example, water and traffic management. Cities could benefit greatly by managing traffic a lot better.

Part of the issue is that you might have a state or provincial government that looks after highways. You might have the central part of the city that looks after arterial networks. You might have a borough that would look after residential streets, and these different platforms end up not talking to each other.

They gather their own data. They put in their own widgets to collect information that concerns them, but do not necessarily share with their neighbor. One of the conditions that Marshall said would favor the emergence of a platform had to do with how much overlap there would be in your constituents and your customers. In this case, there’s perfect overlap. It’s the same citizen, but they have to carry an Android and an iPhone, despite the fact it is not the best way of dealing with the situation.

The complexities are proportional to the amount of benefit you could get if you could solve them.

Gardner: So more interoperability issues?

Barsoum: Yes.

More hurdles

Gardner: More hurdles, and when you say commensurate, you’re saying that the opportunity is huge, but the hurdles are huge and we’re not quite sure how this is going to unfold.

Barsoum: That’s right.

Gardner: Let’s go to an area where the opportunity outstrips the challenge, manufacturing. Said, what is the opportunity for the software-defined factory floor for recognizing huge efficiencies and applying algorithmic benefits to how management occurs across domains of supply-chain, distribution, and logistics. It seems to me that this is a no-brainer. It’s such an opportunity that the solution must be found.

Tabet_SaidSaid Tabet: When it comes to manufacturing, the opportunities are probably much bigger. It’s where we can see a lot of progress that has already been done and still work is going on. There are two ways to look at it.

One is the internal side of it, where you have improvements of business processes. For example, similar to what Jean-Francois said, in a lot of the larger companies that have factories all around the world, you’ll see such improvements on a factory base level. You still have those silos at that level.

Now with this new technology, with this connectedness, those improvements are going to be made across factories, and there’s a learning aspect to it in terms of trying to manage that data. In fact, they do a better job. We still have to deal with interoperability, of course, and additional issues that could be jurisdictional, etc.

However, there is that learning that allows them to improve their processes across factories. Maintenance is one of them, as well as creating new products, and connecting better with their customers. We can see a lot of examples in the marketplace. I won’t mention names, but there are lots of them out there with the large manufacturers.

Gardner: We’ve had just-in-time manufacturing and lean processes for quite some time, trying to compress the supply chain and distribution networks, but these haven’t necessarily been done through public networks, the internet, or standardized approaches.

But if we’re to benefit, we’re going to need to be able to be platform companies, not just product companies. How do you go from being a proprietary set of manufacturing protocols and approaches to this wider, standardized interoperability architecture?

Tabet: That’s a very good question, because now we’re talking about that connection to the customer. With the airline and the jet engine manufacturer, for example, when the plane lands and there has been some monitoring of the activity during the whole flight, at that moment, they’ll get that data made available. There could be improvements and maybe solutions available as soon as the plane lands.

Interoperability

That requires interoperability. It requires Platform 3.0 for example. If you don’t have open platforms, then you’ll deal with the same hurdles in terms of proprietary technologies and integration in a silo-based manner.

Gardner: Penelope, you’ve been writing about the obstacles to decision-making that might become apparent as big data becomes more prolific and people try to capture all the data about all the processes and analyze it. That’s a little bit of a departure from the way we’ve made decisions in organizations, public and private, in the past.

Of course, one of the bigger tenets of Internet of Things is all this great data that will be available to us from so many different points. Is there a conundrum of some sort? Is there an unknown obstacle for how we, as organizations and individuals, can deal with that data? Is this going to be chaos, or is this going to be all the promises many organizations have led us to believe around big data in the Internet of Things?

Gordon_PenelopePenelope Gordon: It’s something that has just been accelerated. This is not a new problem in terms of the decision-making styles not matching the inputs that are being provided into the decision-making process.

Former US President Bill Clinton was known for delaying making decisions. He’s a head-type decision-maker and so he would always want more data and more data. That just gets into a never-ending loop, because as people collect data for him, there is always more data that you can collect, particularly on the quantitative side. Whereas, if it is distilled down and presented very succinctly and then balanced with the qualitative, that allows intuition to come to fore, and you can make optimal decisions in that fashion.

Conversely, if you have someone who is a heart-type or gut-type decision-maker and you present them with a lot of data, their first response is to ignore the data. It’s just too much for them to take in. Then you end up completely going with whatever you feel is correct or whatever you have that instinct that it’s the correct decision. If you’re talking about strategic decisions, where you’re making a decision that’s going to influence your direction five years down the road, that could be a very wrong decision to make, a very expensive decision, and as you said, it could be chaos.

It just brings to mind to me Dr. Suess’s The Cat in the Hat with Thing One and Thing Two. So, as we talk about the Internet of Things, we need to keep in mind that we need to have some sort of structure that we are tying this back to and understanding what are we trying to do with these things.

Gardner: Openness is important, and governance is essential. Then, we can start moving toward higher-order business platform benefits. But, so far, our panel has been a little bit cynical. We’ve heard that the opportunity and the challenges are commensurate in the public sector and that in manufacturing we’re moving into a whole new area of interoperability, when we think about reaching out to customers and having a boundary that is managed between internal processes and external communications.

And we’ve heard that an overload of data could become a very serious problem and that we might not get benefits from big data through the Internet of Things, but perhaps even stumble and have less quality of decisions.

So Dave Lounsbury of The Open Group, will the same level of standardization work? Do we need a new type of standards approach, a different type of framework, or is this a natural path and course what we have done in the past?

Different level

Lounsbury_DaveDave Lounsbury: We need to look at the problem at a different level than we institutionally think about an interoperability problem. Internet of Things is riding two very powerful waves, one of which is Moore’s Law, that these sensors, actuators, and network get smaller and smaller. Now we can put Ethernet in a light switch right, a tag, or something like that.

Also, Metcalfe’s Law that says that the value of all this connectivity goes up with the square of the number of connected points, and that applies to both the connection of the things but more importantly the connection of the data.

The trouble is, as we have said, that there’s so much data here. The question is how do you manage it and how do you keep control over it so that you actually get business value from it. That’s going to require us to have this new concept of a platform to not only to aggregate, but to just connect the data, aggregate it, correlate it as you said, and present it in ways that people can make decisions however they want.

Also, because of the raw volume, we have to start thinking about machine agency. We have to think about the system actually making the routine decisions or giving advice to the humans who are actually doing it. Those are important parts of the solution beyond just a simple “How do we connect all the stuff together?”

Gardner: We might need a higher order of intelligence, now that we have reached this border of what we can do with our conventional approaches to data, information, and process.

Thinking about where this works best first in order to then understand where it might end up later, I was intrigued again this morning by Professor Van Alstyne. He mentioned that in healthcare, we should expect major battles, that there is a turf element to this, that the organization, entity or even commercial corporation that controls and manages certain types of information and access to that information might have some very serious platform benefits.

The openness element now is something to look at, and I’ll come back to the public sector. Is there a degree of openness that we could legislate or regulate to require enough control to prevent the next generation of lock-in, which might not be to a platform to access to data information and endpoints? Where is it in the public sector that we might look to a leadership position to establish needed openness and not just interoperability.

Barsoum: I’m not even sure where to start answering that question. To take healthcare as an example, I certainly didn’t write the bible on healthcare IT systems and if someone did write that, I think they really need to publish it quickly.

We have a single-payer system in Canada, and you would think that would be relatively easy to manage. There is one entity that manages paying the doctors, and everybody gets covered the same way. Therefore, the data should be easily shared among all the players and it should be easy for you to go from your doctor, to your oncologist, to whomever, and maybe to your pharmacy, so that everybody has access to this same information.

We don’t have that and we’re nowhere near having that. If I look to other areas in the public sector, areas where we’re beginning to solve the problem are ones where we face a crisis, and so we need to address that crisis rapidly.

Possibility of improvement

In the transportation infrastructure, we’re getting to that point where the infrastructure we have just doesn’t meet the needs. There’s a constraint in terms of money, and we can’t put much more money into the structure. Then, there are new technologies that are coming in. Chris had talked about driverless cars earlier. They’re essentially throwing a wrench into the works or may be offering the possibility of improvement.

On any given piece of infrastructure, you could fit twice as many driverless cars as cars with human drivers in them. Given that set of circumstances, the governments are going to find they have no choice but to share data in order to be able to manage those. Are there cases where we could go ahead of a crisis in order to manage it? I certainly hope so.

Gardner: How about allowing some of the natural forces of marketplaces, behavior, groups, maybe even chaos theory, where if sufficient openness is maintained there will be some kind of a pattern that will emerge? We need to let this go through its paces, but if we have artificial barriers, that might be thwarted or power could go to places that we would regret later.

Barsoum: I agree. People often focus on structure. So the governance doesn’t work. We should find some way to change the governance of transportation. London has done a very good job of that. They’ve created something called Transport for London that manages everything related to transportation. It doesn’t matter if it’s taxis, bicycles, pedestrians, boats, cargo trains, or whatever, they manage it.

You could do that, but it requires a lot of political effort. The other way to go about doing it is saying, “I’m not going to mess with the structures. I’m just going to require you to open and share all your data.” So, you’re creating a new environment where the governance, the structures, don’t really matter so much anymore. Everybody shares the same data.

Gardner: Said, to the private sector example of manufacturing, you still want to have a global fabric of manufacturing capabilities. This is requiring many partners to work in concert, but with a vast new amount of data and new potential for efficiency.

How do you expect that openness will emerge in the manufacturing sector? How will interoperability play when you don’t have to wait for legislation, but you do need to have cooperation and openness nonetheless?

Tabet: It comes back to the question you asked Dave about standards. I’ll just give you some examples. For example, in the automotive industry, there have been some activities in Europe around specific standards for communication.

The Europeans came to the US and started to have discussions, and the Japanese have interest, as well as the Chinese. That shows, because there is a common interest in creating these new models from a business standpoint, that these challenges they have to be dealt with together.

Managing complexity

When we talk about the amounts of data, what we call now big data, and what we are going to see in about five years or so, you can’t even imagine. How do we manage that complexity, which is multidimensional? We talked about this sort of platform and then further, that capability and the data that will be there. From that point of view, openness is the only way to go.

There’s no way that we can stay away from it and still be able to work in silos in that new environment. There are lots of things that we take for granted today. I invite some of you to go back and read articles from 10 years ago that try to predict the future in technology in the 21st century. Look at your smart phones. Adoption is there, because the business models are there, and we can see that progress moving forward.

Collaboration is a must, because it is a multidimensional level. It’s not just manufacturing like jet engines, car manufacturers, or agriculture, where you have very specific areas. They really they have to work with their customers and the customers of their customers.

Adoption is there, because the business models are there, and we can see that progress moving forward.

Gardner: Dave, I have a question for both you and Penelope. I’ve seen some instances where there has been a cooperative endeavor for accessing data, but then making it available as a service, whether it’s an API, a data set, access to a data library, or even analytics applications set. The Ocean Observatories Initiative is one example, where it has created a sensor network across the oceans and have created data that then they make available.

Do you think we expect to see an intermediary organization level that gets between the sensors and the consumers or even controllers of the processes? Is there’s a model inherent in that that we might look to — something like that cooperative data structure that in some ways creates structure and governance, but also allows for freedom? It’s sort of an entity that we don’t have yet in many organizations or many ecosystems and that needs to evolve.

Lounsbury: We’re already seeing that in the marketplace. If you look at the commercial and social Internet of Things area, we’re starting to see intermediaries or brokers cropping up that will connect the silo of my android ecosystem to the ecosystem of package tracking or something like that. There are dozens and dozens of these cropping up.

In fact, you now see APIs even into a silo of what you might consider a proprietary system and what people are doing is to to build a layer on top of those APIs that intermediate the data.

This is happening on a point-to-point basis now, but you can easily see the path forward. That’s going to expand to large amounts of data that people will share through a third party. I can see this being a whole new emerging market much as what Google did for search. You could see that happening for the Internet of Things.

Gardner: Penelope, do you have any thoughts about how that would work? Is there a mutually assured benefit that would allow people to want to participate and cooperate with that third entity? Should they have governance and rules about good practices, best practices for that intermediary organization? Any thoughts about how data can be managed in this sort of hierarchical model?

Nothing new

Gordon: First, I’ll contradict it a little bit. To me, a lot of this is nothing new, particularly coming from a marketing strategy perspective, with business intelligence (BI). Having various types of intermediaries, who are not only collecting the data, but then doing what we call data hygiene, synthesis, and even correlation of the data has been around for a long time.

It was an interesting, when I looked at recent listing of the big-data companies, that some notable companies were excluded from that list — companies like Nielsen. Nielsen’s been collecting data for a long time. Harte-Hanks is another one that collects a tremendous amount of information and sells that to companies.

That leads into the another part of it that I think there’s going to be. We’re seeing an increasing amount of opportunity that involves taking public sources of data and then providing synthesis on it. What remains to be seen is how much of the output of that is going to be provided for “free”, as opposed to “fee”. We’re going to see a lot more companies figuring out creative ways of extracting more value out of data and then charging directly for that, rather than using that as an indirect way of generating traffic.

Gardner: We’ve seen examples of how this has been in place. Does it scale and does the governance or lack of governance that might be in the market now sustain us through the transition into Platform 3.0 and the Internet of Things.

Gordon: That aspect is the lead-on part of “you get what you pay for”. If you’re using a free source of data, you don’t have any guarantee that it is from authoritative sources of data. Often, what we’re getting now is something somebody put it in a blog post, and then that will get referenced elsewhere, but there was nothing to go back to. It’s the shaky supply chain for data.

You need to think about the data supply and that is where the governance comes in. Having standards is going to increasingly become important, unless we really address a lot of the data illiteracy that we have. A lot of people do not understand how to analyze data.

One aspect of that is a lot of people expect that we have to do full population surveys, as opposed representative sampling to get much more accurate and much more cost-effective collection of data. That’s just one example, and we do need a lot more in governance and standards.

Gardner: What would you like to see changed most in order for the benefits and rewards of the Internet of Things to develop and overcome the drawbacks, the risks, the downside? What, in your opinion, would you like to see happen to make this a positive, rapid outcome? Let’s start with you Jean-Francois.

Barsoum: There are things that I have seen cities start to do now. There are couple of examples: Philadelphia is one and Barcelona does this too. Rather than do the typical request for proposal (RFP), where they say, “This is the kind of solution we’re looking for, and here are our parameters. Can l you tell us how much it is going to cost to build,” they come to you with the problem and they say, “Here is the problem I want to fix. Here are my priorities, and you’re at liberty to decide how best to fix the problem, but tell us how much that would cost.”

If you do that and you combine it with access to the public data that is available — if public sector opens up its data — you end up with a very powerful combination that liberates a lot of creativity. You can create a lot of new business models. We need to see much more of that. That’s where I would start.

More education

Tabet: I agree with Jean-Francois on that. What I’d like to add is that I think we need to push the relation a little further. We need more education, to your point earlier, around the data and the capabilities.

We need these platforms that we can leverage a little bit further with the analytics, with machine learning, and with all of these capabilities that are out there. We have to also remember, when we talk about the Internet of Things, it is things talking to each other.

So it is not human-machine communication. Machine-to-machine automation will be further than that, and we need more innovation and more work in this area, particularly more activity from the governments. We’ve seen that, but it is a little bit frail from that point of view right now.

Gardner: Dave Lounsbury, thoughts about what need to happen in order to keep this on the tracks?

Lounsbury: We’ve touched on lot of them already. Thank you for mentioning the machine-to-machine part, because there are plenty of projections that show that it’s going to be the dominant form of Internet communication, probably within the next four years.

So we need to start thinking of that and moving beyond our traditional models of humans talking through interfaces to set of services. We need to identify the building blocks of capability that you need to manage, not only the information flow and the skilled person that is going to produce it, but also how you manage the machine-to-machine interactions.

Gordon: I’d like to see not so much focus on data management, but focus on what is the data managing and helping us to do. Focusing on the machine-to-machine and the devices is great, but it should be not on the devices or on the machines… it should be on what can they accomplish by communicating; what can you accomplish with the devices and then have a reverse engineer from that.

Gardner: Let’s go to some questions from the audience. The first one asks about a high order of intelligence which we mentioned earlier. It could be artificial intelligence, perhaps, but they ask whether that’s really the issue. Is the nature of the data substantially different, or we are just creating more of the same, so that it is a storage, plumbing, and processing problem? What, if anything, are we lacking in our current analytics capabilities that are holding us back from exploiting the Internet of Things?

Gordon: I’ve definitely seen that. That has a lot to do with not setting your decision objectives and your decision criteria ahead of time so that you end up collecting a whole bunch of data, and the important data gets lost in the mix. There is a term “data smog.”

Most important

The solution is to figure out, before you go collecting data, what data is most important to you. If you can’t collect certain kinds of data that are important to you directly, then think about how to indirectly collect that data and how to get proxies. But don’t try to go and collect all the data for that. Narrow in on what is going to be most important and most representative of what you’re trying to accomplish.

Gardner: Does anyone want to add to this idea of understanding what current analytics capabilities are lacking, if we have to adopt and absorb the Internet of Things?

Barsoum: There is one element around projection into the future. We’ve been very good at analyzing historical information to understand what’s been happening in the past. We need to become better at projecting into the future, and obviously we’ve been doing that for some time already.

But so many variables are changing. Just to take the driverless car as an example. We’ve been collecting data from loop detectors, radar detectors, and even Bluetooth antennas to understand how traffic moves in the city. But we need to think harder about what that means and how we understand the city of tomorrow is going to work. That requires more thinking about the data, a little bit like what Penelope mentioned, how we interpret that, and how we push that out into the future.

Lounsbury: I have to agree with both. It’s not about statistics. We can use historical data. It helps with lot of things, but one of the major issues we still deal with today is the question of semantics, the meaning of the data. This goes back to your point, Penelope, around the relevance and the context of that information – how you get what you need when you need it, so you can make the right decisions.

Gardner: Our last question from the audience goes back to Jean-Francois’s comments about the Canadian healthcare system. I imagine it applies to almost any healthcare system around the world. But it asks why interoperability is so difficult to achieve, when we have the power of the purse, that is the market. We also supposedly have the power of the legislation and regulation. You would think between one or the other or both that interoperability, because the stakes are so high, would happen. What’s holding it up?

Barsoum: There are a couple of reasons. One, in the particular case of healthcare, is privacy, but that is one that you could see going elsewhere. As soon as you talk about interoperability in the health sector, people start wondering where is their data going to go and how accessible is it going to be and to whom.

You need to put a certain number of controls over top of that. What is happening in parallel is that you have people who own some data, who believe they have some power from owning that data, and that they will lose that power if they share it. That can come from doctors, hospitals, anywhere.

So there’s a certain amount of change management you have to get beyond. Everybody has to focus on the welfare of the patient. They have to understand that there has to be a priority, but you also have to understand the welfare of the different stakeholders in the system and make sure that you do not forget about them, because if you forget about them they will find some way to slow you down.

Use of an ecosystem

Lounsbury: To me, that’s a perfect example of what Marshall Van Alstyne talked about this morning. It’s the change from focus on product to a focus on an ecosystem. Healthcare traditionally has been very focused on a doctor providing product to patient, or a caregiver providing a product to a patient. Now, we’re actually starting to see that the only way we’re able to do this is through use of an ecosystem.

That’s a hard transition. It’s a business-model transition. I will put in a plug here for The Open Group Healthcare vertical, which is looking at that from architecture perspective. I see that our Forum Director Jason Lee is over here. So if you want to explore that more, please see him.

Gardner: I’m afraid we will have to leave it there. We’ve been discussing the practical implications of the Internet of Things and how it is now set to add a new dimension to Open Platform 3.0 and Boundaryless Information Flow.

We’ve heard how new thinking about interoperability will be needed to extract the value and orchestrate out the chaos with such vast new scales of inputs and a whole new categories of information.

So with that, a big thank you to our guests: Said Tabet, Chief Technology Officer for Governance, Risk and Compliance Strategy at EMC; Penelope Gordon, Emerging Technology Strategist at 1Plug Corp.; Jean-Francois Barsoum, Senior Managing Consultant for Smarter Cities, Water and Transportation at IBM, and Dave Lounsbury, Chief Technology Officer at The Open Group.

This is Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, your host and moderator throughout these discussions on Open Platform 3.0 and Boundaryless Information Flow at The Open Group Conference, recently held in Boston. Thanks again for listening, and come back next time.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes. Download the transcript.

Transcript of The Open Group podcast exploring the challenges and ramifications of the Internet of Things, as machines and sensors collect vast amounts of data. Copyright The Open Group and Interarbor Solutions, LLC, 2005-2014. All rights reserved.

You may also be interested in:

Leave a comment

Filed under Boundaryless Information Flow™, Business Architecture, Cloud, Cloud/SOA, Data management, digital technologies, Enterprise Architecture, Future Technologies, Information security, Internet of Things, Interoperability, Open Platform 3.0, Service Oriented Architecture, Standards, Strategy, Supply chain risk, Uncategorized

Enterprise Architecture: A Practitioner View

By Prasad Palli and Dr. Gopala Krishna Behara, Wipro

Overview of Enterprise Architecture

IT organizations as usual are always ready to take challenges and start the journey in defining/refining their IT strategies and aligning with business strategies. During this journey, enterprises adopt a framework / methodology / best-practice / pattern / process called “Enterprise Architecture” which will help them to structure their processes and address growth together.

The effective management and exploitation of information through IT is a key factor to business success, and an indispensable means to achieving competitive advantage. Enterprise Architecture addresses this need, by providing a strategic context for the evolution of the IT system in response to the constantly changing needs of the business environment.

Without Enterprise Architecture

Based on our experience in Enterprise Architecture consulting, we highlight the common mistakes/frequent issues faced by the organizations in the absence of Enterprise Architecture.

Strategy

  • No link to business strategic planning and budget process
  • Slow and ineffective decision-making
  • Inability to rapidly respond to changes driven by business challenges
  • Lack of focus on enterprise requirements
  • Lack of common direction and synergies
  • Focusing on the art or language of EA rather than outcomes
  • Incomplete visibility of the current and future target Enterprise Architecture vision

Governance

  • Inability to predict impacts of future changes
  • Confusing “IT Architecture” With “Enterprise Architecture”
  • Lack of governance
  • Strict following of EA frameworks
  • “Ivory Tower” approach
  • Lack of communication and feedback
  • Limiting the EA team to IT resources
  • Lack of performance measures
  • No measurement criteria for EA metrics
  • Picking a tool before understanding your business needs

Technology

  • Increased gaps and architecture conflicts
  • Lack of commonality and consistency due to the absence of standards
  • Dilution and dissipation of critical information and knowledge of the deployed solutions
  • Rigidity, redundancy and lack of scalability and flexibility in the deployed solutions
  • Over-standardization
  • Non-adoption of Next Generation Technologies
  • Lack of integration, compatibility and interoperability between applications
  • Complex, fragile and costly interfaces between incongruent application

Enterprise Architecture Perspective

The main drivers of Enterprise Architecture of the enterprise are:

  • Highly optimized and flexible processes (Business & IT)
  • Ability to integrate seamlessly with systems within the enterprise and partners
  • Highly optimized and shared IT infrastructure
  • Loosely coupled systems to quickly respond to new processes or new product or new channel – Business value generation
  • Well mapping of business processes to application to information to technology
  • Strict adherence to regulatory and compliance factors

This article highlights our framework of Enterprise Architecture and its roadmap for the development and management of various components. It depicts how these components work together, what are the various measures of business units, enterprise and their outcome. The framework includes putting in place the proper organizational structure and hybrid business/IT roles, consolidating and standardizing information and data stores, and integrating applications and infrastructure to support the right business processes across the enterprise.

The key Components of Enterprise Architecture are depicted below.

EA1

EA – Practical Experience

Enterprise Architecture is not a one-time event, nor limited to specific projects or business units. EA is an on-going, iterative process that provides:

  • A common vision of the future shared by business and IT; business aware of IT and vice-versa
  • Guidance in the selection, creation and implementation of solutions driven by business requirements
  • Support for the various enterprise business lines through improved information sharing – provides plan for the integration of information and services at the design level across business lines
  • A means to control growing complexities of technology by setting enterprise-wide, leverageable standards for information technology
  • Defines an approach for the evaluation, consideration and assimilation of new and emerging technology innovations to meet business requirements

Some of the key aspects that teams will come across during EA execution:

  • EA is NOT a project: This is one of common mistake that most enterprises do. Enterprise Architecture is NOT a project, which can be delivered within specified timeframe. Enterprise Architecture is more of a culture that enterprises must adopt like SDLC process.
  • EA is NOT about review : Generally, people tend to think that EA is always for review and do policing team/individual performance and provide review reports to higher management. Instead EA is of bringing standards and making enterprise flexible to address changes as needed for business growth.
  • EA is NOT a one-time activity: The success of EA is possible only when enterprises will adopt it as part of their culture. For this to happen, Enterprise Architecture should execute as an iterative and on-going process and educate all stakeholders (business, portfolio managers, architects, program/project managers, designers, developers, operations, partners etc.) about the initiative and make them responsible for EA success.
  • EA is NOT for IT: Most of the times Enterprise Architecture initiative is driven by IT organizations without much involvement from Business. This is the first step towards a big failure. Depending upon the approach (whether it is top-down or bottom-up), business should be aware of what’s happening in the Enterprise Architecture initiative and be actively participating in the program when needed. Business is as equally responsible as IT for the success of an EA initiative.
  • EA is NOT a strategy: There is a common view across organizations that Enterprise Architecture is more of a strategy and teams like solution architecture, portfolio management and design & development and operations streams doesn’t have a role to play. In fact, the aforementioned teams are key contributors to Enterprise Architecture definition and its success by inculcating EA standards and best practices in their day-to-day activities.
  • EA is NOT all about cost-reduction: Most of the enterprises will look at EA from cost savings perspective that puts lot of pressure on IT to show some immediate benefits in terms of savings. With this kind of pressure, EA will get off track and be seen as more of a tactical initiative rather than strategic. Enterprises should start looking at EA more from Business-IT alignment, agility, innovation etc. which are strategic in nature along with cost savings.
  • EA is NOT one-man show: Enterprise Architecture is neither a CIO job or CFO or any CXO. It’s everybody’s job within an enterprise. During the EA strategy definition phase, probably more leadership involvement is needed and at EA implementation stage all the stakeholders will have a role to play and contribute one way or another.
  • EA is all about communication: One of the common mistakes that most enterprises do during the EA program is the team will work in silos and build huge pile of documents without having proper communication sessions within enterprise. At a minimum, the EA team should spend 50% of efforts towards communicating EA artifacts with the team and successful medium is through meetings rather than sending over emails or website.
  • Measure EA: During the initial stages of an EA program, the team should define measuring criteria/factors of EA (for ex: customer satisfaction, time to market, agility, cost savings, standardization, resources skills, trainings/certification etc.). Without these factors defined, EA will end up in ad-hoc planning which leads to chaos and frustrates leadership.
  • Adoption of Latest Technology Trends on EA: Traditional EA is more of the “Ivory Tower” approach which is modeled as framework-centered and tool-driven. Most of the EA function is technology-centric and defined as a one-time initiative. Application built on Traditional EA principles are business-constraint before they are completed. The Next Generation Enterprise Architecture (NGEA) is business-centric, global, agile, continuous and social digital network. Also, the organizations adopt latest digital capabilities like social web, SOA, big data analytics, omni channel customer management, cloud computing, virtualization, Internet of Things and so on. These technologies are interrelated and fit together to define Next Generation Enterprise Architecture for an organization.

The vision of an enterprise is shifting from Traditional EA to Digital Architecture which addresses Networked Community Capabilities (interacting with users through social media), globalization (Borderless Enterprise), innovation of products and services (open, closed & virtual innovation), collaboration (enable employees in decision-making, location flexibility, schedule flexibility), flexibility (flexibility to choose the technologies, infrastructure, applications).

The following diagram shows the Next Generation EA Model.

EA2

  • Network-centric enterprise: Online communities, workforce (network/social collaboration), business partners, customers and the marketplace
  • Enterprise resources: Teams, project-centric, process-based work conducted by communities
  • Business partners: Strategic partners and suppliers can be engaged together in operations
  • Customers: Customer care communities
  • Outside enterprise: Regulators, influencers, crowdsourcing participants, software developers and other interested parties
  • Third party vendors: Packaged vendors like SAP, Oracle ERP etc.
  • New channels: Web, mobile devices, Social business environments (communities of all functional types and audiences) and CRM

Conclusions

This article attempts to demonstrate practical views of an Enterprise Architect in improving the success rate of EA across the organizations. There is no hard and fast rule that enterprises should adopt to one particular framework or standard or approach. They can choose to adopt any industry specific framework, however it can be customized as per the needs of the enterprise. It does not force fit EA programs to any industry framework. The deliverables of EA should integrate with business planning, focus on business architecture and defining/streamlining business outcome metrics.

EA program definition should not span for years. It should deliver business value in months or weeks. Also, the program output should be actionable. Always measure impact but not activity.

Apart from these steps, enterprise should think about following other key aspects like:

  • Should have strong leadership commitments
  • Not always as-Is instead it can start with defining future state
  • Start with the highest-priority business outcomes

Use the right diagnostic tools — EAs must have a broad set of tools to choose from:

  • Ensure the program outputs are actionable
  • Measure impact, not activity
  • Adopt Next Generation Enterprise Architecture patterns
  • Socialize, listen, crowd source and be transparent
  • Do not re-architect legacy systems for the sake of re-architecting: most old systems should be wrapped, then replaced
  • Prepare to measure degree of success before starting on with the new architecture initiative
  • Do not over-design your systems of innovation or under-design the systems of differentiation or record

References

1.http://www.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf7-doc/arch/p4/comp/comp.htm

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Hari Kishan Burle, Raju Alluri of Architecture Group of Wipro Technologies for giving us the required time and support in many ways in bringing this article as part of Enterprise Architecture Practice efforts.

Authors

PalliPrasad Palli is a Practice Partner in the Enterprise Architecture division of Wipro. He has a total of 17 years of IT experience. He can be reached at prasad.palli@wipro.com

 

BeharaDr. Gopala Krishna Behara is a Senior Enterprise Architect in the Enterprise Architecture division of Wipro. He has a total of 18 years of IT experience. He can be reached at gopalkrishna.behra@wipro.com

 

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this article/presentation are that of authors and Wipro does not subscribe to the substance, veracity or truthfulness of the said opinion.

1 Comment

Filed under Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Transformation, Governance, IT, Standards

Now is the Time for Third Generation Enterprise Architecture Methods

By Erwin Oord, Principal Consultant Enterprise Architecture and Managing Partner at Netherlands-based ArchiXL Consultancy

Common methods for Enterprise Architecture used at present have been around for ages already. Although these methods have made a strong contribution to the development of the architecture discipline, they have reached the limits of their abilities. It is time to make a leap forward and for that we need a new generation of architecture methods. What characterizes architecture methods of this new generation?

Architects currently working with methods like TOGAF®, an Open Group standard, DYA or IAF might not realize it, but these methods stem from the early days of the architecture discipline. DYA originated in 2001 and the first version of TOGAF dates back to even 1995! Of course, these architecture methods are not dinosaurs that forgot to extinct. TOGAF produces new versions that are the result of lively discussion at The Open Group.

But an architecture method is like a car model. With annual facelifts you can adjust to the latest fashion, but you cannot hide the fact that the basic product reflects the spirit of the time in which it was developed. Car models, including those of the better car brands, reach their end after a decade or so. The automotive industry is used to this and knows that this cycle requires high investments, but also brings new opportunities. Enterprise Architecture is no different!

Let’s take a look back in history. The notion of Enterprise Architecture emerged in the mid-eighties. In that period, people like Zachman discovered that systems development models together create a coherent view on the enterprise. Thus arose the first architectural frameworks. This is the first generation of architecture methods, although a “method” was barely recognized.

The need for a repeatable process to develop and use architecture models emerged in the nineties. This is the time when the famous TOGAF Architecture Development Method came about, later followed by the concept of the strategic dialogue in DYA. This process-oriented approach to Enterprise Architecture was a great leap forward. We can therefore speak of a second generation of architecture methods.

A shocking discovery is that since then not much more has happened. Of course, methods have evolved with the addition of reference models and techniques for creating models. The underlying content frames have improved, now including architectural principles and implementation aspects. But all this is merely facelifting. We are still working with basic designs dating back more than a decade.

In order to make a leap forward again, we must escape the current process orientation. Instead of focusing on a fixed process to develop and use architecture, we must focus on the results of architecture. But that is only possible when we realize architecture is not a process in itself but an aspect of the overall change process in an organization. After all, governments and companies are constantly changing. An architecture method should therefore not be self-contained, but should be fully integrated in the change process.

A third generation architecture method has no fixed processes but focuses on essential architecture tasks, and integrates these tasks in the change methodology used by the organization. It provides a limited set of clearly defined architectural products that can be used directly in the change process. And it recognizes clearly defined roles that, depending on the situation, can be assigned to the right stakeholders. And that is certainly not always the Enterprise Architect. The key of a third generation Enterprise Architecture method is not the method itself but the way it is integrated into the organization.

OordErwin Oord, Principal Consultant Enterprise Architecture and Managing Partner at Netherlands based ArchiXL consultancy, has a rich experience in applying and customising Enterprise Architecture methods in both public sector and business organisations. Being co-author of a successful (Dutch) guide on selecting appropriate architecture methods, he is frequently asked for setting up an architecture practice or advancing architecture maturity stages in organisations. In his assignments, he focuses on effective integration of architecture with business and organisation change management.

7 Comments

Filed under Enterprise Architecture, Standards, TOGAF®, Uncategorized

Using The Open Group Standards – O-ISM3 with TOGAF®

By Jose Salamanca, UST Global, and Vicente Aceituno, Inovement

In order to prevent duplication of work and maximize the value provided by the Enterprise Architecture and Information Security discipline, it is necessary to find ways to communicate and take advantage from each other’s work. We have been examining the relationship between O-ISM3 and TOGAF®, both Open Group standards, and have found that, terminology differences aside, there are quite a number of ways to use these two standards together. We’d like to share our findings with The Open Group’s audience of Enterprise Architects, IT professionals, and Security Architects in this article.

Any ISMS manager needs to understand what the Security needs of the business are, how IT can cater for these needs, and how Information Security can contribute the most with the least amount of resources possible. Conversely, Enterprise Architects are challenged to build Security into the architectures deployed in the business in such a way that Security operations may be managed effectively.

There are parts of Enterprise Architecture that make the process of understanding the dependencies between the business and IT pretty straightforward. For example:

  • The TOGAF® 9 document “Business Principles – Goals – Drivers” will help inform the O-ISM3 practitioner what the business is about, in other words, what needs to be protected.
  • The TOGAF 9 document – Architecture Definition contains the Application, Technology and Data Domains, and the Business Domain. As a TOGAF service is a subdivision of an application used by one or several business functions, the O-ISM3 practitioner will be able to understand the needs of the business, developed and expressed as O-ISM3 Security objectives and Security targets, by interviewing the business process owners (found in the TOGAF Architecture Definition).
  • To determine how prepared applications are to meet those Security objectives and Security targets the O-ISM3 practitioner can interview the owner (found in the TOGAF Application Portfolio Catalog) of each application.
  • To check the location of the Components (parts of the application from the point of view of IT), which can have licensing and privacy protection implications, the O-ISM3 practitioner can interview the data owners (found in the TOGAF Architecture Definition) of each application.
  • To check the different Roles of use of an application, which will direct how access control is designed and operated, the O-ISM3 practitioner can interview the business process owners (found in the TOGAF Architecture Definition).
  • To understand how Components depend on each other, which has broad reaching implications in Security and business continuity, the O-ISM3 practitioner can examine the TOGAF Logical Application Components Map.

TOGAF practitioners can find Security constraints, which are equivalent to O-ISM3 Security Objectives (documented in “TOGAF 9 Architecture Vision” and “Data Landscape”) in the documents TSP-031 Information Security Targets and TSP-032 Information Requirements and Classification.

The Application Portfolio artifact in TOGAF is especially suitable to document the way applications are categorized from the point of view of security. The categorization enables prioritizing how they are protected.

The Security requirements which are created in O-ISM3, namely Security objectives and Security targets, should be included in the document “Requirements TOGAF 9 Template – Architecture Requirements Specification”, which contains all the requirements, constraints, and assumptions.

What are your views and experiences of aligning your ISMS + Enterprise Architecture methods? We’d love to hear your thoughts.

 

JMSalamanca photoJosé Salamanca is Regional Head of Solutions & Services at UST Global Spain. Certified in TOGAF9®, Project Management Professional (PMP®), and EFQM®. Jose also holds a MBA Executive by the Business European School (Spain) and achieved his BSc. at Universidad Complutense of Madrid. He is Vice President of the Association of Enterprise Architects Spanish chapter and Master Teacher at Universidad de Antonio de Nebrija of Madrid. José has built his professional career with repeated successes in Europe and the Middle East.

 

 

JulioVicente Aceituno is Principal author of O-ISM3, an experienced Information Security Manager and Consultant with broad experience in outsourcing of security services and research. His focus is information security outsourcing, management and related fields like metrics and certification of ISMS. Vicente is President of the Spanish chapter of the Information Security Systems Association; Member of The Open Group Security Forum Steering Committee; Secretary of the Spanish Chapter of the Association of Enterprise Architects; ISMS Forum Member.

2 Comments

Filed under Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Transformation, Information security, Security, Security Architecture, Standards, TOGAF®, Uncategorized