Category Archives: Cloud/SOA

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

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

By The Open Group

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Join us on Twitter – #ogchat #ogBOS

Comments Off

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

The Open Group Open Platform 3.0™ Starts to Take Shape

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

The Third Platform

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

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

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

ChrisBlog1

Figure 1: The Third Platform

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

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

Common Architecture Environment

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

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

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

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

An Example Basic Model

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

ChrisBlog 2

Figure 2: Mobile Connected Device Model

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

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

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

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

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

Access to Technologies

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

ChrisBlog 3

Figure 3: Access to Technologies

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

User-Driven IT

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

ChrisBlog 4

Figure 4: User-Driven IT

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

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

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

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

Integration of Independently-Developed Solutions

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

ChrisBlog 5

Figure 5: Architecture Integration

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

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

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

Completing the Definition

How will we complete the definition of Open Platform 3.0?

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

ChrisBlog 6

Figure 6: Business Use-Cases

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

Use-Case Analysis

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

ChrisBlog 7

Figure 7: Use-Case Analysis

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

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

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

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

The Development Cycle

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

ChrisBlog 8

Figure 8: The Development Cycle

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

Call for Input

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

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

References

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

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

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

harding

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

 

 

 

 

 

2 Comments

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

The Onion & The Open Group Open Platform 3.0™

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

Onion1

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

 

 

 

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

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

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

Onion5

The Service at the Centre of the Onion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Onion6

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

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

Onion7   Onion8

 

 

 

 

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

2 Comments

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

Q&A with Jim Hietala on Security and Healthcare

By The Open Group

We recently spoke with Jim Hietala, Vice President, Security for The Open Group, at the 2014 San Francisco conference to discuss upcoming activities in The Open Group’s Security and Healthcare Forums.

Jim, can you tell us what the Security Forum’s priorities are going to be for 2014 and what we can expect to see from the Forum?

In terms of our priorities for 2014, we’re continuing to do work in Security Architecture and Information Security Management. In the area of Security Architecture, the big project that we’re doing is adding security to TOGAF®, so we’re working on the next version of the TOGAF standard and specification and there’s an active project involving folks from the Architecture Forum and the Security Forum to integrate security into and stripe it through TOGAF. So, on the Security Architecture side, that’s the priority. On the Information Security Management side, we’re continuing to do work in the area of Risk Management. We introduced a certification late last year, the OpenFAIR certification, and we’ll continue to do work in the area of Risk Management and Risk Analysis. We’re looking to add a second level to the certification program, and we’re doing some other work around the Risk Analysis standards that we’ve introduced.

The theme of this conference was “Towards Boundaryless Information Flow™” and many of the tracks focused on convergence, and the convergence of things Big Data, mobile, Cloud, also known as Open Platform 3.0. How are those things affecting the realm of security right now?

I think they’re just beginning to. Cloud—obviously the security issues around Cloud have been here as long as Cloud has been over the past four or five years. But if you look at things like the Internet of Things and some of the other things that comprise Open Platform 3.0, the security impacts are really just starting to be felt and considered. So I think information security professionals are really just starting to wrap their hands around, what are those new security risks that come with those technologies, and, more importantly, what do we need to do about them? What do we need to do to mitigate risk around something like the Internet of Things, for example?

What kind of security threats do you think companies need to be most worried about over the next couple of years?

There’s a plethora of things out there right now that organizations need to be concerned about. Certainly advanced persistent threat, the idea that maybe nation states are trying to attack other nations, is a big deal. It’s a very real threat, and it’s something that we have to think about – looking at the risks we’re facing, exactly what is that adversary and what are they capable of? I think profit-motivated criminals continue to be on everyone’s mind with all the credit card hacks that have just come out. We have to be concerned about cyber criminals who are profit motivated and who are very skilled and determined and obviously there’s a lot at stake there. All of those are very real things in the security world and things we have to defend against.

The Security track at the San Francisco conference focused primarily on risk management. How can companies better approach and manage risk?

As I mentioned, we did a lot of work over the last few years in the area of Risk Management and the FAIR Standard that we introduced breaks down risk into what’s the frequency of bad things happening and what’s the impact if they do happen? So I would suggest that taking that sort of approach, using something like taking the Risk Taxonomy Standard that we’ve introduced and the Risk Analysis Standard, and really looking at what are the critical assets to protect, who’s likely to attack them, what’s the probably frequency of attacks that we’ll see? And then looking at the impact side, what’s the consequence if somebody successfully attacks them? That’s really the key—breaking it down, looking at it that way and then taking the right mitigation steps to reduce risk on those assets that are really important.

You’ve recently become involved in The Open Group’s new Healthcare Forum. Why a healthcare vertical forum for The Open Group?

In the area of healthcare, what we see is that there’s just a highly fragmented aspect to the ecosystem. You’ve got healthcare information that’s captured in various places, and the information doesn’t necessarily flow from provider to payer to other providers. In looking at industry verticals, the healthcare industry seemed like an area that really needed a lot of approaches that we bring from The Open Group—TOGAF and Enterprise Architecture approaches that we have.

If you take it up to a higher level, it really needs the Boundaryless Information Flow that we talk about in The Open Group. We need to get to the point where our information as patients is readily available in a secure manner to the people who need to give us care, as well as to us because in a lot of cases the information exists as islands in the healthcare industry. In looking at healthcare it just seemed like a natural place where, in our economies – and it’s really a global problem – a lot of money is spent on healthcare and there’s a lot of opportunities for improvement, both in the economics but in the patient care that’s delivered to individuals through the healthcare system. It just seemed like a great area for us to focus on.

As the new Healthcare Forum kicks off this year, what are the priorities for the Forum?

The Healthcare Forum has just published a whitepaper summarizing the workshop findings for the workshop that we held in Philadelphia last summer. We’re also working on a treatise, which will outline our views about the healthcare ecosystem and where standards and architecture work is most needing to be done. We expect to have that whitepaper produced over the next couple of months. Beyond that, we see a lot of opportunities for doing architecture and standards work in the healthcare sector, and our membership is going to determine which of those areas to focus on, which projects to initiate first.

For more on the The Open Group Security Forum, please visit http://www.opengroup.org/subjectareas/security. For more on the The Open Group Healthcare Forum, see http://www.opengroup.org/getinvolved/industryverticals/healthcare.

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.

Comments Off

Filed under Cloud/SOA, Conference, Data management, Healthcare, Information security, Open FAIR Certification, Open Platform 3.0, RISK Management, TOGAF®, Uncategorized

What the C-Suite Needs to Prepare for in the Era of BYO Technology

By Allen Brown, President and CEO, The Open Group

IT today is increasingly being driven by end-users. This phenomenon, known as the “consumerization of IT,” is a result of how pervasive technology has become in daily life. Years ago, IT was the primarily the realm of technologists and engineers. Most people, whether in business settings or at home, did not have the technical know-how to source their own applications, write code for a web page or even set up their own workstation.

Today’s technologies are more user-friendly than ever and they’ve become ubiquitous. The introduction of smartphones and tablets has ushered in the era of “BYO” with consumers now bringing the technologies they like and are most comfortable working with into the workplace, all with the expectation that IT will support them. The days where IT decided what technologies would be used within an organization are no more.

At the same time, IT has lost another level of influence due to Cloud computing and Big Data. Again, the “consumers” of IT within the enterprise—line of business managers, developers, marketers, etc.—are driving these changes. Just as users want the agility offered by the devices they know and love, they also want to be able to buy and use the technologies they need to do their job and do it on the fly rather than wait for an IT department to go through a months’ (or years’) long process of requisitions and approvals. And it’s not just developers or IT staff that are sourcing their own applications—marketers are buying applications with their credit cards, and desktop users are sharing documents and spreadsheets via web-based office solutions.

When you can easily buy the processing capacity you need when you need it with your credit card or use applications online for free, why wait for approval?

The convergence of this next era of computing – we call it Open Platform 3.0™ – is creating a Balkanization of the traditional IT department. IT is no longer the control center for technology resources. As we’ve been witnessing over the past few years and as industry pundits have been prognosticating, IT is changing to become more of a service-based command central than a control center from which IT decisions are made.

These changes are happening within enterprises everywhere. The tides of change being brought about by Open Platform 3.0 cannot be held back. As I mentioned in my recent blog on Future Shock and the need for agile organizations, adaptation will be key for companies’ survival as constant change and immediacy become the “new normal” for how they operate.

These changes will, in fact, be positive for most organizations. As technologies converge and users drive the breakdown of traditional departmental silos and stovepipes, organizations will become more interoperable. More than ever, new computing models are driving the industry toward The Open Group’s vision of Boundaryless Information Flow™ within organizations. But the changes resulting from consumer-led IT are not just the problem of the IT department. They are on track to usher in a whole host of organizational changes that all executives must not only be aware of, but must also prepare and plan for.

One of the core of issues around consumerized IT that must be considered is the control of resources. Resource planning in terms of enabling business processes through technology must now be the concern of every person within the C-Suite from the CEO to the CIO and even the CMO.

Take, for example, the financial controls that must be considered in a BYO world. This issue, in particular, hits two very distinct centers of operations most closely—the offices of both the CIO and the CFO.

In the traditional IT paradigm, technology has been a cost center for most businesses with CFOs usually having the final say in what technologies can be bought and used based on budget. There have been very specific controls placed on purchases, each leaving an audit trail that the finance department could easily track and handle. With the Open Platform 3.0 paradigm, those controls go straight out the window. When someone in marketing buys and uses an application on their own without the CIO approving its use or the CFO having an paper trail for the purchase, accounting and financial or technology auditing can become a potential corporate nightmare.

Alternatively, when users share information over the Web using online documents, the CIO, CTO or CSO may have no idea what information is going in and out of the organization or how secure it is. But sharing information through web-based documents—or a CRM system—might be the best way for the CMO to work with vendors or customers or keep track of them. The CMO may also need to begin tracking IT purchases within their own department.

The audit trail that must be considered in this new computing era can extend in many directions. IT may need an accounting of technical and personal assets. Legal may need information for e-Discovery purposes—how does one account for information stored on tablets or smartphones brought from home or work-related emails from sent from personal accounts? The CSO may require risk assessments to be performed on all devices or may need to determine how far an organization’s “perimeter” extends for security purposes. The trail is potentially as large as the organization itself and its entire extended network of employees, vendors, customers, etc.

What can organizations do to help mitigate the potential chaos of a consumer-led IT revolution?

Adapt. Be flexible and nimble. Plan ahead. Strategize. Start talking about what these changes will mean for your organization—and do it sooner rather than later. Work together. Help create standards that can help organizations maintain flexible but open parameters (and perimeters) for sourcing and sharing resources.

Executive teams, in particular, will need to know more about the functions of other departments than ever before. IT departments—including CTOs and EAs—will need to know more about other business functions—such as finance—if they are to become IT service centers. CFOs will need to know more about technology, security, marketing and strategic planning. CMOs and CIOs will need to understand regulatory guidelines not only around securing information but around risk and data privacy.

Putting enterprise and business architectures and industry standards in place can go a long way toward helping to create structures that maintain a healthy balance between providing the flexibility needed for Open Platform 3.0 and BYO while allowing enough organizational control to prevent chaos. With open architectures and standards, organizations will better be able to decide where controls are needed and when and how information should be shared among departments. Interoperability and Boundaryless Information Flow—where and when they’re needed—will be key components of these architectures.

The convergence being brought about Open Platform 3.0 is not just about technology. It’s about the convergence of many things—IT, people, operations, processes, information. It will require significant cultural changes for most organizations and within different departments and organizational functions that are not used to sharing, processing and analyzing information beyond the silos that have been built up around them.

In this new computing model, Enterprise Architectures, interoperability and standards can and must play a central role in guiding the C-Suite through this time of rapid change so that users have the tools they need to be able to innovate, executives have the information they need to steer the proverbial ship and organizations don’t get left behind.

brown-smallAllen Brown is the President and CEO of The Open GroupFor more than ten years, he has been responsible for driving the organization’s strategic plan and day-to-day operations; he was also instrumental in the creation of the Association of Enterprise Architects (AEA). Allen is based in the U.K.

Comments Off

Filed under Business Architecture, Cloud/SOA, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Transformation, Standards, Uncategorized

One Year Later: A Q&A Interview with Chris Harding and Dave Lounsbury about Open Platform 3.0™

By The Open Group

The Open Group launched its Open Platform 3.0™ Forum nearly one year ago at the 2013 Sydney conference. Open Platform 3.0 refers to the convergence of new and emerging technology trends such as Mobile, Social, Big Data, Cloud and the Internet of Things, as well as the new business models and system designs these trends are pushing organizations toward due to the consumerization of IT and evolving user behaviors. The Forum was created to help organizations address the architectural and structural considerations that businesses must consider to take advantage of and benefit from this evolutionary shift in how technology is used.

We sat down with The Open Group CTO Dave Lounsbury and Open Platform 3.0 Director Dr. Chris Harding at the recent San Francisco conference to catch up on the Forum’s activities and progress since launch and what they’ll be working on during 2014.

The Open Group’s Forum, Open Platform 3.0, was launched almost a year ago in April of 2013. What has the Forum been working on over the past year?

Chris Harding (CH): We launched at the Sydney conference in April of last year. What we’ve done since then first of all was to look at the requirements for the platform, and we did this using the proven TOGAF® technique of the Business Scenario. So over the course of last summer, the summer of 2013, we developed a Business Scenario capturing the requirements for Open Platform 3.0 and that was published just before The Open Group conference in October. Following that conference, the main activity that we’ve been doing is in fact furthering the requirements space. We’ve been developing analysis of use cases, so currently we have 22 different use cases that members of the forum have put together which are illustrating the use of the convergent technologies and most importantly the use of them in combination with each other.

What we’re doing here in this meeting in San Francisco is to obtain from that basis of requirements and use cases an understanding of what the platform fundamentally should be because it is our intention to produce a Snapshot definition of the platform by the end of March. So in the first year of the Forum, we hope that we will finish that year by producing a Snapshot definition of Open Platform 3.0.

Dave Lounsbury (DL): First, the roots of the Open Platform go deeper. Previous to that we had a number of works groups in the areas of Cloud, SOA and some other ones in terms of Semantic Interoperability. All of those were early pieces, and what we saw at the beginning of 2013 was a coalescing of that into this concept that businesses were looking for a new platform for their operations that combined aspects of Social, Mobile, Cloud computing, Big Data and the analytics that go along with it. We saw that emerging in the marketplace, and we formed the Forum to develop that direction. The Open Group always takes an end-to-end view of any problem – we like to look at the whole ecosystem. We want to make sure that the technical standards aren’t just point targets and actually address a business need.

Some of the work groups within The Open Group, such as Quantum Lifecycle Management (QLM) and Semantic Interoperability, have been brought under the umbrella of Open Platform 3.0, most notably the Cloud Work Group. How will the work of these groups continue under Platform 3.0?

CH: Some of the work already going on in The Open Group was directly or indirectly relevant to Open Platform 3.0. And that first and most importantly was the work of the Cloud Work Group, Cloud being one of the convergent technologies, and the Cloud Work Group became a part of Platform 3.0. Two other activities also became a part of Open Platform 3.0, one was of these was the Semantic Interoperability Work Group, and that is because we recognized that Semantic Interoperability has to be an important part of how these technologies work with each other. Though it may not be that we have a full definition of that in the first version of the standard – it’s a notoriously difficult area – but over the course of time, we hope to incorporate a Semantic Interoperability component in the Platform definition and that may well build on the work that we’ve been doing with the Universal Data Element Framework, the UDEF project, which is currently undergoing a major restructuring. The key thing from the Open Platform 3.0 perspective is how the semantic convention relates to the convergence of the technologies in the platform.

In terms of QLM, that became part become of Open Platform 3.0 because one of the key convergent technologies is the Internet of Things, and QLM overlaps significantly with that. QLM is not about the Internet of Things, as such, but it does have a strong component of understanding the way networked sensors and controls work, so that’s become an important contribution to the new Forum.

DL: Like in any platform there’s going to be multiple components. In Open Platform 3.0, one of the big drivers for this change is Big Data. Big Data is very trendy, right? But where does Big Data come from? Well, it comes from increased connectivity, increased use of mobile devices, increased use of sensors –  the ‘Internet of Things.’ All of these things are generating data about usage patterns, where people are, what they’re doing, what that they‘re buying, what they’re interested in and what their likes and dislikes are, creating a massive flood of data. Now the question becomes ‘how do you compute on that data?’ You need to handle that massively scalable stream of data. You need massively scalable computing  underneath it, you need the ability to move large amounts of information from one place to another. When you think about the analysis of data like that, you have algorithms that do a lot of data access and they’ll have big spikes of computation, as they create some model of it. If you’re going to look at 10 zillion records, you don’t want to buy enough computers so you can always look at 10 zillion records, you want to be able to turn that on, do your analysis and turn it back off.  That’s, of course, why Cloud is a critical component of Open Platform 3.0.

Open Platform 3.0 encompasses a lot of different technologies as well as how they are converging. How do you piece apart everything that Platform 3.0 entails to begin to formulate a standard for it?

CH: I mentioned that we developed 22 use cases. The way that we’re addressing this is to look at use cases and the business and technical ecosystems that those use cases exemplify and to abstract from that some fundamental architectural patterns. These we believe will be the basis for the initial definition of the platform.

DL: That gets back to this question about how were starting up. Again it’s The Open Group’s mantra that we look at a business problem as an end-to-end problem. So what you’ll see in Open Platform 3.0, is that we’ve done the Business Scenario to figure out what’s the business motivator, what do business people need to get this done, and we’re fleshing that out with these details in these detailed use cases.

One of the things that we’re very careful about in The Open Group is that we don’t replicate what’s going on in other standards bodies. If you look at what’s going on in Cloud, and what continues to go on in Cloud under the Open Platform 3.0, banner, we really focused in on what do business people really need in the cloud guides – those are how business people really use it.  We’ve stayed away for a long time from the bits and bytes – we’re now doing a Cloud Reference Architecture – but we’ve also created the Cloud Ecosystem Reference Model, which was just published. That Cloud Ecosystem Reference Model, if you read through it, isn’t about how bits flow around, it’s about how partners interact with each other – what to look for in your Cloud partner, who are the players? When you go to use Cloud in your business, what players do you have to engage with? What are the roles that you have to engage with them on? So again it’s really that business level of guidance that The Open Group is really good at, and we do liaison with other organizations in order to get technical stuff if we need it – or if not, we’ll create it ourselves because we’ve got very competent technical people – but again, it’s that balanced business approach that distinguishes The Open Group way.

Many industry pundits have said that Open Platform 3.0 is ultimately about a shift toward user-driven IT. How does that change the standards making process when most standards are ultimately put in place by technologists not necessarily end-users?

CH:  It’s an interesting question. I mentioned the Business Scenario that we developed over the summer – one of the key things that came out of that was that there is this shift towards a more direct use of the technologies by business users.  And that is partly because it’s becoming more possible. Cloud is one of the key factors that has shortened the cycle of procuring and putting IT in place to support business use, and made it more possible to manage IT directly. At the same time [users are] becoming impatient with delay and wanting to gain the benefits of technology directly and not at arms length through the IT department. We’re seeing in connection with these phenomena such as the business technologist, the technical specialist who works with or is employed by the business department rather than within a separate IT department, and one of whose key strengths is an understanding of the business.  So that is certainly an important dimension that we’re seeing and one of the requirements for the Platform is that it should be usable in an environment where business is using IT more directly.

But that wasn’t the question you asked. The question was, ‘isn’t it a problem that the standards are defined by technologists?’ We don’t believe it’s a problem provided that the technologists do have an understanding of the business environment. That was why in the Business Scenario activity that we conducted, one of the key inputs was a roundtable workshop with CIO level people, and that is where a lot of our perspective on why things are changing comes from. Open Platform 3.0 certainly does have dimension of fundamental architecture patterns and part of that is business architecture patterns but it also has a technical dimension, and obviously you do really need the technical people to explore that dimension though they do always need to keep in mind the technology is there to serve the business.

DL: If you actually look at trends in the marketplace about how IT is done, and in fact if you look at the last blog post that Allen [Brown] did about agile, the whole thrust of agile methodologies and its successor DevOps is to really get the implementers right next to the business people and have a very tight arrangement in order to get fast iteration and really have the implementer do what the business person needs. I actually view consumerization not as some outside threat but actually a logical extension of that trend. What’s happening in my opinion is that people who are not technologists, who are not part of the IT department, are getting comfortable using and managing their own technology. And so they’re making decisions that used to be made by the IT department years ago – or what used to be the IT department. First there was the big mainframe, and you handed in your cards at a window and you got your printout in your little cubby hole. Then the IT department bought your PC, and now we bring our own devices. There’s nothing wrong with that, that’s people getting comfortable with technology and making decisions. I think that’s one of the reasons we have need for an Open Platform 3.0 approach – to develop business guidance and eventually technical standards on how we keep up with that trend. Because it’s a very natural trend – people want to control the resources they need to get their job done, and if those resources are technical resources, and they’re comfortable doing that, great!

Convergence and Open Platform 3.0 seem to take us closer and closer to The Open Group’s vision of Boundaryless Information Flow™.  Is Open Platform 3.0 the fulfillment of that vision?

DL: I think I’d be crazy to say that it’s the endpoint of that vision. I think being able to move large amounts of data and make decisions on it is a significant step forward in Boundaryless Information Flow, but this is a two-edged sword. I talked about all that data being generated by mobile devices and sensors and retail networks and social networks and things like that. That data is growing exponentially.  The number of people who can make decisions on that data are growing at best linearly and not very quickly. So if there’s all this data out there and nobody to look at it, we need to ask if we have we lowered the boundary for communications or have we actually raised it by creating a pile of data that no one can climb? That’s why I think a next step is, in fact, more machine-assisted analytics and predictive analytics and machine learning that will help humans digest and understand that data. That will be, I think, yet another step toward Boundaryless Information Flow. Moving bits around does not equate to information flow – its only information when it moves from data to being information in a human’s brain. Until we lower that barrier as well, we’re not there. And even beyond that, there’s still lots of things that can be done, in terms of breaking down human language barriers and things like that or social networks in more intuitive ways. I think there’s a long way to go. I think this is a really important step forward, but fulfillment is too strong a word.

CH:  Not in itself, I don’t believe. It is a major contribution towards the vision of Boundaryless Information Flow but it is not the complete fulfillment of that vision. Since we’ve formulated the problem statement of Boundaryless Information Flow there have been a number of developments that have impacted on it and maybe helped to bring it closer. So you might think of SOA as an important enabling technology for Boundaryless Information Flow, replacing the information silos with interacting services. Now we’re seeing Open Platform 3.0, which is certainly going to have a service-oriented flavor, shall we say, although it probably will not look exactly like traditional SOA. The Boundaryless Information Flow requirement was a very far-reaching problem statement. The Interoperable Business Scenario was where it was first set out and since then we’ve been gradually making process toward it. Open Platform 3.0 will bring it closer, but I’m sure there will be other things still needed to make it happen. 

One of the key things for Boundaryless Information Flow is Enterprise Architecture. So within a particular enterprise, the business and IT needs to be architected to enable Boundaryless Information Flow, and TOGAF is the method that is defined and maintained by The Open Group for how enterprises define enterprise architectures. Open Platform 3.0 will complement that by providing a ‘this is what an architecture looks like that enables the business to take advantage of this new converging technologies.’ But there will still be a need for the Enterprise Architect to put that together with the other particular factors involved in an enterprise to create an architecture for Boundaryless Information Flow within that enterprise.

When can we expect the first standard from Open Platform 3.0?

DL: Well, we published the Cloud Ecosystem Reference Guide, and again the understanding of how business partners relate in the Cloud world is a key component of Open Platform 3.0. The Forum has a roadmap, and will start publishing the case studies still in process.

The message I would say is there’s already early value in the Cloud Ecosystem Reference Model, which is a logical continuation of cloud work that had already gone on in the Work Group, but is now part of the Forum as part of Open Platform 3.0.

CH: That’s always a tricky question however I can tell you what is planned. The intention, as I said, was to produce a Snapshot definition by the end of March and, given we are a quarter of the way through the meeting at this conference, which is the key meeting that will define the basis for that, the progress has been good so far, so I’m optimistic. A Snapshot is not a Standard. A Snapshot is a statement of ‘this is what we are thinking and might be what it will look like,’ but it’s not guaranteed in any way that the Standard will follow the Snapshot. We are intending to produce the first Standard definition of the platform in about a year’s time after the Snapshot.  That will give the opportunity for people not only within The Open Group but outside The Open Group to give us input and further understanding of the way people intend to use the platform as feedback on the snapshot, which should be the basis for the first published standard.

For more on the Open Platform 3.0 Forum, please visit: http://www3.opengroup.org/subjectareas/platform3.0.

If you have any questions about Open Platform 3.0 or if you would like to join the new Forum, please contact Chris Harding (c.harding@opengroup.org) for queries regarding the Forum or Chris Parnell (c.parnell@opengroup.org) for queries regarding membership.

Chris HardingDr. Chris Harding is Director for Interoperability and SOA 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.

Dave LounsburyDave is Chief Technical Officer (CTO) and Vice President, Services for The Open Group. As CTO, he ensures that The Open Group’s people and IT resources are effectively used to implement the organization’s strategy and mission.  As VP of Services, Dave leads the delivery of The Open Group’s proven collaboration processes for collaboration and certification both within the organization and in support of third-party consortia. Dave holds a degree in Electrical Engineering from Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and is holder of three U.S. patents.

Comments Off

Filed under Cloud, Cloud/SOA, Conference, Open Platform 3.0, Standards, TOGAF®