Category Archives: Conference

ArchiMate® Q&A with Phil Beauvoir

By The Open Group

The Open Group’s upcoming Amsterdam Summit in May will feature a full day on May 14 dedicated to ArchiMate®, an open and independent modeling language for Enterprise Architecture, supported by tools that allow Enterprise Architects to describe, analyze and visualize relationships among business domains in an unambiguous way.

One of the tools developed to support ArchiMate is Archi, a free, open-source tool created by Phil Beauvoir at the University of Bolton in the UK as part of a Jisc-funded Enterprise Architecture project that ran from 2009-2012. Since its development, Archi has grown from a relatively small, home-grown tool to become a widely used open-source resource that averages 3000 downloads per month and whose community ranges from independent practitioners to Fortune 500 companies. Here we talk with Beauvoir about how Archi was developed, the problems inherent in sustaining an open source product, its latest features and whether it was named after the Archie comic strip.

Beauvoir will be a featured speaker during the ArchiMate Day in Amsterdam.

Tell us about the impetus for creating the Archi tool and how it was created…
My involvement with the ArchiMate language has mainly been through the development of the software tool, Archi. Archi has, I believe, acted as a driver and as a hub for activity around the ArchiMate language and Enterprise Architecture since it was first created.

I’ll tell you the story of how Archi came about. Let’s go back to the end of 2009. At that point, I think ArchiMate and Enterprise Architecture were probably being used quite extensively in the commercial sector, especially in The Netherlands. The ArchiMate language had been around for a while at that point but was a relatively new thing to many people, at least here in the UK. If you weren’t part of the EA scene, it would have been a new thing to you. In the UK, it was certainly new for many in higher education and universities, which is where I come in.

Jisc, the UK funding body, funded a number of programs in higher education exploring digital technologies and other initiatives. One of the programs being funded was to look at how to improve systems using Enterprise Architecture within the university sector. Some of the universities had already been led to ArchiMate and Enterprise Architecture and were trying it out for themselves – they were new to it and, of course, one of the first things they needed were tools. At that time, and I think it’s still true today, a lot of the tools were quite expensive. If you’re a big commercial organization, you might be able to afford the licensing costs for tools and support, but for a small university project it can be prohibitive, especially if you’re just dipping your toe into something like this. So some colleagues within Jisc and the university I worked at said, ‘well, what about creating a small, open source project tool which isn’t over-complicated but does enough to get people started in ArchiMate? And we can fund six months of money to do this as a proof of concept tool’.

That takes us into 2010, when I was working for the university that was approached to do this work. After six months, by June 2010, I had created the first 1.0 version of Archi and it was (and still is) free, open source and cross-platform. Some of the UK universities said ‘well, that’s great, because now the barrier to entry has been lowered, we can use this tool to start exploring the ArchiMate language and getting on board with Enterprise Architecture’. That’s really where it all started.

So some of the UK universities that were exploring ArchiMate and Enterprise Architecture had a look at this first version of Archi, version 1.0, and said ‘it’s good because it means that we can engage with it without committing at this stage to the bigger tooling solutions.’ You have to remember, of course, that universities were (and still are) a bit strapped for cash, so that’s a big issue for them. At the time, and even now, there really aren’t any other open-source or free tools doing this. That takes us to June 2010. At this point we got some more funding from the Jisc, and kept on developing the tool and adding more features to it. That takes us through 2011 and then up to the end of 2012, when my contract came to an end.

Since the official funding ended and my contract finished, I’ve continued to develop Archi and support the community that’s built up around it. I had to think about the sustainability of the software beyond the project, and sometimes this can be difficult, but I took it upon myself to continue to support and develop it and to engage with the Archi/ArchiMate community.

How did you get involved with The Open Group and bringing the tool to them?
I think it was inevitable really due to where Archi originated, and because the funding came from the Jisc, and they are involved with The Open Group. So, I guess The Open Group became aware of Archi through the Jisc program and then I became involved with the whole ArchiMate initiative and The Open Group. I think The Open Group is in favor of Archi, because it’s an open source tool that provides a neutral reference implementation of the ArchiMate language. When you have an open standard like ArchiMate, it’s good to have a neutral reference model implementation.

How is this tool different from other tools out there and what does it enable people to do?
Well, firstly Archi is a tool for modeling Enterprise Architecture using the ArchiMate language and notation, but what really makes it stand out from the other tools is its accessibility and the fact that it is free, open source and cross-platform. It can do a lot of, if not all of, the things that the bigger tools provide without any financial or other commitment. However, free is not much use if there’s no quality. One thing I’ve always strived for in developing Archi is to ensure that even if it only does a few things compared with the bigger tools, it does those things well. I think with a tool that is free and open-source, you have a lot of support and good-will from users who provide positive encouragement and feedback, and you end up with an interesting open development process.

I suppose you might regard Archi’s relationship to the bigger ArchiMate tools in the same way as you’d compare Notepad to Microsoft Word. Notepad provides the essential writing features, but if you want to go for the full McCoy then you go and buy Microsoft Word. The funny thing is, this is where Archi was originally targeted – at beginners, getting people to start to use the ArchiMate language. But then I started to get emails — even just a few months after its first release — from big companies, insurance companies and the like saying things like ‘hey, we’re using this tool and it’s great, and ‘thanks for this, when are we going to add this or that feature?’ or ‘how many more features are you going to add?’ This surprised me somewhat since I wondered why they hadn’t invested in one of the available commercial tools. Perhaps ArchiMate, and even Enterprise Architecture itself, was new to these organizations and they were using Archi as their first software tool before moving on to something else. Having said that, there are some large organizations out there that do use Archi exclusively.

Which leads to an interesting dilemma — if something is free, how do you continue developing and sustaining it? This is an issue that I’m contending with right now. There is a PayPal donation button on the front page of the website, but the software is open source and, in its present form, will remain open source; but how do you sustain something like this? I don’t have the complete answer right now.

Given that it’s a community product, it helps that the community contributes ideas and develops code, but at the same time you still need someone to give their time to coordinate all of the activity and support. I suppose the classic model is one of sponsorship, but we don’t have that right now, so at the moment I’m dealing with issues around sustainability.

How much has the community contributed to the tool thus far?
The community has contributed a lot in many different ways. Sometimes a user might find a bug and report it or they might offer a suggestion on how a feature can be improved. In fact, some of the better features have been suggested by users. Overall, community contributions seem to have really taken off more in the last few months than in the whole lifespan of Archi. I think this may be due to the new Archi website and a lot more renewed activity. Lately there have been more code contributions, corrections to the documentation and user engagement in the future of Archi. And then there are users who are happy to ask ‘when is Archi going to implement this big feature, and when is it going to have full support for repositories?’ and of course they want this for free. Sometimes that’s quite hard to accommodate, because you think ‘sure, but who’s going to do all this work and contribute the effort.’ That’s certainly an interesting issue for me.

How many downloads of the tool are you getting per month? Where is it being used?
At the moment we’re seeing around 3,000 downloads a month of the tool — I think that’s a lot actually. Also, I understand that some EA training organizations use Archi for their ArchiMate training, so there are quite a few users there, as well.

The number one country for downloading the app and visiting the website is the Netherlands, followed by the UK and the United States. In the past three months, the UK and The Netherlands have been about equal in numbers in their visits to the website and downloads, followed by the United States, France, Germany, Canada, then Australia, Belgium, and Norway. We have some interest from Russia too. Sometimes it depends on whether ArchiMate or Archi is in the news at any given time. I’ve noticed that when there’s a blog post about ArchiMate, for example, you’ll see a spike in the download figures and the number of people visiting the website.

How does the tool fit into the overall schema of the modeling language?
It supports all of the ArchiMate language concepts, and I think it offers the core functionality of you’d want from an ArchiMate modeling tool — the ability to create diagrams, viewpoints, analysis of model objects, reporting, color schemes and so on. Of course, the bigger ArchiMate tools will let you manipulate the model in more sophisticated ways and create more detailed reports and outputs. This is an area that we are trying to improve, and the people who are now actively contributing to Archi are full-time Enterprise Architects who are able to contribute to these areas. For example, we have a user and contributor from France, and he and his team use Archi, and so they are able to see first-hand where Archi falls short and they are able to say ‘well, OK, we would like it to do this, or that could be improved,’ so now they’re working towards strengthening any weak areas.

How did you come up with the name?
What happens is you have pet names for projects and I think it just came about that we started calling it “Archie,” like the guy’s name. When it was ready to be released I said, ‘OK, what should we really call the app?’ and by that point everyone had started to refer to it as “Archie.” Then somebody said ‘well, everybody’s calling it by that name so why don’t we just drop the “e” from the name and go with that?’ – so it became “Archi.” I suppose we could have spent more time coming up with a different name, but by then the name had stuck and everybody was calling it that. Funnily enough, there’s a comic strip called ‘Archie’ and an insurance company that was using the software at the time told me that they’d written a counterpart tool called ‘Veronica,’ named after a character in the comic strip.

What are you currently working on with the tool?
For the last few months, I’ve been adding new features – tweaks, improvements, tightening things up, engaging with the user community, listening to what’s needed and trying to implement these requests. I’ve also been adding new resources to the Archi website and participating on social media like Twitter, spreading the word. I think the use of social media is really important. Twitter, the User Forums and the Wikis are all points where people can provide feedback and engage with me and other Archi developers and users. On the development side of things, we host the code at GitHub, and again that’s an open resource that users and potential developers can go to. I think the key words are ‘open’ and ‘community driven.’ These social media tools, GitHub and the forums all contribute to that. In this way everyone, from developer to user, becomes a stakeholder – everyone can play their part in the development of Archi and its future. It’s a community product and my role is to try and manage it all.

What will you be speaking about in Amsterdam?
I think the angle I’m interested in is what can be achieved by a small number of people taking the open source approach to developing software and building and engaging with the community around it. For me, the interesting part of the Archi story is not so much about the software itself and what it does, but rather the strong community that’s grown around it, the extent of the uptake of the tool and the way in which it has enabled people to get on board with Enterprise Architecture and ArchiMate. It’s the accessibility and agility of this whole approach that I like and also the activity and buzz around the software and from the community – that for me is the interesting thing about this process.

For more information on ArchiMate, please visit:
http://www.opengroup.org/subjectareas/enterprise/archimate

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

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

philbeauvoirPhil Beauvoir has been developing, writing, and speaking about software tools and development for over 25 years. He was Senior Researcher and Developer at Bangor University, and, later, the Institute for Educational Cybernetics at Bolton University, both in the UK. During this time he co-developed a peer-to-peer learning management and groupware system, a suite of software tools for authoring and delivery of standards-compliant learning objects and meta-data, and tooling to create IMS Learning Design compliant units of learning.  In 2010, working with the Institute for Educational Cybernetics, Phil created the open source ArchiMate Modelling Tool, Archi. Since 2013 he has been curating the development of Archi independently. Phil holds a degree in Medieval English and Anglo-Saxon Literature.

Leave a comment

Filed under ArchiMate®, Certifications, Conference, Enterprise Architecture, Uncategorized

Q&A with Allen Brown, President and CEO of The Open Group

By The Open Group

Last month, The Open Group hosted its San Francisco 2014 conference themed “Toward Boundaryless Information Flow™.” Boundaryless Information Flow has been the pillar of The Open Group’s mission since 2002 when it was adopted as the organization’s vision for Enterprise Architecture. We sat down at the conference with The Open Group President and CEO Allen Brown to discuss the industry’s progress toward that goal and the industries that could most benefit from it now as well as The Open Group’s new Dependability through Assuredness™ Standard and what the organization’s Forums are working on in 2014.

The Open Group adopted Boundaryless Information Flow as its vision in 2002, and the theme of the San Francisco Conference has been “Towards Boundaryless Information Flow.” Where do you think the industry is at this point in progressing toward that goal?

Well, it’s progressing reasonably well but the challenge is, of course, when we established that vision back in 2002, life was a little less complex, a little bit less fast moving, a little bit less fast-paced. Although organizations are improving the way that they act in a boundaryless manner – and of course that changes by industry – some industries still have big silos and stovepipes, they still have big boundaries. But generally speaking we are moving and everyone understands the need for information to flow in a boundaryless manner, for people to be able to access and integrate information and to provide it to the teams that they need.

One of the keynotes on Day One focused on the opportunities within the healthcare industry and The Open Group recently started a Healthcare Forum. Do you see Healthcare industry as a test case for Boundaryless Information Flow and why?

Healthcare is one of the verticals that we’ve focused on. And it is not so much a test case, but it is an area that absolutely seems to need information to flow in a boundaryless manner so that everyone involved – from the patient through the administrator through the medical teams – have all got access to the right information at the right time. We know that in many situations there are shifts of medical teams, and from one medical team to another they don’t have access to the same information. Information isn’t easily shared between medical doctors, hospitals and payers. What we’re trying to do is to focus on the needs of the patient and improve the information flow so that you get better outcomes for the patient.

Are there other industries where this vision might be enabled sooner rather than later?

I think that we’re already making significant progress in what we call the Exploration, Mining and Minerals industry. Our EMMM™ Forum has produced an industry-wide model that is being adopted throughout that industry. We’re also looking at whether we can have an influence in the airline industry, automotive industry, manufacturing industry. There are many, many others, government and retail included.

The plenary on Day Two of the conference focused on The Open Group’s Dependability through Assuredness standard, which was released last August. Why is The Open Group looking at dependability and why is it important?

Dependability is ultimately what you need from any system. You need to be able to rely on that system to perform when needed. Systems are becoming more complex, they’re becoming bigger. We’re not just thinking about the things that arrive on the desktop, we’re thinking about systems like the barriers at subway stations or Tube stations, we’re looking at systems that operate any number of complex activities. And they bring an awful lot of things together that you have to rely upon.

Now in all of these systems, what we’re trying to do is to minimize the amount of downtime because downtime can result in financial loss or at worst human life, and we’re trying to focus on that. What is interesting about the Dependability through Assuredness Standard is that it brings together so many other aspects of what The Open Group is working on. Obviously the architecture is at the core, so it’s critical that there’s an architecture. It’s critical that we understand the requirements of that system. It’s also critical that we understand the risks, so that fits in with the work of the Security Forum, and the work that they’ve done on Risk Analysis, Dependency Modeling, and out of the dependency modeling we can get the use cases so that we can understand where the vulnerabilities are, what action has to be taken if we identify a vulnerability or what action needs to be taken in the event of a failure of the system. If we do that and assign accountability to people for who will do what by when, in the event of an anomaly being detected or a failure happening, we can actually minimize that downtime or remove it completely.

Now the other great thing about this is it’s not only a focus on the architecture for the actual system development, and as the system changes over time, requirements change, legislation changes that might affect it, external changes, that all goes into that system, but also there’s another circle within that system that deals with failure and analyzes it and makes sure it doesn’t happen again. But there have been so many evidences of failure recently. In the banks for example in the UK, a bank recently was unable to process debit cards or credit cards for customers for about three or four hours. And that was probably caused by the work done on a routine basis over a weekend. But if Dependability through Assuredness had been in place, that could have been averted, it could have saved an awfully lot of difficulty for an awful lot of people.

How does the Dependability through Assuredness Standard also move the industry toward Boundaryless Information Flow?

It’s part of it. It’s critical that with big systems the information has to flow. But this is not so much the information but how a system is going to work in a dependable manner.

Business Architecture was another featured topic in the San Francisco plenary. What role can business architecture play in enterprise transformation vis a vis the Enterprise Architecture as a whole?

A lot of people in the industry are talking about Business Architecture right now and trying to focus on that as a separate discipline. We see it as a fundamental part of Enterprise Architecture. And, in fact, there are three legs to Enterprise Architecture, there’s Business Architecture, there’s the need for business analysts, which are critical to supplying the information, and then there are the solutions, and other architects, data, applications architects and so on that are needed. So those three legs are needed.

We find that there are two or three different types of Business Architect. Those that are using the analysis to understand what the business is doing in order that they can inform the solutions architects and other architects for the development of solutions. There are those that are more integrated with the business that can understand what is going on and provide input into how that might be improved through technology. And there are those that can actually go another step and talk about here we have the advances and the technology and here are the opportunities for advancing our competitiveness and organization.

What are some of the other key initiatives that The Open Group’s forum and work groups will be working on in 2014?

That kind question is like if you’ve got an award, you’ve got to thank your friends, so apologies to anyone that I leave out. Let me start alphabetically with the Architecture Forum. The Architecture Forum obviously is working on the evolution of TOGAF®, they’re also working with the harmonization of TOGAF with Archimate® and they have a number of projects within that, of course Business Architecture is on one of the projects going on in the Architecture space. The Archimate Forum are pushing ahead with Archimate—they’ve got two interesting activities going on at the moment, one is called ArchiMetals, which is going to be a sister publication to the ArchiSurance case study, where the ArchiSurance provides the example of Archimate is used in the insurance industry, ArchiMetals is going to be used in a manufacturing context, so there will be a whitepaper on that and there will be examples and artifacts that we can use. They’re also working on in Archimate a standard for interoperability for modeling tools. There are four tools that are accredited and certified by The Open Group right now and we’re looking for that interoperability to help organizations that have multiple tools as many of them do.

Going down the alphabet, there’s DirecNet. Not many people know about DirecNet, but Direcnet™ is work that we do around the U.S. Navy. They’re working on standards for long range, high bandwidth mobile networking. We can go to the FACE™ Consortium, the Future Airborne Capability Environment. The FACE Consortium are working on their next version of their standard, they’re working toward accreditation, a certification program and the uptake of that through procurement is absolutely amazing, we’re thrilled about that.

Healthcare we’ve talked about. The Open Group Trusted Technology Forum, where they’re working on how we can trust the supply chain in developed systems, they’ve released the Open Trusted Technology Provider™ Standard (O-TTPS) Accreditation Program, that was launched this week, and we already have one accredited vendor and two certified test labs, assessment labs. That is really exciting because now we’ve got a way of helping any organization that has large complex systems that are developed through a global supply chain to make sure that they can trust their supply chain. And that is going to be invaluable to many industries but also to the safety of citizens and the infrastructure of many countries. So the other part of the O-TTPS is that standard we are planning to move toward ISO standardization shortly.

The next one moving down the list would be Open Platform 3.0™. This is really exciting part of Boundaryless Information Flow, it really is. This is talking about the convergence of SOA, Cloud, Social, Mobile, Internet of Things, Big Data, and bringing all of that together, this convergence, this bringing together of all of those activities is really something that is critical right now, and we need to focus on. In the different areas, some of our Cloud computing standards have already gone to ISO and have been adopted by ISO. We’re working right now on the next products that are going to move through. We have a governance standard in process and an ecosystem standard has recently been published. In the area of Big Data there’s a whitepaper that’s 25 percent completed, there’s also a lot of work on the definition of what Open Platform 3.0 is, so this week the members have been working on trying to define Open Platform 3.0. One of the really interesting activities that’s gone on, the members of the Open Platform 3.0 Forum have produced something like 22 different use cases and they’re really good. They’re concise and they’re precise and the cover a number of different industries, including healthcare and others, and the next stage is to look at those and work on the ROI of those, the monetization, the value from those use cases, and that’s really exciting, I’m looking forward to peeping at that from time to time.

The Real Time and Embedded Systems Forum (RTES) is next. Real-Time is where we incubated the Dependability through Assuredness Framework and that was where that happened and is continuing to develop and that’s really good. The core focus of the RTES Forum is high assurance system, and they’re doing some work with ISO on that and a lot of other areas with multicore and, of course, they have a number of EC projects that we’re partnering with other partners in the EC around RTES.

The Security Forum, as I mentioned earlier, they’ve done a lot of work on risk and dependability. So they’ve not only their standards for the Risk Taxonomy and Risk Analysis, but they’ve now also developed the Open FAIR Certification for People, which is based on those two standards of Risk Analysis and Risk Taxonomy. And we’re already starting to see people being trained and being certified under that Open FAIR Certification Program that the Security Forum developed.

A lot of other activities are going on. Like I said, I probably left a lot of things out, but I hope that gives you a flavor of what’s going on in The Open Group right now.

The Open Group will be hosting a summit in Amsterdam May 12-14, 2014. What can we look forward to at that conference?

In Amsterdam we have a summit – that’s going to bring together a lot of things, it’s going to be a bigger conference that we had here. We’ve got a lot of activity in all of our activities; we’re going to bring together top-level speakers, so we’re looking forward to some interesting work during that week.

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under ArchiMate®, Boundaryless Information Flow™, Business Architecture, Conference, Cybersecurity, EMMMv™, Enterprise Architecture, FACE™, Healthcare, O-TTF, RISK Management, Standards, TOGAF®

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.

Leave a comment

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

Leave a comment

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

Facing the Challenges of the Healthcare Industry – An Interview with Eric Stephens of The Open Group Healthcare Forum

By The Open Group

The Open Group launched its new Healthcare Forum at the Philadelphia conference in July 2013. The forum’s focus is on bringing Boundaryless Information Flow™ to the healthcare industry to enable data to flow more easily throughout the complete healthcare ecosystem through a standardized vocabulary and messaging. Leveraging the discipline and principles of Enterprise Architecture, including TOGAF®, the forum aims to develop standards that will result in higher quality outcomes, streamlined business practices and innovation within the industry.

At the recent San Francisco 2014 conference, Eric Stephens, Enterprise Architect at Oracle, delivered a keynote address entitled, “Enabling the Opportunity to Achieve Boundaryless Information Flow” along with Larry Schmidt, HP Fellow at Hewlett-Packard. A veteran of the healthcare industry, Stephens was Senior Director of Enterprise Architects Excellus for BlueCross BlueShield prior to joining Oracle and he is an active member of the Healthcare Forum.

We sat down after the keynote to speak with Stephens about the challenges of healthcare, how standards can help realign the industry and the goals of the forum. The opinions expressed here are Stephens’ own, not of his employer.

What are some of the challenges currently facing the healthcare industry?

There are a number of challenges, and I think when we look at it as a U.S.-centric problem, there’s a disproportionate amount of spending that’s taking place in the U.S. For example, if you look at GDP or percentage of GDP expenditures, we’re looking at now probably 18 percent of GDP [in the U.S.], and other developed countries are spending a full 5 percent less than that of their GDP, and in some cases they’re getting better outcomes outside the U.S.

The mere fact that there’s the existence of what we call “medical tourism, where if I need a hip replacement, I can get it done for a fraction of the cost in another country, same or better quality care and have a vacation—a rehab vacation—at the same time and bring along a spouse or significant other, means there’s a real wide range of disparity there. 

There’s also a lack of transparency. Having worked at an insurance company, I can tell you that with the advent of high deductible plans, there’s a need for additional cost information. When I go on Amazon or go to a local furniture store, I know what the cost is going to be for what I’m about to purchase. In the healthcare system, we don’t get that. With high deductible plans, if I’m going to be responsible for a portion or a larger portion of the fee, I want to know what it is. And what happens is, the incentives to drive costs down force the patient to be a consumer. The consumer now asks the tough questions. If my daughter’s going in for a tonsillectomy, show me a bill of materials that shows me what’s going to be done – if you are charging me $20/pill for Tylenol, I’ll bring my own. Increased transparency is what will in turn drive down the overall costs.

I think there’s one more thing, and this gets into the legal side of things. There is an exorbitant amount of legislation and regulation around what needs to be done. And because every time something goes sideways, there’s going to be a lawsuit, doctors will prescribe an extra test, and extra X-ray for a patient whether they need it or not.

The healthcare system is designed around a vicious cycle of diagnose-treat-release. It’s not incentivized to focus on prevention and management. Oregon is promoting these coordinated care organizations (CCOs) that would be this intermediary that works with all medical professionals – whether it was physical, mental, dental, even social worker – to coordinate episodes of care for patients. This drives down inappropriate utilization – for example, using an ER as a primary care facility and drives the medical system towards prevention and management of health. 

Your keynote with Larry Schmidt of HP focused a lot on cultural changes that need to take place within the healthcare industry – what are some of the changes necessary for the healthcare industry to put standards into place?

I would say culturally, it goes back to those incentives, and it goes back to introducing this idea of patient-centricity. And for the medical community, to really start recognizing that these individuals are consumers and increased choice is being introduced, just like you see in other industries. There are disruptive business models. As a for instance, medical tourism is a disruptive business model for United States-based healthcare. The idea of pharmacies introducing clinical medicine for routine care, such as what you see at a CVS, Wal-Mart or Walgreens. I can get a flu shot, I can get a well-check visit, I can get a vaccine – routine stuff that doesn’t warrant a full-blown medical professional. It’s applying the right amount of medical care to a particular situation.

Why haven’t existing standards been adopted more broadly within the industry? What will help providers be more likely to adopt standards?

I think the standards adoption is about “what’s in it for me, the WIIFM idea. It’s demonstrating to providers that utilizing standards is going to help them get out of the medical administration business and focus on their core business, the same way that any other business would want to standardize its information through integration, processes and components. It reduces your overall maintenance costs going forward and arguably you don’t need a team of billing folks sitting in an doctor’s office because you have standardized exchanges of information.

Why haven’t they been adopted? It’s still a question in my mind. Why would a doctor not want to do that is perhaps a question we’re going to need to explore as part of the Healthcare Forum.

Is it doctors that need to adopt the standards or technologies or combination of different constituents within the ecosystem?

I think it’s a combination. We hear a lot about the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the health exchanges. What we don’t hear about is the legislation to drive toward standardization to increase interoperability. So unfortunately it would seem the financial incentives or things we’ve tried before haven’t worked, and we may simply have to resort to legislation or at least legislative incentives to make it happen because part of the funding does cover information exchanges so you can move health information between providers and other actors in the healthcare system.

You’re advocating putting the individual at the center of the healthcare ecosystem. What changes need to take place within the industry in order to do this?

I think it’s education, a lot of education that has to take place. I think that individuals via the incentive model around high deductible plans will force some of that but it’s taking responsibility and understanding the individual role in healthcare. It’s also a cultural/societal phenomenon.

I’m kind of speculating here, and going way beyond what enterprise architecture or what IT would deliver, but this is a philosophical thing around if I have an ailment, chances are there’s a pill to fix it. Look at the commercials, every ailment say hypertension, it’s easy, you just dial the medication correctly and you don’t worry as much about diet and exercise. These sorts of things – our over-reliance on medication. I’m certainly not going to knock the medications that are needed for folks that absolutely need them – but I think we can become too dependent on pharmacological solutions for our health problems.   

What responsibility will individuals then have for their healthcare? Will that also require a cultural and behavioral shift for the individual?

The individual has to start managing his or her own health. We manage our careers and families proactively. Now we need to focus on our health and not just float through the system. It may come to financial incentives for certain “individual KPIs such as blood pressure, sugar levels, or BMI. Advances in medical technology may facilitate more personal management of one’s health.

One of the Healthcare Forum’s goals is to help establish Boundaryless Information Flow within the Healthcare industry you’ve said that understanding the healthcare ecosystem will be a key component for that what does that ecosystem encompass and why is it important to know that first?

Very simply we’re talking about the member/patient/consumer, then we get into the payers, the providers, and we have to take into account government agencies and other non-medical agents, but they all have to work in concert and information needs to flow between those organizations in a very standardized way so that decisions can be made in a very timely fashion.

It can’t be bottled up, it’s got to be provided to the right provider at the right time, otherwise, best case, it’s going to cost more to manage all the actors in the system. Worst case, somebody dies or there is a “never event due to misinformation or lack of information during the course of care. The idea of Boundaryless Information Flow gives us the opportunity to standardize, have easily accessible information – and by the way secured – it can really aide in that decision-making process going forward. It’s no different than Wal-Mart knowing what kind of merchandise sells well before and after a hurricane (i.e., beer and toaster pastries, BTW). It’s the same kind of real-time information that’s made available to a Google car so it can steer its way down the road. It’s that kind of viscosity needed to make the right decisions at the right time.

Healthcare is a highly regulated industry, how can Boundarylesss Information Flow and data collection on individuals be achieved and still protect patient privacy?

We can talk about standards and the flow and the technical side. We need to focus on the security and privacy side.  And there’s going to be a legislative side because we’re going to touch on real fundamental data governance issue – who owns the patient record? Each actor in the system thinks they own the patient record. If we’re going to require more personal accountability for healthcare, then shouldn’t the consumer have more ownership? 

We also need to address privacy disclosure regulations to avoid catastrophic data leaks of protected health information (PHI). We need bright IT talent to pull off the integration we are talking about here. We also need folks who are well versed in the privacy laws and regulations. I’ve seen project teams of 200 have up to eight folks just focusing on the security and privacy considerations. We can argue about headcount later but my point is the same – one needs some focused resources around this topic.

What will standards bring to the healthcare industry that is missing now?

I think the standards, and more specifically the harmonization of the standards, is going to bring increased maintainability of solutions, I think it’s going to bring increased interoperability, I think it’s going to bring increased opportunities too. We see mobile computing or even DropBox, that has API hooks into all sorts of tools, and it’s well integrated – so I can integrate and I can move files between devices, I can move files between apps because they have hooks it’s easy to work with. So it’s building these communities of developers, apps and technical capabilities that makes it easy to move the personal health record for example, back and forth between providers and it’s not a cataclysmic event to integrate a new version of electronic health records (EHR) or to integrate the next version of an EHR. This idea of standardization but also some flexibility that goes into it.

Are you looking just at the U.S. or how do you make a standard that can go across borders and be international?

It is a concern, much of my thinking and much of what I’ve conveyed today is U.S.-centric, based on our problems, but many of these interoperability problems are international. We’re going to need to address it; I couldn’t tell you what the sequence is right now. There are other considerations, for example, single vs. multi-payer—that came up in the keynote. We tend to think that if we stay focused on the consumer/patient we’re going to get it for all constituencies. It will take time to go international with a standard, but it wouldn’t be the first time. We have a host of technical standards for the Internet (e.g., TCP/IP, HTTP). The industry has been able to instill these standards across geographies and vendors. Admittedly, the harmonization of health care-related standards will be more difficult. However, as our world shrinks with globalization an international lens will need to be applied to this challenge. 

Eric StephensEric Stephens (@EricStephens) is a member of Oracle’s executive advisory community where he focuses on advancing clients’ business initiatives leveraging the practice of Business and Enterprise Architecture. Prior to joining Oracle he was Senior Director of Enterprise Architecture at Excellus BlueCross BlueShield leading the organization with architecture design, innovation, and technology adoption capabilities within the healthcare industry.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Conference, Data management, Enterprise Architecture, Healthcare, Information security, Standards, TOGAF®

The Open Group San Francisco 2014 – Day Two Highlights

By Loren K. Baynes, Director, Global Marketing Communications

Day two, February 4th, of The Open Group San Francisco conference kicked off with a welcome and opening remarks from Steve Nunn, COO of The Open Group and CEO of the Association of Enterprise Architects.

Nunn introduced Allen Brown, President and CEO of The Open Group, who provided highlights from The Open Group’s last quarter.  As of Q4 2013, The Open Group had 45,000 individual members in 134 countries hailing from 449 member companies in 38 countries worldwide. Ten new member companies have already joined The Open Group in 2014, and 24 members joined in the last quarter of 2013, with the first member company joining from Vietnam. In addition, 6,500 individuals attended events sponsored by The Open Group in Q4 2013 worldwide.

Updates on The Open Group’s ongoing work were provided including updates on the FACE™ Consortium, DirectNet® Waveform Standard, Architecture Forum, Archimate® Forum, Open Platform 3.0™ Forum and Security Forum.

Of note was the ongoing development of TOGAF® and introduction of a three-volume work including individual volumes outlining the TOGAF framework, guidance and tools and techniques for the standard, as well as collaborative work that allows the Archimate modeling language to be used for risk management in enterprise architectures.

In addition, Open Platform 3.0 Forum has already put together 22 business use cases outlining ROI and business value for various uses related to technology convergence. The Cloud Work Group’s Cloud Reference Architecture has also been submitted to ISO for international standards certification, and the Security Forum has introduced certification programs for OpenFAIR risk management certification for individuals.

The morning plenary centered on The Open Group’s Dependability through Assuredness™ (O-DA) Framework, which was released last August.

Speaking first about the framework was Dr. Mario Tokoro, Founder and Executive Advisor for Sony Computer Science Laboratories. Dr. Tokoro gave an overview of the Dependable Embedded OS project (DEOS), a large national project in Japan originally intended to strengthen the country’s embedded systems. After considerable research, the project leaders discovered they needed to consider whether large, open systems could be dependable when it came to business continuity, accountability and ensuring consistency throughout the systems’ lifecycle. Because the boundaries of large open systems are ever-changing, the project leaders knew they must put together dependability requirements that could accommodate constant change, allow for continuous service and provide continuous accountability for the systems based on consensus. As a result, they put together a framework to address both the change accommodation cycle and failure response cycles for large systems – this framework was donated to The Open Group’s Real-Time Embedded Systems Forum and released as the O-DA standard.

Dr. Tokoro’s presentation was followed by a panel discussion on the O-DA standard. Moderated by Dave Lounsbury, VP and CTO of The Open Group, the panel included Dr. Tokoro; Jack Fujieda, Founder and CEO ReGIS, Inc.; T.J. Virdi, Senior Enterprise IT Architect at Boeing; and Bill Brierly, Partner and Senior Consultant, Conexiam. The panel discussed the importance of openness for systems, iterating the conference theme of boundaries and the realities of having standards that can ensure openness and dependability at the same time. They also discussed how the O-DA standard provides end-to-end requirements for system architectures that also account for accommodating changes within the system and accountability for it.

Lounsbury concluded the track by iterating that assuring systems’ dependability is not only fundamental to The Open Group mission of Boundaryless Information Flow™ and interoperability but also in preventing large system failures.

Tuesday’s late morning sessions were split into two tracks, with one track continuing the Dependability through Assuredness theme hosted by Joe Bergmann, Forum Chair of The Open Group’s Real-Time and Embedded Systems Forum. In this track, Fujieda and Brierly furthered the discussion of O-DA outlining the philosophy and vision of the standard, as well as providing a roadmap for the standard.

In the morning Business Innovation & Transformation track, Alan Hakimi, Consulting Executive, Microsoft presented “Zen and the Art of Enterprise Architecture: The Dynamics of Transformation in a Complex World.” Hakimi emphasized that transformation needs to focus on a holistic view of an organization’s ecosystem and motivations, economics, culture and existing systems to help foster real change. Based on Buddhist philosophy, he presented an eightfold path to transformation that can allow enterprise architects to approach transformation and discuss it with other architects and business constituents in a way that is meaningful to them and allows for complexity and balance.

This was followed by “Building the Knowledge-Based Enterprise,” a session given by Bob Weisman, Head Management Consultant for Build the Vision.

Tuesday’s afternoon sessions centered on a number of topics including Business Innovation and Transformation, Risk Management, Archimate, TOGAF tutorials and case studies and Professional Development.

In the Archimate track, Vadim Polyakov of Inovalon, Inc., presented “Implementing an EA Practice in an Agile Enterprise” a case study centered on how his company integrated its enterprise architecture with the principles of agile development and how they customized the Archimate framework as part of the process.

The Risk Management track featured William Estrem, President, Metaplexity Associates, and Jim May of Windsor Software discussing how the Open FAIR Standard can be used in conjunction with TOGAF 9.1 to enhance risk management in organizations in their session, “Integrating Open FAIR Risk Analysis into the Enterprise Architecture Capability.” Jack Jones, President of CXOWARE, also discussed the best ways for “Communicating the Value Proposition” for cohesive enterprise architectures to business managers using risk management scenarios.

The plenary sessions and many of the track sessions from today’s tracks can be viewed on The Open Group’s Livestream channel at http://new.livestream.com/opengroup.

The day culminated with dinner and a Lion Dance performance in honor of Chinese New Year performed by Leung’s White Crane Lion & Dragon Dance School of San Francisco.

We would like to express our gratitude for the support by our following sponsors:  BIZZDesign, Corso, Good e-Learning, I-Server and Metaplexity Associates.

IMG_1460 copy

O-DA standard panel discussion with Dave Lounsbury, Bill Brierly, Dr. Mario Tokoro, Jack Fujieda and TJ Virdi

Leave a comment

Filed under Conference, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Transformation, Standards, TOGAF®, Uncategorized

The Open Group San Francisco 2014 – Day One Highlights

By Loren K. Baynes, Director, Global Marketing Communications

The Open Group’s San Francisco conference, held at the Marriott Union Square, began today highlighting the theme of how the industry is moving Toward Boundaryless Information Flow™.”

The morning plenary began with a welcome from The Open Group President and CEO Allen Brown.  He began the day’s sessions by discussing the conference theme, reminding the audience that The Open Group’s vision of Boundaryless Information Flow began in 2002 as a means to breakdown the silos within organizations and provide better communications within, throughout and beyond organizational walls.

Heather Kreger, Distinguished Engineer and CTO of International Standards at IBM, presented the first session of the day, “Open Technologies Fuel the Business and IT Renaissance.” Kreger discussed how converging technologies such as social and mobile, Big Data, the Internet of Things, analytics, etc.—all powered by the cloud and open architectures—are forcing a renaissance within both IT and companies. Fueling this renaissance is a combination of open standards and open source technologies, which can be used to build out the platforms needed to support these technologies at the speed that is enabling innovation. To adapt to these new circumstances, architects should broaden their skillsets so they have deeper skills and competencies in multiple disciplines, technologies and cultures in order to better navigate this world of open source based development platforms.

The second keynote of the morning, “Enabling the Opportunity to Achieve Boundaryless Information Flow™,” was presented by Larry Schmidt, HP Fellow at Hewlett-Packard, and Eric Stephens, Enterprise Architect, Oracle. Schmidt and Stephens addressed how to cultivate a culture within healthcare ecosystems to enable better information flow. Because healthcare ecosystems are now primarily digital (including not just individuals but technology architectures and the Internet of Things), boundaryless communication is imperative so that individuals can become the managers of their health and the healthcare ecosystem can be better defined. This in turn will help in creating standards that help solve the architectural problems currently hindering the information flow within current healthcare systems, driving better costs and better outcomes.

Following the first two morning keynotes Schmidt provided a brief overview of The Open Group’s new Healthcare Forum. The forum plans to leverage existing Open Group best practices such as harmonization, existing standards (such as TOGAF®) and work with other forums and vertical to create new standards to address the problems facing the healthcare industry today.

Mike Walker, Enterprise Architect at Hewlett-Packard, and Mark Dorfmueller, Associate Director Global Business Services for Procter & Gamble, presented the morning’s final keynote entitled “Business Architecture: The Key to Enterprise Transformation.” According to Walker, business architecture is beginning to change how enterprise architecture is done within organizations. In order to do so, Walker believes that business architects must be able to understand business processes, communicate ideas and engage with others (including other architects) within the business and offer services in order to implement and deliver successful programs. Dorfmueller illustrated business architecture in action by presenting how Procter & Gamble uses their business architecture to change how business is done within the company based on three primary principles—being relevant, practical and making their work consumable for those within the company that implement the architectures.

The morning plenary sessions culminated with a panel discussion on “Future Technology and Enterprise Transformation,” led by Dave Lounsbury, VP and CTO of The Open Group. The panel, which included all of the morning’s speakers, took a high-level view of how emerging technologies are eroding traditional boundaries within organizations. Things within IT that have been specialized in the past are now becoming commoditized to the point where they are now offering new opportunities for companies. This is due to how commonplace they’ve become and because we’re becoming smarter in how we use and get value out of our technologies, as well as the rapid pace of technology innovation we’re experiencing today.

Finally, wrapping up the morning was the Open Trusted Technology Forum (OTTF), a forum of The Open Group, with forum director Sally Long presenting an overview of a new Open Trusted Technology Provider™ Standard (O-TTPS) Accreditation Program which launched today.  The program is the first such accreditation to provide third-party certification for companies guaranteeing their supply chains are free from maliciously tainted or counterfeit products and conformant to the Open Trusted Technology Provider™ Standard (O-TTPS). IBM is the first company to earn the accreditation and there are at least two other companies that are currently going through the accreditation process.

Monday’s afternoon sessions were split between two tracks, Enterprise Architecture (EA) and Enterprise Transformation and Open Platform 3.0.

In the EA & Enterprise Transformation track, Purna Roy and John Raspen, both Directors of Consulting at Cognizant Technology Solutions, discussed the need to take a broad view and consider factors beyond just IT architectures in their session, “Enterprise Transformation: More than an Architectural Transformation.”  In contrast, Kirk DeCosta, Solution Architect at PNC Financial Services, argued that existing architectures can indeed serve as the foundation for transformation in “The Case for Current State – A Contrarian Viewpoint.”

The Open Platform 3.0 track addressed issues around the convergence of technologies based on cloud platforms, including the impact of Big Data as an enabler of information architectures by Helen Sun, Enterprise Architect at Oracle, and predictive analytics. Dipanjan Sengupta, Principal Architect at Cognizant Technology Solutions, discussed why integration platforms are critical for managing distribution application portfolios in “The Need for a High Performance Integration Platform in the Cloud Era.”

Today’s plenary sessions and many of the track sessions can be viewed on The Open Group’s Livestream channel at http://new.livestream.com/opengroup.

The day ended with an opportunity for everyone to share cocktails and conversation at a networking reception held at the hotel.

photo

Andras Szakal, VP & CTO, IBM U.S. Federal and Chair of the OTTF, presented with a plaque in honor of IBM’s contribution to the O-TTPS Accreditation Program, along with the esteemed panel who were key to the success of the launch.

Leave a comment

Filed under Business Architecture, Conference, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Transformation, Uncategorized

What I learnt at The Open Group Bangalore Conference last weekend

By Sreekanth Iyer, Executive IT Architect, IBM

It was quite a lot of learning on a Saturday attending The Open Group conference at Bangalore. Actually it was a two day program this year. I could not make it on Friday because of other work commitments. I heard from the people who attended that it was a great session on Friday. At least I knew about a fellow IBMer Jithesh Kozhipurath’s presentation on Friday. I’d the chance to look at that excellent material on applying TOGAF® practices for integrated IT Operations Enterprise Architecture which was his experience sharing of the lab infra optimization work that he was leading.

I started bit late on Saturday, thinking it was happening at the Leela Palace which was near to my home (Ah.. that was in 2008) Realized late that it was at the Philips Innovation Campus at Manyata. But managed to reach just on time before the start of the sessions.

The day started with an Architecture as a Service discussion. The presentation was short but there were lot of interesting questions and interactions post the session.  I was curious know more about the “self-service” aspect on that topic.

Then we had Jason Uppal of ClinicialMessage Inc. on stage (see picture below) , who gave a wonderful presentation on the human touch to the architecture and how to leverage EA to make disruptive changes without disrupting the working systems.

Jason bangaloreLots of take-aways from the session. Importantly the typical reasons why certain Architectures can fail… caused many a times we have a solution already in our mind and we are trying to fit that into the requirement. And most of these times if we look at the Requirements artifact we will be see that the problems are not rightly captured. Couldn’t agree more with the good practices that he discussed.

Starting with  “Identifying the Problem Right” – I thought that is definitely the first and important step in Architecture.  Then Jason talked about significance of communicating and engaging people and stakeholders in the architecture — point that he drove home with a good example from the health care industry. He talked about the criticality of communicating and engaging the stakeholders — engagement of course improves quality. Building the right levers in the architecture and solving the whole problem were some of the other key points that I noted down. More importantly the key message was as Architects, we have to go beyond drawing the lines and boxes to deliver the change, may be look to deliver things that can create an impact in 30 days balancing the short term and long term goals.

I got the stage for couple of minutes to update on the AEA Bangalore Chapter activities. My request to the attendees was to leverage the chapter for their own professional development – using that as a platform to share expertise, get answers to queries, connect with other professionals of similar interest and build the network. Hopefully will see more participation in the Bangalore chapter events this year.

On the security track, had multiple interesting sessions. Began with Jim Hietala of The Open Group discussing the Risk Management Framework. I’ve been attending a course on the subject. But this one provided a lot of insight on the taxonomy (O-RT) and the analysis part – more of taking a quantitative approach than a qualitative approach. Though the example was based on risks with regard to laptop thefts, there is no reason we can’t apply the principles to real issues like quantifying the threats for moving workloads to cloud. (that’s another to-do added to my list).

Then it was my session on the Best practices for moving workloads to cloud for Indian Banks. Talked about the progress so far with the whitepaper. The attendees were limited as there was Jason’s EA workshop happening in parallel. But those who attended were really interested in the subject. We did have a good discussion on the benefits, challenges and regulations with regard to the Indian Banking workloads and their movement to cloud.  We discussed few interesting case studies. There are areas that need more content and I’ve requested the people who attended the session to participate in the workgroup. We are looking at getting a first draft done in the next 30 days.

Finally, also sat in the presentation by Ajit A. Matthew on the security implementation at Intel. Everywhere the message is clear. You need to implement context based security and security intelligence to enable the new age innovation but at the same time protect your core assets.

It was a Saturday well spent. Added had some opportunities to connect with few new folks and understand their security challenges with cloud.  Looking to keep the dialog going and have an AEA Bangalore chapter event sometime during Q1. In that direction, I took the first step to write this up and share with my network.

Event Details:
The Open Group Bangalore, India
January 24-25, 2014

Sreekanth IyerSreekanth Iyer is an Executive IT Architect in IBM Security Systems CTO office and works on developing IBM’s Cloud Security Technical Strategy. He is an Open Group Certified Distinguished Architect and is a core member of the Bangalore Chapter of the Association of Enterprise Architects. He has over 18 years’ industry experience and has led several client solutions across multiple industries. His key areas of work include Information Security, Cloud Computing, SOA, Event Processing, and Business Process management. He has authored several technical articles, blogs and is a core contributor to multiple Open Group as well as IBM publications. He works out of the IBM India Software Lab Bangalore and you can follow him on Twitter @sreek.

Leave a comment

Filed under Conference, Enterprise Architecture, Healthcare, TOGAF®

Introducing Two New Security Standards for Risk Analysis—Part II – Risk Analysis Standard

By Jim Hietala, VP Security, The Open Group

Last week we took a look at one of the new risk standards recently introduced by The Open Group® Security Forum at the The Open Group London Conference 2013, the Risk Taxonomy Technical Standard 2.0 (O-RT). Today’s blog looks at its sister standard, the Risk Analysis (O-RA) Standard, which provides risk professionals the tools they need to perform thorough risk analyses within their organizations for better decision-making about risk.

Risk Analysis (O-RA) Standard

The new Risk Analysis Standard provides a comprehensive guide for performing effective analysis scenarios within organizations using the Factor Analysis of Information Risk (FAIR™) framework. O-RA is geared toward managing the frequency and magnitude of loss that can arise from a threat, whether human, animal or a natural event–in other words “how often bad things happened and how bad they are when they occur.” Used together, the O-RT and O-RA Standards provide organizations with a way to perform consistent risk modeling, that can not only help thoroughly explain risk factors to stakeholders but allow information security professionals to strengthen existing or create better analysis methods. O-RA may also be used in conjunction with other risk frameworks to perform risk analysis.

The O-RA standard is also meant to provide something more than a mere assessment of risk. Many professionals within the security industry often fail to distinguish between “assessing” risk vs. “analysis” of risk. This standard goes beyond assessment by supporting effective analyses so that risk statements are less vulnerable to problems and are more meaningful and defensible than assessments that provide only the broad risk-ratings (“this is a 4 on a scale of 1-to-5”) normally used in assessments.

O-RA also lays out standard process for approaching risk analysis that can help organizations streamline the way they approach risk measurement. By focusing in on these four core process elements, organizations are able to perform more effective analyses:

  • Clearly identifying and characterizing the assets, threats, controls and impact/loss elements at play within the scenario being assessed
  • Understanding the organizational context for analysis (i.e. what’s at stake from an organizational perspective)
  • Measuring/estimating various risk factors
  • Calculating risk using a model that represents a logical, rational, and useful view of what risk is and how it works.

Because measurement and calculation are essential elements of properly analyzing risk variables, an entire chapter of the standard is dedicated to how to measure and calibrate risk. This chapter lays out a number of useful approaches for establishing risk variables, including establishing baseline risk estimates and ranges; creating distribution ranges and most likely values; using Monte Carlo simulations; accounting for uncertainty; determining accuracy vs. precision and subjective vs. objective criteria; deriving vulnerability; using ordinal scales; and determining diminishing returns.

Finally, a practical, real-world example is provided to take readers through an actual risk analysis scenario. Using the FAIR model, the example outlines the process for dealing with an threat in which an HR executive at a large bank has left the user name and password that allow him access to all the company’s HR systems on a Post-It note tacked onto his computer in his office in clear view of anyone (other employees, cleaning crews, etc.) who comes into the office.

The scenario outlines four stages in assessing this risk:

  1. .    Stage 1: Identify Scenario Components (Scope the Analysis)
  2. .    Stage 2: Evaluate Loss Event Frequency (LEF)
  3. .    Stage 3: Evaluate Loss Magnitude (LM)
  4. .    Stage 4: Derive and Articulate Risk

Each step of the risk analysis process is thoroughly outlined for the scenario to provide Risk Analysts an example of how to perform an analysis process using the FAIR framework. Considerable guidance is provided for stages 2 and 3, in particular, as those are the most critical elements in determining organizational risk.

Ultimately, the O-RA is a guide to help organizations make better decisions about which risks are the most critical for the organization to prioritize and pay attention to versus those that are less important and may not warrant attention. It is critical for Risk Analysts and organizations to become more consistent in this practice because lack of consistency in determining risk among information security professionals has been a major obstacle in allowing security professionals a more legitimate “seat at the table” in the boardroom with other business functions (finance, HR, etc.) within organizations.

For our profession to evolve and grow, consistency and accurate measurement is key. Issues and solutions must be identified consistently and comparisons and measurement must be based on solid foundations, as illustrated below.

Risk2

Chained Dependencies

O-RA can help organizations arrive at better decisions through consistent analysis techniques as well as provide more legitimacy within the profession.  Without a foundation from which to manage information risk, Risk Analysts and information security professionals may rely too heavily on intuition, bias, commercial or personal agendas for their analyses and decision making. By outlining a thorough foundation for Risk Analysis, O-RA provides not only a common foundation for performing risk analyses but the opportunity to make better decisions and advance the security profession.

For more on the O-RA Standard or to download it, please visit: https://www2.opengroup.org/ogsys/catalog/C13G.

Jim Hietala, CISSP, GSEC, is the Vice President, Security for The Open Group, where he manages all IT security and risk management 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 Conference, Open FAIR Certification, RISK Management, Security Architecture

Introducing Two New Security Standards for Risk Analysis—Part I – Risk Taxonomy Technical Standard 2.0

By Jim Hietala, VP Security, The Open Group

At the The Open Group London 2013 Conference, The Open Group® announced three new initiatives related to the Security Forum’s work around Risk Management. The first of these was the establishment of a new certification program for Risk Analysts working within the security profession, the Open FAIR Certification Program.  Aimed at providing a professional certification for Risk Analysts, the program will bring a much-needed level of assuredness to companies looking to hire Risk Analysts, certifying that analysts who have completed the Open FAIR program understand the fundamentals of risk analysis and are qualified to perform that analysis.

Forming the basis of the Open FAIR certification program are two new Open Group standards, version 2.0 of the Risk Taxonomy (O-RT) standard originally introduced by the Security Forum in 2009, and a new Risk Analysis (O-RA) Standard, both of which were also announced at the London conference. These standards are the result of ongoing work around risk analysis that the Security Forum has been conducting for a number of years now in order to help organizations better understand and identify their exposure to risk, particularly when it comes to information security risk.

The Risk Taxonomy and Risk Analysis standards not only form the basis and body of knowledge for the Open FAIR certification, but provide practical advice for security practitioners who need to evaluate and counter the potential threats their organization may face.

Today’s blog will look at the first standard, the Risk Taxonomy Technical Standard, version 2.0. Next week, we’ll look at the other standard for Risk Analysis.

Risk Taxonomy (O-RT) Technical Standard 2.0

Originally, published in January 2009, the O-RT is intended to provide a common language and references for security and business professionals who need to understand or analyze risk conditions, providing a common language for them to use when discussing those risks. Version 2.0 of the standard contains a number of updates based both on feedback provided by professionals that have been using the standard and as a result of research conducted by Security Forum member CXOWARE.

The majority of the changes to Version 2.0 are refinements in terminology, including changes in language that better reflect what each term encompasses. For example, the term “Control Strength” in the original standard has now been changed to “Resistance Strength” to reflect that controls used in that part of the taxonomy must be resistive in nature.

More substantive changes were made to the portion of the taxonomy that discusses how Loss Magnitude is evaluated.

Why create a taxonomy for risk?  For two reasons. First, the taxonomy provides a foundation from which risk analysis can be performed and talked about. Second, a tightly defined taxonomy reduces the inability to effectively measure or estimate risk scenarios, leading to better decision making, as illustrated by the following “risk management stack.”

Effective Management


↑

Well-informed Decisions

Effective Comparisons


↑

Meaningful Measurements

Accurate Risk Model

The complete Risk Taxonomy is comprised of two branches: Loss Event Frequency (LEF) and Loss Magnitude (LM), illustrated here:

Risk1

Focusing solely on pure risk (which only results in loss) rather than speculative risk (which might result in either loss or profit), the O-RT is meant to help estimate the probable frequency and magnitude of future loss.

Traditionally LM has been far more difficult to determine than LEF, in part because organizations don’t always perform analyses on their losses or they just stick to evaluating “low hanging fruit” variables rather than delve into determining more complex risk factors. The new taxonomy takes a deep dive into the Loss Magnitude branch of the risk analysis taxonomy providing guidance that will allow Risk Analysts to better tackle the difficult task of determining LM. It includes terminology outlining six specific forms of loss an organization can experience (productivity, response, replacement, fines and judgments, competitive advantage, reputation) as well as how to determine Loss Flow, a new concept in this standard.

The Loss Flow analysis helps identify how a loss may affect both primary (owners, employees, etc.) and secondary (customers, stockholders, regulators, etc.) stakeholders as a result of a threat agent’s action on an asset. The new standard provides a thorough overview on how to assess Loss Flow and identify the loss factors of any given threat.

Finally, the standard also includes a practical, real-world scenario to help analysts understand how to put the taxonomy to use in within their organizations. O-RT provides a common linguistic foundation that will allow security professionals to then perform the risk analyses as outlined in the O-RA Standard.

For more on the Risk Taxonomy Standard or to download it, visit: https://www2.opengroup.org/ogsys/catalog/C13K.

Jim Hietala, CISSP, GSEC, is the Vice President, Security for The Open Group, where he manages all IT security and risk management 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 Conference, Open FAIR Certification, RISK Management, Security Architecture

Jericho Forum declares “success” and sunsets

By Ian Dobson & Jim Hietala, The Open Group
Ten years ago, the Jericho Forum set out on a mission to evangelise the issues, problems, solutions and provide thought-leadership around the emerging business and security issues of de-perimeterisation, with the aim of one day being able to declare “job-done”.

That day has now arrived.  Today, de-perimeterisation is an established “fact” – touching not just information security but all areas of modern business, including the bring your own IT phenomenon (devices, IDs, services) as well as all forms of cloud computing. It’s widely understood and quoted by the entire industry.  It has become part of today’s computing and security lexicon.

With our de-perimeterisation mission accomplished, the Jericho Forum has decided the time has come to “declare success”, celebrate it as a landmark victory in the evolution of information security, and sunset as a separate Forum in The Open Group.

Our “declare success and sunset” victory celebration on Monday 21st Oct 2013 at the Central Hall Westminster, London UK, was our valedictory announcement that the Jericho Forum will formally sunset on 1st Nov 2013.  The event included many past leading Jericho Forum members attending as guests, with awards of commemorative plaques to those whose distinctive leadership steered the information security mind-set change success that the Jericho Forum has now achieved.

For those who missed the live-streamed event, you can watch it on the livestream recording at http://new.livestream.com/opengroup/Lon13

We are fortunate to be able to pass our Jericho Forum legacy of de-perimeterisation achievements and publications to the good care of The Open Group’s Security Forum, which has undertaken to maintain the Jericho Forum’s deliverables, protect it’s legacy from mis-representation, and perhaps adopt and evolve Jericho’s thought-leadership approach on future information security challenges.

Ian Dobson, Director Jericho Forum
Jim Hietala, VP Security
The Open Group
21st October 2013


Ian Dobson is the director of the Security Forum and the Jericho Forum for The Open Group, coordinating and facilitating the members to achieve their goals in our challenging information security world. In the Security Forum, his focus is on supporting development of open standards and guides on security architectures and management of risk and security, while in the Jericho Forum he works with members to anticipate the requirements for the security solutions we will need in future.

Jim Hietala, CISSP, GSEC, is the Vice President, Security for The Open Group, where he manages all IT security and risk management 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 Conference, Security Architecture

Secure Integration of Convergent Technologies – a Challenge for Open Platform™

By Dr. Chris Harding, The Open Group

The results of The Open Group Convergent Technologies survey point to secure integration of the technologies as a major challenge for Open Platform 3.0.  This and other input is the basis for the definition of the platform, where the discussion took place at The Open Group conference in London.

Survey Highlights

Here are some of the highlights from The Open Group Convergent Technologies survey.

  • 95% of respondents felt that the convergence of technologies such as social media, mobility, cloud, big data, and the Internet of things represents an opportunity for business
  • Mobility currently has greatest take-up of these technologies, and the Internet of things has least.
  • 84% of those from companies creating solutions want to deal with two or more of the technologies in combination.
  • Developing the understanding of the technologies by potential customers is the first problem that solution creators must overcome. This is followed by integrating with products, services and solutions from other suppliers, and using more than one technology in combination.
  • Respondents saw security, vendor lock-in, integration and regulatory compliance as the main problems for users of software that enables use of these convergent technologies for business purposes.
  • When users are considered separately from other respondents, security and vendor lock-in show particularly strongly as issues.

The full survey report is available at: https://www2.opengroup.org/ogsys/catalog/R130

Open Platform 3.0

Analysts forecast that convergence of technical phenomena including mobility, cloud, social media, and big data will drive the growth in use of information technology through 2020. Open Platform 3.0 is an initiative that will advance The Open Group vision of Boundaryless Information Flow™ by helping enterprises to use them.

The survey confirms the value of an open platform to protect users of these technologies from vendor lock-in. It also shows that security is a key concern that must be addressed, that the platform must make the technologies easy to use, and that it must enable them to be used in combination.

Understanding the Requirements

The Open Group is conducting other work to develop an understanding of the requirements of Open Platform 3.0. This includes:

  • The Open Platform 3.0 Business Scenario, that was recently published, and is available from https://www2.opengroup.org/ogsys/catalog/R130
  • A set of business use cases, currently in development
  • A high-level round-table meeting to gain the perspective of CIOs, who will be key stakeholders.

The requirements input have been part of the discussion at The Open Group Conference, which took place in London this week. Monday’s keynote presentation by Andy Mulholland, Former Global CTO at Capgemini on “Just Exactly What Is Going on in Business and Technology?” included the conclusions from the round-table meeting. This week’s presentation and panel discussion on the requirements for Open Platform 3.0 covered all the inputs.

Delivering the Platform

Review of the inputs in the conference was followed by a members meeting of the Open Platform 3.0 Forum, to start developing the architecture of Open Platform 3.0, and to plan the delivery of the platform definition. The aim is to have a snapshot of the definition early in 2014, and to deliver the first version of the standard a year later.

Meeting the Challenge

Open Platform 3.0 will be crucial to establishing openness and interoperability in the new generation of information technologies. This is of first importance for everyone in the IT industry.

Following the conference, there will be an opportunity for everyone to input material and ideas for the definition of the platform. If you want to be part of the community that shapes the definition, to work on it with like-minded people in other companies, and to gain early insight of what it will be, then your company must join the Open Platform 3.0 Forum. (For more information on this, contact Chris Parnell – c.parnell@opengroup.org)

Providing for secure integration of the convergent technologies, and meeting the other requirements for Open Platform 3.0, will be a difficult but exciting challenge. I’m looking forward to continue to tackle the challenge with the Forum members.

Dr. Chris Harding

Dr. 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.

1 Comment

Filed under Cloud/SOA, Conference, Data management, Future Technologies, Open Platform 3.0, Semantic Interoperability, Service Oriented Architecture, Standards

The Open Group London 2013 – Day One Highlights

By Loren K. Baynes, Director, Global Marketing Communications

On Monday October 21st, The Open Group kicked off the first day of our Business Transformation conference in London!  Over 275 guests attended many engaging presentations by subject matter experts in finance, healthcare and government.  Attendees from around the globe represented 28 countries including those from as far away as Columbia, Philippines, Australia, Japan and South Africa.

Allen Brown, President and CEO of The Open Group, welcomed the prestigious group.  Allen announced that The Open Group has 67 new member organizations so far this year!

The plenary launched with “Just Exactly What is Going On in Business and Technology?” by Andy Mulholland, Former Global CTO of Capgemini, who was named one of the top 25 influential CTOs by InfoWorld.  Andy’s key topics regarding digital disruption included real drivers of change, some big and fundamental implications, business model innovation, TOGAF® and the Open Platform 3.0™ initiative.

Next up was Judith Jones, CEO, Architecting the Enterprise Ltd., with a presentation entitled “One World EA Framework for Governments – The Way Forward”.  Judith shared findings from the World Economic Forum, posing the question “what keeps 1000 global leaders awake at night”? Many stats were presented with over 50 global risks – economical, societal, environmental, geopolitical and technological.

Jim Hietala, VP, Security of The Open Group announced the launch of the Open FAIR Certification for People Program.  The new program brings a much-needed certification to the market which focuses on risk analysis. Key partners include CXOWARE, Architecting the Enterprise, SNA Technologies and The Unit bv.

Richard Shreeve, Consultancy Director, IPL and Angela Parratt, Head of Transformation and joint CIO, Bath and North East Somerset Council presented “Using EA to Inform Business Transformation”.  Their case study addressed the challenges of modeling complexity in diverse organizations and the EA-led approach to driving out cost and complexity while maintaining the quality of service delivery.

Allen Brown announced that the Jericho Forum® leaders together with The Open Group management have concluded that the Jericho Forum has achieved its original mission – to establish “de-perimeterization” that touches all areas of modern business.  In declaring this mission achieved, we are now in the happy position to celebrate a decade of success and move to ensuring that the legacy of the Jericho Forum is both maintained within The Open Group and continues to be built upon.  (See photo below.)

Following the plenary, the sessions were divided into tracks – Finance/Commerce, Healthcare and Tutorials/Workshops.

During the Healthcare track, one of the presenters, Larry Schmidt, Chief Technologist with HP, discussed “Challenges and Opportunities for Big Data in Healthcare”. Larry elaborated on the 4 Vs of Big Data – value, velocity, variety and voracity.

Among the many presenters in the Finance/Commerce track, Omkhar Arasaratnam, Chief Security Architect, TD Bank Group, Canada, featured “Enterprise Architecture – We Do That?: How (not) to do Enterprise Architecture at a Bank”.  Omkhar provided insight as to how he took traditional, top down, center-based architectural methodologies and applied it to a highly federated environment.

Tutorials/workshops consisted of EA Practice and Architecture Methods and Techniques.

You can view all of the plenary and many of the track presentations at livestream.com.  For those who attended, please stay tuned for the full conference proceedings.

The evening concluded with a networking reception at the beautiful and historic and Central Hall Westminster.  What an interesting, insightful, collaborative day it was!

IMG_1311

Comments Off

Filed under Business Architecture, Certifications, Cloud, Cloud/SOA, Conference, Cybersecurity, Information security, Open Platform 3.0, Professional Development, RISK Management, Security Architecture, Standards, TOGAF®

Open FAIR Certification Launched

By Jim Hietala, The Open Group, VP of Security

The Open Group today announced the new Open FAIR Certification Program aimed at Risk Analysts, bringing a much-needed professional certification to the market that is focused on the practice of risk analysis. Both the Risk Taxonomy and Risk Analysis standards, standards of The Open Group, constitute the body of knowledge for the certification program, and they advance the risk analysis profession by defining a standard taxonomy for risk, and by describing the process aspects of a rigorous risk analysis.

We believe that this new risk analyst certification program will bring significant value to risk analysts, and to organizations seeking to hire qualified risk analysts. Adoption of these two risk standards from The Open Group will help produce more effective and useful risk analysis. This program clearly represents the growing need in our industry for professionals who understand risk analysis fundamentals.  Furthermore, the mature processes and due diligence The Open Group applies to our standards and certification programs will help make organizations comfortable with the ground breaking concepts and methods underlying FAIR. This will also help professionals looking to differentiate themselves by demonstrating the ability to take a “business perspective” on risk.

In order to become certified, Risk Analysts must pass an Open FAIR certification exam. All certification exams are administered through Prometric, Inc. Exam candidates can start the registration process by visiting Prometric’s Open Group Test Sponsor Site www.prometric.com/opengroup.  With 4,000 testing centers in its IT channel, Prometric brings Open FAIR Certification to security professionals worldwide. For more details on the exam requirements visit http://www.opengroup.org/certifications/exams.

Training courses will be delivered through an Open Group accredited channel. The accreditation of Open FAIR training courses will be available from November 1st 2013.

Our thanks to all of the members of the risk certification working group who worked tirelessly over the past 15 months to bring this certification program, along with a new risk analysis standard and a revised risk taxonomy standard to the market. Our thanks also to the sponsors of the program, whose support is important to building this program. The Open FAIR program sponsors are Architecting the Enterprise, CXOWARE, SNA, and The Unit.

Lastly, if you are involved in risk analysis, we encourage you to consider becoming Open FAIR certified, and to get involved in the risk analysis program at The Open Group. We have plans to develop an advanced level of Open FAIR certification, and we also see a great deal of best practices guidance that is needed by the industry.

For more information on the Open FAIR certification program visit http://www.opengroup.org/certifications/openfair

You may also wish to attend a webcast scheduled for 7th November, 4pm BST that will provide an overview of the Open FAIR certification program, as well as an overview of the two risk standards. You can register here

.62940-hietala

Jim Hietala, CISSP, GSEC, is Vice President, Security for The Open Group, where he manages all security and risk management programs and standards activities, including the Security Forum and the Jericho Forum.  He has participated in the development of several industry standards including O-ISM3, O-ESA, Risk Taxonomy Standard, and O-ACEML. He also led the development of compliance and audit guidance for the Cloud Security Alliance v2 publication.

Jim is a frequent speaker at industry conferences. He has participated in the SANS Analyst/Expert program, having written several research white papers and participated in several webcasts for SANS. He has also published numerous articles on information security, risk management, and compliance topics in publications including CSO, The ISSA Journal, Bank Accounting & Finance, Risk Factor, SC Magazine, and others.

An IT security industry veteran, he has held leadership roles at several IT security vendors.

Jim holds a B.S. in Marketing from Southern Illinois University.

Comments Off

Filed under Conference, Cybersecurity, Open FAIR Certification, Standards

Gaining Dependability Across All Business Activities Requires Standard of Standards to Tame Dynamic Complexity, Says The Open Group CEO

By Dana Gardner, Interarbor Solutions

Listen to the recorded podcast here

Hello, and welcome to a special BriefingsDirect Thought Leadership

Interview series, coming to you in conjunction with The Open Group Conference on July 15, in Philadelphia.

88104-aaadanaI’m Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, your host and moderator throughout these discussions on enterprise transformation in the finance, government, and healthcare sector.

We’re here now with the President and CEO of The Open Group, Allen Brown, to explore the increasingly essential role of standards, in an undependable, unpredictable world. [Disclosure: The Open Group is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

Welcome back, Allen.

Allen Brown: It’s good to be here, Dana. abrown

Gardner: What are the environmental variables that many companies are facing now as they try to improve their businesses and assess the level of risk and difficulty? It seems like so many moving targets.

 Brown: Absolutely. There are a lot of moving targets. We’re looking at a situation where organizations are having to put in increasingly complex systems. They’re expected to make them highly available, highly safe, highly secure, and to do so faster and cheaper. That’s kind of tough.

Gardner: One of the ways that organizations have been working towards a solution is to have a standardized approach, perhaps some methodologies, because if all the different elements of their business approach this in a different way, we don’t get too far too quickly, and it can actually be more expensive.

Perhaps you could paint for us the vision of an organization like The Open Group in terms of helping organizations standardize and be a little bit more thoughtful and proactive towards these changed elements?

Brown: With the vision of The Open Group, the headline is “Boundaryless Information Flow.” That was established back in 2002, at a time when organizations were breakingdown the stovepipes or the silos within and between organizations and getting people to work together across functioning. They found, having done that, or having made some progress towards that, that the applications and systems were built for those silos. So how can we provide integrated information for all those people?

As we have moved forward, those boundaryless systems have become bigger

and much more complex. Now, boundarylessness and complexity are giving everyone different types of challenges. Many of the forums or consortia that make up The Open Group are all tackling it from their own perspective, and it’s all coming together very well.

We have got something like the Future Airborne Capability Environment (FACE) Consortium, which is a managed consortium of The Open Group focused on federal aviation. In the federal aviation world they’re dealing with issues like weapons systems.

New weapons

Over time, building similar weapons is going to be more expensive, inflation happens. But the changing nature of warfare is such that you’ve then got a situation where you’ve got to produce new weapons. You have to produce them quickly and you have to produce them inexpensively.

So how can we have standards that make for more plug and play? How can the avionics within a cockpit of whatever airborne vehicle be more interchangeable, so that they can be adapted more quickly and do things faster and at lower cost.

After all, cost is a major pressure on government departments right now.

We’ve also got the challenges of the supply chain. Because of the pressure on costs, it’s critical that large, complex systems are developed using a global supply chain. It’s impossible to do it all domestically at a cost. Given that, countries around the world, including the US and China, are all concerned about what they’re putting into their complex systems that may have tainted or malicious code or counterfeit products.

The Open Group Trusted Technology Forum (OTTF) provides a standard that ensures that, at each stage along the supply chain, we know that what’s going into the products is clean, the process is clean, and what goes to the next link in the chain is clean. And we’re working on an accreditation program all along the way.

We’re also in a world, which when we mention security, everyone is concerned about being attacked, whether it’s cybersecurity or other areas of security, and we’ve got to concern ourselves with all of those as we go along the way.

Our Security Forum is looking at how we build those things out. The big thing about large, complex systems is that they’re large and complex. If something goes wrong, how can you fix it in a prescribed time scale? How can you establish what went wrong quickly and how can you address it quickly?

If you’ve got large, complex systems that fail, it can mean human life, as it did with the BP oil disaster at Deepwater Horizon or with Space Shuttle Challenger. Or it could be financial. In many organizations, when something goes wrong, you end up giving away service.

An example that we might use is at a railway station where, if the barriers don’t work, the only solution may be to open them up and give free access. That could be expensive. And you can use that analogy for many other industries, but how can we avoid that human or financial cost in any of those things?

A couple of years after the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, a number of criteria were laid down for making sure you had dependable systems, you could assess risk, and you could know that you would mitigate against it.

What The Open Group members are doing is looking at how you can get dependability and assuredness through different systems. Our Security Forum has done a couple of standards that have got a real bearing on this. One is called Dependency Modeling, and you can model out all of the dependencies that you have in any system.

Simple analogy

A very simple analogy is that if you are going on a road trip in a car, you’ve got to have a competent driver, have enough gas in the tank, know where you’re going, have a map, all of those things.

What can go wrong? You can assess the risks. You may run out of gas or you may not know where you’re going, but you can mitigate those risks, and you can also assign accountability. If the gas gauge is going down, it’s the driver’s accountability to check the gauge and make sure that more gas is put in.

We’re trying to get that same sort of thinking through to these large complex systems. What you’re looking at doing, as you develop or evolve large, complex systems, is to build in this accountability and build in understanding of the dependencies, understanding of the assurance cases that you need, and having these ways of identifying anomalies early, preventing anything from failing. If it does fail, you want to minimize the stoppage and, at the same time, minimize the cost and the impact, and more importantly, making sure that that failure never happens again in that system.

The Security Forum has done the Dependency Modeling standard. They have also provided us with the Risk Taxonomy. That’s a separate standard that helps us analyze risk and go through all of the different areas of risk.

Now, the Real-time & Embedded Systems Forum has produced the Dependability through Assuredness, a standard of The Open Group, that brings all of these things together. We’ve had a wonderful international endeavor on this, bringing a lot of work from Japan, working with the folks in the US and other parts of the world. It’s been a unique activity.

Dependability through Assuredness depends upon having two interlocked cycles. The first is a Change Management Cycle that says that, as you look at requirements, you build out the dependencies, you build out the assurance cases for those dependencies, and you update the architecture. Everything has to start with architecture now.

You build in accountability, and accountability, importantly, has to be accepted. You can’t just dictate that someone is accountable. You have to have a negotiation. Then, through ordinary operation, you assess whether there are anomalies that can be detected and fix those anomalies by new requirements that lead to new dependabilities, new assurance cases, new architecture and so on.

The other cycle that’s critical in this, though, is the Failure Response Cycle. If there is a perceived failure or an actual failure, there is understanding of the cause, prevention of it ever happening again, and repair. That goes through the Change Accommodation Cycle as well, to make sure that we update the requirements, the assurance cases, the dependability, the architecture, and the accountability.

So the plan is that with a dependable system through that assuredness, we can manage these large, complex systems much more easily.

Gardner: Allen, many of The Open Group activities have been focused at the enterprise architect or business architect levels. Also with these risk and security issues, you’re focusing at chief information security officers or governance, risk, and compliance (GRC), officials or administrators. It sounds as if the Dependability through Assuredness standard shoots a little higher. Is this something a board-level mentality or leadership should be thinking about, and is this something that reports to them?

Board-level issue

Brown: In an organization, risk is a board-level issue, security has become a board-level issue, and so has organization design and architecture. They’re all up at that level. It’s a matter of the fiscal responsibility of the board to make sure that the organization is sustainable, and to make sure that they’ve taken the right actions to protect their organization in the future, in the event of an attack or a failure in their activities.

The risks to an organization are financial and reputation, and those risks can be very real. So, yes, they should be up there. Interestingly, when we’re looking at areas like business architecture, sometimes that might be part of the IT function, but very often now we’re seeing as reporting through the business lines. Even in governments around the world, the business architects are very often reporting up to business heads.

Gardner: Here in Philadelphia, you’re focused on some industry verticals, finance, government, health. We had a very interesting presentation this morning by Dr. David Nash, who is the Dean of the Jefferson School of Population Health, and he had some very interesting insights about what’s going on in the United States vis-à-vis public policy and healthcare.

One of the things that jumped out at me was, at the end of his presentation, he was saying how important it was to have behavior modification as an element of not only individuals taking better care of themselves, but also how hospitals, providers, and even payers relate across those boundaries of their organization.

That brings me back to this notion that these standards are very powerful and useful, but without getting people to change, they don’t have the impact that they should. So is there an element that you’ve learned and that perhaps we can borrow from Dr. Nash in terms of applying methods that actually provoke change, rather than react to change?

Brown: Yes, change is a challenge for many people. Getting people to change is like taking a horse to water, but will it drink? We’ve got to find methods of doing that.

One of the things about The Open Group standards is that they’re pragmatic and practical standards. We’ve seen’ in many of our standards’ that where they apply to product or service, there is a procurement pull through. So the FACE Consortium, for example, a $30 billion procurement means that this is real and true.

In the case of healthcare, Dr. Nash was talking about the need for boundaryless information sharing across the organizations. This is a major change and it’s a change to the culture of the organizations that are involved. It’s also a change to the consumer, the patient, and the patient advocates.

All of those will change over time. Some of that will be social change, where the change is expected and it’s a social norm. Some of that change will change as people and generations develop. The younger generations are more comfortable with authority that they perceive with the healthcare professionals, and also of modifying the behavior of the professionals.

The great thing about the healthcare service very often is that we have professionals who want to do a number of things. They want to improve the lives of their patients, and they also want to be able to do more with less.

Already a need

There’s already a need. If you want to make any change, you have to create a need, but in healthcare, there is already a pent-up need that people see that they want to change. We can provide them with the tools and the standards that enable it to do that, and standards are critically important, because you are using the same language across everyone.

It’s much easier for people to apply the same standards if they are using the same language, and you get a multiplier effect on the rate of change that you can achieve by using those standards. But I believe that there is this pent-up demand. The need for change is there. If we can provide them with the appropriate usable standards, they will benefit more rapidly.

Gardner: Of course, measuring the progress with the standards approach helps as well. We can determine where we are along the path as either improvements are happening or not happening. It gives you a common way of measuring.

The other thing that was fascinating to me with Dr. Nash’s discussion was that he was almost imploring the IT people in the crowd to come to the rescue. He’s looking for a cavalry and he’d really seemed to feel that IT, the data, the applications, the sharing, the collaboration, and what can happen across various networks, all need to be brought into this.

How do we bring these worlds together? There is this policy, healthcare and population statisticians are doing great academic work, and then there is the whole IT world. Is this something that The Open Group can do — bridge these large, seemingly unrelated worlds?

Brown: At the moment, we have the capability of providing the tools for them to do that and the processes for them to do that. Healthcare is a very complex world with the administrators and the healthcare professionals. You have different grades of those in different places. Each department and each organization has its different culture, and bringing them together is a significant challenge.

In some of that processes, certainly, you start with understanding what it is you’re trying to address. You start with what are the pain points, what are the challenges, what are the blockages, and how can we overcome those blockages? It’s a way of bringing people together in workshops. TOGAF, a standard of The Open Group, has the business scenario method, bringing people together, building business scenarios, and understanding what people’s pain points are.

As long as we can then follow through with the solutions and not disappoint people, there is the opportunity for doing that. The reality is that you have to do that in small areas at a time. We’re not going to take the entire population of the United States and get everyone in the workshop and work altogether.

But you can start in pockets and then generate evangelists, proof points, and successful case studies. The work will then start emanating out to all other areas.

Gardner: It seems too that, with a heightened focus on vertical industries, there are lessons that could be learned in one vertical industry and perhaps applied to another. That also came out in some of the discussions around big data here at the conference.

The financial industry recognized the crucial role that data plays, made investments, and brought the constituencies of domain expertise in finance with the IT domain expertise in data and analysis, and came up with some very impressive results.

Do you see that what has been the case in something like finance is now making its way to healthcare? Is this an enterprise or business architect role that opens up more opportunity for those individuals as business and/or enterprise architects in healthcare? Why don’t we see more enterprise architects in healthcare?

Good folks

Brown: I don’t know. We haven’t run the numbers to see how many there are. There are some very competent enterprise architects within the healthcare industry around the world. We’ve got some good folks there.

The focus of The Open Group for the last couple of decades or so has always been on horizontal standards, standards that are applicable to any industry. Our focus is always about pragmatic standards that can be implemented and touched and felt by end-user consumer organizations.

Now, we’re seeing how we can make those even more pragmatic and relevant by addressing the verticals, but we’re not going to lose the horizontal focus. We’ll be looking at what lessons can be learned and what we can build on. Big data is a great example of the fact that the same kind of approach of gathering the data from different sources, whatever that is, and for mixing it up and being able to analyze it, can be applied anywhere.

The challenge with that, of course, is being able to capture it, store it, analyze it, and make some sense of it. You need the resources, the storage, and the capability of actually doing that. It’s not just a case of, “I’ll go and get some big data today.”

I do believe that there are lessons learned that we can move from one industry to another. I also believe that, since some geographic areas and some countries are ahead of others, there’s also a cascading of knowledge and capability around the world in a given time scale as well.

Gardner: Well great. I’m afraid we’ll have to leave it there. We’ve been talking about the increasingly essential role of standards in a complex world, where risk and dependability become even more essential. We have seen how The Open Group is evolving to meet these challenges through many of its activities and through many of the discussions here at the conference.

Please join me now in thanking our guest, Allen Brown, President and CEO of The Open Group. Thank you.

Brown: Thanks for taking the time to talk to us, Dana.

Comments Off

Filed under ArchiMate®, Business Architecture, Cloud, Conference, Enterprise Architecture, Healthcare, Open Platform 3.0, Professional Development, Service Oriented Architecture, TOGAF, TOGAF®

The Open Group Philadelphia – Day Three Highlights

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

We are winding down Day 3 and gearing up for the next two days of training and workshops.  Today’s subject areas included TOGAF®, ArchiMate®, Risk Management, Innovation Management, Open Platform 3.0™ and Future Trends.

The objective of the Future Trends session was to discuss “emerging business and technical trends that will shape enterprise IT”, according to Dave Lounsbury, Chief Technical Officer of The Open Group.

This track also featured a presentation by Dr. William Lafontaine, VP High Performance Computing, Analytics & Cognitive Markets, IBM Research, who gave an overview of the “Global Technology Outlook 2013”.  He stated the Mega Trends are:  Growing Scale/Lower Barrier of Entry; Increasing Complexity/Yet More Consumable; Fast Pace; Contextual Overload.  Mike Walker, Strategies & Enterprise Architecture Advisor for HP, noted the key disrupters that will affect our future are the business of IT, technology itself, expectation of consumers and globalization.

The session concluded with an in-depth Q&A with Bill, Dave, Mike (as shown below) and Allen Brown, CEO of The Open Group.Philly Day 3

Other sessions included presentations by TJ Virdi (Senior Enterprise Architect, Boeing) on Innovation Management, Jack Jones (President, CXOWARE, Inc.) on Risk Management and Stephen Bennett (Executive Principal, Oracle) on Big Data.

A special thanks goes to our many sponsors during this dynamic conference: Windstream, Architecting the Enterprise, Metaplexity, BIZZdesign, Corso, Avolution, CXOWARE, Penn State – Online Program in Enterprise Architecture, and Association of Enterprise Architects.

Stay tuned for post-conference proceedings to be posted soon!  See you at our conference in London, October 21-24.

Comments Off

Filed under ArchiMate®, Conference, Cybersecurity, Data management, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Transformation, Open Platform 3.0, RISK Management, Security Architecture, Standards, TOGAF®

The Open Group Philadelphia – Day Two Highlights

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

philly 2.jpgDay 2 at The Open Group conference in the City of Brotherly Love, as Philadelphia is also known, was another busy and remarkable day.

The plenary started with a fascinating presentation, “Managing the Health of the Nation” by David Nash, MD, MBA, Dean of Jefferson School of Population Health.  Healthcare is the number one industry in the city of Philadelphia, with the highest number of patients in beds in the top 10 US cities. The key theme of his thought-provoking speech was “boundaryless information sharing” (sound familiar?), which will enable a healthcare system that is “safe, effective, patient-centered, timely, equitable, efficient”.

Following Dr. Nash’s presentation was the Healthcare Transformation Panel moderated by Allen Brown, CEO of The Open Group.  Participants were:  Gina Uppal (Fulbright-Killam Fellow, American University Program), Mike Lambert (Open Group Fellow, Architecting the Enterprise), Rosemary Kennedy (Associate Professor, Thomas Jefferson University), Blaine Warkentine, MD, MPH and Fran Charney (Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority). The group brought different sets of experiences within the healthcare system and provided reaction to Dr. Nash’s speech.  All agree on the need for fundamental change and that technology will be key.

The conference featured a spotlight on The Open Group’s newest forum, Open Platform 3.0™ by Dr. Chris Harding, Director of Interoperability.  Open Platform 3.0 was formed to advance The Open Group vision of Boundaryless Information Flow™ to help enterprises in the use of Cloud, Social, Mobile Computing and Big Data.  For more info; http://www.opengroup.org/getinvolved/forums/platform3.0

The Open Group flourishes because of people interaction and collaboration.  The accolades continued with several members being recognized for their outstanding contributions to The Open Group Trusted Technology Forum (OTTF) and the Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) and Cloud Computing Work Groups.  To learn more about our Forums and Work Groups and how to get involved, please visit http://www.opengroup.org/getinvolved

Presentations and workshops were also held in the Healthcare, Finance and Government vertical industries. Presenters included Larry Schmidt (Chief Technologist, HP), Rajamanicka Ponmudi (IT Architect, IBM) and Robert Weisman (CEO, Build the Vision, Inc.).

2 Comments

Filed under ArchiMate®, Business Architecture, Cloud/SOA, Conference, Cybersecurity, Data management, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Transformation, Healthcare, O-TTF, Open Platform 3.0, Security Architecture, Standards, TOGAF®

The Open Group Philadelphia – Day One Highlights

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

PhillyOn Monday, July 15th, we kicked off our conference in Philadelphia. As Allen Brown, CEO of The Open Group, commented in his opening remarks, Philadelphia is the birthplace of American democracy.  This is the first time The Open Group has hosted a conference in this historical city.

Today’s plenary sessions featured keynote speakers covering topics ranging from an announcement of a new Open Group standard, appointment of a new Fellow, Enterprise Architecture and Transformation, Big Data and spotlights on The Open Group forums, Real-time Embedded Systems and Open Trusted Technology, as well as a new initiative on Healthcare.

Allen Brown noted that The Open Group has 432 member organizations with headquarters in 32 countries and over 40,000 individual members in 126 countries.

The Open Group Vision is Boundaryless Information Flow™ achieved through global interoperability in a secure, reliable and timely manner.  But as stated by Allen, “Boundaryless does not mean there are no boundaries.  It means that boundaries are permeable to enable business”

Allen also presented an overview of the new “Dependability Through Assuredness™ Standard.  The Open Group Real-time Embedded Systems Forum is the home of this standard. More news to come!

Allen introduced Dr. Mario Tokoro, (CEO of Sony Computer Systems Laboratories) who began this project in 2006. Dr. Tokoro stated, “Thank you from the bottom of my heart for understanding the need for this standard.”

Eric Sweden, MSIH MBA, Program Director, Enterprise Architecture & Governance\National Association of State CIOs (NASCIO) offered a presentation entitled “State of the States – NASCIO on Enterprise Architecture: An Emphasis on Cross-Jurisdictional Collaboration across States”.  Eric noted “Enterprise Architecture is a blueprint for better government.” Furthermore, “Cybersecurity is a top priority for government”.

Dr. Michael Cavaretta, Technical Lead and Data Scientist with Ford Motor Company discussed “The Impact of Big Data on the Enterprise”.  The five keys, according to Dr. Cavaretta, are “perform, analyze, assess, track and monitor”.  Please see the following transcript from a Big Data analytics podcast, hosted by The Open Group, Dr. Cavaretta participated in earlier this year. http://blog.opengroup.org/2013/01/28/the-open-group-conference-plenary-speaker-sees-big-data-analytics-as-a-way-to-bolster-quality-manufacturing-and-business-processes/

The final presentation during Monday morning’s plenary was “Enabling Transformation Through Architecture” by Lori Summers (Director of Technology) and Amit Mayabhate (Business Architect Manager) with Fannie Mae Multifamily.

Lori stated that their organization had adopted Business Architecture and today they have an integrated team who will complete the transformation, realize value delivery and achieve their goals.

Amit noted “Traceability from the business to architecture principles was key to our design.”

In addition to the many interesting and engaging presentations, several awards were presented.  Joe Bergmann, Director, Real-time and Embedded Systems Forum, The Open Group, was appointed Fellow by Allen Brown in recognition of Joe’s major achievements over the past 20+ years with The Open Group.

Other special recognition recipients include members from Oracle, IBM, HP and Red Hat.

In addition to the plenary session, we hosted meetings on Finance, Government and Healthcare industry verticals. Today is only Day One of The Open Group conference in Philadelphia. Please stay tuned for more exciting conference highlights over the next couple days.

Comments Off

Filed under ArchiMate®, Business Architecture, Conference, Cybersecurity, Data management, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Transformation, Healthcare, O-TTF, Security Architecture, Standards, TOGAF®

The Open Group Conference to Emphasize Healthcare as Key Sector for Ecosystem-Wide Interactions

By Dana Gardner, Interarbor Solutions

Listen to the recorded podcast here

Dana Gardner: Hello, and welcome to a special BriefingsDirect Thought Leadership Interview series, coming to you in conjunction with The Open Group Conference on July 15, in Philadelphia. Registration to the conference remains open. Follow the conference on Twitter at #ogPHL.

Gardner

I’m Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, your host and moderator throughout these discussions on enterprise transformation in the finance, government, and healthcare sector.

We’re here now with a panel of experts to explore how new IT trends are empowering improvements, specifically in the area of healthcare. We’ll learn how healthcare industry organizations are seeking large-scale transformation and what are some of the paths they’re taking to realize that.

We’ll see how improved cross-organizational collaboration and such trends as big data and cloud computing are helping to make healthcare more responsive and efficient.

With that, please join me in welcoming our panel, Jason Uppal, Chief Architect and Acting CEO at clinicalMessage. Welcome, Jason.

Jason Uppal: Thank you, Dana.

Inside of healthcare and inside the healthcare ecosystem, information either doesn’t flow well or it only flows at a great cost.

Gardner: And we’re also joined by Larry Schmidt, Chief Technologist at HP for the Health and Life Sciences Industries. Welcome, Larry.

Larry Schmidt: Thank you.

Gardner: And also, Jim Hietala, Vice President of Security at The Open Group. Welcome back, Jim. [Disclosure: The Open Group and HP are sponsors of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

Jim Hietala: Thanks, Dana. Good to be with you.

Gardner: Let’s take a look at this very interesting and dynamic healthcare sector, Jim. What, in particular, is so special about healthcare and why do things like enterprise architecture and allowing for better interoperability and communication across organizational boundaries seem to be so relevant here?

Hietala: There’s general acknowledgement in the industry that, inside of healthcare and inside the healthcare ecosystem, information either doesn’t flow well or it only flows at a great cost in terms of custom integration projects and things like that.

Fertile ground

From The Open Group’s perspective, it seems that the healthcare industry and the ecosystem really is fertile ground for bringing to bear some of the enterprise architecture concepts that we work with at The Open Group in order to improve, not only how information flows, but ultimately, how patient care occurs.

Gardner: Larry Schmidt, similar question to you. What are some of the unique challenges that are facing the healthcare community as they try to improve on responsiveness, efficiency, and greater capabilities?

Schmidt: There are several things that have not really kept up with what technology is able to do today.

For example, the whole concept of personal observation comes into play in what we would call “value chains” that exist right now between a patient and a doctor. We look at things like mobile technologies and want to be able to leverage that to provide additional observation of an individual, so that the doctor can make a more complete diagnosis of some sickness or possibly some medication that a person is on.

We want to be able to see that observation in real life, as opposed to having to take that in at the office, which typically winds up happening. I don’t know about everybody else, but every time I go see my doctor, oftentimes I get what’s called white coat syndrome. My blood pressure will go up. But that’s not giving the doctor an accurate reading from the standpoint of providing great observations.

Technology has advanced to the point where we can do that in real time using mobile and other technologies, yet the communication flow, that information flow, doesn’t exist today, or is at best, not easily communicated between doctor and patient.

There are plenty of places that additional collaboration and communication can improve the whole healthcare delivery model.

If you look at the ecosystem, as Jim offered, there are plenty of places that additional collaboration and communication can improve the whole healthcare delivery model.

That’s what we’re about. We want to be able to find the places where the technology has advanced, where standards don’t exist today, and just fuel the idea of building common communication methods between those stakeholders and entities, allowing us to then further the flow of good information across the healthcare delivery model.

Gardner: Jason Uppal, let’s think about what, in addition to technology, architecture, and methodologies can bring to bear here? Is there also a lag in terms of process thinking in healthcare, as well as perhaps technology adoption?

Uppal: I’m going to refer to a presentation that I watched from a very well-known surgeon from Harvard, Dr. Atul Gawande. His point was is that, in the last 50 years, the medical industry has made great strides in identifying diseases, drugs, procedures, and therapies, but one thing that he was alluding to was that medicine forgot the cost, that everything is cost.

At what price?

Today, in his view, we can cure a lot of diseases and lot of issues, but at what price? Can anybody actually afford it?

Uppal

His view is that if healthcare is going to change and improve, it has to be outside of the medical industry. The tools that we have are better today, like collaborative tools that are available for us to use, and those are the ones that he was recommending that we need to explore further.

That is where enterprise architecture is a powerful methodology to use and say, “Let’s take a look at it from a holistic point of view of all the stakeholders. See what their information needs are. Get that information to them in real time and let them make the right decisions.”

Therefore, there is no reason for the health information to be stuck in organizations. It could go with where the patient and providers are, and let them make the best decision, based on the best practices that are available to them, as opposed to having siloed information.

So enterprise-architecture methods are most suited for developing a very collaborative environment. Dr. Gawande was pointing out that, if healthcare is going to improve, it has to think about it not as medicine, but as healthcare delivery.

There are definitely complexities that occur based on the different insurance models and how healthcare is delivered across and between countries.

Gardner: And it seems that not only are there challenges in terms of technology adoption and even operating more like an efficient business in some ways. We also have very different climates from country to country, jurisdiction to jurisdiction. There are regulations, compliance, and so forth.

Going back to you, Larry, how important of an issue is that? How complex does it get because we have such different approaches to healthcare and insurance from country to country?

Schmidt: There are definitely complexities that occur based on the different insurance models and how healthcare is delivered across and between countries, but some of the basic and fundamental activities in the past that happened as a result of delivering healthcare are consistent across countries.

As Jason has offered, enterprise architecture can provide us the means to explore what the art of the possible might be today. It could allow us the opportunity to see how innovation can occur if we enable better communication flow between the stakeholders that exist with any healthcare delivery model in order to give us the opportunity to improve the overall population.

After all, that’s what this is all about. We want to be able to enable a collaborative model throughout the stakeholders to improve the overall health of the population. I think that’s pretty consistent across any country that we might work in.

Ongoing work

Gardner: Jim Hietala, maybe you could help us better understand what’s going on within The Open Group and, even more specifically, at the conference in Philadelphia. There is the Population Health Working Group and there is work towards a vision of enabling the boundaryless information flow between the stakeholders. Any other information and detail you could offer would be great.[Registration to the conference remains open. Follow the conference on Twitter at #ogPHL.]

Hietala: On Tuesday of the conference, we have a healthcare focus day. The keynote that morning will be given by Dr. David Nash, Dean of the Jefferson School of Population Health. He’ll give what’s sure to be a pretty interesting presentation, followed by a reactors’ panel, where we’ve invited folks from different stakeholder constituencies.

Hietala

We are going to have clinicians there. We’re going to have some IT folks and some actual patients to give their reaction to Dr. Nash’s presentation. We think that will be an interesting and entertaining panel discussion.

The balance of the day, in terms of the healthcare content, we have a workshop. Larry Schmidt is giving one of the presentations there, and Jason and myself and some other folks from our working group are involved in helping to facilitate and carry out the workshop.

The goal of it is to look into healthcare challenges, desired outcomes, the extended healthcare enterprise, and the extended healthcare IT enterprise and really gather those pain points that are out there around things like interoperability to surface those and develop a work program coming out of this.

We want to be able to enable a collaborative model throughout the stakeholders to improve the overall health of the population.

So we expect it to be an interesting day if you are in the healthcare IT field or just the healthcare field generally, it would definitely be a day well spent to check it out.

Gardner: Larry, you’re going to be talking on Tuesday. Without giving too much away, maybe you can help us understand the emphasis that you’re taking, the area that you’re going to be exploring.

Schmidt: I’ve titled the presentation “Remixing Healthcare through Enterprise Architecture.” Jason offered some thoughts as to why we want to leverage enterprise architecture to discipline healthcare. My thoughts are that we want to be able to make sure we understand how the collaborative model would work in healthcare, taking into consideration all the constituents and stakeholders that exist within the complete ecosystem of healthcare.

This is not just collaboration across the doctors, patients, and maybe the payers in a healthcare delivery model. This could be out as far as the drug companies and being able to get drug companies to a point where they can reorder their raw materials to produce new drugs in the case of an epidemic that might be occurring.

Real-time model

It would be a real-time model that allows us the opportunity to understand what’s truly happening, both to an individual from a healthcare standpoint, as well as to a country or a region within a country and so on from healthcare. This remixing of enterprise architecture is the introduction to that concept of leveraging enterprise architecture into this collaborative model.

Then, I would like to talk about some of the technologies that I’ve had the opportunity to explore around what is available today in technology. I believe we need to have some type of standardized messaging or collaboration models to allow us to further facilitate the ability of that technology to provide the value of healthcare delivery or betterment of healthcare to individuals. I’ll talk about that a little bit within my presentation and give some good examples.

It’s really interesting. I just traveled from my company’s home base back to my home base and I thought about something like a body scanner that you get into in the airport. I know we’re in the process of eliminating some of those scanners now within the security model from the airports, but could that possibly be something that becomes an element within healthcare delivery? Every time your body is scanned, there’s a possibility you can gather information about that, and allow that to become a part of your electronic medical record.

There is a lot of information available today that could be used in helping our population to be healthier.

Hopefully, that was forward thinking, but that kind of thinking is going to play into the art of the possible, with what we are going to be doing, both in this presentation and talking about that as part of the workshop.

Gardner: Larry, we’ve been having some other discussions with The Open Group around what they call Open Platform 3.0™, which is the confluence of big data, mobile, cloud computing, and social.

One of the big issues today is this avalanche of data, the Internet of things, but also the Internet of people. It seems that the more work that’s done to bring Open Platform 3.0 benefits to bear on business decisions, it could very well be impactful for centers and other data that comes from patients, regardless of where they are, to a medical establishment, regardless of where it is.

So do you think we’re really on the cusp of a significant shift in how medicine is actually conducted?

Schmidt: I absolutely believe that. There is a lot of information available today that could be used in helping our population to be healthier. And it really isn’t only the challenge of the communication model that we’ve been speaking about so far. It’s also understanding the information that’s available to us to take that and make that into knowledge to be applied in order to help improve the health of the population.

As we explore this from an as-is model in enterprise architecture to something that we believe we can first enable through a great collaboration model, through standardized messaging and things like that, I believe we’re going to get into even deeper detail around how information can truly provide empowered decisions to physicians and individuals around their healthcare.

So it will carry forward into the big data and analytics challenges that we have talked about and currently are talking about with The Open Group.

Healthcare framework

Gardner: Jason Uppal, we’ve also seen how in other business sectors, industries have faced transformation and have needed to rely on something like enterprise architecture and a framework like TOGAF® in order to manage that process and make it something that’s standardized, understood, and repeatable.

It seems to me that healthcare can certainly use that, given the pace of change, but that the impact on healthcare could be quite a bit larger in terms of actual dollars. This is such a large part of the economy that even small incremental improvements can have dramatic effects when it comes to dollars and cents.

So is there a benefit to bringing enterprise architect to healthcare that is larger and greater than other sectors because of these economics and issues of scale?

Uppal: That’s a great way to think about this thing. In other industries, applying enterprise architecture to do banking and insurance may be easily measured in terms of dollars and cents, but healthcare is a fundamentally different economy and industry.

It’s not about dollars and cents. It’s about people’s lives, and loved ones who are sick, who could very easily be treated, if they’re caught in time and the right people are around the table at the right time. So this is more about human cost than dollars and cents. Dollars and cents are critical, but human cost is the larger play here.

Whatever systems and methods are developed, they have to work for everybody in the world.

Secondly, when we think about applying enterprise architecture to healthcare, we’re not talking about just the U.S. population. We’re talking about global population here. So whatever systems and methods are developed, they have to work for everybody in the world. If the U.S. economy can afford an expensive healthcare delivery, what about the countries that don’t have the same kind of resources? Whatever methods and delivery mechanisms you develop have to work for everybody globally.

That’s one of the things that a methodology like TOGAF brings out and says to look at it from every stakeholder’s point of view, and unless you have dealt with every stakeholder’s concerns, you don’t have an architecture, you have a system that’s designed for that specific set of audience.

The cost is not this 18 percent of the gross domestic product in the U.S. that is representing healthcare. It’s the human cost, which is many multitudes of that. That’s is one of the areas where we could really start to think about how do we affect that part of the economy, not the 18 percent of it, but the larger part of the economy, to improve the health of the population, not only in the North America, but globally.

If that’s the case, then what really will be the impact on our greater world economy is improving population health, and population health is probably becoming our biggest problem in our economy.

We’ll be testing these methods at a greater international level, as opposed to just at an organization and industry level. This is a much larger challenge. A methodology like TOGAF is a proven and it could be stressed and tested to that level. This is a great opportunity for us to apply our tools and science to a problem that is larger than just dollars. It’s about humans.

All “experts”

Gardner: Jim Hietala, in some ways, we’re all experts on healthcare. When we’re sick, we go for help and interact with a variety of different services to maintain our health and to improve our lifestyle. But in being experts, I guess that also means we are witnesses to some of the downside of an unconnected ecosystem of healthcare providers and payers.

One of the things I’ve noticed in that vein is that I have to deal with different organizations that don’t seem to communicate well. If there’s no central process organizer, it’s really up to me as the patient to pull the lines together between the different services — tests, clinical observations, diagnosis, back for results from tests, sharing the information, and so forth.

Have you done any studies or have anecdotal information about how that boundaryless information flow would be still relevant, even having more of a centralized repository that all the players could draw on, sort of a collaboration team resource of some sort? I know that’s worked in other industries. Is this not a perfect opportunity for that boundarylessness to be managed?

Hietala: I would say it is. We all have experiences with going to see a primary physician, maybe getting sent to a specialist, getting some tests done, and the boundaryless information that’s flowing tends to be on paper delivered by us as patients in all the cases.

So the opportunity to improve that situation is pretty obvious to anybody who’s been in the healthcare system as a patient. I think it’s a great place to be doing work. There’s a lot of money flowing to try and address this problem, at least here in the U.S. with the HITECH Act and some of the government spending around trying to improve healthcare.

We’ll be testing these methods at a greater international level, as opposed to just at an organization and industry level.

You’ve got healthcare information exchanges that are starting to develop, and you have got lots of pain points for organizations in terms of trying to share information and not having standards that enable them to do it. It seems like an area that’s really a great opportunity area to bring lots of improvement.

Gardner: Let’s look for some examples of where this has been attempted and what the success brings about. I’ll throw this out to anyone on the panel. Do you have any examples that you can point to, either named organizations or anecdotal use case scenarios, of a better organization, an architectural approach, leveraging IT efficiently and effectively, allowing data to flow, putting in processes that are repeatable, centralized, organized, and understood. How does that work out?

Uppal: I’ll give you an example. One of the things that happens when a patient is admitted to hospital and in hospital is that they get what’s called a high-voltage care. There is staff around them 24×7. There are lots of people around, and every specialty that you can think of is available to them. So the patient, in about two or three days, starts to feel much better.

When that patient gets discharged, they get discharged to home most of the time. They go from very high-voltage care to next to no care. This is one of the areas where in one of the organizations we work with is able to discharge the patient and, instead of discharging them to the primary care doc, who may not receive any records from the hospital for several days, they get discharged to into a virtual team. So if the patient is at home, the virtual team is available to them through their mobile phone 24×7.

Connect with provider

If, at 3 o’clock in the morning, the patient doesn’t feel right, instead of having to call an ambulance to go to hospital once again and get readmitted, they have a chance to connect with their care provider at that time and say, “This is what the issue is. What do you want me to do next? Is this normal for the medication that I am on, or this is something abnormal that is happening?”

When that information is available to that care provider who may not necessarily have been part of the care team when the patient was in the hospital, that quick readily available information is key for keeping that person at home, as opposed to being readmitted to the hospital.

We all know that the cost of being in a hospital is 10 times more than it is being at home. But there’s also inconvenience and human suffering associated with being in a hospital, as opposed to being at home.

Those are some of the examples that we have, but they are very limited, because our current health ecosystem is a very organization specific, not  patient and provider specific. This is the area there is a huge room for opportunities for healthcare delivery, thinking about health information, not in the context of the organization where the patient is, as opposed to in a cloud, where it’s an association between the patient and provider and health information that’s there.

Extending that model will bring infinite value to not only reducing the cost, but improving the cost and quality of care.

In the past, we used to have emails that were within our four walls. All of a sudden, with Gmail and Yahoo Mail, we have email available to us anywhere. A similar thing could be happening for the healthcare record. This could be somewhere in the cloud’s eco setting, where it’s securely protected and used by only people who have granted access to it.

Those are some of the examples where extending that model will bring infinite value to not only reducing the cost, but improving the cost and quality of care.

Schmidt: Jason touched upon the home healthcare scenario and being able to provide touch points at home. Another place that we see evolving right now in the industry is the whole concept of mobile office space. Both countries, as well as rural places within countries that are developed, are actually getting rural hospitals and rural healthcare offices dropped in by helicopter to allow the people who live in those communities to have the opportunity to talk to a doctor via satellite technologies and so on.

The whole concept of a architecture around and being able to deal with an extension of what truly lines up being telemedicine is something that we’re seeing today. It would be wonderful if we could point to things like standards that allow us to be able to facilitate both the communication protocols as well as the information flows in that type of setting.

Many corporations can jump on the bandwagon to help the rural communities get the healthcare information and capabilities that they need via the whole concept of telemedicine.

That’s another area where enterprise architecture has come into play. Now that we see examples of that working in the industry today, I am hoping that as part of this working group, we’ll get to the point where we’re able to facilitate that much better, enabling innovation to occur for multiple companies via some of the architecture or the architecture work we are planning on producing.

Single view

Gardner: It seems that we’ve come a long way on the business side in many industries of getting a single view of the customer, as it’s called, the customer relationship management, big data, spreading the analysis around among different data sources and types. This sounds like a perfect fit for a single view of the patient across their life, across their care spectrum, and then of course involving many different types of organizations. But the government also needs to have a role here.

Jim Hietala, at The Open Group Conference in Philadelphia, you’re focusing on not only healthcare, but finance and government. Regarding the government and some of the agencies that you all have as members on some of your panels, how well do they perceive this need for enterprise architecture level abilities to be brought to this healthcare issue?

Hietala: We’ve seen encouraging signs from folks in government that are encouraging to us in bringing this work to the forefront. There is a recognition that there needs to be better data flowing throughout the extended healthcare IT ecosystem, and I think generally they are supportive of initiatives like this to make that happen.

Gardner: Of course having conferences like this, where you have a cross pollination between vertical industries, will perhaps allow some of the technical people to talk with some of the government people too and also have a conversation with some of the healthcare people. That’s where some of these ideas and some of the collaboration could also be very powerful.

We’ve seen encouraging signs from folks in government that are encouraging to us in bringing this work to the forefront.

I’m afraid we’re almost out of time. We’ve been talking about an interesting healthcare transition, moving into a new phase or even era of healthcare.

Our panel of experts have been looking at some of the trends in IT and how they are empowering improvement for how healthcare can be more responsive and efficient. And we’ve seen how healthcare industry organizations can take large scale transformation using cross-organizational collaboration, for example, and other such tools as big data, analytics, and cloud computing to help solve some of these issues.

This special BriefingsDirect discussion comes to you in conjunction with The Open Group Conference this July in Philadelphia. Registration to the conference remains open. Follow the conference on Twitter at #ogPHL, and you will hear more about healthcare or Open Platform 3.0 as well as enterprise transformation in the finance, government, and healthcare sectors.

With that, I’d like to thank our panel. We’ve been joined today by Jason Uppal, Chief Architect and Acting CEO at clinicalMessage. Thank you so much, Jason.

Uppal: Thank you, Dana.

Gardner: And also Larry Schmidt, Chief Technologist at HP for the Health and Life Sciences Industries. Thanks, Larry.

Schmidt: You bet, appreciate the time to share my thoughts. Thank you.

Gardner: And then also Jim Hietala, Vice President of Security at The Open Group. Thanks so much.

Hietala: Thank you, Dana.

Gardner: This is Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, your host and moderator throughout these thought leader interviews. Thanks again for listening and come back next time.

Comments Off

Filed under ArchiMate®, Business Architecture, Cloud, Conference, Enterprise Architecture, Healthcare, Open Platform 3.0, Professional Development, Service Oriented Architecture, TOGAF, TOGAF®

NASCIO Defines State of Enterprise Architecture at The Open Group Conference in Philadelphia

By E.G. Nadhan, HP

I have attended and blogged about many Open Group conferences. The keynotes at these conferences like other conferences provide valuable insight into the key messages and the underlying theme for the conference – which is Enterprise Architecture and Enterprise Transformation for The Open Group Conference in Philadelphia. Therefore, it is no surprise that Eric Sweden, Program Director, Enterprise Architecture & Governance, NASCIO will be delivering one of the keynotes on “State of the States: NASCIO on Enterprise Architecture”. Sweden asserts “Enterprise Architecture” provides an operating discipline for creating, operating, continual re-evaluation and transformation of an “Enterprise.” Not only do I agree with this assertion, but I would add that the proper creation, operation and continuous evaluation of the “Enterprise” systemically drives its transformation. Let’s see how.

Creation. This phase involves the definition of the Enterprise Architecture (EA) in the first place. Most often, this involves the definition of an architecture that factors in what is in place today while taking into account the future direction. TOGAF® (The Open Group Architecture Framework) provides a framework for developing this architecture from a business, application, data, infrastructure and technology standpoint; in alignment with the overall Architecture Vision with associated architectural governance.

Operation. EA is not a done deal once it has been defined. It is vital that the EA defined is sustained on a consistent basis with the advent of new projects, new initiatives, new technologies, and new paradigms. As the abstract states, EA is a comprehensive business discipline that drives business and IT investments. In addition to driving investments, the operation phase also includes making the requisite changes to the EA as a result of these investments.

Continuous Evaluation. We live in a landscape of continuous change with innovative solutions and technologies constantly emerging. Moreover, the business objectives of the enterprise are constantly impacted by market dynamics, mergers and acquisitions. Therefore, the EA defined and in operation must be continuously evaluated against the architectural principles, while exercising architectural governance across the enterprise.

Transformation. EA is an operating discipline for the transformation of an enterprise. Enterprise Transformation is not a destination — it is a journey that needs to be managed — as characterized by Twentieth Century Fox CIO, John Herbert. To Forrester Analyst Phil Murphy, Transformation is like the Little Engine That Could — focusing on the business functions that matter. (Big Data – highlighted in another keynote at this conference by Michael Cavaretta — is a paradigm gaining a lot of ground for enterprises to stay competitive in the future.)

Global organizations are enterprises of enterprises, undergoing transformation faced with the challenges of systemic architectural governance. NASCIO has valuable insight into the challenges faced by the 50 “enterprises” represented by each of the United States. Challenges that contrast the need for healthy co-existence of these states with the desire to retain a degree of autonomy. Therefore, I look forward to this keynote to see how EA done right can drive the transformation of the Enterprise.

By the way, remember when Enterprise Architecture was done wrong close to the venue of another Open Group conference?

How does Enterprise Architecture drive the transformation of your enterprise? Please let me know.

A version of this blog post originally appeared on the HP Journey through Enterprise IT Services Blog.

HP Distinguished Technologist and Cloud Advisor, E.G.Nadhan has over 25 years of experience in the IT industry across the complete spectrum of selling, delivering and managing enterprise level solutions for HP customers. He is the founding co-chair for The Open Group SOCCI project and is also the founding co-chair for the Open Group Cloud Computing Governance project. 

3 Comments

Filed under Business Architecture, Cloud, Cloud/SOA, Conference, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Transformation, TOGAF®