Category Archives: Enterprise Transformation

The Open Group San Francisco 2016 Day Two Highlights

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

The Open Group CEO & President Steve Nunn kicked off the second day of The Open Group San Francisco event, “Enabling Boundaryless Information Flow™”, with a warm greeting and quick update on activities in The Open Group Forums.

Of note were updates regarding progress on harmonizing ArchiMate® and TOGAF® within the ArchiMate and Architecture Forums, as well as joint work between the Architecture and Open Platform 3.0™ Forum on digitalization and customer experience. In addition, the FACE™ Forum will be launching a certification program later this year, the Healthcare Forum recently published a whitepaper on healthcare focus and the OTTF Standard is currently being translated into Chinese. And in the Security Forum, work is being done around Risk Management, as well as building a more robust approach to security planning into TOGAF. Steve also presented long-time Open Group member Kirk Hansen with an award for his work in the Architecture Forum.

Tuesday’s morning plenary session focused on IT4IT™ and managing the business of IT.

The first session of the morning was given jointly by Ryan Schmierer, Business & Enterprise Architect, and Kathleen Wilson, Enterprise Architect for Data Center & Cloud Services, from Microsoft presenting on “The Case for Change: How Lessons Learned by Microsoft Align with IT4IT.”

According to Wilson, today DevOps are driving the cadence of the Cloud. With the largest technology companies now deploying new capabilities anywhere from a few times a week to thousands of times a day, IT must focus more on delivering business value and brokering services. This new model will require a high level of automation and heavy emphasis on systems monitoring within IT to deliver services and manage failures. With the drastic changes in how IT works, Wilson believes the cloud will make the role of traditional IT pros obsolete within the next five years.

To avoid IT becoming irrelevant, Schmierer says IT will need to shift its role to focus more on being a service broker, business enabler and steward of enterprise data while ensuring security throughout the enterprise. However, this will require change. IT organizations will need to reexamine definitions of success to focus more on business outcomes rather than IT metrics, experimentation and learning and use a more outside-in orientation to solve problems. By fully integrating IT management systems, companies will be able to better manage the IT value stream and create end-to-end systems that can provide a true services model and provide better decision-making in organizations.

Microsoft’s presentation was followed by a brief update on progress within the IT4IT Forum by Chris Davis, IT4IT Forum Director and Professor of Information Systems, University of South Florida. Two years ago, a group of folks from various organizations first met to discuss the possibility of an IT4IT standards. In the short time since, not only has the group launched the IT4IT Forum within The Open Group, but it has recently published its first Reference Architecture, which already has more than 5,000 downloads worldwide and is being used by more than 3,000 individuals from approximately 800 organizations. The Forum has also published a management guide and hopes to launch its first IT4IT people certification in April of this year.

Following the morning coffee break, Rabobank Business Architect Toine Jenniskens presented a case study on “How IT4IT Helps Rabobank Navigate the DevOps Journey.” Like Microsoft, Rabobank is looking to automate and monitor as many IT processes as possible and create a modular IT model so the department can focus more on business priorities. To do this, the bank is taking a value-stream based approach based on the IT4IT Value Chain and Reference Architecture to manage its IT processes and breakdown silos across the organization. Thus far, the bank has begun to consolidate tools across functions, increase IT automation and fully automate incident management. Although their transformation is still underway, Rabobank has been able to automate delivery, increase time to market, lower costs and create greater continuity in services and delivery as a result.

The final morning session was a panel discussion on IT4IT in Practice led by Interarbor Solutions IT Analyst Dana Gardner. The vendor panel featured IT4IT Forum Chair Chris Davis; Lars Rossen, Distinguished Technologist, HP Enterprise; David Wright, Chief Strategy Officer, ServiceNow; and Ryan Schmierer, who presented earlier in the plenary.

The panel discussed a number of critical issues around how IT management is changing and how IT4IT can ease that transition IT including how and why IT4IT was developed by and for IT managers, the possibility of using an IT framework to model services across other parts of the business and how to get traction for and start using IT4IT within IT departments. According to Wright, industry traction for a more holistic view of IT seems to be coming first from financial services and pharmaceutical sectors. Schmierer says that he believes there will be early adoption for IT4IT among companies that have large legacy IT systems, typical technology early adopters and those under the most pressure for cost performance. One way to know early on whether IT4IT is working within organizations, Rossen says, is that they’ll see a difference in areas for multi-services. Davis added that although the changes IT4IT will bring will likely be difficult to measure, but it will be sensed within organizations. However, Wright suggests organizations put together ways to measure success prior to beginning projects so departments can benchmark against them after projects are completed.

Tuesday’s afternoon tracks followed three different threads—a continuation of the morning’s discussions around IT4IT; EA topics around business transformation and value; and Open Platform topics including mobile computing and data analytics. In the IT4IT track, attendees were treated to a number of deep dives into the IT4IT Value Chain, providing a peek under the covers of each stream within the chain. The EA track featured practical examples of EA transformation in practice including an energy industry case study, a look at how SOA is maturing and advice on getting practical value from architectures.

In the Open Platform 3.0 Mobile Computing track, Russ Gibfried, Enterprise Architect for Hewlett Packard Enterprise, gave an interesting talk on the use of mobile platforms in the San Diego Police Department (SDPD) entitled “Probation Officers Online and On the Streets in San Diego.” The SDPD has implemented a system using smartphones and smart watches as technology hubs for the county’s probation officers. Using a mobile app, officers are now able to managing their caseloads and contact notes in the field, as well as use location services and search capabilities to keep tabs on clients.

Afterward, Modi Ronen an IT/Business Enterprise Architect from Salesforce, spoke on enterprise mobile strategies for cloud architectures. We now live in a primarily mobile world. However, most mobile apps are still abandoned, forgotten or deleted. As such, those designing for mobile must begin to prepare for Mobile 3.0 user experiences—usability, value, adoptability and desirability, as well as personalization—that better marry form and function for users, particularly as the Internet of Things and wearables become more ubiquitous.

In the late afternoon tracks, Don Brancato, Chief Enterprise Architect for HPE First, and Myles Suer, Chief Platform Evangelist, Informatica, hosted a talk on “Removing Science from Big Data Programs.” Brancato and Suer posit that science and looking for nebulous information is holding up the progress of Big Data to the detriment of gaining business value. What companies are finding is that Big Data is not a cure-all for the problems associated with traditional Business Intelligence. Rather than getting stuck with scientists digging around through masses of data, Brancato and Suer advocate for automated Big Data services that will allow for more easily repeatable analyses that deliver the actionable information businesses really need and get users involved in the process as early as possible.

Also in the late afternoon, Michael Fulton, Principal Architect, CC&C Solutions held a discussion providing details on the upcoming IT4IT Certification and Training Program followed by another panel discussion on IT4IT, again moderated by Dana Gardner.

The afternoon panelists included Fulton; Philippe Geneste, Partner at Accenture; Sue Desiderio, IT Enablement Process Leader, for PWC; Dwight David, Enterprise Architect for HPE; and Rob Akershoek, Solution Architect for Shell. To wrap up the day, the panel discussed the state of the IT4IT Reference Architecture today, where it needs to continue to evolve and the value of automation for IT organizations. The panel strongly encouraged attendees to try out the standard so they can see what’s working well and where tweaks may need to be made.

The day ended with a dinner and wine tasting event at San Francisco’s famous Presidio, a park and former military base, with beautiful views overlooking the Golden Gate Bridge.

On Wednesday and Thursday, work sessions and member meetings were held.

A special ‘thank you’ goes to our sponsors and exhibitors: Association of Enterprise Architects (AEA), BiZZdesign,  Good e-Learning, HPE, Orbus Software, Signavio, SNA Technologies, Van Haren Publishing.

Other content, photos and highlights can be found via #ogSFO on Twitter.  Select videos are on The Open Group YouTube channel. For full agenda and speakers, please visit The Open Group San Francisco 2016.

By Loren K. Baynes

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

Leave a comment

Filed under ArchiMate®, Boundaryless Information Flow™, Business Transformation, EA, Enterprise Architecture, enterprise architecture, Enterprise Transformation, Information Technology, Interoperability, IT4IT, President and CEO, Standards, Steve Nunn, The Open Group, The Open Group San Francisco 2016, The Open Group San Franscisco 2016, TOGAF®, Uncategorized

The Open Group Edinburgh 2015: BAE Systems – Using TOGAF® for Operations Transformation

By The Open Group

When Matthew Heard first heard the term TOGAF®, not only did he have no idea what it was but he misspelled the name of the standard at first. It wasn’t until after searching Google for “TOGATH” that the real name for the architectural framework popped up and he got a sense for what it was, he says. And thus began a more than 15-month journey that has started Heard and his colleagues at BAE Systems, a British defense, aerospace and security systems provider, down a path to help transform the Operations function of the company’s Maritime Submarine division.

As is the case when any company looks to TOGAF, an Open Group standard, BAE’s Submarine division was in search of a structured way to help make organizational changes when they sought out the framework. According to Heard, a Senior Operations Engineer at BAE, the company’s needs were multifold. As a product manufacturer, BAE was in need of a way to prepare their systems to transition from their current product to the next generation. With a new product planned to go into production in the near future—one that would require higher technical demands and performance—the company first needed to set itself up to smoothly move into production for the higher demand product while still building the current product line.

In addition, the company wanted to make operational changes. After having surveyed 3,000 of their employees regarding what could be done to make people’s jobs easier and make the company a better place to work, the company had received 8,000 comments about how to create a better working environment. After winnowing those down to 800 separate problem statements that included ideas on how to improve things like safety, deliverables and the overall workplace, the team had many potential ideas and solutions, but no way to determine where to start.

“How do you structure things so that you don’t try to do everything at once and therefore don’t do anything because it’s too overwhelming?” Heard says. “We had a lot of change to make but we couldn’t quantify what it was and what order to do it in.”

As it happened, IBM’s Paul Homan had been doing some work on-site with BAE. When he heard that the company was looking to make some organizational changes, he suggested they look at an Enterprise Architecture framework, such as TOGAF. Although the company’s new head of transformation was familiar with the framework, there were no Enterprise Architects on staff, no TOGAF certified employees and no one else on staff had heard of the standard or of Enterprise Architecture, Heard says. Thus the mix-up the first time he tried to look it up online.

After downloading a copy of TOGAF® 9.1, Heard and his colleague John Wilcock began the task of going through the entire standard to determine if it would help them.

And then they did something very unusual.

“The first thing we did was, anything with more than three syllables, we crossed out with a black pen,” Heard says.

Why did they go through the text and black out entire sections as if it were a classified document riddled with redacted text?

According to Heard, since many of the terms used throughout the TOGAF standard are technology and IT-driven, they knew that they would need to “translate” the document to try to adapt it to their industry and make it understandable for their own internal audiences.

“It talked about ‘Enterprise Architecture,’” Heard said. “If we said that to a welder or pipe fitter, no one’s going to know what that means. I didn’t even know what it meant.”

As a recent university graduate with a background in Engineering Management, Heard says the IT terminology of TOGAF was completely foreign to him. But once they began taking out the IT-related language and began replacing it with terminology related to what submarine mechanics and people in operations would understand, they thought they might be able to better articulate the framework to others.

“We didn’t know whether we had gone so far away from the original intent or whether we were still on the right line,” Heard says.

Luckily, with Paul Homan on-site, they had someone who was familiar with TOGAF that they could go to for guidance. Homan encouraged them to continue on their path.

“For example, it might say something like ‘define the enterprise architecture vision,’” Heard says. “Well I just crossed out the word ‘architecture’ and turned the word ‘enterprise’ into ‘function’ so it said ‘define the functional vision.’ Well, I can do that. I can define what we want the function to look like and operate like and have the performance that we need. That becomes tangible. That’s when we went back to Paul and asked if we were on the right track or if we were just making it up. He said, ‘Carry on with what you’re doing.’”

As it turned out, after Heard and Wilcock had gone through the entire 900-page document, they had maintained the essence and principles of TOGAF while adapting it so that they could use the framework in the way that made the most sense to them and for BAE’s business needs. They adapted the methodology to what they needed it to do for them—which is exactly what the TOGAF ADM is meant to do anyway.

TOGAF was ultimately used to help define BAE’s strategy for transforming their operations and production functions. The project is currently at the stage where they are moving from defining a scope of projects to planning which projects to begin with. The team has scoped approximately 27 transformation projects that will take place over approximately three to five years.

Heard says that it was a fortuitous coincidence that Homan was there to suggest the framework since it ultimately provided exactly the guidance they needed. But Heard also believes that it was also fortuitous that no one was familiar with the standard beforehand and that they took the risk of translating it and adapting it for their own needs. He feels had they already been trained in TOGAF before they started their project, they would have spent more time trying to shoehorn the standard into what they needed instead of just adapting it from the start.

“That was the real learning there,” he says.

Now Heard says he finds himself using the framework on a daily basis for any project he has to tackle.

“It’s now become a routine go-to thing even if it’s a very small project or a piece of work. It’s very easy to understand how to get to an answer,” he says.

Heard says that by providing a structured, standardized approach to solving problems, TOGAF ultimately allows organizations to not only take a structured approach to transformational projects, but also to document and measure their success along the way, which is key for meeting business objectives.

“Standardization gives process to projects. If you follow the same approach you become more efficient. If there’s no standard, you can’t do that.”

Learn more about how BAE is using TOGAF® for Business Transformation at The Open Group Edinburgh, October 19-22, 2015

Join the conversation #ogEDI

By The Open GroupMatthew Heard attended the University of Birmingham from where he graduated with an MSc in Engineering Management in 2013. During his time at University Matthew worked as a Project Engineer for General Motors, focusing on the development of improvements in efficiency of the production line. Upon graduating Matthew joined BAE Systems-Maritime-Submarines looking for a new challenge and further experience of change and improvement programmes. Since Matthew joined BAE his predominant focus has been the delivery of Operational change initiatives. Matthew undertook a review and translation of the TOGAF principles and objectives to develop a unique strategy to deliver a program of change for the Operations Function, the outputs of which delivered the Operations Transformation Strategic Intent and Work Scopes. Going forward Matthew aims to continue developing and utilising the principles and objectives of TOGAF to aid other functions within BAE with their own future strategic developments, starting with the HR Transformation Work Scope.

By The Open GroupJohn Wilcock has worked within the Maritime Sector for the last 27 years. Starting as a shipwright apprentice, John has worked his way up through the organisation to his current position as Head of Manufacturing & Construction Strategy. Throughout his career John has gained a wide range of experiences, working on a diverse selection of Defence and Commercial projects, including Warship and Submarine platforms. During this time John has been instrumental in many change programmes and in his current role John is responsible for the development and delivery of the functional Transformation and Build Strategies. In order to develop the Operations Transformation Strategy John has worked alongside Matthew Heard to undertake a review and translation of the TOGAF principles and objectives to create a bespoke strategic intent and work scope. John continues to drive change and transformation through the TOGAF principles.

By The Open GroupPaul Homan

Enterprise Architect at IBM, CTO for Aerospace, Defence & Shipbuilding IBM UKI

Comments Off on The Open Group Edinburgh 2015: BAE Systems – Using TOGAF® for Operations Transformation

Filed under architecture, Enterprise Transformation, Standards, TOGAF, TOGAF®

The Open Group Baltimore 2015 Highlights

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

The Open Group Baltimore 2015, Enabling Boundaryless Information Flow™, July 20-23, was held at the beautiful Hyatt Regency Inner Harbor. Over 300 attendees from 16 countries, including China, Japan, Netherlands and Brazil, attended this agenda-packed event.

The event kicked off on July 20th with a warm Open Group welcome by Allen Brown, President and CEO of The Open Group. The first plenary speaker was Bruce McConnell, Senior VP, East West Institute, whose presentation “Global Cooperation in Cyberspace”, gave a behind-the-scenes look at global cybersecurity issues. Bruce focused on US – China cyber cooperation, major threats and what the US is doing about them.

Allen then welcomed Christopher Davis, Professor of Information Systems, University of South Florida, to The Open Group Governing Board as an Elected Customer Member Representative. Chris also serves as Chair of The Open Group IT4IT™ Forum.

The plenary continued with a joint presentation “Can Cyber Insurance Be Linked to Assurance” by Larry Clinton, President & CEO, Internet Security Alliance and Dan Reddy, Adjunct Faculty, Quinsigamond Community College MA. The speakers emphasized that cybersecurity is not a simply an IT issue. They stated there are currently 15 billion mobile devices and there will be 50 billion within 5 years. Organizations and governments need to prepare for new vulnerabilities and the explosion of the Internet of Things (IoT).

The plenary culminated with a panel “US Government Initiatives for Securing the Global Supply Chain”. Panelists were Donald Davidson, Chief, Lifecycle Risk Management, DoD CIO for Cybersecurity, Angela Smith, Senior Technical Advisor, General Services Administration (GSA) and Matthew Scholl, Deputy Division Chief, NIST. The panel was moderated by Dave Lounsbury, CTO and VP, Services, The Open Group. They discussed the importance and benefits of ensuring product integrity of hardware, software and services being incorporated into government enterprise capabilities and critical infrastructure. Government and industry must look at supply chain, processes, best practices, standards and people.

All sessions concluded with Q&A moderated by Allen Brown and Jim Hietala, VP, Business Development and Security, The Open Group.

Afternoon tracks (11 presentations) consisted of various topics including Information & Data Architecture and EA & Business Transformation. The Risk, Dependability and Trusted Technology theme also continued. Jack Daniel, Strategist, Tenable Network Security shared “The Evolution of Vulnerability Management”. Michele Goetz, Principal Analyst at Forrester Research, presented “Harness the Composable Data Layer to Survive the Digital Tsunami”. This session was aimed at helping data professionals understand how Composable Data Layers set digital and the Internet of Things up for success.

The evening featured a Partner Pavilion and Networking Reception. The Open Group Forums and Partners hosted short presentations and demonstrations while guests also enjoyed the reception. Areas focused on were Enterprise Architecture, Healthcare, Security, Future Airborne Capability Environment (FACE™), IT4IT™ and Open Platform™.

Exhibitors in attendance were Esteral Technologies, Wind River, RTI and SimVentions.

By Loren K. Baynes, Director, Global Marketing CommunicationsPartner Pavilion – The Open Group Open Platform 3.0™

On July 21, Allen Brown began the plenary with the great news that Huawei has become a Platinum Member of The Open Group. Huawei joins our other Platinum Members Capgemini, HP, IBM, Philips and Oracle.

By Loren K Baynes, Director, Global Marketing CommunicationsAllen Brown, Trevor Cheung, Chris Forde

Trevor Cheung, VP Strategy & Architecture Practice, Huawei Global Services, will be joining The Open Group Governing Board. Trevor posed the question, “what can we do to combine The Open Group and IT aspects to make a customer experience transformation?” His presentation entitled “The Value of Industry Standardization in Promoting ICT Innovation”, addressed the “ROADS Experience”. ROADS is an acronym for Real Time, On-Demand, All Online, DIY, Social, which need to be defined across all industries. Trevor also discussed bridging the gap; the importance of combining Customer Experience (customer needs, strategy, business needs) and Enterprise Architecture (business outcome, strategies, systems, processes innovation). EA plays a key role in the digital transformation.

Allen then presented The Open Group Forum updates. He shared roadmaps which include schedules of snapshots, reviews, standards, and publications/white papers.

Allen also provided a sneak peek of results from our recent survey on TOGAF®, an Open Group standard. TOGAF® 9 is currently available in 15 different languages.

Next speaker was Jason Uppal, Chief Architecture and CEO, iCareQuality, on “Enterprise Architecture Practice Beyond Models”. Jason emphasized the goal is “Zero Patient Harm” and stressed the importance of Open CA Certification. He also stated that there are many roles of Enterprise Architects and they are always changing.

Joanne MacGregor, IT Trainer and Psychologist, Real IRM Solutions, gave a very interesting presentation entitled “You can Lead a Horse to Water… Managing the Human Aspects of Change in EA Implementations”. Joanne discussed managing, implementing, maintaining change and shared an in-depth analysis of the psychology of change.

“Outcome Driven Government and the Movement Towards Agility in Architecture” was presented by David Chesebrough, President, Association for Enterprise Information (AFEI). “IT Transformation reshapes business models, lean startups, web business challenges and even traditional organizations”, stated David.

Questions from attendees were addressed after each session.

In parallel with the plenary was the Healthcare Interoperability Day. Speakers from a wide range of Healthcare industry organizations, such as ONC, AMIA and Healthway shared their views and vision on how IT can improve the quality and efficiency of the Healthcare enterprise.

Before the plenary ended, Allen made another announcement. Allen is stepping down in April 2016 as President and CEO after more than 20 years with The Open Group, including the last 17 as CEO. After conducting a process to choose his successor, The Open Group Governing Board has selected Steve Nunn as his replacement who will assume the role with effect from November of this year. Steve is the current COO of The Open Group and CEO of the Association of Enterprise Architects. Please see press release here.By Loren K. Baynes, Director, Global Marketing Communications

Steve Nunn, Allen Brown

Afternoon track topics were comprised of EA Practice & Professional Development and Open Platform 3.0™.

After a very informative and productive day of sessions, workshops and presentations, event guests were treated to a dinner aboard the USS Constellation just a few minutes walk from the hotel. The USS Constellation constructed in 1854, is a sloop-of-war, the second US Navy ship to carry the name and is designated a National Historic Landmark.

By Loren K. Baynes, Director, Global Marketing CommunicationsUSS Constellation

On Wednesday, July 22, tracks continued: TOGAF® 9 Case Studies and Standard, EA & Capability Training, Knowledge Architecture and IT4IT™ – Managing the Business of IT.

Thursday consisted of members-only meetings which are closed sessions.

A special “thank you” goes to our sponsors and exhibitors: Avolution, SNA Technologies, BiZZdesign, Van Haren Publishing, AFEI and AEA.

Check out all the Twitter conversation about the event – @theopengroup #ogBWI

Event proceedings for all members and event attendees can be found here.

Hope to see you at The Open Group Edinburgh 2015 October 19-22! Please register here.

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

Comments Off on The Open Group Baltimore 2015 Highlights

Filed under Accreditations, Boundaryless Information Flow™, Cybersecurity, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Transformation, Healthcare, Internet of Things, Interoperability, Open CA, Open Platform 3.0, Security, Security Architecture, The Open Group Baltimore 2015, TOGAF®

Why We Like ArchiMate®

What Are Your Thoughts?

By Allen Brown, President & CEO of The Open Group

This year marks the 30th anniversary of my class graduation from the London Business School MBA program. It was 3 years of working full-time for Unilever and studying every minute possible, and tackling what seemed to be impossible case studies on every subject that you would have to deal with when managing a business.

One of the many core subjects was “Operations Management”: organizing people, materials and technology into an efficient unit. The first thing we were taught was that there are no rules, only pressures and opportunities. The next thing was that there are no boundaries to what can have an impact on the subject: from macro issues of structure and infrastructure to micro issues of marketing, capabilities, location, motivation and much more. It required a lot of analysis and a lot of thinking around realistic solutions of how to change the “now” state.

To support this, one of the techniques we were taught was modeling. There was one case study that I recall was about a small company of less than 150 personnel engaged in the manufacture and development of fast sea-based transport. As part of the analysis I modeled the physical flow system which covered all aspects of the operation from sales to customer feedback and from design to shipment – all in pencil and all on one page. An extract is shown here.

By Allen Brown, President & CEO, The Open Group

I don’t know if it’s just me but that looks very similar to some ArchiMate® models I have seen. OK there is not a specific box or symbol for the actors and their roles or for identifying processes but it is clear, who is responsible what, the function or process that they perform and the information or instructions they pass to or receive from their colleagues.

So it should not be surprising that I would like ArchiMate®, even before it became a standard of The Open Group and by the same token many people holding senior positions in organizations today, have also been through MBA programs in the past, or some form of executive training and as such would be familiar with the modeling that I and my classmates were taught and would therefore easily understand ArchiMate models.

Since graduating, I have used modeling on many occasions to assist with understanding of complex processes and to identify where problems, bottlenecks, delays and unnecessary costs arise. Almost everyone, wherever they are in the organization has not only understood them but also been able to improve them, with the possible exception of software developers, who still needed UML and BPMN.

An ArchiMate Focus Group

A few months ago I got together with some users of ArchiMate to try to understand its appeal to others. Some were in large financial services businesses, others were in healthcare and others were in consulting and training organizations.

The first challenge, of course, is that different people, in different situations, with different roles in different organizations in different countries and continents will always see things differently. In The Open Group there are more than 300,000 people from over 230 different countries; nearly one third of those people identify themselves as “architects”; and of those “architects” there are more than 3,400 job titles that contain the word architect. There are also more than 3,500 people who identify themselves as CEO, nearly 5,500 CIO’s etc.

So one size definitely will not fit all and neither will a single statement produced by a small number of people sat in a room for a day.

So what we did was to focus mostly on a senior executive in a major financial services company in the United States whose team is responsible for maintaining the business capability map for the company. After that we tested the results with others in the financial services industry, a representative from the healthcare industry and with an experienced consultant and trainer.

Ground Rules for Feedback

Now, what I would like to get feedback on is your views, which is the reason for writing this blog. As always there are some ground rules for feedback:

  • Please focus on the constructive
  • Please identify the target audience for the messages as closely as you can: e.g. job title / type; industry; geographic location etc

With those thoughts in mind, let me now share what we have so far.

The Value of ArchiMate

For the person that we initially focused on, he felt that The Open Group ArchiMate® Standard is the standard visual language for communicating and managing the impact of change. The reasons behind this are that it bridges between strategy, solutions and execution and it enables explicit communication.

The value of bridging between strategy, solutions and execution is recognized because it:

  • Accelerates value delivery
  • Integrates between disciplines
  • Describes strategic capabilities, milestones and outcomes

Enabling explicit communication is realized because it:

  • Improves understanding at all levels of the organization
  • Enables a short time to benefit
  • Is supported by leading tool vendors

A supporting comment from him was that ArchiMate enables different delivery approaches (e.g. waterfall, agile). From a modeling point of view the diagrams are still the same, but the iteration cycles and utilization of them become very different in the agile method. Interesting thought.

This is obviously different from why I like ArchiMate but also has some similarities (e.g. easily understood by anyone) and it is a perfect example of why we need to recognize the differences and similarities when communicating with different people.

So when we asked others in the financial services whether they agreed or not and to tell us why they like ArchiMate, they all provided great feedback and suggested improvements. They identified two groups

  • The CEO, CIO, Business Analyst and Business Architect; and
  • Areas of business support and IT and Solution Architects and System Analysts.

All agreed that The Open Group ArchiMate® Standard is the standard visual language. Where they varied was in the next line. For the CEO, CIO, Business Analyst and Business Architect target audience the value of ArchiMate, was realized because:

  • It is for modeling the enterprise and managing its change
  • It can support strategic alignment and support impact analysis

Instead of “enabling explicit communication” others preferred the simpler, “clarifies complex systems” but the sub-bullets remained the same. One supporting statement was, “I can show a diagram that most people can understand even without technical knowledge”. Another statement, this time in support of the bridging capability was, “It helps me in unifying the languages of business and IT”.

The value of strategic alignment support was realized through ArchiMate because it:

  • Allows an integrated view
  • Depicts links between drivers and the specific requirements that address them
  • Links between motivation and business models

Its support of impact analysis and decision taking recognizes the bridging capability:

  • Integrates between disciplines: links between cause and effect
  • Describes and allows to identify, strategic capabilities
  • Bridges between strategy, solutions and execution

When the target audience changed to areas of business support and IT or to Solution Architects and System Analysts, the next line became:

  • It is for communicating and managing change that leverages TOGAF® standard usage
  • It can support the development of conceptual representations for the applications and IT platforms and their alignment with business goals

For these audiences the value was still in the ability to clarify complex systems and to bridge between strategy, solutions and execution but the sub-bullets changed significantly:

  • Clarifies complex systems
    • Improves understanding at all levels of the organization
    • Allows integration between domains
    • Provides a standard way to represent inputs and outputs between domains
    • Supports having a standard model repository to create views
  • Bridges between strategy, solutions and execution
    • Allows views segmentation efficiently
    • Allow a consolidated organizational landscape definition business aligned
    • Supports solutions design definition

Unlike my business school models, ArchiMate models are also understandable to software developers.

The feedback from the healthcare organization was strikingly similar. To give an example format for feedback, I will represent it in a way that would be very helpful if you could use for your comments.

Country: USA

Industry: Healthcare

Target Audience: VP of IT

Positioning statement:

The Open Group ArchiMate® Standard is the standard visual language for communicating and managing change and making the enterprise architecture practice more effective.

It achieves this because it:

  • Clarifies complex systems
    • Improves understanding at all levels of the organization
    • Short time to benefit
    • Supported by leading tool vendors
    • Supports a more effective EA delivery
  • Bridges between strategy, solutions and execution
    • Accelerates value delivery
    • Integrates between disciplines
    • Describes strategic capabilities, milestones and outcomes

Feedback from an experienced consultant and trainer was:

Country / Region: Latin America

Industry:

Target Audience: Director of Business Architecture, Chief EA, Application Architects

Positioning statement:

The Open Group ArchiMate® Standard is the standard visual language for modeling the organization, leveraging communication with stakeholders and managing change

It achieves this because it:

  • Clarifies complex systems and leverage change
    • Improves understanding at all levels of the organization
    • Supported by leading tool vendors
    • Support change impact analysis into the organization and it is a helping tool portfolio management and analysis
    • Supports complex system structures presentation to different stakeholders using a simplified notation
  • Bridges between strategy, solutions and execution
    • Accelerates value delivery
    • Integrates between disciplines
    • Describes strategic capabilities, milestones and outcomes
    • Allow a consolidated organizational landscape definition

Your Feedback

All of this gives us some insight into why a few of us like ArchiMate. I would like to know what you like about ArchiMate or how you talk about it to your colleagues and acquaintances.

So please do not hesitate to let me know. Do you agree with the statements that have been made so far? What improvements would you suggest? How do they resonate in your country, your industry, your organization? What different audiences should be addressed and what messages should we use for them?

Please email your feedback to ArchiMateFeedback@opengroup.org.

By The Open GroupAllen Brown is President and CEO of The Open Group – a global consortium that enables the achievement of business objectives through IT standards.  He is also President of the Association of Enterprise Architects (AEA).

Allen was appointed President & CEO in 1998.  Prior to joining The Open Group, he held a range of senior financial and general management roles both within his own consulting firm, which he founded in 1987, and other multi-national organizations.

Allen is TOGAF® 9 certified, an MBA alumnus of the London Business School and a Fellow of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants.

1 Comment

Filed under Allen Brown, ArchiMate®, Business Architecture, Enterprise Transformation, The Open Group

In Praise Of Heuristics – or Saving TOGAF® From Its Friends

By Stuart Boardman, Senior Business Consultant, Business & IT Advisory, KPN Consulting and Ed Harrington, Senior Consulting Associate, Conexiam

As the world’s best known and most used Enterprise Architecture (EA) framework, it’s quite reasonable that TOGAF®, an Open Group standard, attracts criticism from both outside and within The Open Group membership. We would like to discuss a particular class of criticism and even more about the thinking behind that.

This criticism states that TOGAF is neither rigorous nor scientific and that any good EA framework should be both of those things. Now we don’t know anyone who wouldn’t agree that TOGAF could be more rigorous about some things and that’s one of the areas highlighted for attention in the next version of TOGAF.

But, “scientific”? There’s the rub. What do we mean by scientific?

Machines, Nature and Enterprises

What these critics promote is a method, which for any given enterprise, under identical conditions will always deliver the same, “correct” result – regardless who executes the method, as long as they follow the rules. This approach depends on a very 19th/20th Century mechanistic view of an enterprise.

We agree that an enterprise is a system. Mechanical systems behavior is generally predictable. If you get the equation right, you can predict the behavior under any given set of conditions with an accuracy of (to all intents and purposes) 100%. So, if an enterprise were a machine, you could come up with a method that meets this requirement.

Natural and environmental systems do not, in general, behave predictably (leaving trivia like Pavlov and his dogs out of it). There is room for discussion for any one system under consideration as to why this is. It could just be because there are so many variables that we can’t capture all of them at one instant in time (i.e. they are highly complex) or because the system is chaotic (i.e. extremely sensitive to initial conditions) or even stochastic (i.e. we can only establish a probability for a particular outcome) – or possibly a mixture of those things.

A major aspect of enterprises is that, to a considerable extent, they are made up of people, individually and in groups. Each with their shifting perceptions of what “good” is. In fact even a single organization behaves more like an organism than like a machine (note: we are not claiming that organizations are organisms).

Especially important is that enterprises function within wider ecosystems in which external factors like resource availability, innovation, competition, customer loyalty, legislation and regulation (to name but a few) constantly affect the behavior of the enterprise. To reliably predict the behavior of the enterprise we would need to know each and every factor that affects that behavior. Complexity is a major factor. Do we recognize any existing enterprises that do not conform to this (complex) model?

Science and Uncertainty

Enterprises are complex and, we would argue, even chaotic systems. Change the initial conditions and the behavior may be radically different (a totally different equation). A real scientific method for EA would then necessarily reflect that. It would deliver results, which could continue to adapt along with the enterprise. That requires more than just following a set of rules. There is no “equation”. There may be a number of “equations” to choose from. Some degree of experience, domain knowledge and empathy is required to select the most adaptable of those equations. If the world of software architecture hasn’t yet determined a formula for the perfect agile system, how can we imagine the even more complex EA domain could?[1] Any such method would be a meta-method. The actual method followed would be an adaptation (concretization/instantiation) of the meta-method for the system (i.e. enterprise) under examination in its then specific context.

So even if there is an EA method that delivers identical results independent of the user, the chances they’d be correct are…well, just that – chance. (You probably have a better chance of winning the lottery!). The danger of these “scientific” approaches is that we kid ourselves that the result must be right, because the method said so. If the objective were only to produce a moment in time “as-is” view of an enterprise and if you could produce that before everything changed again, then a mechanistic approach might work. But what would be the point?

What Really Bothers Us

Now if the problem here were restricted to the proponents of this “scientific” view, it wouldn’t matter too much, as they’re not especially influential, especially on a global scale. Our concern is that it appears TOGAF is treated by a considerably larger number of people as being exactly that kind of system. Some of the things we read by TOGAF-certified folk on, for example, LinkedIn or come across in practice are deeply disturbing. It seems that people think that the ADM is a recipe for making sausages and that mechanistically stepping through the crop circles will deliver a nicely formed sausage.

Why is this? No TOGAF expert we know thinks TOGAF is a linear, deterministic process. The thousands of TOGAF certified people have a tool that, as TOGAF, itself in chapter 2.10 states: “In all cases, it is expected that the architect will adapt and build on the TOGAF framework in order to define a tailored method that is integrated into the processes and organization structures of the enterprise”.

Is it perhaps an example of the need so many people have to think the whole world is predictable and controllable – an unholy fear of uncertainty? Such people seek comfort and the illusion of certainty in a set of rules. That would certainly fit with an outdated view of science. Or perhaps the problem is located less with the architects themselves than with management by spreadsheet and with project management methodologies that are more concerned with deadlines than with quality? Less experienced architects may feel obliged to go along with this and thus draw the wrong conclusions about TOGAF.

The Task of Enterprise Architecture

Understanding, accepting and taking advantage of the presence of uncertainty is essential for any organization today. This would be true even if it were only because of the accelerating rate of change. But more than that, we need to recognize that the way we do business is changing, that agile organizations encourage emergence[2] and that success means letting go of hard and fast rules. Enterprise architects, to be useful, have to work with this new model, not to be risk averse and to learn from (shared) experience. It’s our responsibility to help our enterprises achieve their strategic goals. If we turn our backs on reality, we may be able to tick off a task on a project plan but we’re not helping anyone.

A good EA framework helps us understand what we need to do and why we are doing it. It doesn’t do the thinking for us. All good EA frameworks are essentially heuristics. They assemble good practice from the experience of real practitioners and provide guidance to assist the intelligent architect in finding the best available solution – in the knowledge that it’s not perfect, that things can and will change and that the most valuable strategy is being able to cope with that change. TOGAF helps us do this.

[1] For more on complexity and uncertainty see Tom Graves’s SCAN method.

[2] See, for example Ruth Malan and Dana Bredemeyer’s The Art of Change: Fractal and Emergent

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

Ed Harrington is a Senior Consulting Associate with Conexiam, a Calgary, Canada headquartered consultancy. He also heads his own consultancy, EPH Associates. Prior positions include Principle Consultant with Architecting the Enterprise where he provided TOGAF and other Enterprise Architecture (EA) discipline training and consultancy; EVP and COO for Model Driven Solutions, an EA, SOA and Model Driven Architecture Consulting and Software Development company; various positions for two UK based companies, Nexor and ICL and 18 years at General Electric in various marketing and financial management positions. Ed has been an active member of The Open Group since 2000 when the EMA became part of The Open Group and is past chair of various Open Group Forums (including past Vice Chair of the Architecture Forum). Ed is TOGAF® 9 certified.

4 Comments

Filed under architecture, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Transformation, TOGAF®

Agile Enterprise Architecture – A Good to Great Evolution

By Priya Patra, Sr. Manager at IGATE Global Solutions

I have been an Agile Practitioner for years now, have been in many successful Agile executed projects. But as an Enterprise Architect I am somewhat skeptical about the fact how the eXtereme Programming and other Agile methodologies dismiss the value of analysis and design.

In this write-up I will try to blend in the flavors of Agile along with Enterprise Architecture to bring in the concept of Agile Architecture.

Enterprise Architecture is good, but when we make it agile t0 embraces change, it is great. Let’s see how we can embark on the Good to Great journey of making an Enterprise Architecture and Agile Enterprise Architecture.

Emerging and Intentional Architecture

SCRUM and XP have seen broadest adoptions in the enterprises. These methodologies are based on the assumptions that the architecture emerges out of the iterations of delivery of value driven user stories and continuous refactoring, this is what we call Emerging Architecture. What if we have to scale this to the enterprise, will it stand up to the test of scalability, here comes in the Intentional Architecture.

Intentional Architecture is a practice which is designed to produce robust architectures in an Agile fashion. The objectives of Intentional Architecture are as follows:

  1. Build Application Architecture vision
  2. Alignment of Application Architecture with Enterprise Architecture vision
  3. Leverage Architecture patterns, implementation strategies and best practices – Build robust Architecture Principles
  4. Sponsor innovation and continuous Improvement

Agile Architecture – Looking beyond the current Sprint

With the foundation laid for an intentional architecture, we will now look to see if we can make the enterprise architecture Agile.

Characteristics of an Agile Architecture

  1. Intentional Architecture, rather than an emerging architecture
  2. Integration points to facilitate Agile Development rather than hindering the same
  3. Embrace change without over building

This does not happen by accident but by design.

By The Open Group

 The Agile Enterprise Architecture

Role of an Agile Architect

There are substantial benefits when we effectively apply the intentional architecture, provided the iteration is not slowed down. An Agile Architect is a role in an agile team who provides inputs and technical direction based on the Architecture vision to the enterprise and ensures that the design and architecture of an individual application is in conformance with enterprise architecture vision.

Let’s see how an Agile Developer and Agile Architect embrace change?

Agile Developer Agile Enterprise Architect
Works to satisfy the customer and business Balances needs of all stakeholders and knows when to say “no”
Embraces change quickly assuming change is inevitable Plans for change, embraces it, by understanding it and through a flexible design
Follows “YAGNI” principle of XP Follows “Separations of concerns”, plans and designs for scalability and reliability in conformance with Enterprise Standards
Uses quick   solutions to solve problems Implement Long tern solutions to reduce technical risk / debt and improve maintainability

Evolution Strategies – Good to GreatBy The Open GroupBuild strong foundations: Agility depends on strong foundations; we can never be agile, if we keep spending time in fixing the core or Architectural building blocks.

Establish Implementation strategy: Implementation strategy to be aligned to the Architecture vision and communicated to the Agile team to ensure alignment to the vision.

Adopt a layered structure:   Layer data as well as the software. We need to separate out things with specific purpose or which changes with different rates than others. Separate the core from the business rules, loosely couple components and apply abstraction for growth and scalability.

Practice change continually: Being Great at anything requires practice. Agile teams needs to use tools and techniques which support constant change e.g. Continuous Integration, testing and refactoring

Bottom line “Think long term and act short term “. Understand the agility the business needs, understand what helps you to align to the Enterprise Architecture Vision and choose design wisely!

By Priya Patra, Sr. Manager at IGATE Global SolutionsPriya Patra is Sr. Manager at IGATE Global Solutions. She has extensive experience in managing and executing product / framework development and Technology CoE projects. She is a Certified Scrum Master, a certified TOGAF® practitioner and a member of the Association of Enterprise Architects (AEA).

5 Comments

Filed under agile, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Transformation, The Open Group

Survey Shows Organizations Are Experiencing an Identity Crisis When it Comes to IT Risk Management

By Jim Hietala, VP, Business Development & Security, The Open Group

Last fall, The Open Group Security Forum fielded its first IT Risk Management Survey in conjunction with the Society of Information Risk Analysts (SIRA) and CXOWARE The purpose of the survey was to better understand how mature organizations are when it comes to IT Risk Management today. The survey also aimed to discover which risk management frameworks are currently most prevalent within organizations and how successful those frameworks are in measuring and managing risk.

Consisting of an online questionnaire that included both multiple choice and open text answer formats with questions, the survey explored a number of different parameters in regard to the principles, frameworks and processes organizations are using to manage risk. The sampling included more than 100 information technology and security executives, professionals, analysts and architects that have some responsibility for risk management, as well as full-time risk management professionals within their respective organizations.

Considering the fragmented state of security within most organizations today, it should not come as much surprise that the primary survey finding is that many organizations today are experiencing what might be called an identity crisis when it comes to IT Risk Management. Although many of the organizations surveyed generally believe their Risk Management teams and efforts are providing value to their organizations, they are also experiencing considerable difficulty when it comes to understanding, demonstrating and creating business value for those efforts.

This is likely due to the lack of a common definition for risk relative to IT Risk Management, in particular, as well as the resulting difficulty in communicating the value of something organizations are struggling to clearly define. In addition, the IT Risk Management teams among the companies surveyed do not have much visibility within their organizations and the departments to which they report are inconsistent across the organizations surveyed, with some reporting to senior management and others reporting to IT or to Risk Managers.

Today, Risk Management is becoming increasingly important for IT departments. With the increased digitalization of business and data becoming ever more valuable, companies of all shapes and sizes must begin looking to apply risk management principles to their IT infrastructure in order to guard against the potentially negative financial, competitive and reputational loss that data breaches may bring. A myriad of high-profile breaches at large retailers, financial services firms, entertainment companies and government agencies over the past couple of years serve as frightening examples of what can—and will—happen to more and more companies if they fail to better assess their vulnerability to risk.

This IT Risk Management survey essentially serves as a benchmark for the state of IT Risk Management today. When it comes to IT risk, the ways and means to manage it are still emerging, and IT Risk Management programs are still in the nascent stages within most organizations. We believe that there is not only a lot of room for growth within the discipline of IT Risk Management but are optimistic that organizations will continue to mature in this area as they learn to better understand and prove their intrinsic value within their organizations.

The full survey summary can be viewed here. We recommend that those interested in Risk Management review the full summary as there are a number of deeper observations explored there that look at the value risk teams believe they are providing to their organizations and the level of maturity of those organizations.

By Jim Hietala, The Open GroupJim Hietala, Open FAIR, CISSP, GSEC, is Vice President, Business Development and Security for The Open Group, where he manages the business team, as well as Security and Risk Management programs and standards activities,  He has participated in the development of several industry standards including O-ISM3, O-ESA, O-RT (Risk Taxonomy Standard), O-RA (Risk Analysis 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.

Join the conversation @theopengroup #ogchat #ogSecurity

 

 

 

Comments Off on Survey Shows Organizations Are Experiencing an Identity Crisis When it Comes to IT Risk Management

Filed under Cybersecurity, Enterprise Transformation, Information security, IT, RISK Management, Security, Security Architecture, Uncategorized