Category Archives: Standards

The Open Group Boston 2014 – Day One Highlights

By Loren K. Baynes, Director, Global Marketing Communications

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

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

Van AlstyneMarshall Van Alstyne

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Join the conversation #ogBOS!

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

 

Leave a comment

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

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

By The Open Group

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Join the conversation – #ogchat #ogBOS

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

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

Leave a comment

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

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

By The Open Group

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

Listen to the podcast here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lee: Thank you very much.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

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

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

By The Open Group

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Join us on Twitter – #ogchat #ogBOS

Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Is a Tweet Jam?

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

Participation Guidance

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

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

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

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

 

3 Comments

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

Brand Marketing of Standards

By Allen Brown, President and CEO, The Open Group

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

4 Comments

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

The Open Group Open Platform 3.0™ Starts to Take Shape

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

The Third Platform

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

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

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

ChrisBlog1

Figure 1: The Third Platform

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

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

Common Architecture Environment

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

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

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

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

An Example Basic Model

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

ChrisBlog 2

Figure 2: Mobile Connected Device Model

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

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

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

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

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

Access to Technologies

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

ChrisBlog 3

Figure 3: Access to Technologies

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

User-Driven IT

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

ChrisBlog 4

Figure 4: User-Driven IT

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

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

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

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

Integration of Independently-Developed Solutions

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

ChrisBlog 5

Figure 5: Architecture Integration

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

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

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

Completing the Definition

How will we complete the definition of Open Platform 3.0?

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

ChrisBlog 6

Figure 6: Business Use-Cases

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

Use-Case Analysis

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

ChrisBlog 7

Figure 7: Use-Case Analysis

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

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

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

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

The Development Cycle

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

ChrisBlog 8

Figure 8: The Development Cycle

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

Call for Input

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

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

References

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

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

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

harding

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

 

 

 

 

 

2 Comments

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

Business Capabilities – Taking Your Organization into the Next Dimension

By Stuart Macgregor, Chief Executive, Real IRM Solutions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

Leave a comment

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

The Onion & The Open Group Open Platform 3.0™

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

Onion1

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

 

 

 

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

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

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

Onion5

The Service at the Centre of the Onion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Onion6

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

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

Onion7   Onion8

 

 

 

 

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

2 Comments

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

ArchiMate® Users Group Meeting

By The Open Group

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information on ArchiMate, please visit:

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

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

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

 

1 Comment

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

The Open Group Summit Amsterdam 2014 – Day Three Highlights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Henk JonkersHenk Jonkers, BiZZdesign

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

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

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

 

Leave a comment

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

The Open Group Summit Amsterdam 2014 – Day Two Highlights

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

On Tuesday, May 13, day two of The Open Group Summit Amsterdam, the morning plenary began with a welcome from The Open Group President and CEO Allen Brown. He presented an overview of the Forums and the corresponding Roadmaps. He described the process of standardization, from the initial work to a preliminary standard, including review documents, whitepapers and snapshots, culminating in the final publication of an open standard. Brown also announced that Capgemini is again a Platinum member of The Open Group and contributes to the realization of the organization’s objectives in various ways.

Charles Betz, Chief Architect, Signature Client Group, AT&T and Karel van Zeeland, Lead IT4IT Architect, Shell IT International, presented the second keynote of the morning, ‘A Reference Architecture For the Business of IT’.  When the IT Value Chain and IT4IT Reference Architecture is articulated, instituted and automated, the business can experience huge cost savings in IT and significantly improved response times for IT service delivery, as well as increasing customer satisfaction.

AmsterdamPlenaryKarel van Zeeland, Charles Betz and Allen Brown

In 1998, Shell Information Technology started to restructure the IT Management and the chaos was complete. There were too many tools, too many vendors, a lack of integration, no common data model, a variety of user interfaces and no standards to support rapid implementation. With more than 28 different solutions for incident management and more than 160 repositories of configuration data, the complexity was immense. An unclear relationship with Enterprise Architecture and other architectural issues made the case even worse.

Restructuring the IT Management turned out to be a long journey for the Shell managers. How to manage 1,700 locations in 90 countries, 8,000 applications, 25,000 servers, dozens of global and regional datacenters,125,000 PCs and laptops, when at the same time you are confronted with trends like BYOD, mobility, cloud computing, security, big data and the Internet of Things (IoT).  According to Betz and van Zeeland, IT4IT is a promising platform for evolution of the IT profession. IT4IT however has the potential to become a full open standard for managing the business of IT.

Jeroen Tas, CEO of Healthcare Informatics Solutions and Services within Philips Healthcare, explained in his keynote speech, “Philips is becoming a software company”. Digital solutions connect and streamline workflow across the continuum of care to improve patient outcomes. Today, big data is supporting adaptive therapies. Smart algorithms are used for early warning and active monitoring of patients in remote locations. Tas has a dream, he wants to make a valuable contribution to a connected healthcare world for everyone.

In January 2014, Royal Philips announced the formation of Healthcare Informatics Solutions and Services, a new business group within Philips’ Healthcare sector that offers hospitals and health systems the customized clinical programs, advanced data analytics and interoperable, cloud-based platforms necessary to implement new models of care. Tas, who previously served as the Chief Information Officer of Philips, leads the group.

In January of this year, The Open Group launched The Open Group Healthcare Forum whichfocuses on bringing Boundaryless Information Flow™ to the healthcare industry enabling data to flow more easily throughout the complete healthcare ecosystem.

Ed Reynolds, HP Fellow and responsible for the HP Enterprise Security Services in the US, described the role of information risk in a new technology landscape. How do C-level executives think about risk? This is a relevant and urgent question because it can take more than 243 days before a data breach is detected. Last year, the average cost associated with a data breach increased 78% to 11.9 million dollars. Critical data assets may be of strategic national importance, have massive corporate value or have huge significance to an employee or citizen, be it the secret recipe of Coca Cola or the medical records of a patient. “Protect your crown jewels” is the motto.

Bart Seghers, Cyber Security Manager, Thales Security and Henk Jonkers, Senior Research Consultant of BiZZdesign, visualized the Business Impact of Technical Cyber Risks. Attacks on information systems are becoming increasingly sophisticated. Organizations are increasingly networked and thus more complex. Attacks use digital, physical and social engineering and the departments responsible for each of these domains within an organization operate in silos. Current risk management methods cannot handle the resulting complexity. Therefore they are using ArchiMate® as a risk and security architecture. ArchiMate is a widely accepted open standard for modeling Enterprise Architecture. There is also a good fit with other EA and security frameworks, such as TOGAF®. A pentest-based Business Impact Assessment (BIA) is a powerful management dashboard that increases the return on investment for your Enterprise Architecture effort, they concluded.

Risk Management was also a hot topic during several sessions in the afternoon. Moderator Jim Hietala, Vice President, Security at The Open Group, hosted a panel discussion on Risk Management.

In the afternoon several international speakers covered topics including Enterprise Architecture & Business Value, Business & Data Architecture and Open Platform 3.0™. In relation to social networks, Andy Jones, Technical Director, EMEA, SOA Software, UK, presented “What Facebook, Twitter and Netflix Didn’t Tell You”.

The Open Group veteran Dr. Chris Harding, Director for Interoperability at The Open Group, and panelists discussed and emphasized the importance of The Open Group Open Platform 3.0™. The session also featured a live Q&A via Twitter #ogchat, #ogop3.

The podcast is now live. Here are the links:

Briefings Direct Podcast Home Page: http://www.briefingsdirect.com/

PODCAST STREAM: http://traffic.libsyn.com/interarbor/BriefingsDirect-The_Open_Group_Amsterdam_Conference_Panel_Delves_into_How_to_Best_Gain_Business_Value_From_Platform_3.mp3

PODCAST SUMMARY: http://briefingsdirect.com/the-open-group-amsterdam-panel-delves-into-how-to-best-gain-business-value-from-platform-30

In the evening, The Open Group hosted a tour and dinner experience at the world-famous Heineken Brewery.

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

Leave a comment

Filed under ArchiMate®, Boundaryless Information Flow™, Certifications, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Transformation, Healthcare, Open Platform 3.0, RISK Management, Standards, TOGAF®, Uncategorized

The Open Group Summit Amsterdam 2014 – Day One Highlights

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

The Open Group Summit Amsterdam, held at the historic Hotel Krasnapolsky, began on Monday, May 12 by highlighting how the industry is moving further towards Boundaryless Information Flow™. After the successful introduction of The Open Group Healthcare Forum in San Francisco, the Governing Board is now considering other vertical Forums such as the airline industry and utilities sector.

The morning plenary began with a welcome from Steve Nunn, COO of The Open Group and CEO of the Association of Enterprise Architects (AEA). He mentioned that Amsterdam has a special place in his heart because of the remembrance of the 2001 event also held in Amsterdam, just one month after the 9/11 attacks which shocked the world. Today, with almost 300 registrations and people from 29 different countries, The Open Group is still appealing to a wide range of nationalities.

Allen Brown, President and CEO of The Open Group, took the audience on a journey as he described the transformation process that The Open Group has been on over the last thirty years from its inception in 1984. After a radically financial reorganization and raising new working capital, The Open Group is flourishing more than ever and is in good financial health.

It is amazing that 40 percent of the staff of 1984 is still working for The Open Group. What is the secret? You should have the right people in the boat with shared values and commitment. “In 2014, The Open Group runs a business, but stays a not-for-profit organization, a consortium”, Brown emphasized. “Enterprise Architecture is not a commercial vehicle or a ‘trendy’ topic. The Open Group always has a positive attitude and will never criticize other organizations. Our certification programs are a differentiator compared to other organizations. We collaborate with other consortia and standard bodies like ISO and ITIL”, Brown said.

Now the world is much more complex. Technology risk is increasing. A common language based on common standards is needed more than ever. TOGAF®, an Open Group standard, was in its infancy in 1998 and now it is the common standard for Enterprise Architects all over the world. In 1984, the UNIX® platform was the first platform of The Open Group. The Open Group Open Platform 3.0™, launched last year, focuses on new and emerging technology trends like mobility, big data, cloud computing and the Internet of Things converging with each other and leading to new business models and system designs. “The Open Group is all about building relationships and networking”, Brown concluded.

Leonardo Ramirez, CEO of ARCA SG and Chair of AEA Colombia, talked about the role of interoperability and Enterprise Architecture in Latin America. Colombia is now a safe country and has the strongest economy in the region. In 2011 Colombia promoted the electronic government and TOGAF was selected as the best choice for Enterprise Architecture. Ramirez is determined to stimulate social economic development projects in Latin America with the help of Enterprise Architecture. There is a law in Colombia (Regulation Law 1712, 2014) that says that every citizen has the right to access all the public information without boundaries.

Dr. Jonas Ridderstråle, Chairman, Mgruppen and Visiting Professor, Ashridge (UK) and IE Business Schools (Spain), said in his keynote speech, “Womenomics rules, the big winners of the personal freedom movement will be women. Women are far more risk averse. What would have happened with Lehman Brothers if it was managed by women? ‘Lehman Sisters’ probably had the potential to survive. Now women can spend 80 percent of their time on other things than just raising kids.” Ridderstråle continued to discuss life-changing and game-changing events throughout his presentation. He noted that The Open Group Open Platform 3.0 for instance is a good example of a successful reinvention.

“Towards a European Interoperability Architecture” was the title of one of the afternoon sessions led by Mr. R. Abril Jimenez. Analysis during the first phase of the European Interoperability Strategy (EIS) found that, at conceptual level, architecture guidelines were missing or inadequate. In particular, there are no architectural guidelines for cross-border interoperability of building blocks. Concrete, reusable interoperability guidelines and rules and principles on standards and architecture are also lacking. Based on the results achieved and direction set in the previous phases of the action, the EIA project has moved into a more practical phase that consists of two main parts: Conceptual Reference Architecture and Cartography.

Other tracks featured Healthcare, Professional Development and Dependability through Assuredness™.

The evening concluded with a lively networking reception in the hotel’s Winter Garden ballroom.

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

Leave a comment

Filed under Boundaryless Information Flow™, Conference, Dependability through Assuredness™, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Transformation, Healthcare, Open Platform 3.0, Professional Development, Standards, TOGAF®, Uncategorized

Improving Patient Care and Reducing Costs in Healthcare

By Jason Lee, Director of Healthcare and Security Forums, The Open Group

Recently, The Open Group Healthcare Forum hosted a tweet jam to discuss IT and Enterprise Architecture (EA) issues as they relate to two of the most persistent problems in healthcare: reducing costs and improving patient care. Below I summarize the key points that followed from a rather unique discussion. Unique how? Unique in that rather than address these issues from the perspective of “must do” priorities (including EHR implementation, transitioning to ICD-10, and meeting enhanced HIPAA security requirements), we focused on “should do” opportunities.

We asked how stakeholders in the healthcare system can employ “Boundaryless Information Flow™” and standards development through the application of EA approaches that have proven effective in other industries to add new insights and processes to reduce costs and improve quality.

Question 1: What barriers exist for collaboration among providers in healthcare, and what can be done to improve things?
• tetradian: Huge barriers of language, terminology, mindset, worldview, paradigm, hierarchy, role and much more
• jasonsleephd: Financial, organizational, structural, lack of enabling technology, cultural, educational, professional insulation
• jim_hietala: EHRs with proprietary interfaces represent a big barrier in healthcare
• Technodad: Isn’t question really what barriers exist for collaboration between providers and patients in healthcare?
• tetradian: Communication b/w patients and providers is only one (type) amongst very many
• Technodad: Agree. Debate needs to identify whose point of view the #healthcare problem is addressing.
• Dana_Gardner: Where to begin? A Tower of Babel exists on multiple levels among #healthcare ecosystems. Too complex to fix wholesale.
• EricStephens: Also, legal ramifications of sharing information may impede sharing
• efeatherston: Patient needs provider collaboration to see any true benefit (I don’t just go to one provider)
• Dana_Gardner: Improve first by identifying essential collaborative processes that have most impact, and then enable them as secure services.
• Technodad: In US at least, solutions will need to be patient-centric to span providers- Bring Your Own Wellness (BYOW™) for HC info.
• loseby: Lack of shared capabilities & interfaces between EHRs leads to providers w/o comprehensive view of patient
• EricStephens: Are incentives aligned sufficiently to encourage collaboration? + lack of technology integration.
• tetradian: Vast numbers of stakeholder-groups, many beyond medicine – e.g. pharma, university, politics, local care (esp. outside of US)
• jim_hietala: Gap in patient-centric information flow
• Technodad: I think patents will need to drive the collaboration – they have more incentive to manage info than providers.
• efeatherston: Agreed, stakeholder list could be huge
• EricStephens: High-deductible plans will drive patients (us) to own our health care experience
• Dana_Gardner: Take patient-centric approach to making #healthcare processes better: drives adoption, which drives productivity, more adoption
• jasonsleephd: Who thinks standards development and data sharing is an essential collaboration tool?
• tetradian: not always patient-centric – e.g. epidemiology /public-health is population centric – i.e. _everything_ is ‘the centre’
• jasonsleephd: How do we break through barriers to collaboration? For one thing, we need to create financial incentives to collaborate (e.g., ACOs)
• efeatherston: Agreed, the challenge is to get them to challenge (if that makes sense). Many do not question
• EricStephens: Some will deify those in a lab coat.
• efeatherston: Still do, especially older generations, cultural
• Technodad: Agree – also displaying, fusing data from different providers, labs, monitors etc.
• dianedanamac: Online collaboration, can be cost effective & promote better quality but must financially incented
• efeatherston: Good point, unless there is a benefit/incentive for provider, they may not be bothered to try
• tetradian: “must financially incented” – often other incentives work better – money can be a distraction – also who pays?

Participants identified barriers that are not atypical: financial disincentives, underpowered technology, failure to utilize existing capability, lack of motivation to collaborate. Yet all participants viewed more collaboration as key. Consensus developed around:
• The patient (and by one commenter, the population) as the main driver of collaboration, and
• The patient as the most important stakeholder at the center of information flow.

Question 2: Does implementing remote patient tele-monitoring and online collaboration drive better and more cost-effective patient care?
• EricStephens: “Hell yes” comes to mind. Why drag yourself into a dr. office when a device can send the information (w/ video)
• efeatherston: Will it? Will those with high deductible plans have ability/understanding/influence to push for it?
• EricStephens: Driving up participation could drive up efficacy
• jim_hietala: Big opportunities to improve patient care thru remote tele-monitoring
• jasonsleephd: Tele-ICUs can keep patients (and money) in remote settings while receiving quality care
• jasonsleephd: Remote monitoring of patients admitted with CHF can reduce rehospitalization w/i 6 months @connectedhealth.org
• Dana_Gardner: Yes! Pacemakers now uplink to centralized analysis centers, communicate trends back to attending doctor. Just scratches surface
• efeatherston: Amen. Do that now, monthly uplink, annual check in with doctor to discuss any trends he sees.
• tetradian: Assumes tele-monitoring options even exist – very wide range of device-capabilities, from very high to not-much, and still not common.
• tetradian: (General request to remember that there’s more to the world, and medicine, than just the US and its somewhat idiosyncratic systems?)
• efeatherston: Yes, I do find myself looking through the lens of my own experiences, forgetting the way we do things may not translate
• jasonsleephd: Amen to point about our idiosyncrasies! Still, we have to live with them, and we can do so much better with good information flow!
• Dana_Gardner: Governments should remove barriers so more remote patient tele-monitoring occurs. Need to address the malpractice risks issue.
• TerryBlevins: Absolutely. Just want the information to go to the right place!
• Technodad: . Isn’t “right place” someplace you & all your providers can access? Need interoperability!
• TerryBlevins: It requires interoperability yes – the info must flow to those that must know.
• Technodad: Many areas where continuous monitoring can help. Improved IoT (internet of things) sensors e.g. cardio, blood chemistry coming. http://t.co/M3xw3tNvv3
• tetradian: Ethical/privacy concerns re how/with-whom that data is shared – e.g. with pharma, research, epidemiology etc
• efeatherston: Add employers to that etc. list of how/who/what is shared

Participants agreed that remote patient monitoring and telemonitoring can improve collaboration, improve patient care, and put patients more in control of their own healthcare data. However, participants expressed concerns about lack of widespread availability and the related issue of high cost. In addition, they raised important questions about who has access to these data, and they addressed nagging privacy and liability concerns.

Question 3: Can a mobile strategy improve patient experience, empowerment and satisfaction? If so, how?
• jim_hietala: mobile is a key area where patient health information can be developed/captured
• EricStephens: Example: link blood sugar monitor to iPhone to MyFitnessPal + gamification to drive adherence (and drive $$ down?)
• efeatherston: Mobile along with #InternetOfThings, wearables linked to mobile. Contact lens measuring blood sugar in recent article as ex.
• TerryBlevins: Sick people, or people getting sick are on the move. In a patient centric world we must match need.
• EricStephens: Mobile becomes a great data acquisition point. Something as simple as SMS can drive adherence with complication drug treatments
• jasonsleephd: mHealth is a very important area for innovation, better collaboration, $ reduction & quality improvement. Google recent “Webby Awards & handheld devices”
• tetradian: Mobile can help – e.g. use of SMS for medicine in Africa etc
• Technodad: Mobile isn’t option any more. Retail, prescription IoT, mobile network & computing make this a must-have. http://t.co/b5atiprIU9
• dianedanamac: Providers need to be able to receive the information mHealth
• Dana_Gardner: Healthcare should go location-independent. Patient is anywhere, therefore so is care, data, access. More than mobile, IMHO.
• Technodad: Technology and mobile demand will outrun regional provider systems, payers, regulation
• Dana_Gardner: As so why do they need to be regional? Cloud can enable supply-demand optimization regardless of location for much.
• TerryBlevins: And the caregivers are also on the move!
• Dana_Gardner: Also, more machine-driven care, i.e. IBM Watson, for managing the routing and prioritization. Helps mitigate overload.
• Technodad: Agree – more on that later!
• Technodad: Regional providers are the reality in the US. Would love to have more national/global coverage.
• Dana_Gardner: Yes, let the market work its magic by making it a larger market, when information is the key.
• tetradian: “let the market do its work” – ‘the market’ is probably the quickest way to destroy trust! – not a good idea…
• Technodad: To me, problem is coordinating among multi providers, labs etc. My health info seems to move at glacial pace then.
• tetradian: “Regional providers are the reality in the US.” – people move around: get info follow them is _hard_ (1st-hand exp. there…)
• tetradian: danger of hype/fear-driven apps – may need regulation, or at least regulatory monitoring
• jasonsleephd: Regulators, as in FDA or something similar?
• tetradian: “Regulators as in FDA” etc – at least oversight of that kind, yes (cf. vitamins, supplements, health-advice services)
• jim_hietala: mobile, consumer health device innovation moving much faster than IT ability to absorb
• tetradian: also beware of IT-centrism and culture – my 90yr-old mother has a cell-phone, but has almost no idea how to use it!
• Dana_Gardner: Information and rely of next steps (in prevention or acute care) are key, and can be mobile. Bring care to the patient ASAP.

Participants began in full agreement. Mobile health is not even an option but a “given” now. Recognition that provider ability to receive information is lacking. Cloud viewed as means to overcome regionalization of data storage problems. When the discussion turned to further development of mHealth there was some debate on what can be left to the market and whether some form of regulatory action is needed.

Question 4: Does better information flow and availability in healthcare reduce operation cost, and free up resources for more patient care?
• tetradian: A4: should do, but it’s _way_ more complex than most IT-folks seem to expect or understand (e.g. repeated health-IT fails in UK)
• jim_hietala: A4: removing barriers to health info flow may reduce costs, but for me it’s mostly about opportunity to improve patient care
• jasonsleephd: Absolutely. Consider claims processing alone. Admin costs in private health ins. are 20% or more. In Medicare less than 2%.
• loseby: Absolutely! ACO model is proving it. Better information flow and availability also significantly reduces hospital admissions
• dianedanamac: I love it when the MD can access my x-rays and lab results so we have more time.
• efeatherston: I love it when the MD can access my x-rays and lab results so we have more time.
• EricStephens: More info flow + availability -> less admin staff -> more med staff.
• EricStephens: Get the right info to the ER Dr. can save a life by avoiding contraindicated medicines
• jasonsleephd: EricStephens GO CPOE!!
• TerryBlevins: @theopengroup. believe so, but ask the providers. My doctor is more focused on patient by using simple tech to improve info flow
• tetradian: don’t forget link b/w information-flows and trust – if trust fails, so does the information-flow – worse than where we started!
• jasonsleephd: Yes! Trust is really key to this conversation!
• EricStephens: processing a claim, in most cases, should be no more difficult than an expense report or online order. Real-time adjudication
• TerryBlevins: Great point.
• efeatherston: Agreed should be, would love to see it happen. Trust in the data as mentioned earlier is key (and the process)
• tetradian: A4: sharing b/w patient and MD is core, yes, but who else needs to access that data – or _not_ see it? #privacy
• TerryBlevins: A4: @theopengroup can’t forget that if info doesn’t flow sometimes the consequences are fatal, so unblocked the flow.
• tetradian: .@TerryBlevins A4: “if info doesn’t flow sometimes the consequences are fatal,” – v.important!
• Technodad: . @tetradian To me, problem is coordinating among multi providers, labs etc. My health info seems to move at glacial pace then.
• TerryBlevins: A4: @Technodad @tetradian I have heard that a patient moving on a gurney moves faster than the info in a hospital.
• Dana_Gardner: A4 Better info flow in #healthcare like web access has helped. Now needs to go further to be interactive, responsive, predictive.
• jim_hietala: A4: how about pricing info flow in healthcare, which is almost totally lacking
• Dana_Gardner: A4 #BigData, #cloud, machine learning can make 1st points of #healthcare contact a tech interface. Not sci-fi, but not here either.

Starting with the recognition that this is a very complicated issue, the conversation quickly produced a consensus view that mobile health is key, both to cost reduction and quality improvement and increased patient satisfaction. Trust that information is accurate, available and used to support trust in the provider-patient relationship emerged as a relevant issue. Then, naturally, privacy issues surfaced. Coordination of information flow and lack of interoperability were recognized as important barriers and the conversation finally turned somewhat abstract and technical with mentions of big data and the cloud and pricing information flows without much in the way of specifying how to connect the dots.

Question 5: Do you think payers and providers are placing enough focus on using technology to positively impact patient satisfaction?
• Technodad: A5: I think there are positive signs but good architecture is lacking. Current course will end w/ provider information stovepipes.
• TerryBlevins: A5: @theopengroup Providers are doing more. I think much more is needed for payers – they actually may be worse.
• theopengroup: @TerryBlevins Interesting – where do you see opportunities for improvements with payers?
• TerryBlevins: A5: @theopengroup like was said below claims processing – an onerous job for providers and patients – mostly info issue.
• tetradian: A5: “enough focus on using tech”? – no, not yet – but probably won’t until tech folks properly face the non-tech issues…
• EricStephens: A5 No. I’m not sure patient satisfaction (customer experience/CX?) is even a factor sometimes. Patients not treated like customers
• dianedanamac: .@EricStephens SO TRUE! Patients not treated like customers
• Technodad: . @EricStephens Amen to that. Stovepipe data in provider systems is barrier to understanding my health & therefore satisfaction.
• dianedanamac: “@mclark497: @EricStephens issue is the customer is treat as only 1 dimension. There is also the family experience to consider too
• tetradian: .@EricStephens A5: “Patients not treated like customers” – who _is_ ‘the customer’? – that’s a really tricky question…
• efeatherston: @tetradian @EricStephens Trickiest question. to the provider is the patient or the payer the customer?
• tetradian: .@efeatherston “patient or payer” – yeah, though it gets _way_ more complex than that once we explore real stakeholder-relations
• efeatherston: @tetradian So true.
• jasonsleephd: .@tetradian @efeatherston Very true. There are so many diff stakeholders. But to align payers and pts would be huge
• efeatherston: @jasonsleephd @tetradian re: aligning payers and patients, agree, it would be huge and a good thing
• jasonsleephd: .@efeatherston @tetradian @EricStephens Ideally, there should be no dividing line between the payer and the patient!
• efeatherston: @jasonsleephd @tetradian @EricStephens Ideally I agree, and long for that ideal world.
• EricStephens: .@jasonsleephd @efeatherston @tetradian the payer s/b a financial proxy for the patient. and nothing more
• TerryBlevins: @EricStephens @jasonsleephd @efeatherston @tetradian … got a LOL out of me.
• Technodad: . @tetradian @EricStephens That’s a case of distorted marketplace. #Healthcare architecture must cut through to patient.
• tetradian: .@Technodad “That’s a case of distorted marketplace.” – yep. now add in the politics of consultants and their hierarchies, etc?
• TerryBlevins: A5: @efeatherston @tetradian @EricStephens in patient cetric world it is the patient and or their proxy.
• jasonsleephd: A5: Not enough emphasis on how proven technologies and architectural structures in other industries can benefit healthcare
• jim_hietala: A5: distinct tension in healthcare between patient-focus and meeting mandates (a US issue)
• tetradian: .@jim_hietala A5: “meeting mandates (a US issue)” – UK NHS (national-health-service) may be even worse than US – a mess of ‘targets’
• EricStephens: A5 @jim_hietala …and avoiding lawsuits
• tetradian: A5: most IT-type tech still not well-suited to the level of mass-uniqueness inherent in the healthcare context
• Dana_Gardner: A5 They are using tech, but patient “satisfaction” not yet a top driver. We have a long ways to go on that. But it can help a ton.
• theopengroup: @Dana_Gardner Agree, there’s a long way to go. What would you say is the starting point for providers to tie the two together?
• Dana_Gardner: @theopengroup An incentive other than to avoid lawsuits. A transparent care ratings capability. Outcomes focus based on total health
• Technodad: A5: I’d be satisfied just to not have to enter my patient info & history on a clipboard in every different provider I go to!
• dianedanamac: A5 @tetradian Better data sharing & Collab. less redundancy, lower cost, more focus on patient needs -all possible w/ technology
• Technodad: A5: The patient/payer discussion is a red herring. If the patient weren’t there, rest of the system would be unnecessary.
• jim_hietala: RT @Technodad: The patient/payer discussion is a red herring. If the patient weren’t there, rest of system unnecessary. AMEN

Very interesting conversation. Positive signs of progress were noted but so too were indications that healthcare will remain far behind the technology curve in the foreseeable future. Providers were given higher “grades” than payers. Yet, claims processing would seemingly be one of the easiest areas for technology-assisted improvement. One discussant noted that there will not be enough focus on technology in healthcare “until the tech folks properly face the non-tech issues”. This would seem to open a wide door for EA experts to enter the healthcare domain! The barriers (and opportunities) to this may be the topic of another tweet jam, or Open Group White Paper.
Interestingly, part way into the discussion the topic turned to the lack of a real customer/patient focus in healthcare. Not enough emphasis on patient satisfaction. Not enough attention to patient outcomes. There needs to be a better/closer alignment between what motivates payers and the needs of patients.

Question 6: As some have pointed out, many of the EHR systems are highly proprietary, how can standards deliver benefits in healthcare?
• jim_hietala: A6: Standards will help by lowering the barriers to capturing data, esp. for mhealth, and getting it to point of care
• tetradian: .@jim_hietala “esp. for mhealth” – focus on mhealth may be a way to break the proprietary logjam, ‘cos it ain’t proprietary yet
• TerryBlevins: A6: @theopengroup So now I deal with at least 3 different EHR systems. All requiring me to be the info steward! Hmmm
• TerryBlevins: A6 @theopengroup following up if they shared data through standards maybe they can synchronize.
• EricStephens: A6 – Standards lead to better interoperability, increased viscosity of information which will lead to lowers costs, better outcomes.
• efeatherston: @EricStephens and greater trust in the info (as was mentioned earlier, trust in the information key to success)
• jasonsleephd: A6: Standards development will not kill innovation but rather make proprietary systems interoperable
• Technodad: A6: Metcalfe’s law rules! HC’s many providers-many patients structure means interop systems will be > cost effective in long run.
• tetradian: A6: the politics of this are _huge_, likewise the complexities – if we don’t face those issues right up-front, this is going nowhere

On his April 24, 2014 post at www.weblog.tetradian.com, Tom Graves provided a clearly stated position on the role of The Open Group in delivering standards to help healthcare improve. He wrote:

“To me, this is where The Open Group has an obvious place and a much-needed role, because it’s more than just an IT-standards body. The Open Group membership are mostly IT-type organisations, yes, which tends to guide towards IT-standards, and that’s unquestionably of importance here. Yet perhaps the real role for The Open Group as an organisation is in its capabilities and experience in building consortia across whole industries: EMMM™ and FACE are two that come immediately to mind. Given the maze of stakeholders and the minefields of vested-interests across the health-context, those consortia-building skills and experience are perhaps what’s most needed here.”

The Open Group is the ideal organization to engage in this work. There are many ways to collaborate. You can join The Open Group Healthcare Forum, follow the Forum on Twitter @ogHealthcare and connect on The Open Group Healthcare Forum LinkedIn Group.

Jason Lee headshotJason Lee, Director of Healthcare and Security Forums at The Open Group, has conducted healthcare research, policy analysis and consulting for over 20 years. He is a nationally recognized expert in healthcare organization, finance and delivery and applies his expertise to a wide range of issues, including healthcare quality, value-based healthcare, and patient-centered outcomes research. Jason worked for the legislative branch of the U.S. Congress from 1990-2000 — first at GAO, then at CRS, then as Health Policy Counsel for the Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee (in which role the National Journal named him a “Top Congressional Aide” and he was profiled in the Almanac of the Unelected). Subsequently, Jason held roles of increasing responsibility with non-profit organizations — including AcademyHealth, NORC, NIHCM, and NEHI. Jason has published quantitative and qualitative findings in Health Affairs and other journals and his work has been quoted in Newsweek, the Wall Street Journal and a host of trade publications. He is a Fellow of the Employee Benefit Research Institute, was an adjunct faculty member at the George Washington University, and has served on several boards. Jason earned a Ph.D. in social psychology from the University of Michigan and completed two postdoctoral programs (supported by the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health). He is the proud father of twins and lives outside of Boston.

Leave a comment

Filed under Boundaryless Information Flow™, Data management, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Transformation, Healthcare, Professional Development, Standards

The Open Group Summit Amsterdam – ArchiMate® Day – May 14, 2014

By Andrew Josey, Director of Standards, The Open Group

The Open Group Summit 2014 Amsterdam features an all day track on the ArchiMate® modeling language, followed by an ArchiMate Users Group meeting in the evening. The meeting attendees include the core developers of the ArchiMate language, users and tool developers.

The sessions include tutorials, a panel session on the past, present and future of the language and case studies. The Users Group meeting follows in the evening. The evening session is free and open to all — whether attending the rest of the conference or not — and starts at 6pm with free beer and pizza!

The timetable for ArchiMate Day is as follows:

• Tutorials (09:00 – 10:30), Henry Franken, CEO, BiZZdesign, and Alan Burnett, COO & Consulting Head, Corso

Henry Franken will show how the TOGAF® and ArchiMate® standards can be used to provide an actionable EA capability. Alan Burnett will present on how the ArchiMate language can be extended to support roadmapping, which is a fundamental part of strategic planning and enterprise architecture.

• Panel Discussion (11:00 – 12:30), Moderator: Henry Franken, Chair of The Open Group ArchiMate Forum

The  topic for the Panel Discussion is the ArchiMate Language — Past, Present and Future. The panel is comprised of key developers and users of the ArchiMate® language, including Marc Lankhorst and Henk Jonkers from the ArchiMate Core team, Jan van Gijsen from SNS REAAL, a Dutch financial institution, and Gerben Wierda author of Mastering ArchiMate. The session will include brief updates on current status from the panel members (30 minutes) and a 60-minute panel discussion with questions from the moderator and audience.

• Case Studies (14:00 – 16:00), Geert Van Grootel, Senior Researcher, Department of Economy, Science & Innovation, Flemish Government; Patrick Derde, Consultant, Envizion; and Pieter De Leenheer, Co-Founder and Research Director, Collibra. Walter Zondervan, Member – Architectural Board, ASL-BiSL Foundation. Adina Aldea, BiZZdesign.

There are three case studies:

Geert Van Grootel, Patrick Derde, and Pieter De Leenheer will present on how you can manage your business meta data by means of the use of data model patterns and an Integrated Information Architecture approach supported by a standard formal architecture language ArchiMate.

Walter Zondervan will present an ArchiMate reference architecture for governance, based on BiSL.

Adina Aldea will present on how high level strategic models can be used and modelled based on the Strategizer method.

• ArchiMate Users Group Meeting (18:00 – 21:00)

The evening session is free and open to all — whether attending the rest of the conference or not. It will start at 6pm with free beer and pizza. Invited speakers for the Users Group Meeting include: Andrew Josey, Henk Jonkers,  Marc Lankhorst and Gerben Wierda:

- Andrew Josey will present on the ArchiMate certification program and adoption of the language
- Henk Jonkers will present on modeling risk and security
- Marc Lankhorst will present about capability modeling in ArchiMate
- Gerben Wierda will present about relating ArchiMate and BPMN

Why should you attend?
• Spend time interacting directly with other ArchiMate users and tool providers in a relaxed, engaging environment
• Opportunity to listen and understand how ArchiMate can be used to develop solutions to common industry problems
• Learn about the future directions and meet with key users and developers of the language and tools
• Interact with peers to broaden your expertise and knowledge in the ArchiMate language

For detailed information, see the ArchiMate Day agenda at http://www.opengroup.org/amsterdam2014/archimate / or our YouTube event video at http://youtu.be/UVARza3uZZ4

How to register

Registration for the ArchiMate® Users Group meeting is independent of The Open Group Conference registration. There is no fee but registration is required. Please register here, select one-day pass for pass type, insert the promotion code (AMST14-AUG), tick the box against Wednesday May 14th and select ArchiMate Users Group from the conference session list. You will then be registered for the event and should not be charged.  Please note that this promotion code should only be used for those attending only the evening meeting from 6:00 p.m. Anyone attending the conference or just the ArchiMate Day will have to pay the applicable registration fee.  User Group members who want to attend The Open Group conference and who are not members of The Open Group can register using the affiliate code AMST14-AFFIL.

 Andrew Josey is Director of Standards within The Open Group. He is currently managing the standards process for The Open Group, and has recently led the standards development projects for TOGAF® 9.1, ArchiMate 2.1, IEEE Std 1003.1-2008 (POSIX), and the core specifications of the Single UNIX Specification, Version 4. Previously, he has led the development and operation of many of The Open Group certification development projects, including industry-wide certification programs for the UNIX system, the Linux Standard Base, TOGAF, and IEEE POSIX. He is a member of the IEEE, USENIX, UKUUG, and the Association of Enterprise Architects.

Leave a comment

Filed under ArchiMate®, Enterprise Architecture, Professional Development, Standards, TOGAF®, Uncategorized

How the Open Trusted Technology Provider Standard (O-TTPS) and Accreditation Will Help Lower Cyber Risk

By Andras Szakal, Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, IBM U.S. Federal

Changing business dynamics and enabling technologies

In 2008, IBM introduced the concept of a “Smarter Planet.” The Smarter Planet initiative focused, in part, on the evolution of globalization against the backdrop of changing business dynamics and enabling technologies. A key concept was the need for infrastructure to be tightly integrated, interconnected, and intelligent, thereby facilitating collaboration between people, government and businesses in order to meet the world’s growing appetite for data and automation. Since then, many industries and businesses have adopted this approach, including the ICT (information and communications technology) industries that support the global technology manufacturing supply chain.

Intelligent and interconnected critical systems

This transformation has infused technology into virtually all aspects of our lives, and involves, for example, government systems, the electric grid and healthcare. Most of these technological solutions are made up of hundreds or even thousands of components that are sourced from the growing global technology supply chain.
Intelligent and interconnected critical systems

In the global technology economy, no one technology vendor or integrator is able to always provide a single source solution. It is no longer cost competitive to design all of the electronic components, printed circuit boards, card assemblies, or other sub-assemblies in-house. Adapting to the changing market place and landscape by balancing response time and cost efficiency, in an expedient manner, drives a more wide-spread use of OEM (original equipment manufacturer) products.

As a result, most technology providers procure from a myriad of global component suppliers, who very often require similarly complex supply chains to source their components. Every enterprise has a supplier network, and each of their suppliers has a supply chain network, and these sub-tier suppliers have their own supply chain networks. The resultant technology supply chain is manifested into a network of integrated suppliers.

Increasingly, the critical systems of the planet — telecommunications, banking, energy and others — depend on and benefit from the intelligence and interconnectedness enabled by existing and emerging technologies. As evidence, one need only look to the increase in enterprise mobile applications and BYOD strategies to support corporate and government employees.

Cybersecurity by design: Addressing risk in a sustainable way across the ecosystem

Whether these systems are trusted by the societies they serve depends in part on whether the technologies incorporated into them are fit for the purpose they are intended to serve. Fit for purpose is manifested in two essential ways:

- Does the product meet essential functional requirements?
- Has the product or component been produced by trustworthy provider?

Of course, the leaders or owners of these systems have to do their part to achieve security and safety: e.g., to install, use and maintain technology appropriately, and to pay attention to people and process aspects such as insider threats. Cybersecurity considerations must be addressed in a sustainable way from the get-go, by design, and across the whole ecosystem — not after the fact, or in just one sector or another, or in reaction to crisis.

Assuring the quality and integrity of mission-critical technology

In addressing the broader cybersecurity challenge, however, buyers of mission-critical technology naturally seek reassurance as to the quality and integrity of the products they procure. In our view, the fundamentals of the institutional response to that need are similar to those that have worked in prior eras and in other industries — like food.

The very process of manufacturing technology is not immune to cyber-attack. The primary purpose of attacking the supply chain typically is motivated by monetary gain. The primary goals of a technology supply chain attack are intended to inflict massive economic damage in an effort to gain global economic advantage or as a way to seeding targets with malware that provides unfettered access for attackers.

It is for this reason that the global technology manufacturing industry must establish practices that mitigate this risk by increasing the cost barriers of launching such attacks and increasing the likelihood of being caught before the effects of such an attack are irreversible. As these threats evolve, the global ICT industry must deploy enhanced security through advanced automated cyber intelligence analysis. As critical infrastructure becomes more automated, integrated and essential to critical to functions, the technology supply chain that surrounds it must be considered a principle theme of the overall global security and risk mitigation strategy.

A global, agile, and scalable approach to supply chain security

Certainly, the manner in which technologies are invented, produced, and sold requires a global, agile, and scalable approach to supply chain assurance and is essential to achieve the desired results. Any technology supply chain security standard that hopes to be widely adopted must be flexible and country-agnostic. The very nature of the global supply chain (massively segmented and diverse) requires an approach that provides practicable guidance but avoids being overtly prescriptive. Such an approach would require the aggregation of industry practices that have been proven beneficial and effective at mitigating risk.

The OTTF (The Open Group Trusted Technology Forum) is an increasingly recognized and promising industry initiative to establish best practices to mitigate the risk of technology supply chain attack. Facilitated by The Open Group, a recognized international standards and certification body, the OTTF is working with governments and industry worldwide to create vendor-neutral open standards and best practices that can be implemented by anyone. Current membership includes a list of the most well-known technology vendors, integrators, and technology assessment laboratories.

The benefits of O-TTPS for governments and enterprises

IBM is currently a member of the OTTF and has been honored to hold the Chair for the last three years.  Governments and enterprises alike will benefit from the work of the OTTF. Technology purchasers can use the Open Trusted Technology Provider™ Standard (O-TTPS) and Framework best-practice recommendations to guide their strategies.

A wide range of technology vendors can use O-TTPS approaches to build security and integrity into their end-to-end supply chains. The first version of the O-TTPS is focused on mitigating the risk of maliciously tainted and counterfeit technology components or products. Note that a maliciously tainted product is one that has been produced by the provider and acquired through reputable channels but which has been tampered maliciously. A counterfeit product is produced other than by or for the provider, or is supplied by a non-reputable channel, and is represented as legitimate. The OTTF is currently working on a program that will accredit technology providers who conform to the O-TTPS. IBM expects to complete pilot testing of the program by 2014.

IBM has actively supported the formation of the OTTF and the development of the O-TTPS for several reasons. These include but are not limited to the following:

- The Forum was established within a trusted and respected international standards body – The Open Group.
- The Forum was founded, in part, through active participation by governments in a true public-private partnership in which government members actively participate.
- The OTTF membership includes some of the most mature and trusted commercial technology manufactures and vendors because a primary objective of the OTTF was harmonization with other standards groups such as ISO (International Organization for Standardization) and Common Criteria.

The O-TTPS defines a framework of organizational guidelines and best practices that enhance the security and integrity of COTS ICT. The first version of the O-TTPS is focused on mitigating certain risks of maliciously tainted and counterfeit products within the technology development / engineering lifecycle. These best practices are equally applicable for systems integrators; however, the standard is intended to primarily address the point of view of the technology manufacturer.

O-TTPS requirements

The O-TTPS requirements are divided into three categories:

1. Development / Engineering Process and Method
2. Secure Engineering Practices
3. Supply Chain Security Practices

The O-TTPS is intended to establish a normalized set of criteria against which a technology provider, component supplier, or integrator can be assessed. The standard is divided into categories that define best practices for engineering development practices, secure engineering, and supply chain security and integrity intended to mitigate the risk of maliciously tainted and counterfeit components.

The accreditation program

As part of the process for developing the accreditation criteria and policy, the OTTF established a pilot accreditation program. The purpose of the pilot was to take a handful of companies through the accreditation process and remediate any potential process or interpretation issues. IBM participated in the OTTP-S accreditation pilot to accredit a very significant segment of the software product portfolio; the Application Infrastructure Middleware Division (AIM) which includes the flagship WebSphere product line. The AIM pilot started in mid-2013 and completed in the first week of 2014 and was formally recognized as accredited in the fist week of February 2014.

IBM is currently leveraging the value of the O-TTPS and working to accredit additional development organizations. Some of the lessons learned during the IBM AIM initial O-TTPS accreditation include:

- Conducting a pre-assessment against the O-TTPS should be conducted by an organization before formally entering accreditation. This allows for remediation of any gaps and reduces potential assessment costs and project schedule.
- Starting with a segment of your development portfolio that has a mature secure engineering practices and processes. This helps an organization address accreditation requirements and facilitates interactions with the 3rd party lab.
- Using your first successful O-TTPS accreditation to create templates that will help drive data gathering and validate practices to establish a repeatable process as your organization undertakes additional accreditations.

andras-szakalAndras Szakal, VP and CTO, IBM U.S. Federal, is responsible for IBM’s industry solution technology strategy in support of the U.S. Federal customer. Andras was appointed IBM Distinguished Engineer and Director of IBM’s Federal Software Architecture team in 2005. He is an Open Group Distinguished Certified IT Architect, IBM Certified SOA Solution Designer and a Certified Secure Software Lifecycle Professional (CSSLP).  Andras holds undergraduate degrees in Biology and Computer Science and a Masters Degree in Computer Science from James Madison University. He has been a driving force behind IBM’s adoption of government IT standards as a member of the IBM Software Group Government Standards Strategy Team and the IBM Corporate Security Executive Board focused on secure development and cybersecurity. Andras represents the IBM Software Group on the Board of Directors of The Open Group and currently holds the Chair of the IT Architect Profession Certification Standard (ITAC). More recently, he was appointed chair of The Open Group Trusted Technology Forum and leads the development of The Open Trusted Technology Provider Framework.

1 Comment

Filed under Accreditations, Cybersecurity, government, O-TTF, O-TTPS, OTTF, RISK Management, Standards, supply chain, Supply chain risk

The Financial Incentive for Health Information Exchanges

By Jim Hietala, VP, Security, The Open Group

Health IT professionals have always known that interoperability would be one of the most important aspects of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Now doctors have financial incentive to be proactive in taking part in the process of exchange information between computer systems.

According to a recent article in MedPage Today, doctors are now “clamoring” for access to patient information ahead of the deadlines for the government’s “meaningful use” program. Doctors and hospitals will get hit with fines for not knowing about patients’ health histories, for patient readmissions and unnecessary retesting. “Meaningful use” refers to provisions in the 2009 Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, which authorized incentive payments through Medicare and Medicaid to clinicians and hospitals that use electronic health records in a meaningful way that significantly improves clinical care.
Doctors who accept Medicare will find themselves penalized for not adopting or successfully demonstrating meaningful use of a certified electronic health record (EHR) technology by 2015. Health professionals’ Medicare physician fee schedule amount for covered professional services will be adjusted down by 1% each year for certain categories.  If less than 75% of Eligible Professionals (EPs) have become meaningful users of EHRs by 2018, the adjustment will change by 1% point each year to a maximum of 5% (95% of Medicare covered amount).

With the stick, there’s also a carrot. The Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs provide incentive payments to eligible professionals, eligible hospitals and critical access hospitals (CAHs) as they adopt, implement, upgrade or demonstrate meaningful use of certified EHR technology. Eligible professionals can receive up to $44,000 through the Medicare EHR Incentive Program and up to $63,750 through the Medicaid EHR Incentive Program.

According to HealthIT.Gov, interoperability is essential for applications that interact with users (such as e-prescribing), systems that communicate with each other (such as messaging standards) information processes and management (such as health information exchange) how consumer devices integrate with other systems and applications (such as tablet, smart phones and PCs).

The good news is that more and more hospitals and doctors are participating in data exchanges and sharing patient information. On January 30th, the eHealth Exchange, formerly the Nationwide Health Information Network, and operated by Healtheway, reported a surge in network participation numbers and increases in secure online transactions among members.

According to the news release, membership in the eHealth Exchange is currently pegged at 41 participants who together represent some 800 hospitals, 6,000 mid-to-large medical groups, 800 dialysis centers and 850 retail pharmacies nationwide. Some of the earliest members to sign on with the exchange were the Veterans Health Administration, Department of Defense, Kaiser Permanente, the Social Security Administration and Dignity Health.

While the progress in health information exchanges is good, there is still much work to do in defining standards, so that the right information is available at the right time and place to enable better patient care. Devices are emerging that can capture continuous information on our health status. The information captured by these devices can enable better outcomes, but only if the information is made readily available to medical professionals.

The Open Group recently formed The Open Group Healthcare Forum, which focuses on bringing  Boundaryless Information Flow™ to the healthcare industry enabling data to flow more easily throughout the complete healthcare ecosystem.  By leveraging the discipline and principles of Enterprise Architecture, including TOGAF®, an Open Group standard, the forum aims to develop standardized vocabulary and messaging that will result in higher quality outcomes, streamlined business practices and innovation within the industry.

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.

1 Comment

Filed under Boundaryless Information Flow™, Enterprise Architecture, Healthcare, Professional Development, Standards, TOGAF®, 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.

 

 

 

1 Comment

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

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

By Allen Brown, President and CEO, The Open Group

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments Off

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

Accrediting the Global Supply Chain: A Conversation with O-TTPS Recognized Assessors Fiona Pattinson and Erin Connor

By The Open Group 

At the recent San Francisco 2014 conference, The Open Group Trusted Technology Forum (OTTF) announced the launch of the Open Trusted Technology Provider™ Standard (O-TTPS) Accreditation Program.

The program is one the first accreditation programs worldwide aimed at assuring the integrity of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) information and communication technology (ICT) products and the security of their supply chains.

In three short years since OTTF launched, the forum has grown to include more than 25 member companies dedicated to safeguarding the global supply chain against the increasing sophistication of cybersecurity attacks through standards. Accreditation is yet another step in the process of protecting global technology supply chains from maliciously tainted and counterfeit products.

As part of the program, third-party assessor companies will be employed to assess organizations applying for accreditation, with The Open Group serving as the vendor-neutral Accreditation Authority that operates the program.  Prior to the launch, the forum conducted a pilot program with a number of member companies. It was announced at the conference that IBM is the first company to becoming accredited, earning accreditation for its Application, Infrastructure and Middleware (AIM), software business division for its product integrity and supply chain practices.

We recently spoke with OTTF members Fiona Pattinson, director of strategy and business development at Atsec Information Security, and Erin Connor, director at EWA-Canada, at the San Francisco conference to learn more about the assessment process and the new program.

The O-TTPS focus is on securing the technology supply chain. What would you say are the biggest threats facing the supply chain today?

Fiona Pattinson (FP): I think in the three years since the forum began certainly all the members have discussed the various threats quite a lot. It was one of things we discussed as an important topic early on, and I don’t know if it’s the ‘biggest threat,’ but certainly the most important threats that we needed to address initially were those of counterfeit and maliciously tainted products. We came to that through both discussion with all the industry experts in the forum and also through research into some of the requirements from government, so that’s exactly how we knew which threats [to start with].

Erin Connor (EC):  And the forum benefits from having both sides of the acquisition process, both acquirers, and the suppliers and vendors. So they get both perspectives.

How would you define maliciously tainted and counterfeit products?

FP:  They are very carefully defined in the standard—we needed to do that because people’s understanding of that can vary so much.

EC: And actually the concept of ‘maliciously’ tainted was incorporated close to the end of the development process for the standard at the request of members on the acquisition side of the process.

[Note: The standard precisely defines maliciously tainted and counterfeit products as follows:

"The two major threats that acquirers face today in their COTS ICT procurements, as addressed in this Standard, are defined as:

1. Maliciously tainted product – the product is produced by the provider and is acquired

through a provider’s authorized channel, but has been tampered with maliciously.

2. Counterfeit product – the product is produced other than by, or for, the provider, or is

supplied to the provider by other than a provider’s authorized channel and is presented as being legitimate even though it is not."]

The OTTF announced the Accreditation Program for the OTTP Standard at the recent San Francisco conference. Tell us about the standard and how the accreditation program will help ensure conformance to it?

EC: The program is intended to provide organizations with a way to accredit their lifecycle processes for their product development so they can prevent counterfeit or maliciously tainted components from getting into the products they are selling to an end user or into somebody else’s supply chain. It was determined that a third-party type of assessment program would be used. For the organizations, they will know that we Assessors have gone through a qualification process with The Open Group and that we have in place all that’s required on the management side to properly do an assessment. From the consumer side, they have confidence the assessment has been completed by an independent third-party, so they know we aren’t beholden to the organizations to give them a passing grade when perhaps they don’t deserve it. And then of course The Open Group is in position to oversee the whole process and award the final accreditation based on the recommendation we provide.  The Open Group will also be the arbiter of the process between the assessors and organizations if necessary. 

FP:  So The Open Group’s accreditation authority is validating the results of the assessors.

EC: It’s a model that is employed in many, many other product or process assessment and evaluation programs where the actual accreditation authority steps back and have third parties do the assessment.

FP: It is important that the assessor companies are working to the same standard so that there’s no advantage in taking one assessor over the other in terms of the quality of the assessments that are produced.

How does the accreditation program work?

FP: Well, it’s brand new so we don’t know if it is perfect yet, but having said that, we have worked over several months on defining the process, and we have drawn from The Open Group’s existing accreditation programs, as well as from the forum experts who have worked in the accreditation field for many years. We have been performing pilot accreditations in order to check out how the process works. So it is already tested.

How does it actually work? Well, first of all an organization will feel the need to become accredited and at that point will apply to The Open Group to get the accreditation underway. Once their scope of accreditation – which may be as small as one product or theoretically as large as a whole global company – and once the application is reviewed and approved by The Open Group, then they engage an assessor.

There is a way of sampling a large scope to identify the process variations in a larger scope using something we term ‘selective representative products.’ It’s basically a way of logically sampling a big scope so that we capture the process variations within the scope and make sure that the assessment is kept to a reasonable size for the organization undergoing the assessment, but it also gives good assurance to the consumers that it is a representative sample. The assessment is performed by the Recognized Assessor company, and a final report is written and provided to The Open Group for their validation. If everything is in order, then the company will be accredited and their scope of conformance will be added to the accreditation register and trademarked.

EC: So the customers of that organization can go and check the registration for exactly what products are covered by the scope.

FP: Yes, the register is public and anybody can check. So if IBM says WebSphere is accredited, you can go and check that claim on The Open Group web site.

How long does the process take or does it vary?

EC: It will vary depending on how large the scope to be accredited is in terms of the size of the representative set and the documentation evidence. It really does depend on what the variations in the processes are among the product lines as to how long it takes the assessor to go through the evidence and then to produce the report. The other side of the coin is how long it takes the organization to produce the evidence. It may well be that they might not have it totally there at the outset and will have to create some of it.

FP: As Erin said, it varies by the complexity and the variation of the processes and hence the number of selected representative products. There are other factors that can influence the duration. There are three parties influencing that: The applicant Organization, The Open Group’s Accreditation Authority and the Recognized Assessor.

For example, we found that the initial work by the Organization and the Accreditation Authority in checking the scope and the initial documentation can take a few weeks for a complex scope, of course for the pilots we were all new at doing that. In this early part of the project it is vital to get the scope both clearly defined and approved since it is key to a successful accreditation.

It is important that an Organization assigns adequate resources to help keep this to the shortest time possible, both during the initial scope discussions, and during the assessment. If the Organization can provide all the documentation before they get started, then the assessors are not waiting for that and the duration of the assessment can be kept as short as possible.

Of course the resources assigned by the Recognized Assessor also influences how long an assessment takes. A variable for the assessors is how much documentation do they have to read and review? It might be small or it might be a mountain.

The Open Group’s final review and oversight of the assessment takes some time and is influenced by resource availability within that organization. If they have any questions it may take a little while to resolve.

What kind of safeguards does the accreditation program put in place for enforcing the standard?

FP: It is a voluntary standard—there’s no requirement to comply. Currently some of the U.S. government organizations are recommending it. For example, NASA in their SEWP contract and some of the draft NIST documents on Supply Chain refer to it, too.

EC: In terms of actual oversight, we review what their processes are as assessors, and the report and our recommendations are based on that review. The accreditation expires after three years so before the three years is up, the organization should actually get the process underway to obtain a re-accreditation.  They would have to go through the process again but there will be a few more efficiencies because they’ve done it before. They may also wish to expand the scope to include the other product lines and portions of the company. There aren’t any periodic ‘spot checks’ after accreditation to make sure they’re still following the accredited processes, but part of what we look at during the assessment is that they have controls in place to ensure they continue doing the things they are supposed to be doing in terms of securing their supply chain.

FP:  And then the key part is the agreement the organizations signs with The Open Group includes the fact the organization warrant and represent that they remain in conformance with the standard throughout the accreditation period. So there is that assurance too, which builds on the more formal assessment checks.

What are the next steps for The Open Group Trusted Technology Forum?  What will you be working on this year now that the accreditation program has started?

FP: Reviewing the lessons we learned through the pilot!

EC: And reviewing comments from members on the standard now that it’s publicly available and working on version 1.1 to make any corrections or minor modifications. While that’s going on, we’re also looking ahead to version 2 to make more substantial changes, if necessary. The standard is definitely going to be evolving for a couple of years and then it will reach a steady state, which is the normal evolution for a standard.

For more details on the O-TTPS accreditation program, to apply for accreditation, or to learn more about becoming an O-TTPS Recognized Assessor visit the O-TTPS Accreditation page.

For more information on The Open Group Trusted Technology Forum please visit the OTTF Home Page.

The O-TTPS standard and the O-TTPS Accreditation Policy they are freely available from the Trusted Technology Section in The Open Group Bookstore.

For information on joining the OTTF membership please contact Mike Hickey – m.hickey@opengroup.org

Fiona Pattinson Fiona Pattinson is responsible for developing new and existing atsec service offerings.  Under the auspices of The Open Group’s OTTF, alongside many expert industry colleagues, Fiona has helped develop The Open Group’s O-TTPS, including developing the accreditation program for supply chain security.  In the past, Fiona has led service developments which have included establishing atsec’s US Common Criteria laboratory, the CMVP cryptographic module testing laboratory, the GSA FIPS 201 TP laboratory, TWIC reader compliance testing, NPIVP, SCAP, PCI, biometrics testing and penetration testing. Fiona has responsibility for understanding a broad range of information security topics and the application of security in a wide variety of technology areas from low-level design to the enterprise level.

ErinConnorErin Connor is the Director at EWA-Canada responsible for EWA-Canada’s Information Technology Security Evaluation & Testing Facility, which includes a Common Criteria Test Lab, a Cryptographic & Security Test Lab (FIPS 140 and SCAP), a Payment Assurance Test Lab (device testing for PCI PTS POI & HSM, Australian Payment Clearing Association and Visa mPOS) and an O-TTPS Assessor lab Recognized by the Open Group.  Erin participated with other expert members of the Open Group Trusted Technology Forum (OTTF) in the development of The Open Group Trusted Technology Provider Standard for supply chain security and its accompanying Accreditation Program.  Erin joined EWA-Canada in 1994 and his initial activities in the IT Security and Infrastructure Assurance field included working on the team fielding a large scale Public Key Infrastructure system, Year 2000 remediation and studies of wireless device vulnerabilities.  Since 2000, Erin has been working on evaluations of a wide variety of products including hardware security modules, enterprise security management products, firewalls, mobile device and management products, as well as system and network vulnerability management products.  He was also the only representative of an evaluation lab in the Biometric Evaluation Methodology Working Group, which developed a proposed methodology for the evaluation of biometric technologies under the Common Criteria.

Comments Off

Filed under Accreditations, Cybersecurity, OTTF, Professional Development, Standards, Supply chain risk