Category Archives: Uncategorized

The Open Trusted Technology Provider™ Standard (O-TTPS) Approved as ISO/IEC International Standard

The Open Trusted Technology Provider™ Standard (O-TTPS), a Standard from The Open Group for Product Integrity and Supply Chain Security, Approved as ISO/IEC International Standard

Doing More to Secure IT Products and their Global Supply Chains

By Sally Long, The Open Group Trusted Technology Forum Director

As the Director of The Open Group Trusted Technology Forum, I am thrilled to share the news that The Open Trusted Technology Provider™ Standard – Mitigating Maliciously Tainted and Counterfeit Products (O-TTPS) v 1.1 is approved as an ISO/IEC International Standard (ISO/IEC 20243:2015).

It is one of the first standards aimed at assuring both the integrity of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) information and communication technology (ICT) products and the security of their supply chains.

The standard defines a set of best practices for COTS ICT providers to use to mitigate the risk of maliciously tainted and counterfeit components from being incorporated into each phase of a product’s lifecycle. This encompasses design, sourcing, build, fulfilment, distribution, sustainment, and disposal. The best practices apply to in-house development, outsourced development and manufacturing, and to global supply chains.

The ISO/IEC standard will be published in the coming weeks. In advance of the ISO/IEC 20243 publication, The Open Group edition of the standard, technically identical to the ISO/IEC approved edition, is freely available here.

The standardization effort is the result of a collaboration in The Open Group Trusted Technology Provider Forum (OTTF), between government, third party evaluators and some of industry’s most mature and respected providers who came together as members and, over a period of five years, shared and built on their practices for integrity and security, including those used in-house and those used with their own supply chains. From these, they created a set of best practices that were standardized through The Open Group consensus review process as the O-TTPS. That was then submitted to the ISO/IEC JTC1 process for Publicly Available Specifications (PAS), where it was recently approved.

The Open Group has also developed an O-TTPS Accreditation Program to recognize Open Trusted Technology Providers who conform to the standard and adhere to best practices across their entire enterprise, within a specific product line or business unit, or within an individual product. Accreditation is applicable to all ICT providers in the chain: OEMS, integrators, hardware and software component suppliers, value-add distributors, and resellers.

While The Open Group assumes the role of the Accreditation Authority over the entire program, it also uses third-party assessors to assess conformance to the O-TTPS requirements. The Accreditation Program and the Assessment Procedures are publicly available here. The Open Group is also considering submitting the O-TTPS Assessment Procedures to the ISO/IEC JTC1 PAS process.

This international approval comes none-too-soon, given the global threat landscape continues to change dramatically, and cyber attacks – which have long targeted governments and big business – are growing in sophistication and prominence. We saw this most clearly with the Sony hack late last year. Despite successes using more longstanding hacking methods, maliciously intentioned cyber criminals are looking at new ways to cause damage and are increasingly looking at the technology supply chain as a potentially profitable avenue. In such a transitional environment, it is worth reviewing again why IT products and their supply chains are so vulnerable and what can be done to secure them in the face of numerous challenges.

Risk lies in complexity

Information Technology supply chains depend upon complex and interrelated networks of component suppliers across a wide range of global partners. Suppliers deliver parts to OEMS, or component integrators who build products from them, and in turn offer products to customers directly or to system integrators who integrate them with products from multiple providers at a customer site. This complexity leaves ample opportunity for malicious components to enter the supply chain and leave vulnerabilities that can potentially be exploited.

As a result, organizations now need assurances that they are buying from trusted technology providers who follow best practices every step of the way. This means that they not only follow secure development and engineering practices in-house while developing their own software and hardware pieces, but also that they are following best practices to secure their supply chains. Modern cyber criminals go through strenuous efforts to identify any sort of vulnerability that can be exploited for malicious gain and the supply chain is no different.

Untracked malicious behavior and counterfeit components

Tainted products introduced into the supply chain pose significant risk to organizations because altered products introduce the possibility of untracked malicious behavior. A compromised electrical component or piece of software that lies dormant and undetected within an organization could cause tremendous damage if activated externally. Customers, including governments are moving away from building their own high assurance and customized systems and moving toward the use of commercial off the shelf (COTS) information and communication technology (ICT), typically because they are better, cheaper and more reliable. But a maliciously tainted COTS ICT product, once connected or incorporated, poses a significant security threat. For example, it could allow unauthorized access to sensitive corporate data including intellectual property, or allow hackers to take control of the organization’s network. Perhaps the most concerning element of the whole scenario is the amount of damage that such destructive hardware or software could inflict on safety or mission critical systems.

Like maliciously tainted components, counterfeit products can also cause significant damage to customers and providers resulting in failed or inferior products, revenue and brand equity loss, and disclosure of intellectual property. Although fakes have plagued manufacturers and suppliers for many years, globalization has greatly increased the number of out-sourced components and the number of links in every supply chain, and with that comes increased risk of tainted or counterfeit parts making it into operational environments. Consider the consequences if a faulty component was to fail in a government, financial or safety critical system or if it was also maliciously tainted for the sole purpose of causing widespread catastrophic damage.

Global solution for a global problem – the relevance of international standards

One of the emerging challenges is the rise of local demands on IT providers related to cybersecurity and IT supply chains. Despite technology supply chains being global in nature, more and more local solutions are cropping up to address some of the issues mentioned earlier, resulting in multiple countries with different policies that included disparate and variable requirements related to cybersecurity and their supply chains. Some are competing local standards, but many are local solutions generated by governmental policies that dictate which country to buy from and which not to. The supply chain has become a nationally charged issue that requires the creation of a level playing field regardless of where your company is based. Competition should be based on the quality, integrity and security of your products and processes and not where the products were developed, manufactured, or assembled.

Having transparent criteria through global international standards like our recently approved O-TTPS standard (ISO/IEC 20243) and objective assessments like the O-TTPS Accreditation Program that help assure conformance to those standards is critical to both raise the bar on global suppliers and to provide equal opportunity (vendor-neutral and country-nuetral) for all constituents in the chain to reach that bar – regardless of locale.

The approval by ISO/IEC of this universal product integrity and supply chain security standard is an important next step in the continued battle to secure ICT products and protect the environments in which they operate. Suppliers should explore what they need to do to conform to the standard and buyers should consider encouraging conformance by requesting conformance to it in their RFPs. By adhering to relevant international standards and demonstrating conformance we will have a powerful tool for technology providers and component suppliers around the world to utilize in combating current and future cyber attacks on our critical infrastructure, our governments, our business enterprises and even on the COTS ICT that we have in our homes. This is truly a universal problem that we can begin to solve through adoption and adherence to international standards.

By Sally Long, OTTF DirectorSally Long is the Director of The Open Group Trusted Technology Forum (OTTF). She has managed customer supplier forums and collaborative development projects for over twenty years. She was the release engineering section manager for all multi-vendor collaborative technology development projects at The Open Software Foundation (OSF) in Cambridge Massachusetts. Following the merger of the OSF and X/Open under The Open Group, she served as director for multiple forums in The Open Group. Sally has a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts.

Contact:  s.long@opengroup.org; @sallyannlong

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Using Risk Management Standards: A Q&A with Ben Tomhave, Security Architect and Former Gartner Analyst

By The Open Group

IT Risk Management is currently in a state of flux with many organizations today unsure not only how to best assess risk but also how to place it within the context of their business. Ben Tomhave, a Security Architect and former Gartner analyst, will be speaking at The Open Group Baltimore on July 20 on “The Strengths and Limitations of Risk Management Standards.”

We recently caught up with Tomhave pre-conference to discuss the pros and cons of today’s Risk Management standards, the issues that organizations are facing when it comes to Risk Management and how they can better use existing standards to their advantage.

How would you describe the state of Risk Management and Risk Management standards today?

The topic of my talk is really on the state of standards for Security and Risk Management. There’s a handful of significant standards out there today, varying from some of the work at The Open Group to NIST and the ISO 27000 series, etc. The problem with most of those is that they don’t necessarily provide a prescriptive level of guidance for how to go about performing or structuring risk management within an organization. If you look at ISO 31000 for example, it provides a general guideline for how to structure an overall Risk Management approach or program but it’s not designed to be directly implementable. You can then look at something like ISO 27005 that provides a bit more detail, but for the most part these are fairly high-level guides on some of the key components; they don’t get to the point of how you should be doing Risk Management.

In contrast, one can look at something like the Open FAIR standard from The Open Group, and that gets a bit more prescriptive and directly implementable, but even then there’s a fair amount of scoping and education that needs to go on. So the short answer to the question is, there’s no shortage of documented guidance out there, but there are, however, still a lot of open-ended questions and a lot of misunderstanding about how to use these.

What are some of the limitations that are hindering risk standards then and what needs to be added?

I don’t think it’s necessarily a matter of needing to fix or change the standards themselves, I think where we’re at is that we’re still at a fairly prototypical stage where we have guidance as to how to get started and how to structure things but we don’t necessarily have really good understanding across the industry about how to best make use of it. Complicating things further is an open question about just how much we need to be doing, how much value can we get from these, do we need to adopt some of these practices? If you look at all of the organizations that have had major breaches over the past few years, all of them, presumably, were doing some form of risk management—probably qualitative Risk Management—and yet they still had all these breaches anyway. Inevitably, they were compliant with any number of security standards along the way, too, and yet bad things happen. We have a lot of issues with how organizations are using standards less than with the standards themselves.

Last fall The Open Group fielded an IT Risk Management survey that found that many organizations are struggling to understand and create business value for Risk Management. What you’re saying really echoes those results. How much of this has to do with problems within organizations themselves and not having a better understanding of Risk Management?

I think that’s definitely the case. A lot of organizations are making bad decisions in many areas right now, and they don’t know why or aren’t even aware and are making bad decisions up until the point it’s too late. As an industry we’ve got this compliance problem where you can do a lot of work and demonstrate completion or compliance with check lists and still be compromised, still have massive data breaches. I think there’s a significant cognitive dissonance that exists, and I think it’s because we’re still in a significant transitional period overall.

Security should really have never been a standalone industry or a standalone environment. Security should have just been one of those attributes of the operating system or operating environments from the outset. Unfortunately, because of the dynamic nature of IT (and we’re still going through what I refer to as this Digital Industrial Revolution that’s been going on for 40-50 years), everything’s changing everyday. That will be the case until we hit a stasis point that we can stabilize around and grow a generation that’s truly native with practices and approaches and with the tools and technologies underlying this stuff.

An analogy would be to look at Telecom. Look at Telecom in the 1800s when they were running telegraph poles and running lines along railroad tracks. You could just climb a pole, put a couple alligator clips on there and suddenly you could send and receive messages, too, using the same wires. Now we have buried lines, we have much greater integrity of those systems. We generally know when we’ve lost integrity on those systems for the most part. It took 100 years to get there. So we’re less than half that way with the Internet and things are a lot more complicated, and the ability of an attacker, one single person spending all their time to go after a resource or a target, that type of asymmetric threat is just something that we haven’t really thought about and engineered our environments for over time.

I think it’s definitely challenging. But ultimately Risk Management practices are about making better decisions. How do we put the right amount of time and energy into making these decisions and providing better information and better data around those decisions? That’s always going to be a hard question to answer. Thinking about where the standards really could stand to improve, it’s helping organizations, helping people, understand the answer to that core question—which is, how much time and energy do I have to put into this decision?

When I did my graduate work at George Washington University, a number of years ago, one of the courses we had to take went through decision management as a discipline. We would run through things like decision trees. I went back to the executives at the company that I was working at and asked them, ‘How often do you use decision trees to make your investment decisions?” And they just looked at me funny and said, ‘Gosh, we haven’t heard of or thought about decision trees since grad school.’ In many ways, a lot of the formal Risk Management stuff that we talk about and drill into—especially when you get into the quantitative risk discussions—a lot of that goes down the same route. It’s great academically, it’s great in theory, but it’s not the kind of thing where on a daily basis you need to pull it out and use it for every single decision or every single discussion. Which, by the way, is where the FAIR taxonomy within Open FAIR provides an interesting and very valuable breakdown point. There are many cases where just using the taxonomy to break down a problem and think about it a little bit is more than sufficient, and you don’t have to go the next step of populating it with the actual quantitative estimates and do the quantitative estimations for a FAIR risk analysis. You can use it qualitatively and improve the overall quality and defensibility of your decisions.

How mature are most organizations in their understanding of risk today, and what are some of the core reasons they’re having such a difficult time with Risk Management?

The answer to that question varies to a degree by industry. Industries like financial services just seem to deal with this stuff better for the most part, but then if you look at multibillion dollar write offs for JP Morgan Chase, you think maybe they don’t understand risk after all. I think for the most part most large enterprises have at least some people in the organization that have a nominal understanding of Risk Management and risk assessment and how that factors into making good decisions.

That doesn’t mean that everything’s perfect. Look at the large enterprises that had major breaches in 2014 and 2013 and clearly you can look at those and say ‘Gosh, you guys didn’t make very good decisions.’ Home Depot is a good example or even the NSA with the Snowden stuff. In both cases, they knew they had an exposure, they had done a reasonable job of risk management, they just didn’t move fast enough with their remediation. They just didn’t get stuff in place soon enough to make a meaningful difference.

For the most part, larger enterprises or organizations will have better facilities and capabilities around risk management, but they may have challenges with velocity in terms of being able to put to rest issues in a timely fashion. Now slip down to different sectors and you look at retail, they continue to have issues with cardholder data and that’s where the card brands are asserting themselves more aggressively. Look at healthcare. Healthcare organizations, for one thing, simply don’t have the budget or the control to make a lot of changes, and they’re well behind the curve in terms of protecting patient records and data. Then look at other spaces like SMBs, which make up more than 90 percent of U.S. employment firms or look at the education space where they simply will never have the kinds of resources to do everything that’s expected of them.

I think we have a significant challenge here – a lot of these organizations will never have the resources to have adequate Risk Management in-house, and they will always be tremendously resource-constrained, preventing them from doing all that they really need to do. The challenge for them is, how do we provide answers or tools or methods to them that they can then use that don’t require a lot of expertise but can guide them toward making better decisions overall even if the decision is ‘Why are we doing any of this IT stuff at all when we can simply be outsourcing this to a service that specializes in my industry or specializes in my SMB business size that can take on some of the risk for me that I wasn’t even aware of?’

It ends up being a very basic educational awareness problem in many regards, and many of these organizations don’t seem to be fully aware of the type of exposure and legal liability that they’re carrying at any given point in time.

One of the other IT Risk Management Survey findings was that where the Risk Management function sits in organizations is pretty inconsistent—sometimes IT, sometimes risk, sometimes security—is that part of the problem too?

Yes and no—it’s a hard question to answer directly because we have to drill in on what kind of Risk Management we’re talking about. Because there’s enterprise Risk Management reporting up to a CFO or CEO, and one could argue that the CEO is doing Risk Management.

One of the problems that we historically run into, especially from a bottom-up perspective, is a lot of IT Risk Management people or IT Risk Management professionals or folks from the audit world have mistakenly thought that everything should boil down to a single, myopic view of ‘What is risk?’ And yet it’s really not how executives run organizations. Your chief exec, your board, your CFO, they’re not looking at performance on a single number every day. They’re looking at a portfolio of risk and how different factors are balancing out against everything. So it’s really important for folks in Op Risk Management and IT Risk Management to really truly understand and make sure that they’re providing a portfolio view up the chain that adequately represents the state of the business, which typically will represent multiple lines of business, multiple systems, multiple environments, things like that.

I think one of the biggest challenges we run into is just in an ill-conceived desire to provide value that’s oversimplified. We end up hyper-aggregating results and data, and suddenly everything boils down to a stop light that IT today is either red, yellow or green. That’s not really particularly informative, and it doesn’t help you make better decisions. How can I make better investment decisions around IT systems if all I know is that today things are yellow? I think it comes back to the educational awareness topic. Maybe people aren’t always best placed within organizations but really it’s more about how they’re representing the data and whether they’re getting it into the right format that’s most accessible to that audience.

What should organizations look for in choosing risk standards?

I usually get a variety of questions and they’re all about risk assessment—‘Oh, we need to do risk assessment’ and ‘We hear about this quant risk assessment thing that sounds really cool, where do we get started?’ Inevitably, it comes down to, what’s your actual Risk Management process look like? Do you actually have a context for making decisions, understanding the business context, etc.? And the answer more often than not is no, there is no actual Risk Management process. I think really where people can leverage the standards is understanding what the overall risk management process looks like or can look like and in constructing that, making sure they identify the right stakeholders overall and then start to drill down to specifics around impact analysis, actual risk analysis around remediation and recovery. All of these are important components but they have to exist within the broader context and that broader context has to functionally plug into the organization in a meaningful, measurable manner. I think that’s really where a lot of the confusion ends up occurring. ‘Hey I went to this conference, I heard about this great thing, how do I make use of it?’ People may go through certification training but if they don’t know how to go back to their organization and put that into practice not just on a small-scale decision basis, but actually going in and plugging it into a larger Risk Management process, it will never really demonstrate a lot of value.

The other piece of the puzzle that goes along with this, too, is you can’t just take these standards and implement them verbatim; they’re not designed to do that. You have to spend some time understanding the organization, the culture of the organization and what will work best for that organization. You have to really get to know people and use these things to really drive conversations rather than hoping that one of these risk assessments results will have some meaningful impact at some point.

How can organizations get more value from Risk Management and risk standards?

Starting with latter first, the value of the Risk Management standards is that you don’t have to start from scratch, you don’t have to reinvent the wheel. There are, in fact, very consistent and well-conceived approaches to structuring risk management programs and conducting risk assessment and analysis. That’s where the power of the standards come from, from establishing a template or guideline for establishing things.

The challenge of course is you have to have it well-grounded within the organization. In order to get value from a Risk Management program, it has to be part of daily operations. You have to plug it into things like procurement cycles and other similar types of decision cycles so that people aren’t just making gut decisions based off whatever their existing biases are.

One of my favorite examples is password complexity requirements. If you look back at the ‘best practice’ standards requirements over the years, going all the way back to the Orange Book in the 80s or the Rainbow Series which came out of the federal government, they tell you ‘oh, you have to have 8-character passwords and they have to have upper case, lower, numbers, special characters, etc.’ The funny thing is that while that was probably true in 1985, that is probably less true today. When we actually do risk analysis to look at the problem, and understand what the actual scenario is that we’re trying to guard against, password complexity ends up causing more problems than it solves because what we’re really protecting against is a brute force attack against a log-in interface or guessability on a log-in interface. Or maybe we’re trying to protect against a password database being compromised and getting decrypted. Well, password complexity has nothing to do with solving how that data is protected in storage. So why would we look at something like password complexity requirements as some sort of control against compromise of a database that may or may not be encrypted?

This is where Risk Management practices come into play because you can use Risk Management and risk assessment techniques to look at a given scenario—whether it be technology decisions or security control decisions, administrative or technical controls—we can look at this and say what exactly are we trying to protect against, what problem are we trying to solve? And then based on our understanding of that scenario, let’s look at the options that we can apply to achieve an appropriate degree of protection for the organization.

That ultimately is what we should be trying to achieve with Risk Management. Unfortunately, that’s usually not what we see implemented. A lot of the time, what’s described as risk management is really just an extension of audit practices and issuing a bunch of surveys, questionnaires, asking a lot of questions but never really putting it into a proper business context. Then we see a lot of bad practices applied, and we start seeing a lot of math-magical practices come in where we take categorical data—high, medium, low, more or less, what’s the impact to the business? A lot, a little—we take these categorical labels and suddenly start assigning numerical values to them and doing arithmetic calculations on them, and this is a complete violation of statistical principles. You shouldn’t be doing that at all. By definition, you don’t do arithmetic on categorical data, and yet that’s what a lot of these alleged Risk Management and risk assessment programs are doing.

I think Risk Management gets a bad rap as a result of these poor practices. Conducting a survey, asking questions is not a risk assessment. A risk assessment is taking a scenario, looking at the business impact analysis for that scenario, looking at the risk tolerance, what the risk capacity is for that scenario, and then looking at what the potential threats and weaknesses are within that scenario that could negatively impact the business. That’s a risk assessment. Asking people a bunch of questions about ‘Do you have passwords? Do you use complex passwords? Have you hardened the server? Are there third party people involved?’ That’s interesting information but it’s not usually reflective of the risk state and ultimately we want to find out what the risk state is.

How do you best determine that risk state?

If you look at any of the standards—and again this is where the standards do provide some value—if you look at what a Risk Management process is and the steps that are involved in it, take for example ISO 31000—step one is establishing context, which includes establishing potential business impact or business importance, business priority for applications and data, also what the risk tolerance, risk capacity is for a given scenario. That’s your first step. Then the risk assessment step is taking that data and doing additional analysis around that scenario.

In the technical context, that’s looking at how secure is this environment, what’s the exposure of the system, who has access to it, how is the data stored or protected? From that analysis, you can complete the assessment by saying ‘Given that this is a high value asset, there’s sensitive data in here, but maybe that data is strongly encrypted and access controls have multiple layers of defense, etc., the relative risk here of a compromise or attack being successful is fairly low.’ Or ‘We did this assessment, and we found in the application that we could retrieve data even though it was supposedly stored in an encrypted state, so we could end up with a high risk statement around the business impact, we’re looking at material loss,’ or something like that.

Pulling all of these pieces together is really key, and most importantly, you cannot skip over context setting. If you don’t ever do context setting, and establish the business importance, nothing else ends up mattering. Just because a system has a vulnerability doesn’t mean that it’s a material risk to the business. And you can’t even know that unless you establish the context.

In terms of getting started, leveraging the standards makes a lot of sense, but not from a perspective of this is a compliance check list that I’m going to use verbatim. You have to use it as a structured process, you have to get some training and get educated on how these things work and then what requirements you have to meet and then do what makes sense for the organizational role. At the end of the day, there’s no Easy Button for these things, you have to invest some time and energy and build something that makes sense and is functional for your organization.

To download the IT Risk Management survey summary, please click here.

By The Open GroupFormer Gartner analyst Ben Tomhave (MS, CISSP) is Security Architect for a leading online education organization where he is putting theories into practice. He holds a Master of Science in Engineering Management (Information Security Management concentration) from The George Washington University, and is a member and former co-chair of the American Bar Association Information Security Committee, senior member of ISSA, former board member of the Northern Virginia OWASP chapter, and member and former board member for the Society of Information Risk Analysts. He is a published author and an experienced public speaker, including recent speaking engagements with the RSA Conference, the ISSA International Conference, Secure360, RVAsec, RMISC, and several Gartner events.

Join the conversation! @theopengroup #ogchat #ogBWI

1 Comment

Filed under Cybersecurity, RISK Management, Security, Security Architecture, Standards, The Open Group Baltimore 2015, Uncategorized

The Open Group Madrid 2015 – Day One Highlights

By The Open Group

On Monday, April 20, Allen Brown, President & CEO of The Open Group, welcomed 150 attendees to the Enabling Boundaryless Information Flow™ summit held at the Madrid Eurobuilding Hotel.  Following are highlights from the plenary:

The Digital Transformation of the Public Administration of Spain – Domingo Javier Molina Moscoso

Domingo Molina, the first Spanish national CIO, said that governments must transform digitally to meet public expectations, stay nationally competitive, and control costs – the common theme in transformation of doing more with less. Their CORA commission studied what commercial businesses did, and saw the need for an ICT platform as part of the reform, along with coordination and centralization of ICT decision making across agencies.

Three Projects:

  • Telecom consolidation – €125M savings, reduction in infrastructure and vendors
  • Reduction in number of data centers
  • Standardizing and strengething security platform for central administration – only possible because of consolidation of telecom.

The Future: Increasing use of mobile, social networks, online commercial services such as banking – these are the expectations of young people. The administration must therefore be in the forefront of providing digital services to citizens. They have set a transformation target of having citizens being able to interact digitally with all government services by 2020.

Q&A:

  • Any use of formal methods for transformation such as EA? Looked at other countries – seen models such as outsourcing. They are taking a combined approach of reusing their experts and externalizing.
  • How difficult has it been to achieve savings in Europe given labor laws? Model is to re-assign people to higher-value tasks.
  • How do you measure progress: Each unit has own ERP for IT governance – no unified reporting. CIO requests and consolidates data. Working on common IT tool to do this.

An Enterprise Transformation Approach for Today’s Digital Business – Fernando García Velasco

Computing has moved from tabulating systems to the internet and moving into an era of “third platform” of Cloud, Analytics, Mobile and Social (CAMS) and cognitive computing. The creates a “perfect storm” for disruption of enterprise IT delivery.

  • 58% say SMAC will reduce barriers to entry
  • 69% say it will increase competition
  • 41% expect this competition to come from outside traditional market players

These trends are being collected and consolidated in The Open Group Open Platform 3.0™ standard.

He sees the transformation happening in three ways:

  1. Top-down – a transformation view
  2. Meet in the middle: Achieving innovation through EA
  3. Bottom-up: the normal drive for incremental improvement

Gartner: EA is the discipline for leading enterprise response to disruptive forces. IDC: EA is mandatory for managing transformation to third platform.

EA Challenges & Evolution – a Younger Perspective

Steve Nunn, COO of The Open Group and CEO of the Association of Enterprise Architects (AEA), noted the AEA is leading the development of EA as a profession, and is holding the session to recognize the younger voices joining the EA profession. He introduced the panelists: Juan Abal, Itziar Leguinazabal, Mario Gómez Velasco, Daniel Aguado Pérez, Ignacio Macias Jareño.

The panelists talked about their journey as EAs, noting that their training focused on development with little exposure to EA or Computer Science concepts. Schools aren’t currently very interested in teaching EA, so it is hard to get a start. Steve Nunn noted the question of how to enter EA as a profession is a worldwide concern. The panelists said they started looking at EA as a way of gaining a wider perspective of the development or administrative projects they were working on. Mentoring is important, and there is a challenge in learning about the business side when coming from a technical world. Juan Abal said such guidance and mentoring by senior architects is one of the benefits the AEA chapter offers.

Q: What advice would you give to someone entering into the EA career? A: If you are starting from a CS or engineering perspective, you need to start learning about the business. Gain a deep knowledge of your industry. Expect a lot of hard work, but it will have the reward of having more impact on decisions. Q: EA is really about business and strategy. Does the AEA have a strategy for making the market aware of this? A: The Spanish AEA chapter focuses on communicating that EA is a mix, and that EAs need to develop business skills. It is a concern that young architects are focused on IT aspects of EA, and how they can be shown the path to understand the business side.

Q: Should EA be part of the IT program or the CS program in schools? A: We have seen around the world a history of architects coming from IT and that only a few universities have specific IT programs. Some offer it at the postgraduate level. The EA is trying globally to raise awareness of the need for EA education. continuing education as part of a career development path is a good way to manage the breadth of skills a good EA needs; organizations should also be aware of the levels of The Open Group Open CA certifications.

Q: If EA is connected to business, should EAs be specialized to the vertical sector, or should EA be business agnostic? A: Core EA skills are industry-agnostic, and these need to be supplemented by industry-specific reference models. Methodology, Industry knowledge and interpersonal skills are all critical, and these are developed over time.

Q: Do you use EA tools in your job? A: Not really – the experience to use complex tools comes over time.

Q: Are telecom companies adopting EA? A: Telecom companies are adopting standard reference architectures. This sector has not made much progress in EA, though it is critical for transformation in the current market. Time pressure in a changing market is also a barrier.

Q: Is EA being grown in-house or outsourced? A: We are seeing increased uptake among end-user companies in using EA to achieve transformation – this is happening across sectors and is a big opportunity in Spain right now.

Join the conversation! @theopengroup #ogMAD

Comments Off on The Open Group Madrid 2015 – Day One Highlights

Filed under Boundaryless Information Flow™, Enterprise Architecture, Internet of Things, Open Platform 3.0, Professional Development, Standards, Uncategorized

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Jim Hietala, The Open GroupJim Hietala, Open FAIR, CISSP, GSEC, is Vice President, Business Development and Security for The Open Group, where he manages the business team, as well as Security and Risk Management programs and standards activities,  He has participated in the development of several industry standards including O-ISM3, O-ESA, O-RT (Risk Taxonomy Standard), O-RA (Risk Analysis Standard), and O-ACEML. He also led the development of compliance and audit guidance for the Cloud Security Alliance v2 publication.

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

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

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

Join the conversation @theopengroup #ogchat #ogSecurity

 

 

 

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

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

Risk, Security and the Internet of Things: Madrid 2015 Preview

By Jim Hietala, Vice President, Business Development & Security, The Open Group

The Internet of Things (IoT) is a fast evolving phenomenon. From smartphones and tablets to connected cars and industrial control systems, the number of IoT devices is continuing to explode. In fact, according to a report by Cisco, the number of connected devices is set to reach 30 billion in 2020, creating a $19 trillion opportunity for businesses around the world.

However as this technology grows, it’s important to consider the potential risks that IoT could introduce to the enterprise and even to society. To put it simply, not much is being done at the moment in terms of IoT security.

The risks brought about by IoT aren’t just restricted to industries handling highly-sensitive personal data, such as Healthcare. Look at industries like energy, transport, manufacturing and mining, which are all starting to report the benefits of IoT ranging from faster time to market, better equipment efficiency and improved productivity. In any industrial setting, if high-value IoT data that gives an organization a competitive advantage was to leave the company, it could have serious consequences.

Arguably there are many vendors producing IoT enabled devices which are not taking risk or basic security mechanisms into account. Vendors are putting Internet Protocols (IPs) onto devices without any consideration about how to properly secure them. It’s fair to say, there are currently more problems than solutions.

This is happening, and it’s happening fast. As IoT technology continues to race way ahead, security standards are trying to catch up. Currently, there isn’t a consensus around the right way to secure the vast number of connected devices.

It’s important that we as an industry get to grips with IoT Security and start to apply a common sense strategy as soon as possible. That’s why we want people to start thinking about the risks and where best practices are lacking, a key issue we’ll be discussing at The Open Group Madrid 2015.

We’ll be exploring the implications of IoT from the standpoint of Security and Risk, looking at the areas where work will need to be done and where The Open Group Security Forum can help. What are the burning issues in each vertical industry – from retail to Healthcare – and what is the best way to identify the key IoT-enabled assets that need securing?

As organizations start to permit IoT-enabled equipment, whether it’s connected cars or factory equipment, IT departments need to consider the Security requirements of those networks. From a Security Architecture point of view, it’s vital that organizations do everything in their power to ensure they meet customers’ needs.

Registration for The Open Group Madrid 2015 is open now and available to members and non-members.  Please visit here.

By Jim Hietala, The Open GroupJim Hietala, Open FAIR, CISSP, GSEC, is Vice President, Business Development and Security for The Open Group, where he manages the business team, as well as Security and Risk Management programs and standards activities,  He has participated in the development of several industry standards including O-ISM3, O-ESA, O-RT (Risk Taxonomy Standard), O-RA (Risk Analysis Standard), and O-ACEML. He also led the development of compliance and audit guidance for the Cloud Security Alliance v2 publication.

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

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

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

Join the conversation @theopengroup #ogchat #ogMAD

2 Comments

Filed under Information security, Internet of Things, RISK Management, Security, Security Architecture, Uncategorized

The Open Group Madrid Summit 2015 – An Interview with Steve Nunn

By The Open Group

The Open Group will be hosting its Spring 2015 summit in Madrid from April 20-23. Focused on Enabling Boundaryless Information Flow™, the summit will explore the increasing digitalization of business today and how Enterprise Architecture will be a critical factor in helping organizations to adapt to the changes that digitalization and rapidly evolving technologies are bringing.

In advance of the summit, we spoke to Steve Nunn, Vice President and COO of The Open Group and CEO of the Association of Enterprise Architects (AEA) about two speaking tracks he will be participating in at the event—a panel on the challenges facing young Enterprise Architects today, and a session addressing the need for Enterprise Architects to consider their personal brand when it comes to their career path.

Tell us about the panel you’ll be moderating at the Madrid Summit on EA Challenges.

The idea for the panel really came from the last meeting we had in San Diego. We had a panel of experienced Enterprise Architects, including John Zachman, giving their perspectives on the state of Enterprise Architecture and answering questions from the audience. It gave us the idea that, we’ve heard from the experienced architects, what if we also heard from younger folks in the industry, maybe those newer to the profession than the previous panel? We decided to put together a panel of young architects, ideally local to Madrid, to get what we hope will be a different set of perspectives on what they have to deal with on a day-to-day basis and what they see as the challenges for the profession, what’s working well and what’s working less well. In conjunction with the local Madrid chapter of the AEA, we put the panel together. I believe it’s a panel of four young architects, plus a gentleman named Juan Abel, who is the chair of the local chapter in Madrid, who helped put it together, with me moderating. The Madrid chapter of the AEA has been very helpful in putting together the summit in Madrid and with details on the ground, and we thank them for all their help.

We’ll be putting some questions together ahead of time, and there will be questions from the audience. We hope it will be a different set of perspectives from folks entering the profession and in a different geography as well, so there may be some things that are particular to practicing Enterprise Architecture in Spain which come out as well. It’s a long panel—over an hour—so, hopefully, we’ll be able to not just hit things at a cursory level, but get into more detail.

What are some of the challenges that younger Enterprise Architects are facing these days?

We’re hoping to learn what the challenges are for those individuals, and we’re also hoping to hear what they think is attracting people to the profession. That’s a part that I’m particularly interested in. In terms of what I think going in to the panel session, the thing I hear about the most from young architects in the profession is about the career path. What is the career path for Enterprise Architects? How do I get in? How do I justify the practice of Enterprise Architecture in my organization if it doesn’t exist already? And if it does exist, how do I get to be part of it?

In the case of those individuals coming out of university—what are the relevant qualifications and certifications that they might be looking at to give themselves the best shot at a career in Enterprise Architecture. I expect it will be a lot of discussion about getting into Enterprise Architecture and how do you best position yourself and equip yourself to be an Enterprise Architect.

Were there things that came out of the San Diego session that will be relevant to the Madrid panel?

There were certainly some things discussed about frameworks and the use of frameworks in Enterprise Architecture. Being an Open Group event, obviously a lot of it was around TOGAF®, an Open Group standard, and with John Zachman as part of it, naturally the Zachman Framework too. There was some discussion about looking into how the two can play more naturally together. There was less discussion about the career development aspect, by and large because, when these people started out in their careers, they weren’t Enterprise Architects because it wasn’t called that. They got into it along the way, rather than starting out with a goal to be an Enterprise Architect, so there wasn’t as much about the career aspect, but I do think that will be a big part of what will come out in Madrid.

I think where there are overlaps is the area around the value proposition for Enterprise Architecture inside an organization. That’s something that experienced architects and less experienced architects will face on a day-to-day basis in an organization that hasn’t yet bought into an Enterprise Architecture approach. The common theme is, how do you justify taking Enterprise Architecture inside an organization in a way that delivers value quick enough for people to see that something is happening? So that it’s not just a multi-year project that will eventually produce something that’s nicely tied up in a bow that may or may not do what they wanted because, chances are, the business need has moved on in that time anyway. It’s being able to show that Enterprise Architecture can deliver things in the short term as well as the long term. I think that’s something that’s common to architects at all stages of their careers.

You’re also doing a session on creating a personal brand in Madrid. Why is branding important for Enterprise Architects these days?

I have to say, it’s a lot of fun doing that presentation. It really is. Why is it important? I think at a time, not just for Enterprise Architects but for any of us, when our identities are out there so much now in social media—whatever it may be, Facebook, LinkedIn, other social media profiles— people get a perception of you, many times never having met you. It is important to control that perception. If you don’t do it, someone else may get a perception that you may or may not want from it. It’s really the idea of taking charge of your own brand and image and how you are perceived, what values you have, what you want to be known for, the type of organization you want to work in, the types of projects that you want to be involved in. Not all of those things happen at once, they don’t all land on a plate, but by taking more control of it in a planned way, there’s more chance of you realizing some of those goals than if you don’t. That’s really the essence of it.

The timing and particular relevance to Enterprise Architects is that, more and more, as organizations do see value in Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Architects are getting a seat at the top table. They’re being listened to by senior management, and are sometimes playing an active role in strategy and important decisions being made in organizations. So, now more than ever, how Enterprise Architects are being perceived is important. They need to be seen to be the people that can bring together the business people and IT, who have the soft skills, being able to talk to and understand enough about different aspects of the business to get their job done. They don’t have to be experts in everything, of course, but they have to have a good enough understanding to have meaningful discussions with the people with whom they’re working. That’s why it’s crucial at this time that those who are Enterprise Architects, as we build the profession, are perceived in a positive way, and the value of that is highlighted and consistently delivered.

A lot of technologists don’t always feel comfortable with overtly marketing themselves—how do you help them get over the perception that having a personal brand is just “marketing speak?”

That’s something that we go through in the presentation. There are 11 steps that we recommend following. This goes back to an old Tom Peters article that was written years ago titled ‘The Brand Called You’ . Many of us aren’t comfortable doing this and it’s hard, but it is important to force yourself to go through this so your name and your work and what you stand for are what you want them to be.

Some of the suggestions are to think of the things that you’re good at and what your strengths are, and to test those out with people that you know and trust. You can have some fun with it along the way. Think about what those strengths are, and think about what it is that you offer that differentiates you.

A big part of the personal brand concept is to help individuals differentiate themselves from everyone else in the workplace, and that’s a message that seems to resonate very well. How do you stand out from lots of other people that claim to have the same skills and similar experience to yourself? Think of what those strengths are, pick a few things that you want to be known for. Maybe it’s that you never miss a deadline, you’re great at summarizing meetings or you’re a great facilitator—I’m not suggesting you focus on one—but what combination of things do you want to be known for? Once you know what that is—one of the examples I use is, if you want to be known for being punctual, which is an important thing, make sure you are—set the alarm earlier, make sure you show up for meetings on time, then that’s one of the things you’re known for. All these things help build the personal brand, and when people think of you, they think of how they can rely on you, and think of the attributes and experience that they can get from working with you.

That’s really what it comes down to—as human beings, we all prefer to work with people we can trust. Ideally people that we like, but certainly people that we can trust and rely on. You’re far more likely to get the right doors opening for you and more widely if you’ve built a brand that you maintain, and people you work with know what you stand for and know they can rely on you. It’s going to work in your favor and help you get the opportunities that you hope for in your career.

But there’s a big fun aspect to the presentation, as well. I start the presentation looking at branding and the types of brands that people know what they stand for. I think it has scope for workshop-type sessions, as well, where people follow some of the steps and start developing their personal brands. Feedback on this presentation has been very positive because it stands out as a non-technical presentation, and people can see that they can use it privately to further their careers, or to use it with their teams within their organizations. People really seem to resonate with it.

As CEO of the Association of Enterprise Architects, what are you seeing in terms of career opportunities available for architects right now?

We are seeing a lot of demand for Enterprise Architects all over the place, not just in the U.S., but globally. One of the things we have on the AEA website is a job board and career center, and we’ve been trying to increase the number of jobs posted there and make it a useful place for our members to go when they’re considering another position, and a good place for recruiters to promote their openings. We are growing that and it’s being populated more and more. Generally, I hear that there is a lot of demand for Enterprise Architects, and the demand outweighs the supply at the moment. It’s a good time to get into the profession. It’s a good time to be making the most of the demand that’s out there in the market right now. To back that up, the latest Foote Report showed that the OpenCA and TOGAF certifications were among the most valuable certifications in the IT industry. I think there is demand for certified architects and what we’re doing in the AEA is building the professional body to the point, ultimately, where people not only want to be AEA members, but effectively need to be AEA members in order to be taken seriously in Enterprise Architecture.

We’re also seeing an increasing number of inquiries from organizations that are recruiting Enterprise Architects to check that the applicant is indeed an AEA member. So clearly that tells us that people are putting it down on their resumes as something that differentiates them. It’s good that we get these inquiries, because it shows that there is perceived value in membership.

What’s new with the AEA? What’s happening within the organization right now?

Other things we have going on are a couple of webinar series running in parallel. One is a series of 13 webinars led by Jason Uppal of QRS Systems. He’s giving one a month for 13 months—we’ve done seven or eight already. The other is a series of 10 webinars given by Chris Armstrong of the Armstrong Process Group. What they have in common is that they are tutorials, they’re educational webinars and learning opportunities, and we’re seeing the number of attendees for those increasing. It’s a value of being an AEA member to be able to participate in these webinars. Our focus is on giving more value to the members, and those are a couple of examples of how we’re doing that.

The other thing that we have introduced is a series of blogs on ‘What Enterprise Architects Need to Know About…’ We’ve covered a couple of topics like Internet of Things and Big Data—we have more planned in that series. That’s an attempt to get people thinking about the changing environment in which we’re all operating now and the technologies coming down the pike at us, and what it means for Enterprise Architects. It’s not that architects have to be an expert in everything, but they do need to know about them because they will eventually change how organizations put together their architectures.

By The Open GroupSteve Nunn is the VP and Chief Operating Officer of The Open Group. Steve’s primary responsibility for The Open Group is to ensure the legal protection of its assets, particularly its intellectual property. This involves the development, maintenance and policing of the trademark portfolio of The Open Group, including the registered trade marks behind the Open Brand and, therefore, the various Open Group certification programs, including TOGAF®, Open CA, Open CITS, and UNIX® system certification. The licensing, protection and promotion of TOGAF also falls within his remit.

In addition, Steve is CEO of the Association of Enterprise Architects (AEA) and is focused on creating and developing the definitive professional association for enterprise architects around the globe. To achieve this, Steve is dedicated to advancing professional excellence amongst AEA’s 20,000+ members, whilst raising the status of the profession as a whole.

Steve is a lawyer by training and has an L.L.B. (Hons) in Law with French and retains a current legal practising certificate.

Join the conversation @theopengroup #ogchat #ogMAD

 

 

Comments Off on The Open Group Madrid Summit 2015 – An Interview with Steve Nunn

Filed under Boundaryless Information Flow™, Brand Marketing, Enterprise Architecture, Internet of Things, Open CA, Standards, TOGAF, TOGAF®, Uncategorized

The Open Group Johannesburg 2015 – Conference Highlights

By Stuart Macgregor, CEO, The Open Group South Africa

A packed agenda drew over 125 delegates to  The Open Group Johannesburg Conference on 17 March 2015, the seventh to be hosted by The Open Group South Africa. The theme this year was “The State of Enterprise Architecture Globally” which explored the transformative benefits of EA and how to reach the ultimate state of “business-focused, sustainable EA” through a series of presentations, discussions and an exhibition.

Conference exhibitors Avolution, Troux and BIC Platform showcased their Enterprise Architecture tools at the event. Avolution gave delegates a preview of the new release of the flagship toolset ABACUS 4.4.

It’s not hard to see why Enterprise Architecture is capturing the attention of business and technology professionals. Keynote speaker and The Open Group President & CEO Allen Brown pointed out that vehicle manufacturer Nissan attributes more than $1-billion in savings to Enterprise Architecture over a 10 year period.

Brown drew attention to The Open Group vision of Boundaryless Information Flow™, which enables the breakdown of barriers to create a cross-functional organisation. He also noted that Enterprise Architecture is not a technologically-driven conversation; instead, it must be aligned with the customer journey. “The organisation needs to learn more about people so as not to segment, since people are not ‘one size fits all’; business architecture, as a component of Enterprise Architecture, helps with understanding the customer journey,” he said.

Brown noted growth in successful implementations of EA around the world, including the remarkable case of Nissan. The carmaker faced challenges familiar to many technology professionals in large enterprises: multiple demands to align IT with business, the necessity to document rapidly changing information, and standardise processes. Nissan applied EA to create a comprehensive, readily accessible view of its technology environment.

Closer to home, Brown said Sasol is a local case study which shows the capabilities which flow from an EA implementation. It’s not only corporations that benefit; skilled individuals are making their mark, too. “Enterprise Architects are in high demand around the world and it’s one of the highest paid skills,” he added.

In addition to Brown’s keynote address, presentations by Paul van der Merwe, Enterprise Architect, Nedbank and Vusi Mdlalose, head of Reference Architecture and Tooling for the Barclays Africa Group, provided direct insights into how South African companies are harnessing the power of EA – and the TOGAF® and ArchiMate® standards (both Open Group standards) – to achieve predictable outcomes from complex technology environments.

“The Enterprise Architecture team played an instrumental role in defining this transformational journey for the bank through their adoption of TOGAF as the EA method,” noted van der Merwe, “This journey was defined by applying a capability-based approach to understanding the business requirements and priorities, a layered model for organising technology solutions and a managed evolution rollout strategy.”

Vusi Mdlalose’s talk gave insight into how ArchiMate informed the building and implementation of their meta model, and how they then built their architecture reference models and underlying architectures.

And, taking delegates outside of technology to consider the psychology of change, Real IRM’s Joanne Macgregor, Specialist Consultant and Trainer, presented on the necessity for effective change management as an integral part of EA implementations. Her aptly named presentation title, “You can lead a horse to water…” explored how many EA implementations do not succeed in realising their full potential due to a failure in managing the “fuzzy” human aspects of organisational transformation.

James Thomas, Lead Enterprise Architect at the South African Reserve Bank, took a different approach in his presentation titled, “The state of Enterprise Architecture globally”.

Thomas noted that the EA discipline is growing globally, but that there are business and IT stakeholders with concerns, misconceptions and downright scepticism – and set about dispelling the unknown. Fortunately his final conclusion stated “Long live Enterprise Architects!”

Lunch was followed by three tracks which focused on EA Frameworks, Practical TOGAF® and Realising EA Value. The topics and speakers included:

  • Frameworks of the IBM Systems Journal by Adriaan Vorster, Industry Consultant, Gijima
  • Successfully doing TOGAF in a Scrum Project; Marvin Williams, Associate Director Architect, Cognizant Technology USA
  • Less is more: putting EA at the heart of top-level decision-making; Jerome Bugnet, Senior Solution Director, Troux Technologies UK
  • Enterprise Security Architecture at Eskom – TOGAF and SABSA; Maganathin Veeraragaloo, Chief Advisor Information Security, Eskom
  • Enterprise Architecture as a core capability in successful transformation programmes; Roar Engen, Partner and Chief Enterprise Architect, Primesource EA Norway

The afternoon plenary included a presentation by Louw Labuschagne, Managing Partner, CS Interactive, who gave an overview of the Skills Framework for the Information Age (SFIA) and showed how the adoption of this framework is impacting the definition of Enterprise Architecture (EA) skills.

The Open Group Johannesburg 2015 was declared a resounding success. “Not only have delegates enjoyed executive insights directly from The Open Group, they have also seen how leading South African companies are applying EA principles to take charge of complex technology environments. And, of course, an event like this also presents an unmatched opportunity for global networking in a specialist field which is growing rapidly.”

In the closing presentation, Brown urged the delegates to view and download the publications from The Open Group for further insight and knowledge and more importantly to talk to the people who are doing EA. (Whether it’s IT4IT™, TOGAF or ArchiMate)

“It’s the networking at events like these that are ten times more valuable than anything else,” concluded Brown.

By Stuart Macgregor, The Open GroupStuart Macgregor, CEO of The Open Group South Africa, is also 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.

Comments Off on The Open Group Johannesburg 2015 – Conference Highlights

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