Tag Archives: Business Architecture

The Open Group San Diego Panel Explores Synergy Among Major Frameworks in Enterprise Architecture

Following is a transcript of part of the proceedings from The Open Group San Diego event in February – a panel discussion on The Synergy of Enterprise Architecture frameworks.

The following panel, which examines the synergy among the major Enterprise Architecture frameworks, consists of moderator Allen Brown, President and Chief Executive Officer, The Open Group; Iver Bank, an Enterprise Architect at Cambia Health Solutions; Dr. Beryl Bellman, Academic Director, FEAC Institute; John Zachman, Chairman and CEO of Zachman International, and originator of the Zachman Framework; and Chris Forde, General Manager, Asia and Pacific Region and Vice President, Enterprise Architecture, The Open Group.

Here are some excerpts:

By The Open GroupIver Band: As an Enterprise Architect at Cambia Health Solutions, I have been working with the ArchiMate® Language for over four years now, both working with and on it in the ArchiMate® Forum. As soon as I discovered it in late 2010, I could immediately see, as an Enterprise Architect, how it filled an important gap.

It’s very interesting to see the perspective of John Zachman. I will briefly present how the ArchiMate Language allows you to fully support enterprise architecture using The Zachman Framework. So I am going to very briefly talk about enterprise architecture with the ArchiMate Language and The Zachman Framework.

What is the ArchiMate Language? Well, it’s a language we use for building understanding across disciplines in an organization and communicating and managing change.  It’s a graphical notation with formal semantics. It’s a language.

It’s a framework that describes and relates the business, application, and technology layers of an enterprise, and it has extensions for modelling motivation, which includes business strategy, external factors affecting the organization, requirements for putting them altogether and for showing them from different stakeholder perspectives.

You can show conflicting stakeholder perspectives, and even politics. I’ve used it to model organizational politics that were preventing a project from going forward.

It has a rich set of techniques in its viewpoint mechanism for visualizing and analyzing what’s going on in your enterprise. Those viewpoints are tailored to different stakeholders.  And, of course, ArchiMate®, like TOGAF®, is an open standard managed by The Open Group.

Taste of Archimate

This is just a taste of ArchiMate for people who haven’t seen it before. This is actually excerpted from the presentation my colleague Chris McCurdy and I are doing at this conference on Guiding Agile Solution Delivery with the ArchiMate Language.

What this shows is the Business and Application Layers of ArchiMate. It shows a business process at the top. Each process is represented by a symbol. It shows a data model of business objects, then, at the next layer, in yellow.

Below that, it shows a data model actually realized by the application, the actual data that’s being processed.

Below that, it shows an application collaboration, a set of applications working together, that reads and writes that data and realizes the business data model that our business processes use.

All in all, it presents a vision of an integrated project management toolset for a particular SDLC that uses the phases that you see across the top.

We are going to dissect this model, how you would build it, and how you would develop it in an agile environment in our presentation tomorrow.

I have done some analysis of The Zachman Framework, comparing it to the ArchiMate Language. What’s really clear is that ArchiMate supports enterprise architecture with The Zachman Framework. You see a rendering of The Zachman Framework and then you see a rendering of the components of the ArchiMate Language. You see the Business Layer, the Application Layer, the Technology Layer, its ability to express information, behavior, and structure, and then the Motivation and Implementation and Migration extensions.

So how does it support it? Well, there are two key things here. The first is that ArchiMate models answer the questions that are posed by The Zachman Framework columns.

For what: for Inventory. We are basically talking about what is in the organization. There are Business and Data Objects, Products, Contracts, Value, and Meaning.

For how: for process. We can model Business Processes and Functions. We can model Flow and Triggering Relationships between them.

Where: for the Distribution of our assets. We can model Locations, we can model Devices, and we can model Networks, depending on how you define Location within a network or within a geography.

For who: We can model Responsibility, with Business Actors, Collaborations, and Roles.

When: for Timing. We have Business Events, Plateaus of System Evolution, relatively stable systems states, and we have Triggering Relationships.

Why: We have a rich Motivation extension, Stakeholders, Drivers, Assessments, Principles, Goals, Requirements, etc., and we show how those different components influence and realize each other.

Zachman perspectives

Finally, ArchiMate models express The Zachman Row Perspectives. For the contextual or boundary perspective, where Scope Lists are required, we can make catalogs of ArchiMate Concepts. ArchiMate has broad tool support, and in a repository-based tool, while ArchiMate is a graphical language, you can very easily take list of concepts, as I do regularly, and put them in catalog or metrics form. So it’s easy to come up with those Scope Lists.

Secondly, for the Conceptual area, the Business Model, we have a rich set of Business Layer Viewpoints. Like the top of the — that focus on the top of the diagram that I showed you; Business Processes, Actors, Collaborations, Interfaces, Business Services that are brought to market.

Then at the Logical Layer we have System. We have a rich set of Application Layer Viewpoints and Viewpoints that show how Applications use Infrastructure.

For Physical, we have an Infrastructure Layer, which can be used to model any type of Infrastructure: Hosting, Network, Storage, Virtualization, Distribution, and Failover. All those types of things can be modeled.

And for Configuration and Instantiation, the Application and Technology Layer Viewpoints are available, particularly more detailed ones, but are also important is the Mappings to standard design languages such as BPMN, UML and ERD. Those are straightforward for experienced modelers. We also have a white paper on using the ArchiMate language with UML. Thank you.

By The Open GroupDr. Beryl Bellman: I have been doing enterprise architecture for quite a long time, for what you call pre-enterprise architecture work, probably about 30 years, and I first met John Zachman well over 20 years ago.

In addition to being an enterprise architect I am also a University Professor at California State University, Los Angeles. My focus there is on Organizational Communications. While being a professor, I always have been involved in doing contract consulting for companies like Digital Equipment Corporation, ASK, AT&T, NCR, then Ptech.

About 15 years ago, a colleague of mine and I founded the FEAC Institute. The initial name for that was the Federal Enterprise Architecture Certification Institute, and then we changed it to Federated. It actually goes by both names.

The business driver of that was the Clinger–Cohen Bill in 1996 when it was mandated by government that all federal agencies must have an enterprise architecture.

And then around 2000, they began to enforce that regulation. My business partner at that time, Felix Rausch, and I felt that we need some certification in how to go about doing and meeting those requirements, both for the federal agencies and the Department of Defense. And so that’s when we created the FEAC Institute.

Beginning of FEAC

In our first course, we had the Executive Office of the President, US Department of Fed, which I believe was the first Department of the Federal Government that was hit by OMB which held up their budget for not having an enterprise architecture on file. So they were pretty desperate, and that began the first of the beginning of the FEAC.

Since that time, a lot of people have come in from the commercial world and from international areas. And the idea of FEAC was that you start off with learning how to do enterprise architecture. In a lot of programs, including TOGAF, you sort of have to already know a little bit about enterprise architecture, the hermeneutical circle. You have to know what it is to know.

In FEAC we had a position that you want to provide training and educating in how to do enterprise architecture that will get you from a beginning state to be able to take full responsibility for work doing enterprise architecture in a matter of three months. It’s associated with the California State University System, and you can get, if you so desire, 12 graduate academic units in Engineering Management that can be applied toward a degree or you can get continuing education units.

So that’s how we began that. Then, a couple of years ago, my business partner decided he wanted to retire, and fortunately there was this guy named John Zachman, who will never retire. He’s a lot younger than all of us in this room, right? So he purchased the FEAC Institute.

I still maintain a relationship with it as Academic Director, in which primarily my responsibilities are as a liaison to the universities. My colleague, Cort Coghill, is sort of the Academic Coordinator of the FEAC Institute.

FEAC is an organization that also incorporates a lot of the training and education programs of Zachman International, which includes managing the FEAC TOGAF courses, as well as the Zachman certified courses, which we will tell you more about.

‘m just a little bit surprised by this idea, the panel, the way we are constructed here, because I didn’t have a presentation. I’m doing it off the top, as you can see. I was told we are supposed to have a panel discussion about the synergies of enterprise architecture. So I prepared in my mind the synergies between the different enterprise architectures that are out there.

For that, I just wanted to make a strong point. I wanted to talk about synergy like a bifurcation between on the one hand, “TOGAF and Zachman” as being standing on one side, whereas the statement has been made earlier this morning and throughout the meeting is “TOGAF and.”

Likewise, we have Zachman, and it’s not “Zachman or, but it’s ‘Zachman and.” Zachman provides that ontology, as John talks about it in his periodic table of basic elements of primitives through which we can constitute any enterprise architecture. To attempt to build an architecture out of composites and then venting composites and just modeling  you’re just getting a snapshot in time and you’re really not having an enterprise architecture that is able to adapt and change. You might be able to have a picture of it, but that’s all you really have.

That’s the power of The Zachman Framework. Hopefully, most of you will attend our demonstration this afternoon and a workshop where we are actually going to have people work with building primitives and looking at the relationship of primitives, the composites with a case study.

Getting lost

On the other side of that, Schekkerman wrote something about the forest of architectural frameworks and getting lost in that. There are a lot of enterprise architectural frameworks out there.

I’m not counting TOGAF, because TOGAF has its own architectural content metamodel, with its own artifacts, but those does not require one to use the artifacts in the architectural content metamodel. They suggest that you can use DoDAF. You can use MODAF. You can use commercial ones like NCR’s GITP. You can use any one.

Those are basically the competing models. Some of them are commercial-based, where organizations have their own proprietary stamps and the names of the artifacts, and the wrong names for it, and others want to give it its own take.

I’m more familiar nowadays with the governmental sectors. For example, FEAF, Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework Version 2. Are you familiar with that? Just go on the Internet, type in FEAF v2. Since Scott Bernard has been the head, he is the Chief Architect for the US Government at the OMB, he has developed a model of enterprise architecture, what he calls the Architecture Cube Model, which is an iteration off of John’s, but he is pursuing a cube form rather than a triangle form.

Also, for him the FEAF-II, as enterprise architecture, fits into his FEAF-II, because at the top level he has the strategic plans of an organization.

It goes down to different layers, but then, at one point, it drops off and becomes not only a solution, but it gets into the manufacturing of the solution. He has these whole series of artifacts that pertain to these different layers, but at the lower levels, you have a computer wiring closet diagram model, which is a little bit more detailed than what we would consider to be at a level of enterprise architecture.

Then you have the MODAF, the DoDAF, and all of these other ones, where a lot of those compete with each other more on the basis of political choices.

With the MODAF, the British obviously don’t want to use DoDAF, they have their own, but they are very similar to each other. One view, the acquisition view, differs from the project view, but they do the same things. You can define them in terms of each other.

Then there is the Canadian, NAF, and all that, and they are very similar. Now, we’re trying to develop the unified MODAF, DoDAF, and NAF architecture, UPDM, which is still in its planning stages. So we are moving toward a more integrated system.

BrownAllen Brown: Let’s move on to some of the questions that folks are interested in. Moving away from what the frameworks are, there is a question here. How does enterprise architecture take advantage of the impact of new emerging technologies like social, mobile, analytics, cloud, and so on?

Bidirectional change

John A Zachman: The change can take place in the enterprise either from the top, where we change the context of the enterprise, or from the bottom, where we change the technologies.

So technology is expressed in the context of the enterprise, what I would call Rule 4, and that’s the physical domain. And it’s the same way in any other — the building architecture, the airplane architecture, or anything. You can implement the logic, the as-designed logic, in different technologies.

Whatever the technology is, I made an observation that you want to engineer for flexibility. You separate the independent variables. So you separate the logic at Rule 3 from the physics of Rule 4, and then you can change Rule 4 without changing Rule 3. Basically that’s the idea, so you can accommodate whatever the emerging technologies are.

Bellman: I would just continue with that. I agree with John. Thinking about the synergy between the different architectures, basically every enterprise architecture contains, or should contain, considerations of those primitives. Then, it’s a matter of which a customer wants, which a customer feels comfortable with? Basically as long as you have those primitives defined, then you essentially can use any architecture. That constitute the synergy between the architectures.

Band: I agree with what’s been said. It’s also true that I think that one of the jobs of an enterprise architect is to establish a view of the organization that can be used to promote understanding and communicate and manage change. With cloud-based systems, they are generally based on metadata, and the major platforms, like Salesforce.com as an example. They publish their data models and their APIs.

So I think that there’s going to be a new generation of systems that provide a continuously synchronized, real-time view of what’s going on in the enterprise. So the architectural model will model this in the future, where things need to go, and they will do analyses, but we will be using cloud, big data, and even sensor technologies to understand the state of the enterprise.

Bellman: In the DoDaF 2.0, when that initially came out, I think it was six years ago or so, they have services architecture, a services view, and a systems view. And one of the points they make within the context, not as a footnote, is that they expect the systems view to sort of disappear and there will be a cloud view that will take its place. So I think you are right on that.

Chris Forde: The way I interpreted the question was, how does EA or architecture approach the things help you manage disruptive things? And if you accept the idea that enterprise architecture actually is a management discipline, it’s going to help you ask the right questions to understand what you are dealing with, where it should be positioned, what the risks and value proposition is around those particular things, whether that’s the Internet of Things, cloud computing, or all of these types of activities.

So going back to the core of what Terry’s presentation was about is a decision making framework with informed questions to help you understand what you should be doing to either mitigate the risk, take advantage of the innovation, and deploy the particular thing in a way that’s useful to your business. That’s the way I read the question.

Impact of sensors

Band: Just to reinforce what Chris says, as an enterprise architect in healthcare, one of the things that I am looking at very closely is the evaluation of the impact of health sensor technology. Gartner Group says that by 2020, the average lifespan in a developed country will be increased by six months due to mobile health monitoring.

And so there are vast changes in the whole healthcare delivery system, of which my company is at the center as a major healthcare payer and investor in all sorts of healthcare companies. I use enterprise architecture techniques to begin to understand the impact of that and show the opportunities to our health insurance business.

Brown: If you think about social and mobile and you look at the entire enterprise architecture, now you are starting to expand that beyond the limits of the organization, aren’t you? You’re starting to look at, not just the organization and the ecosystem, your business partners, but you are also looking at the impact of bringing mobile devices into the organization, of managers doing things on their own with cloud that wasn’t part of the architecture. You have got the relationship with consumers out there that are using social and mobile. How do you capture all of that in enterprise architecture?

Forde: Allen, if I had the answer to that question I would form my own business and I would go sell it.

Back in the day, when I was working in large organizations, we were talking about the extended enterprise, that kind of ecosystem view of things. And at that time the issue was more problematic. We knew we were in an extended ecosystem, but we didn’t really have the technologies that effectively supported it.

The types of technologies that are available today, the ones that The Open Group has white papers about — cloud computing, the Internet of Things, this sort of stuff — architectures can help you classify those things. And the technologies that are being deployed can help you track them, and they can help you track them not as documents of the instance, but of the thing in real time that is talking to you about what its state is, and what its future state will be, and then you have to manage that information in vast quantities.

So an architecture can help you within your enterprise understand those things and it can help you connect to other enterprises or other information sources to allow you to make sense of all those things. But again, it’s a question of scoping, filtering, making sense, and abstracting — that key phrase that John pointed out earlier, of abstracting this stuff up to a level that is comprehensible and not overwhelming.

Brown: So Iver, at Cambia Health, you must have this kind of problem now, mustn’t you?

Provide value

Band: That’s exactly what I am doing. I am figuring out what will be the impact of certain technologies and how our businesses can use them to differentiate and provide value.

In fact, I was just on a call this morning with JeffSTAT, because the whole ecosystem is changing, and we know that healthcare is really changing. The current model is not financially sustainable, and there is also tremendous amount of waste in our healthcare system today. The executives of our company say that about a third of the $2.7 trillion and rising spent on healthcare in the US doesn’t do anyone any good.

There’s a tremendous amount of IT investment in that, and that requires architecture to tie it altogether. It has to do with all the things ranging from the logic with which we edit claims, to the follow-up we provide people with particularly dangerous and consequently expensive diseases. So there is just a tremendous amount going through an enterprise architecture. It’s necessary to have a coherent narrative of what the organization needs to do.

Bellman: One thing we all need to keep in mind is even more dynamic than that, if you believe even a little bit of Kurzweil’s possibilities is that — are people familiar with Ray Kurzweil’s ‘The Singularity Is Near’ — 2037 will be around the singularly between computers and human beings.

So I think that the wrap where he argues that the amount of change is not linear but exponential, and so in a sense you will never catch up, but you need an architecture to manage that.

By The Open GroupZachman: The way we deal with complexity is through classification. I suggest that there is more than one way to classify things. One is one-dimensional classification, taxonomy, or hierarchy, in effect, decompositions, one-dimensional classification, and that’s really helpful for manufacturing. From an engineering standpoint of a two-dimensional classification, where we have classified things so that they are normalized, one effect in one place.

Then if you have the problems identified, you can postulate several technology changes or several changes and simulate the various implications of it.

The whole reason why I do architecture has to do with change. You deal with extreme complexity and then you have to accommodate extreme change. There is no other way to deal with it. Humanity, for thousands of years, has not been able to figure out a better way to deal with complexity and change other than architecture.

Forde: Maybe we shouldn’t apply architecture to some things.

For example, maybe the technologies or the opportunity is so new, we need to have the decision-making framework that says, you know what, let’s not try and figure out all this, just to self-control their stuff in advance, okay? Let’s let it run and see what happens, and then when it’s at the appropriate point for architecture, let’s apply it, this is a more organic view of the way nature and life works than the enterprise view of it.

So what I am saying is that architecture is not irrelevant in that context. It’s actually there is a part of the decision-making framework to not architect something at this point in time because it’s inappropriate to do so.

Funding and budgeting

Band: Yeah, I agree that wholeheartedly. If it can’t be health solutions, we are a completely agile shop. All the technology development is on the same sprint cycle, and we have three-week sprints, but we also have certain things that are still annual and wonderful like funding and budgeting.

We live in a tension. People say, well, what are you going to do, what budget do you need, but at the same time, I haven’t figured everything out. So I am constantly living in that gap of what do I need to meet a certain milestone to get my project funded, and what do I need to do to go forward? Obviously, in a fully agile organization, all those things would be fluid. But then there’s financial reporting, and we would also have to be fluid too. So there are barriers to that.

For instance, the Scaled Agile Framework, which I think is a fascinating thing, has a very clear place for enterprise architecture. As Chris said, you don’t want to do too much of it in advance.  I am constantly getting the gap between how can I visualize what’s going to happen a year out and how can I give the development teams what they need for the sprint. So I am always living in that paradox.

Bellman: The Gartner Group, not too long ago, came up with the concept of emerging enterprise architecture and what we are dealing with. Enterprises don’t exist like buildings. A building is an object, but an enterprise is a group of human beings communicating with one another.

As a very famous organizational psychologist Karl Weick once pointed out, “The effective organization is garrulous, clumsy, superstitious, hypocritical, mostrous, octopoid, wandering, and grouchy.” Why? Because an organization is continually adapting, continually changing, and continually adapting to the changing business and technological landscape.

To expect anything other than that is not having a realistic view of the enterprise. It is emerging and it is a continually emerging phenomena. So in a sense, having an architecture concept I would not contest, but architecting is always worthwhile. It’s like it’s an organic phenomena, and that in order to deal with that what we can also understand and have an architecture for organic phenomena that change and rapidly adapt.

Brown: Chris, where you were going follows the lines of what great companies do, right?

There is a great book published about 30 years ago called ‘In Search of Excellence.’ If you haven’t read it, I suggest that people do. Written by Peters and Waterman, and Tom Peters has tried for ever since to try and recreate something with that magic, but one of the lessons learned was what great companies do, is something that goes simultaneous loose-tight properties. So you let somethings be very tightly controlled, and other things as are suggesting, let them flourish and see where they go before I actually box them in. So that’s a good thought.

So what do we think, as a panel, about evolving TOGAF to become an engineering methodology as well as a manufacturing methodology?

Zachman: I really think it’s a good idea.

Brown: Chris, do you have any thoughts on that?

Interesting proposal

Forde: I think it’s an interesting proposal and I think we need to look at it fairly seriously. The Open Group approach to things is, don’t lock people into a specific way of thinking, but we also advocate disciplined approach to doing things. So I would susspect that we are going to be exploring John’s proposal pretty seriously.

Brown: You mentioned in your talk that decision-making process is a precondition, the decision-making process to govern IT investments, and the question that comes in is how about other types of investments including facilities, inventory and acquisitions?

By The Open GroupForde: The wording of the presentation was very specific. Most organizations have a process or decision-making framework on an annual basis or quarterly whatever the cycles are for allocation of funding to do X, Y or Z. So the implication wasn’t that IT was the only space that it would be applied.

However, the question is how effective is that decision-making framework? In many organizations, or in a lot of organizations, the IT function is essentially an enterprise-wide activity that’s supporting the financial activities, the plant activities, these sorts of things. So you have the P&Ls from those things flowing in some way into the funding that comes to the IT organization.

The question is, when there are multiple complexities in an organization, multiple departments with independent P&Ls, they are funding IT activities in a way that may not be optimized, may or may not be optimized. For the architects, in my view, one of the avenues for success is in inserting yourself into that planning cycle and influencing,  because normally the architecture team does not have direct control over the spend, but influencing how that spend goes.

Over time gradually improving the enterprise’s ability to optimize and make effective the funding it applies for IT to support the rest of the business.

Zachman: Yeah, I was just wondering, you’ve got to make observation.

Band: I agree, I think that the battle to control shadow IT has been permanently lost. We are in a technology obsessed society. Every department wants to control some technology and even develop it to their needs. There are some controls that you do have, and we do have some, but we have core health insurance businesses that are nearly a 100 years old.

Cambia is constantly investing and acquiring new companies that are transforming healthcare. Cambia has over a 100 million customers all across the country even though our original business was a set of regional health plans.

Build relationships

You can’t possibly rationalize all of everything I want you to pay for on that thing. It is incumbent upon the architects, especially the senior ones, to build relationships with the people in these organizations and make sure everything is synergetic.

Many years ago, there was a senior architect. I asked him what he did, and he said, “Well, I’m just the glue. I go to a lot of meetings.” There are deliverables and deadlines too, but there is a part of consistently building the relationships and noticing things, so that when there is time to make a decision or someone needs something, it gets done right.

Zachman: I was in London when Bank of America got bought by NationsBank, and it was touted as the biggest banking merger in the history of the banking industry.

Actually it wasn’t a merger, it was an acquisition NationsBank acquired Bank of America and then changed the name to Bank of America. There was a London paper that was  observing that the headline you always see is, “The biggest merger in the history of the industry.” The headline you never see is, “This merger didn’t work.”

The cost of integrating the two enterprises exceeded the value of the acquisition. Therefore, we’re going to have to break this thing up in pieces and sell off the pieces as surreptitiously as possible, so nobody will notice that we buried any accounting notes someplace or other. You never see that article. You’ll only see the one about the biggest merger.

If I was the CEO and my strategy was to grow by acquisition, I would get really interested in enterprise architecture. Because you have to be able to anticipate the integration of the cost, if you want to merge two enterprises. In fact, you’re changing the scope of the enterprise. I have talked a little bit about the role on models, but you are changing the scope. As soon as you change a scope, you’re now going to be faced with an integration issue.

Therefore you have to make a choice, scrap and rework. There is no way, after the fact, to integrate parts that don’t fit together. So you’re gong to be faced a decision whether you want to scrap and rework or not. I would get really interested in enterprise architecture, because that’s what you really want to know before you make the expenditure. You acquire and obviously you’ve already blown out all the money. So now you’ve got a problem.

Once again, if I was the CEO and I want to grow by acquisition or merger acquisition, I would get really interested in enterprise architecture.

Cultural issues

Beryl Bellman: One of the big problems we are addressing here is also the cultural and political problems of organizations or enterprises. You could have the best design type of system, and if people and politics don’t agree, there are going to be these kind of conflicts.

I was involved in my favorite projects at consulting. I was involved in consulting with NCR, who was dealing with Hyundai and Samsung and trying to get them together at a conjoint project. They kept fighting with each other in terms of knowledge management, technology transfer, and knowledge transfer. My role of it was to do an architecture of that whole process.

It was called RIAC Research Institute in Computer Technology. On one side of the table, you had Hyundai and Samsung. On the other side of the table, you had NCR. They were throwing PowerPoint slides back and forth at each other. I brought up that the software we used at that time was METIS, and METIS modeled all the processes, everything that was involved.

Samsung said you just hit it with a 2×4. I used to be demonstrating it, rather than tossing out slides, here are the relationships, and be able to show that it really works. To me that was a real demonstration that I can even overcome some of the politics and cultural differences within enterprises.

Brown: I want to give one more question. I think this is more of a concern that we have raised in some people’s minds today, which is, we are talking about all these different frameworks and ontologies, and so there is a first question.

The second one is probably the key one that we are looking at, but it asks what does each of the frameworks lack, what are the key elements that are missing, because that leads on to the second question that says, isn’t needing to understand old enterprise architecture frameworks is not a complex exercise for a practitioner?

Band: My job is not about understanding frameworks. I have been doing enterprises solution architecture in HP at a standard and diversified financial services company and now at health insurance and health solutions company out for quite a while, and it’s really about communicating and understanding in a way that’s useful to your stakeholders.

The frameworks about creating shared understanding of what we have and where are we going to go, and the frameworks are just a set of tools that you have in your toolbox that most people don’t understand.

So the idea is not to understand everything but to get a set of tools, just like a mechanic would, that you carry around that you use all the time. For instance, there are certain types of ArchiMate views that I use when I am in a group. I will draw an ArchiMate business process view with application service use of the same. What are the business processes you need to be and what are the exposed application behaviors that they need to consume?

I had that discussion with people on the business who are in IT, and we drove those diagrams. That’s a useful tool, it works for me, it works for the people around me, it works in my culture, but there is no understanding over frameworks unless that’s your field of study. They are all missing the exact thing you need for a particular interaction, but most likely there is something in there that you can base the next critical interaction on.

Six questions

Zachman: I spent most of my life thinking about my frameworks. There are six questions you have to answer to have a complete description of whatever it is, what I will describe, what, how, where, who, and why. So that’s complete.

The philosophers have established six transformations interestingly enough, the transfer of idea into an instantiation, so that’s a complete set, and I did not invent either one of these, so the six interrogatives. They have the six stages of transformation and that framework has to, by definition, accommodate any factor that’s relevant to the existence of the object of the enterprise.  Therefore any fact has to be classifiable in that structure.

My framework is complete in that regard. For many years, I would have been reluctant to make a categorical statement, but we exercised this, and there is no anomaly. I can’t find an anomaly. Therefore I have a high level of confidence that you can classify any fact in that context.

There is one periodic table. There are n different compound manufacturing processes. You can manufacture anything out of the periodic table. That metaphor is really helpful. There’s one enterprise architecture framework ontology. I happened to stumble across, by accident, the ontology for classifying all of the facts relevant to an enterprise.

I wish I could tell you that I was so smart and understood all of these things at the beginning, but I knew nothing about this, I just happened to stumble across it. The framework fell on my desk one day and I saw the pattern. All I did was I put enterprise names on the same pattern for descriptive representation of anything. You’ve heard me tell quite a bit of the story this afternoon. In terms of completeness I think my framework is complete. I can find no anomalies and you can classify anything relative to that framework.

And I agree with Iver, that there are n different tools you might want to use. You don’t have to know everything about every framework. One thing is, whatever the tool is that you need to deal with and out of the context of the periodic table metaphor, the ontological construct of The Zachman Framework, you can accommodate whatever artifacts the tool creates.

You don’t have to analyze every tool, whatever tool is necessary, if you want to do with business architecture, you can create whatever the business architecture manifestation is. If you want to know what DoDAF is, you can create the DoDAF artifacts. You can create any composite, and you can create any compound from the periodic table. It’s the same idea.

I wouldn’t spend my life trying to understand all these frameworks. You have to operate the enterprise, you have to manage the enterprise and whatever the tool is, it’s required to do whatever it is that you need to do and there is something good about everything and nothing necessarily does everything.

So use the tool that’s appropriate and then you can create whatever the composite constructs are required by that tool out of the primitive components of the framework. I wouldn’t try to understand all the frameworks.

What’s missing

Forde: On a daily basis there is a line of people at these conferences coming to tell me what’s missing from TOGAF. Recently we conducted a survey through the Association of Enterprise Architects about what people needed to see. Basically the stuff came back pretty much, please give us more guidance that’s specific to my situation, a recipe for how to solve world hunger, or something like that. We are not in the role of providing that level of prescriptive detail.

The value side of the equation is the flexibility of the framework to a certain degree to allow many different industries and many different practitioners drive value for their business out of using that particular tool.

So some people will find value in the content metamodel in the TOGAF Framework and the other components of it, but if you are not happy with that, if it doesn’t meet your need, flip over to The Zachman Framework or vice versa.

John made it very clear earlier that the value in the framework that he has built throughout his career and has been used repeatedly around the world is its rigor, it’s comprehensiveness, but he made very clear, it’s not a method. There is nothing in there to tell you how to go do it.

So you could criticize The Zachman Framework for a lack of method or you could spend your time talking about the value of it as a very useful tool to get X, Y, and Z done.

From a practitioner’s standpoint, what one practitioner does is interesting in a value, but if you have a practice between 200 and 400 architects, you don’t want everybody running around like a loose cannon doing it their way, in my opinion. As a practice manager or leader you need something that makes those resources very, very effective. And when you are in a practice of that size, you probably have a handful of people trying to figure out how the frameworks come together, but most of the practitioners are tasked with taking what the organization says is their best practice and executing on it.

We are looking at improving the level of guidance provided by the TOGAF material, the standard and guidance about how to do specific scenarios.

For example, how to jumpstart an architecture practice, how to build a secure architecture, how to do business architecture well? Those are the kinds of things that we have had feedback on and we are working on around that particular specification.

Brown: So if you are employed by the US Department of Defense you would be required to use DoDAF, if you are an enterprise architect, because of the views it provides. But people like Terri Blevins that did work in the DoD many years, used TOGAF to populate DoDAF. It’s a method, and the method is the great strength.

If you want to have more information on that, there are a number of white papers on our website about using TOGAF with DoDAF, TOGAF with COBIT, TOGAF with Zachman, TOGAF with everything else.

Forde: TOGAF with frameworks, TOGAF with buy in, the thing to look at is the ecosystem of information around these frameworks is where the value proposition really is. If you are trying to bootstrap your standards practice inside, the framework is of interest, but applied use, driving to the value proposition for your business function is the critical area to focus on.

The panel, which examined the synergy among the major EA frameworks, consists of moderator Allen Brown, President and Chief Executive Officer, The Open Group; Iver Bank, an Enterprise Architect, Cambia Health Solutions; Dr. Beryl Bellman, Academic Director, FEAC Institute; John Zachman, Chairman and CEO of Zachman International, and originator of the Zachman Framework; and Chris Forde, General Manager, Asia and Pacific Region and Vice President, Enterprise Architecture, The Open Group.

Transcript available here.

Join the conversation @theopengroup #ogchat

You may also be interested in:

 

2 Comments

Filed under ArchiMate®, big data, Business Architecture, Cloud, Data management, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Transformation, Standards, TOGAF®, Uncategorized

The Open Group San Diego 2015 – Day Two Highlights

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

Day two, February 3, kicked off with a presentation by Allen Brown, President and CEO of The Open Group, “What I Don’t Need from Business Architecture… and What I Do”.

Allen began with a brief history of The Open Group vision of Boundaryless Information Flow™, which enables the break down of barriers to cross-functional organization when information is held in siloed parts. Allen and team used the word “boundaryless” that was started by Jack Welch in 2002 with the phrase “Boundaryless Organization”. This approach focused on thinking and acting, not technical. “Boundaryless” does not mean there are no boundaries, it means that boundaries are permeable to enable business.

Allen also discussed brand actualization, and that organizations wishing to achieve brand recognition such as Nike and Apple must be aware of the customer journey. The journey entails awareness, evaluation, joining, participation, renewal and advocacy. The organization needs to learn more about the people so as not to segment, since people are not “one size fits all”. Business Architecture helps with understanding the customer journey.

By Loren K. Baynes

Business Architecture is part of Enterprise Architecture, he continued. A greater focus on the “what”, including strategic themes, capabilities and interdependencies, can add a lot of value. It is applicable to the business of government as well as to the business of “businesses” and non-profit organizations.

John Zachman, Founder & Chairman, Zachman International and Executive Director of FEAC Institute, presented “The Zachman Framework and How It Complements TOGAF® and Other Frameworks”. John stated the biggest problem is change. The two reasons to do architecture are complexity and change. A person or organization needs to understand and describe the problem before solving it.

“All I did was, I saw the pattern of the structure of the descriptive representations for airplanes, buildings, locomotives and computers, and I put enterprise names on the same patterns,” he said. “Now you have the Zachman Framework, which basically is Architecture for Enterprises. It is Architecture for every other object known to human kind.” Thus the Zachman Framework was born.

According to John, what his Framework is ultimately intended for is describing a complex object, an Enterprise. In that sense, the Zachman Framework is the ontology for Enterprise Architecture, he stated. What it doesn’t do is tell you how to do Enterprise Architecture.

“My framework is just the definition and structure of the descriptive representation for enterprises,” he said. That’s where methodologies, such as TOGAF®, an Open Group standard, or other methodological frameworks come in. It’s not Zachman OR TOGAF®, it’s TOGAF® AND Zachman.

By Loren K. BaynesJohn Zachman

Allen and John then participated in a Q&A session. Both are very passionate about professionalizing the architecture profession. Allen and John agreed there should be a sense of urgency for architecture to keep up with the rapid evolution of technology.

The plenary continued with Chris Forde, GM APAC Region and VP, Enterprise Architecture, The Open Group on “The Value of TOGAF® Architecture Development Method (ADM) and Open Systems Architecture”. Chris was presenting on behalf of Terry Blevins, Fellow of The Open Group, who could not attend.

Chris said, “Enterprise Architecture is a constant journey.” The degree of complexity of organizations or objects (such as airplanes) is enormous. Architecture is a means to an end. ADM is the core of TOGAF.

Enterprise Architecture (EA) is nothing but a paperweight if there are no plans in place to use it to make decisions. Supporting decision-making is the key reason to produce an Enterprise Architecture. Chris noted sound decisions sometimes need to be made without all of the information required. EA is a management tool, not a technology tool.

Allen Brown chaired a panel, “Synergy of EA Frameworks”, with panelists Chris Forde, John Zachman, Dr. Beryl Bellman, Academic Director, FEAC Institute, and Iver Band, Enterprise Architect, Cambia Health Solutions.

Iver began the panel session by discussing ArchiMate®, an Open Group standard, which is a language for building understanding and communicating and managing change.

One of the questions the panel addressed was how does EA take advantage of emerging technologies such as mobile, big data and cloud? The “as designed” logic can be implemented in any technology. Consideration should also be given to synergy among the different architectures. EA as a management discipline helps people to ask the right questions about activities and technologies to mitigate risk, take advantage of the situation and/or decide whether or not to deploy the strategies and tactics. The idea is not to understand everything and every framework, but to get the right set of tools for interaction and navigation.

In the afternoon, tracks consisted of Risk, Dependability and Trusted Technology, Open Platform 3.0™, Architecture Frameworks and EA and Business Transformation. Presenters were from a wide range of organizations including HP, Tata Consulting Services (India), Wipro, IBM, Symantic and Arca Success Group.

A networking reception was held at the Birch Aquarium, Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Attendees enjoyed a scrumptious dinner and experienced the wonders of ocean and marine life.

A very special thank you goes to our San Diego 2015 sponsors and exhibitors: BiZZdesign, Corso, FEAC Institute, AEA, Good E-learning, SimpliLearn and Van Haren Publishing.

Most of our plenary proceedings are available at Livestream.com/opengroup

Please join the conversation – @theopengroup #ogSAN

By 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.

 

Comments Off on The Open Group San Diego 2015 – Day Two Highlights

Filed under Enterprise Architecture, TOGAF®, Standards, Business Architecture, Enterprise Transformation, Conference, Professional Development, Open Platform 3.0, Interoperability, Internet of Things, Value Chain

The Open Group San Diego 2015 – Day One Highlights

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

The Open Group San Diego 2015, with over 200 guests in attendance, had a powerful start on Monday, February 2 with a presentation by Dawn Meyerriecks, CIA Deputy Director for Science and Technology and Emeritus of The Open Group.

Dawn’s presentation, entitled “Emerging Tech Trends: The Role of Government”, focused on the US government, but she emphasized that global reach is necessary as are international relationships. US investment in R&D and basic research is accelerating. She continued, the government is great at R&D but not necessarily bringing it to market. Furthermore, as physical and virtual converge (i.e. Internet of Things), this fuels the state of IT. The US is well ahead of other countries in R&D, but China and Japan are increasing their spend, along with other markets. Discussions about supply chain, dependability, platforms, mobility and architectural framework are also required.

Big data analytics are key as is the access to analytics and the ability to exploit it to have market growth. The government works with partners on many levels. Leading experts from academia, governments, and industry collaborate to solve hard problems in big data analytics, including the impacts on life such as trying to predict societal unrest. The complex technologies focus must utilize incisive analysis, safe and secure operations and smart collection.

By The Open GroupDawn Meyerriecks

When Allen Brown, President and CEO of The Open Group, introduced Dawn, he mentioned her integral role in launching the Association of Enterprise Architects (AEA), formerly AOGEA, in 2007 which initially had 700 members. AEA now has over 40,000 members and is recognized worldwide as a professional association.

Dawn’s presentation was followed by a Q&A session with Allen who further addressed supply chain, ethical use of data, cloud systems and investment in cybersecurity. Allen emphasized that The Open Trusted Technology Provider™ Standard (O-TTPS) Accreditation Program is in place but there needs to be a greater demand.

Next on the agenda was the The Open Group overview and Forum Highlights presented by Allen Brown. The Open Group has 488 member organizations signed in 40 countries such as Australia, Czech Republic, Japan, Nigeria, Philippines and United Arab Emirates. In 2014, The Open Group signed 93 new membership agreements in 22 countries.

Allen presented updates on all The Open Group Forums: ArchiMate®, Architecture, DirectNet®, EMMM, Enterprise Management, FACE®, Healthcare, IT4IT™, Open Platform 3.0™, Open Trusted Technology, Security. Highlights included:

  • ArchiMate® Forum – The Open Group now sponsors the Archi tool, a free open source tool; recently published TOGAF® Framework/ArchiMate® Modeling Language Harmonization guide
  • Architecture Forum – TOGAF® 9 reached 40,000 certifications; 75,000 TOGAF publications download in 166 countries; TOGAF books sales reached 11,000
  • Healthcare Forum – first round analysis submission for Federal Health Information Model (FHIM) was very well-accepted; white paper in development
  • The Open Group IT4IT™ Forum – launched in October 2014
  • Open Platform 3.0™ Forum – snapshot 2 in development; produced two Internet of Things (IoT) standards in 2014; relaunching UDEF in 2015
  • Security Forum – increasing activities with organizations in India

The plenary continued with a joint presentation by Dr. Ron Ross, Fellow of National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Mary Ann Davidson, Chief Security Officer, Oracle and entitled “Cybersecurity Standards: Finding the Right Balance for Securing Your Enterprise”.

Dr. Ross stated the world is developing the most complicated IT infrastructure ever. Critical missions and business functions are at risk – affecting national economic security interests of the US. Companies throughout the globe are trying to make systems secure, but there are challenges when getting to the engineering aspect. Assurance, trustworthiness, resiliency is the world we want to build. “Building stronger, more resilient systems requires effective security standards for software assurance, systems security engineering, supply chain risk management.” It is critical to focus on the architecture and engineering. The essential partnership is government, academia and industry.

Mary Ann posed the question “why cybersecurity standards?” with the answer being that standards help ensure technical correctness, interoperability, trustworthiness and best practices. In her view, the standards ecosystem consists of standards makers, reviewers, mandaters, implementers, certifiers, weaponizers (i.e. via regulatory capture). She stated the “Four Ps of Benevolent Standards” are problem statement, precise language and scope, pragmatic solutions and prescriptive minimization. “Buyers and practitioners must work hand in hand; standards and practice should be neck and neck, not miles apart.”

The plenary culminated with the Cybersecurity Panel. Dave Lounsbury, CTO, The Open Group, moderated the panel. Panelists were Edna Conway, Chief Security Officer for Global Supply Chain, Cisco; Mary Ann Mezzapelle, America CTO for Enterprise Security Services, HP, Jim Hietala, VP Security, The Open Group, Rance Delong, Security and High Assurance Systems, Santa Clara University. They all agreed the key to Security is to learn the risks, vulnerabilities and what can you control. Technology and controls are out there but organizations need to implement them effectively. Also, collaboration is important among public, private, industry and supply chain, and people, processes and technology.

By The Open Group

Rance Delong, Jim Hietala, Edna Conway, Mary Ann Mezzapelle, Dave Lounsbury

The afternoon featured tracks Risk, Dependability and Trusted Technology; IT4IT™; EA Practice and Professional Development. One of the sessions “Services Model Backbone – the IT4IT™ Nerve System” was presented by Lars Rossen, Distinguished Technologist and Chief Architect, IT4IT Initiative, HP.

In the evening, The Open Group hosted a lovely reception on the outside terrace at the Westin Gaslamp.

Most plenary sessions are available via: Livestream.com/opengroup

Please join the conversation – @theopengroup #ogSAN

By 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 Comments

Filed under Business Architecture, Conference, Cybersecurity, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Transformation, O-TTF, Professional Development, Security, Standards

Professional Training Trends (Part Two): A Q&A with Chris Armstrong, Armstrong Process Group

By The Open Group

This is part two in a two part series.

Professional development and training is a perpetually hot topic within the technology industry. After all, who doesn’t want to succeed at their job and perform better?

Ongoing education and training is particularly important for technology professionals who are already in the field. With new tech trends, programming languages and methodologies continuously popping up, most professionals can’t afford not to keep their skill sets up to date these days.

The Open Group member Chris Armstrong is well-versed in the obstacles that technology professionals face to do their jobs. President of Armstrong Process Group, Inc. (APG), Armstrong and his firm provide continuing education and certification programs for technology professionals and Enterprise Architects covering all aspects of the enterprise development lifecycle. We recently spoke with Armstrong about the needs of Architecture professionals and the skills and tools he thinks are necessary to do the job effectively today.

What are some of the tools that EAs can be using to do architecture right now?

There’s quite a bit out there. I’m kind of developing a perspective on how to lay them out across the landscape a bit better. I think there are two general classes of EA tools based on requirements, which is not necessarily the same as what is offered by commercial or open source solutions.

When you take a look at the EA Capability model and the value chain, the first two parts of it have to do with understanding and analyzing what’s going on in an enterprise. Those can be effectively implemented by what I call Enterprise Architecture content management tools, or EACM. Most of the modeling tools would fall within that categorization. Tools that we use? There’s Sparx Enterprise Architect. It’s a very effective modeling tool that covers all aspects of the architecture landscape top-to-bottom, left-to-right and it’s very affordable. Consequently, it’s one of the most popular tools in the world—I think there are upwards of 300,000 licenses active right now. There are lots of other modeling tools as well.

A lot of people find the price point for Sparx Enterprise Architect so appealing that when people go into an investment and it’s only $5K, $10K, or $15K, instead of $100K or $250K, find it’s a great way to get into coming to grips with what it means to really build models. It really helps you build those fundamental modeling skills, which are best learned via on-the-job experience in your real business domain, without having to mortgage the farm.

Then there’s the other part of it, and this is where I think there needs to be a shift in emphasis to some extent. A lot of times the architect community gets caught up in modeling. We’ve been modeling for decades—modeling is not a new thing. Despite that—and this is just an anecdotal observation—the level of formal, rigorous modeling, at least in our client base in the U.S. market, is still very low. There are lots of Fortune 1000 organizations that have not made investments in some of these solutions yet, or are fractured or not well-unified. As a profession, we have a big history of modeling and I’m a big fan of that, but it sometimes seems a bit self-serving to some extent, in that a lot of times the people we model for are ourselves. It’s all good from an engineering perspective—helps us frame stuff up, produce views of our content that are meaningful to other stakeholders. But there’s a real missed opportunity in making those assets available and useful to the rest of the organization. Because if you build a model, irrespective of how good and relevant and pertinent it is, if nobody knows about it and nobody can use it to make good decisions or can’t use it to accelerate their project, there’s some legitimacy to the question of “So how much value is this really adding?” I see a chasm between the production of Enterprise Architecture content and the ease of accessing and using that content throughout the enterprise. The consumer market for Enterprise Architecture is much larger than the provider community.

But that’s a big part of the problem, which is why I mentioned cross-training earlier–most enterprises don’t have the self-awareness that they’ve made some investment in Enterprise Architecture and then often ironically end up making redundant, duplicative investments in repositories to keep track of inventories of things that EA is already doing or could already be doing. Making EA content as easily accessible to the enterprise as going to Google and searching for it would be a monumental improvement. One of the big barriers to re-use is finding if something useful has already been created, and there’s a lot of opportunity to deliver better capability through tooling to all of the consumers throughout an enterprise.

If we move a bit further along the EA value chain to what we call “Decide and Respond,” that’s a really good place for a different class of tools. Even though there are modeling tool vendors that try to do it, we need a second class of tools for EA Lifecycle Management (EALM), which is really getting into the understanding of “architecture-in-motion”. Once architecture content has been described as the current and future state, the real $64,000 question is how do we get there? How do we build a roadmap? How do we distribute the requirements of that roadmap across multiple projects and tie that to the strategic business decisions and critical assets over time? Then there’s how do I operate all of this stuff once I build it? That’s another part of lifecycle management—not just how do I get to this future state target architecture, but how do I continue to operate and evolve it incrementally and iteratively over time?

There are some tools that are emerging in the lifecycle management space and one of them is another product we partner with—that’s a solution from HP called Enterprise Maps. From our perspective it meets all the key requirements of what we consider enterprise architecture lifecycle management.

What tools do you recommend EAs use to enhance their skillsets?

Getting back to modeling—that’s a really good place to start as it relates to elevating the rigor of architecture. People are used to drawing pictures with something like Visio to graphically represent ”here’s how the business is arranged” or “here’s how the applications landscape looks,” but there’s a big difference in transitioning how to think about building a model. Because drawing a picture and building a model are not the same thing. The irony, though, is that to many consumers it looks the same, because you often look into a model through a picture. But the skill and the experience that the practitioner needs is very different. It’s a completely different way of looking at the world when you start building models as opposed to solely drawing pictures.

I see still, coming into 2015, a huge opportunity to uplift that skill set because I find a lot of people say they know how to model but they haven’t really had that experience. You just can’t simply explain it to somebody, you have to do it. It’s not the be-all and end-all—it’s part of the architect’s toolkit, but being able to think architecturally and from a model-driven approach is a key skill set that people are going to need to keep pace with all the rapid changes going on in the marketplace right now.

I also see that there’s still an opportunity to get people better educated on some formal modeling notations. We’re big fans of the Unified Modeling Language, UML. I still think uptake of some of those specifications is not as prevalent as it could be. I do see that there are architects that have some familiarity with some of these modeling standards. For example, in our TOGAF® training we talk about standards in one particular slide, many architects have only heard of one or two of them. That just points to there being a lack of awareness about the rich family of languages that are out there and how they can be used. If a community of architects can only identify one or two modeling languages on a list of 10 or 15 that is an indirect representation of their background in doing modeling, in my opinion. That’s anecdotal, but there’s a huge opportunity to uplift architect’s modeling skills.

How do you define the difference between models and pictures?

Modeling requires a theory—namely you have to postulate a theory first and then you build a model to test that theory. Picture drawing doesn’t require a theory—it just requires you to dump on a piece of paper a bunch of stuff that’s in your head. Modeling encourages more methodical approaches to framing the problem.

One of the anti-patterns that I’ve seen in many organizations is they often get overly enthusiastic, particularly when they get a modeling tool. They feel like they can suddenly do all these things they’ve never done before, all that modeling stuff, and they end up “over modeling” and not modeling effectively because one of the key things for modeling is modeling just enough because there’s never enough time to build the perfect thing. In my opinion, it’s about building the minimally sufficient model that’s useful. And in order to do that, you need to take a step back. TOGAF does acknowledge this in the ADM—you need to understand who your stakeholders are, what their concerns are and then use those concerns to frame how you look at this content. This is where you start coming up with the theory for “Why are we building a model?” Just because we have tools to build models doesn’t mean we should build models with those tools. We need to understand why we’re building models, because we can build infinite numbers of models forever, where none of them might be useful, and what’s the point of that?

The example I give is, there’s a CFO of an organization that needs to report earnings to Wall Street for quarterly projections and needs details from the last quarter. And the accounting people say, “We’ve got you covered, we know exactly what you need.” Then the next day the CFO comes in and on his/her desk is eight feet of green bar paper. She/he goes out to the accountants and says, “What the heck is this?” And they say “This is a dump of the general ledger for the first quarter. Every financial transaction you need.” And he/she says, “Well it’s been a while since I’ve been a CPA, and I believe it’s all in there, but there’s just no way I’ve got time to weed through all that stuff.”

There are generally accepted accounting principles where if I want to understand the relationship between revenue and expense that’s called a P&L and if I’m interested in understanding the difference between assets and liabilities that’s a balance sheet. We can think of the general ledger as the model of the finances of an organization. We need to be able to use intelligence to give people views of that model that are pertinent and help them understand things. So, the CFO says “Can you take those debits and credits in that double entry accounting system and summarize them into a one-pager called a P&L?”

The P&L would be an example of a view into a model, like a picture or diagram. The diagram comes from a model, the general ledger. So if you want to change the P&L in an accounting system you don’t change the financial statement, you change the general ledger. When you make an adjustment in your general ledger, you re-run your P&L with different content because you changed the model underneath it.

You can kind of think of it as the difference between doing accounting on register paper like we did up until the early 21st Century and then saying “Why don’t we keep track of all the debits and credits based on a chart of accounts and then we can use reporting capabilities to synthesize any way of looking at the finances that we care to?” It’s allows a different way for thinking about the interconnectedness of things.

What are some of the most sought after classes at APG?

Of course TOGAF certification is one of the big ones. I’d say in addition to that we do quite a bit in systems engineering, application architecture, and requirements management. Sometimes those are done in the context of solution delivery but sometimes they’re done in the context of Enterprise Architecture. There’s still a lot of opportunity in supporting Enterprise Architecture in some of the fundamentals like requirements management and effective architectural modeling.

What kinds of things should EAs look for in training courses?

I guess the big thing is to try to look for are offerings that get you as close to practical application as possible. A lot of people start with TOGAF and that’s a great way to frame the problem space. I would set the expectation—and we always do when we deliver our TOGAF training—that this will not tell you “how” to do Enterprise Architecture, there’s just not enough time for that in four days. We talk about “what” Enterprise Architecture is and related emerging best practices. That needs to be followed up with “how do I actually do Enterprise Architecture modeling,” “how do I actually collect EA requirements,” “how do I actually do architecture trade-off analysis?” Then “How do I synthesize an architecture roadmap,” “how do I put together a migration plan,” and “how do I manage the lifecycle of applications in my portfolio over the long haul?” Looking for training that gets you closer to those experiences will be the most valuable ones.

But a lot of this depends on the level of maturity within the organization, because in some places, just getting everybody on the same page of what Enterprise Architecture means is a big victory. But I also think Enterprise Architects need to be very thoughtful about this cross-training. I know it’s something I’m trying to make an investment in myself, is becoming more attuned to what’s going on in other parts of the enterprise in which Enterprise Architecture has some context but perhaps is not a known player. Getting training experiences in other places and engaging those parts of your organizations to really find out what are the problems they’re trying to solve and how might Enterprise Architecture help them is essential.

One of the best ways to demonstrate that is part of the organizational learning related to EA adoption. That may even be the bigger question. As individual architects, there are always opportunities for greater skill development, but really, organizational learning is where the real investment needs to be made so you can answer the question, “Why do I care?” One of the best ways to respond to that is to have an internal success. After a pilot project say, “We did EA on a limited scale for a specific purpose and look what we got out of it and how could you not want to do more of it?”

But ultimate the question usually should be “How can we make Enterprise Architecture indispensible? How can we create an environment where people can perform their duties more rapidly, more efficiently, more effectively and more sustainably based on Enterprise Architecture?” This is part of the problem, especially in larger organizations. In 2015, it’s not really the first time people have been making investments in Enterprise Architecture, it’s the second or third or fourth time, so it’s a reboot. You want to make sure that EA can become indispensible but you want to be able to support those critical activities with EA support and then when the stakeholders become dependent on it, you can say “If you like that stuff, we need you to show up with some support for EA and get some funding and resources, so we can continue to operate and sustain this capability.”

What we’ve found is that it’s a double-edged sword, ironically. If an organization has success in propping up their Architecture capability and sustaining and demonstrating some value there, it can be a snowball effect where you can become victims of your own success and suddenly people are starting to get wind of “Oh, I don’t have to do that if the EA’s already done it,” or “I can align myself with a part of the business where the EA has already been done.” The architecture community can get very busy—more busy than they’re prepared for—because of the momentum that might exist to really exploit those EA investments. But at the end of the day, it’s all good stuff because the more you can show the enterprise that it’s worth the investment, that it delivers value, the more likely you’ll get increased funding to sustain the capability.

By The Open GroupChris Armstrong is president of Armstrong Process Group, Inc. and an internationally recognized thought leader and expert in iterative software development, enterprise architecture, object-oriented analysis and design, the Unified Modeling Language (UML), use case driven requirements and process improvement.

Over the past twenty years, Chris has worked to bring modern software engineering best practices to practical application at many private companies and government organizations worldwide. Chris has spoken at over 30 conferences, including The Open Group Enterprise Architecture Practitioners Conference, Software Development Expo, Rational User Conference, OMG workshops and UML World. He has been published in such outlets as Cutter IT Journal, Enterprise Development and Rational Developer Network.

Join the conversation! @theopengroup #ogchat

Comments Off on Professional Training Trends (Part Two): A Q&A with Chris Armstrong, Armstrong Process Group

Filed under Business Architecture, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Transformation, Professional Development, Standards, TOGAF, TOGAF®, Uncategorized

The Onion From The Inside Out

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

The Open Group Open Platform 3.0™ (OP3.0) services often involve a complex network of interdependent parties[1]. Each party has its own concept of the value it expects from the service. One consequence of this is that each party depends on the value other parties place on the service. If it’s not core business for one of them, its availability and reliability could be in doubt. So the others need to be aware of this and have some idea of how much that matters to them.

In a previous post, we used the analogy of an onion to model various degrees of relationship between parties. At a high level the onion looks like this:

By Stuart Boardman, KPN“Onion”

Every player has their own version of this onion. Every player’s own perspective is from the middle of it. The complete set of players will be distributed across different layers of the onion depending on whose onion we are looking at.

In a short series of blogs, we’re going to use a concrete use-case to explore what various players’ onions look like. To understand that onion involves working from the middle out. We all know that you can’t peel an onion starting in the middle, so let’s not get hung up on the metaphor. It’s only useful in as far as it fits with our real business objective. In this case the objective is to have the best possible chance of understanding and then realizing the potential value of a service.

Defining and Realizing Value

Earlier this year, The Open Group published a set of Open Platform 3.0 use cases. One of these use cases (#15) considers the energy market ecosystem involved in smart charging of electric vehicles. The players in this use case include:

  • The Vehicle User
  • Supplier/Charging Operator(s)
  • Distribution Service Operator (DSO).
  • Electricity Bulk Generators
  • Transmission (National Grid) Operator
  • Local Government

By Stuart Boardman, KPN

The use case describes a scenario involving these players:

A local controller (a device – known in OP3.0 as part of the Internet of Things) controls one or more charging stations. The Charging Operator informs the vehicle (and possibly the Vehicle User) via the local controller how much capacity is available to it. If the battery is nearly full the vehicle can inform the local controller that it needs less capacity and this capacity can then be made available to other vehicles at other charging stations.

The Charging Operator determines the capacity to be made available on the basis of information provided by the DSO (maximum allowable capacity at that time), possibly combined with commercial information (e.g., current spot prices, predicted trends, flexibility agreements with vehicle-owners/customers where applicable). The DSO has predicted available capacity on the basis of currently predicted weather conditions and long-term usage patterns in the relevant area. The DSO is able to adapt to unexpected changes in real-time and restrict or increase the locally available capacity.

Value For The Various Parties

The Vehicle User

For the sake of making it interesting let’s say that the vehicle user is a taxi driver. For her, the value is primarily in being able to charge the vehicle at a convenient time, place, speed and cost. But the perception of what constitutes value in those categories may vary depending on whether she uses a public charging station or charges at home. In either case the service she uses is focused on the Supplier/Charging operator, because that is who she pays for the service. The bill includes generic DSO costs but the customer has no direct relationship with a DSO and is only really aware of them when maintenance is carried out. Factors like convenient time and place may bring Local Government into the picture, because they are often the party who make parking spaces for electric vehicles available.

By Stuart Boardman, KPN“The Taxi Driver’s Onion”

Local Government

Local government is then also responsible for policing the proper use of these spaces. The importance assigned by local government to making these facilities available is a question of policy balanced by cost/gain (licenses and parking fees). Policy is influenced by the economy, by the convictions of the councilors, by lobbyists (especially those connected with the DSO, Bulk Generators and Transmission Operators), by innovation and natural resources and by the attitude of the public towards electric vehicles, which in turn may be influenced by national government policy. In some countries (e.g. The Netherlands) there are tax incentives for the acquisition of electric cars. If this policy changes in a country, the number of electric vehicles could increase or decrease dramatically. Local government has a dependency on and formal relationship with the Supplier that manages the Charging Stations. The relationship with the DSO is indirect unless they have been partners in an initiative to promote electric vehicles.

 By Stuart Boardman, KPN “Local Government’s Onion”

The Distribution Service OperatorBy Stuart Boardman, KPN

Value for the DSO involves balancing its regulatory obligation to provide continuity of energy supply with the cost of investment to achieve that and with the public perception of the value of that service. The DSO also gains value in terms of reputation from investing in innovation and energy saving. That value is expressed in its own long-term future as an enterprise. The DSO, being very much the hub in this use case, is dependent on the Supplier and the Vehicle User (with the vehicle’s battery as proxy) to provide the information needed to ensure continuity – and of course on the Transmission Operator the Bulk Generators to provide power. It does not, however, have any direct relationship with any Bulk Generator or even necessarily know who they are or where they are located.

 

By Stuart Boardman, KPN“The Distribution Service Operator’s Onion”

The Bulk Generator

The Bulk Generator has no direct involvement in this use case but has an indirect dependency on anything affecting the level of usage of electricity, as this affects the market price and long-term future of its product. So there is generic value (or anti-value) in the use case if it is widely implemented.

To be continued…

Those were the basics of the approach. There’s a lot more to be done before you can say you have a grip on value realization in such a scenario.

In the next blog, we’ll dive deeper into the use case, identify other relevant stakeholders and look at other dependencies that may influence value across the chain.

[1] Open Platform 3.0 refers to this as a “wider business ecosystem”. In fact such ecosystems exist for all kinds of services. We just happen to be focusing on this kind of service.

By Stuart Boardman, KPNStuart 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.

harrington_ed_0Ed Harrington is a Senior Consulting Associate with Conexiam, a Calgary, Canada headquartered consultancy. He also heads his own consultancy, EPH Associates. Prior positions include Principle Consultant with Architecting the Enterprise where he provided TOGAF and other Enterprise Architecture (EA) discipline training and consultancy; EVP and COO for Model Driven Solutions, an EA, SOA and Model Driven Architecture Consulting and Software Development company; various positions for two UK based companies, Nexor and ICL and 18 years at General Electric in various marketing and financial management positions. Ed has been an active member of The Open Group since 2000 when the EMA became part of The Open Group and is past chair of various Open Group Forums (including past Vice Chair of the Architecture Forum). Ed is TOGAF® 9 certified.

Comments Off on The Onion From The Inside Out

Filed under Business Architecture, Interoperability, Open Platform 3.0, Service Oriented Architecture, Strategy, Uncategorized

The Business of Managing IT: The Open Group IT4IT™ Forum

By The Open Group

At The Open Group London 2014 event in October, the launch of The Open Group IT4IT™ Forum was announced. The goal of the new Forum is to create a Reference Architecture and standard that will allow IT departments to take a more holistic approach to managing the business of IT with continuous insight and control, enabling Boundaryless Information Flow™ across the IT Value Chain.

We recently spoke to Forum member Charlie Betz, Founder, Digital Management Academy, LLC, about the new Forum, its origins and why it’s time for IT to be managed as if it were a business in itself.

As IT has become more central to organizations, its role has changed drastically from the days when companies had one large mainframe or just a few PCs. For many organizations today, particularly large enterprises, IT is becoming a business within the business.

The problem with most IT departments, though, is that IT has never really been run as if it was a business.

In order for IT to better cope with rapid technological change and become more efficient at transitioning to the service-based model that most businesses today require, IT departments need guidance as to how the business of IT can be run. What’s at stake are things such as how to better manage IT at scale, how to understand IT as a value chain in its own right and how organizations can get better visibility into the vast amount of economic activity that’s currently characterized in organizations through technology.

The Open Group’s latest Forum aims to do just that.

The Case for IT Management

In the age of digital transformation, IT has become an integral part of how business is done. So says Charlie Betz, one of the founding members of the IT4IT Forum. From the software in your car to the supply chain that brings you your bananas, IT has become an irreplaceable component of how things work.

Quoting industry luminary Marc Andreessen, Betz says “software is eating the world.” Similarly, Betz says, IT management is actually beginning to eat management, too. Although this might seem laughable, we have become increasingly dependent on computing systems in our everyday lives. With that dependence comes significant concerns about the complexity of those systems and the potential they carry for chaotic behaviors. Therefore, he says, as technology becomes pervasive, how IT is managed will increasingly dictate how businesses are managed.

“If IT is increasing in its proportion of all product management, and all markets are increasingly dependent on managing IT, then understanding pure IT management becomes critically important not just for IT but for all business management,” Betz says.

According to Betz, the conversation about running the business of IT has been going on in the industry for a number of years under the guise of ideas such as “enterprise resource planning for IT” and the like. Ultimately, though, Betz says managing IT comes down to determining what IT’s value chain is and how to deliver on it.

By The Open GroupBetz compares modern IT departments to atoms, cells and bits where atoms represent hardware, including servers, data centers and networks; cells represent people; and bits are represented by software. In this analogy, these three things comprise the fundamental resources that an IT department manages. When reduced to economic terms, Betz says, what is currently lacking in most IT departments is a sense of how much things are worth, what the total costs are for acquisition and maintenance for capabilities and the supply and demand dynamics for IT services.

For example, in traditional IT management, workloads are defined by projects, tickets and also a middle ground characterized by work that is smaller than a project and larger than a ticket, Betz says. Often IT departments lack an understanding of how the three relate to each other and how they affect resources—particularly in the form of people—which becomes problematic because there is no holistic view of what the department is doing. Without that aggregate view, management is not only difficult but nearly impossible.

Betz says that to get a grasp on the whole, IT needs to take a cue from the lean management movement and first understand where the work originates and what it’s nature is so activities and processes don’t continue to proliferate without being managed.

Betz believes part of the reason IT has not better managed itself to date is because the level of complexity within IT has grown so quickly. He likens it to the frog in the boiling water metaphor—if the heat is turned up incrementally, the frog doesn’t know what’s hit him until it’s too late.

“Back when you had one computer it just wasn’t a concern,” he said. “You had very few systems that you were automating. It’s not that way nowadays. You have thousands of them. The application portfolio in major enterprises—depending on how you count applications, which is not an easy question in and of itself—the range is between 5000-10,000 applications. One hundred thousand servers is not unheard of. These are massive numbers, and the complexity is unimaginable. The potential for emergent chaotic behavior is unprecedented in human technological development.”

Betz believes the reason there is a perception that IT is poorly managed is also because it’s at the cutting-edge of every management question in business today. And because no one has ever dealt with systems and issues this complex before, it’s difficult to get a handle on them. Which is why the time for creating a framework for how IT can be managed has come.

IT4IT

The IT4IT Forum grew out of a joint initiative that was originally undertaken by Royal Dutch Shell and HP. Begun as a high-level user group within HP, companies such as Accenture, Achmea, Munich RE and PwC have also been integral in pulling together the initial work that has been provided to The Open Group to create the Forum. As the group began to develop a framework, it was clear that what they were developing needed to become an open standard, Betz says, so the group turned to The Open Group.

“It was pretty clear that The Open Group was the best fit for this,” he says. “There was clearly recognition and understanding on the part of The Open Group senior staff that this was a huge opportunity. They were very positive about it from the get-go.”

Currently in development, the IT4IT standard will provide guidance and specifications for how IT departments can provide consistent end-to-end service across the IT Value Chain and lifecycle. The IT Value Chain is meant to provide a model for managing the IT services life cycle and for how those service can be brokered with enterprises. By providing the IT similar level functionality as other critical business functions (such as finance or HR), IT is enabled to achieve better levels of predictability and efficiency.

By The Open Group

Betz says developing a Reference Architecture for IT4IT will be helpful for IT departments because it will provide a tested model for departments to begin the process of better management. And having that model be created by a vendor-neutral consortium helps provide credibility for users because no one company is profiting from it.

“It’s the community telling itself a story of what it wants to be,” he said.

The Reference Architecture will not only include prescriptive methods for how to design, procure and implement the functionality necessary to better manage IT departments but will also include real-world use cases related to current industry trends such as Cloud-sourcing, Agile, Dev-Ops and service brokering. As an open standard, it will also be designed to work with existing industry standards that IT departments may already be using including ITIL®, CoBIT®, SAFe® and TOGAF®, an Open Group standard.

With almost 200 pages of material already developed toward a standard, Betz says the Forum released its initial Snapshot for the standard available in late November. From there the Forum will need to decide which sections should be included as normative parts for the standard. The hope is to have the first version of the IT4IT Reference Architecture standard available next summer, Betz says.

For more on The Open Group IT4IT Forum or to become a member, please visit http://www.opengroup.org/IT4IT.

 

Comments Off on The Business of Managing IT: The Open Group IT4IT™ Forum

Filed under architecture, IT, IT4IT, Standards, Uncategorized, Value Chain

The Open Group London 2014: Eight Questions on Retail Architecture

By The Open Group

If there’s any vertical sector that has been experiencing constant and massive transformation in the ages of the Internet and social media, it’s the retail sector. From the ability to buy goods whenever and however you’d like (in store, online and now, through mobile devices) to customers taking to social media to express their opinions about brands and service, retailers have a lot to deal with.

Glue Reply is a UK-based consulting firm that has worked with some of Europe’s largest retailers to help them plan their Enterprise Architectures and deal with the onslaught of constant technological change. Glue Reply Partner Daren Ward and Senior Consultant Richard Veryard sat down recently to answer our questions about how the challenges of building architectures for the retail sector, the difficulties of seasonal business and the need to keep things simple and agile. Ward spoke at The Open Group London 2014 on October 20.

What are some of the biggest challenges facing the retail industry right now?

There are a number of well-documented challenges facing the retail sector. Retailers are facing new competitors, especially from discount chains, as well as online-only retailers such as Amazon. Retailers are also experiencing an increasing fragmentation of spend—for example, grocery customers buying smaller quantities more frequently.

At the same time, the customer expectations are higher, especially across multiple channels. There is an increased intolerance of poor customer service, and people’s expectations of prompt response is increasing rapidly, especially via social media.

There is also an increasing concern regarding cost. Many retailers have huge amounts invested in physical space and human resources. They can’t just keep increasing these costs, they must understand how to become more efficient and create new ways to make use of these resources.

What role is technology playing in those changes, and which technologies are forcing the most change?

New technologies are allowing us to provide shoppers with a personalized customer experience more akin to an old school type service like when the store manager knew my name, my collar size, etc. Combining technologies such as mobile and iBeacons is allowing us to not only reach out to our customers, but to also provide a context and increase relevance.

Some retailers are becoming extremely adept in using social media. The challenge here is to link the social media with the business process, so that the customer service agent can quickly check the relevant stock position and reserve the stock before posting a response on Facebook.

Big data is becoming one of the key technology drivers. Large retailers are able to mobilize large amounts of data, both from their own operations as well as external sources. Some retailers have become highly data-driven enterprises, with the ability to make rapid adjustments to marketing campaigns and physical supply chains. As we gather more data from more devices all plugged into the Internet of Things (IoT), technology can help us make sense of this data and spot trends we didn’t realize existed.

What role can Enterprise Architecture play in helping retailers, and what can retailers gain from taking an architectural approach to their business?

One of the key themes of the digital transformation is the ability to personalize the service, to really better understand our customers and to hold a conversation with them that is meaningful. We believe there are four key foundation blocks to achieving this seamless digital transformation: the ability to change, to integrate, to drive value from data and to understand the customer journey. Core to the ability to change is a business-driven roadmap. It provides all involved with a common language, a common set of goals and a target vision. This roadmap is not a series of hurdles that must be delivered, but rather a direction of travel towards the target allowing us to assess the impact of course corrections as we go and ensure we are still capable of arriving at our destination. This is how we create an agile environment, where tactical changes are still simple course corrections continuing on the right direction of travel.

Glue Reply provides a range of architecture services to our retail clients, from capability led planning to practical development of integration solutions. For example, we produced a five-year roadmap for Sainsbury’s, which allows IT investment to combine longer-term foundation projects with short-term initiatives that can respond rapidly to customer demand.

Are there issues specific to the retail sector that are particularly challenging to deal with in creating an architecture and why?

Retail is a very seasonal business—sometimes this leaves a very small window for business improvements. This also exaggerates the differences in the business and IT lifecycles. The business strategy can change at a pace often driven by external factors, whilst elements of IT have a lifespan of many years. This is why we need a roadmap—to assess the impact of these changes and re-plan and prioritize our activities.

Are there some retailers that you think are doing a good job of handling these technology challenges? Which ones are getting it right?

Our client John Lewis has just been named ‘Omnichannel Retailer of the Year’ at the World Retail Awards 2014. They have a vision, and they can assess the impact of change. We have seen similar success at Sainsbury’s, where initiatives such as brand match are brought to market with real pace and quality.

How can industry standards help to support the retail industry?

Where appropriate, we have used industry standards such as the ARTS (Association for Retail Standards) data model to assist our clients in creating a version that is good enough. But mostly, we use our own business reference models, which we have built up over many years of experience working with a range of different retail businesses.

What can other industries learn from how retailers are incorporating architecture into their operations?

The principle of omnichannel has a lot of relevance for other consumer-facing organizations, but also retail’s focus on loyalty. It’s not about creating a sale stampede, it’s about the brand. Apple is clearly an excellent example—when people queue for hours to be the first to buy the new product, at a price that will only reduce over time. Some retailers are making great use of customer data and profiling. And above, all successful retailers understand three key architectural principles that will drive success in any other sector—keep it simple, drive value and execute well.

What can retailers do to continue to best meet customer expectations into the future?

It’s no longer about the channel, it’s about the conversation. We have worked with the biggest brands in Europe, helping them deliver multichannel solutions that consider the conversation. The retailer that enables this conversation will better understand their customers’ needs and build long-term relationships.

By The Open GroupDaren Ward is a Partner at Reply in the UK. As well as being a practicing Enterprise Architecture, Daren is responsible for the development of the Strategy and Architecture business as well as playing a key role in driving growth of Reply in the UK. He is committed to helping organizations drive genuine business value from IT investments, working with both commercial focused business units and IT professionals.  Daren has helped establish Architecture practices at many organizations. Be it enterprise, solutions, integration or information architecture, he has helped these practices delivery real business value through capability led architecture and business-driven roadmaps.

 

RichardVeryard 2 June 2014Richard Veryard is a Business Architect and author, specializing in capability-led planning, systems thinking and organizational intelligence. Last year, Richard joined Glue Reply as a senior consultant in the retail sector.

 

Comments Off on The Open Group London 2014: Eight Questions on Retail Architecture

Filed under big data, Business Architecture, digital technologies, Enterprise Architecture, Internet of Things, Uncategorized