Tag Archives: Dana Gardner

Securing Business Operations and Critical Infrastructure: Trusted Technology, Procurement Paradigms, Cyber Insurance

Following is the transcript of an Open Group discussion on ways to address supply chain risk in the information technology sector marketplace.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes. Get the mobile app for iOS or Android. Sponsor: The Open Group

Dana Gardner: Hello, and welcome to a special Thought Leadership Panel Discussion, coming to you in conjunction with The Open Group’s upcoming conference on July 20, 2015 in Baltimore.

I’m Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, and I’ll be your host and moderator as we explore ways to address supply chain risk in the information technology sector market.

We’ll specifically examine how The Open Group Trusted Technology Forum (OTTF) standards and accreditation activities are enhancing the security of global supply chains and improving the integrity of openly available IT products and components.

We’ll also learn how the age-old practice of insurance is coming to bear on the problem of IT supply-chain risk, and by leveraging insurance models, the specter of supply chain disruption and security yields may be significantly reduced.

To update us on the work of the OTTF and explain the workings and benefits of supply-chain insurance, we’re joined by our panel of experts. Please join me in welcoming Sally Long, Director of The Open Group Trusted Technology Forum. Welcome, Sally.

Sally Long: Thank you.

Gardner: We’re also here with Andras Szakal, Vice President and Chief Technology Officer for IBM U.S. Federal and Chairman of The Open Group Trusted Technology Forum. Welcome back, Andras.

Andras Szakal: Thank you for having me.

Gardner: And Bob Dix joins us. He is Vice President of Global Government Affairs and Public Policy for Juniper Networks and is a member of The Open Group Trusted Technology Forum. Welcome, Bob.

Bob Dix: Thank you for the invitation. Glad to be here.

Gardner: Lastly, we are joined by Dan Reddy, Supply Chain Assurance Specialist, college instructor and Lead of The Open Group Trusted Technology Forum Global Outreach and Standards Harmonization Work Group. Thanks for being with us, Dan.

Dan Reddy: Glad to be here, Dana.

Gardner: Sally, let’s start with you. Why don’t we just get a quick update on The Open Group Trusted Technology Forum (OTTF) and the supply-chain accreditation process generally? What has been going on?

OTTP standard

Long: For some of you who might not have heard of the O-TTPS, which is the standard, it’s called The Open Trusted Technology Provider™ Standard. The effort started with an initiative in 2009, a roundtable discussion with U.S. government and several ICT vendors, on how to identify trustworthy commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) information and communication technology (ICT), basically driven by the fact that governments were moving away from high assurance customized solution and more and more using COTS ICT.

That ad-hoc group formed under The OTTF and proceeded to deliver a standard and an accreditation program.

The standard really provides a set of best practices to be used throughout the COTS ICT product life cycle. That’s both during in-house development, as well as with outsourced development and manufacturing, including the best practices to use for security in the supply chain, encompassing all phases from design to disposal.

Just to bring you up to speed on just some of the milestones that we’ve had, we released our 1.0 version of the standard in 2013, launched our accreditation program to help assure conformance to the standard in February 2014, and then in July, we released our 1.1 version of the standard. We have now submitted that version to ISO for approval as a publicly available specification (PAS) and it’s a fast track for ISO.

The PAS is a process for adopting standards developed in other standards development organizations (SDOs), and the O-TTPS has passed the draft ISO ballot. Now, it’s coming up for final ballot.

That should bring folks up to speed, Dana, and let them know where we are today.

Gardner: Is there anything in particular at The Open Group Conference in Baltimore, coming up in July, that pertains to these activities? Is this something that’s going to be more than just discussed? Is there something of a milestone nature here too?

Long: Monday, July 20, is the Cyber Security Day of the Baltimore Conference. We’re going to be meeting in the plenary with many of the U.S. government officials from NIST, GSA, and the Department of Homeland Security. So there is going to be a big plenary discussion on cyber security and supply chain.

We’ll also be meeting separately as a member forum, but the whole open track on Monday will be devoted to cyber security and supply chain security.

The one milestone that might coincide is that we’re publishing our Chinese translation version of the standard 1.1 and we might be announcing that then. I think that’s about it, Dana.

OTTF background

Gardner: Andras, for the benefit of our listeners and readers who might be new to this concept, perhaps you could fill us in on the background on the types of problems that OTTF and the initiatives and standards are designed to solve. What’s the problem that we need to address here?

Szakal: That’s a great question. We realized, over the last 5 to 10 years, that the traditional supply-chain management practices, supply-chain integrity practices, where we were ensuring the integrity of the delivery of a product to the end customer, ensuring that it wasn’t tampered with, effectively managing our suppliers to ensure they provided us with quality components really had expanded as a result of the adoption of technology and the pervasive growth of technology in all aspects of manufacturing, but especially as IT has expanded into the Internet of Things, critical infrastructure and mobile technologies, and now obviously cloud and big data.

And as we manufacture those IT products we have to recognize that now we’re in a global environment, and manufacturing and sourcing of components occurs worldwide. In some cases, some of these components are even open source or freely available. We’re concerned, obviously, about the lineage, but also the practices of how these products are manufactured from a secure engineering perspective, as well as the supply-chain integrity and supply-chain security practices.

What we’ve recognized here is that the traditional life cycle of supplychain security and integrity has expanded to include all the way down to the design aspects of the product through sustainment and managing that product over a period of time, from cradle to grave, and disposal of the product to ensure that those components, if they were hardware-based, don’t actually end up recycled in a way that they pose a threat to our customers.

Gardner: So it’s as much a lifecycle as it is a procurement issue.

Szakal: Absolutely. When you talk about procurement, you’re talking about lifecycle and about mitigating risks to those two different aspects from sourcing and from manufacturing.

So from the customer’s perspective, they need to be considering how they actually apply techniques to ensure that they are sourcing from authorized channels, that they are also applying the same techniques that we use for secure engineering when they are doing the integration of their IT infrastructure.

But from a development perspective, it’s ensuring that we’re applying secure engineering techniques, that we have a well-defined baseline for our life cycle, and that we’re controlling our assets effectively. We understand who our partners are and we’re able to score them and ensure that we’re tracking their integrity and that we’re applying new techniques around secure engineering, like threat analysis and risk analysis to the supply chain.

We’re understanding the current risk landscape and applying techniques like vulnerability analysis and runtime protection techniques that would allow us to mitigate many of these risks as we build out our products and manufacture them.

It goes all the way through sustainment. You probably recognize now, most people would, that your products are no longer a shrink-wrap product that you get, install, and it lives for a year or two before you update it. It’s constantly being updated. So to ensure that the integrity and delivery of that update is consistent with the principles that we are trying to espouse is also really important.

Collaborative effort

Gardner: And to that point, no product stands alone. It’s really a result of a collaborative effort, very complex number of systems coming together. Not only are standards necessary, but cooperation among all those players in that ecosystem becomes necessary.

Dan Reddy, how have we done in terms of getting mutual assurance across a supply chain that all the participants are willing to take part? It seems to me that, if there is a weak link, everyone would benefit by shoring that up. So how do we go beyond the standards? How are we getting cooperation, get all the parties interested in contributing and being part of this?

Reddy: First of all, it’s an evolutionary process, and we’re still in the early days of fully communicating what the best practices are, what the standards are, and getting people to understand how that relates to their place in the supply chain.

Certainly, the supplier community would benefit by following some common practices so they don’t wind up answering customized survey questions from all of their customers.

That’s what’s happening today. It’s pretty much a one-off situation, where each customer says, “I need to protect my supply chain. Let me go find out what all of my suppliers are doing.” The real benefit here is to have the common language of the requirements in our standard and a way to measure it.

So there should be an incentive for the suppliers to take a look at that and say, “I’m tired of answering these individual survey questions. Maybe if I just document my best practices, I can avoid some of the effort that goes along with that individual approach.”

Everyone needs to understand that value proposition across the supply chain. Part of what we’re trying to do with the Baltimore conference is to talk to some thought leaders and continue to get the word out about the value proposition here.

Gardner: Bob Dix, the government in the U.S., and of course across the globe, all the governments, are major purchasers of technology and also have a great stake in security and low risk. What’s been driving some of the government activities? Of course, they’re also interested in using off-the-shelf technology and cutting costs. So what’s the role that governments can play in driving some of these activities around the OTTF?

Risk management

Dix: This issue of supply chain assurance and cyber security is all about risk management, and it’s a shared responsibility. For too long I think that the government has had a tendency to want to point a finger at the private sector as not sufficiently attending to this matter.

The fact is, Dana, that many in the private sector make substantial investments in their product integrity program, as Andras was talking about, from product conception, to delivery, to disposal. What’s really important is that when that investment is made and when companies apply the standard the OTTF has put forward, it’s incumbent upon the government to do their part in purchasing from authorized and trusted sources.

In today’s world, we still have a culture that’s pervasive across the government acquisition community, where decision-making on procurements is often driven by cost and schedule, and product authenticity, assurance, and security are not necessarily a part of that equation. It’s driven in many cases by budgets and other considerations, but nonetheless, we must change that culture to focus to include authenticity and assurance as a part of the decision making process.

The result of focusing on cost and schedule is often those acquisitions are made from untrusted and unauthorized sources, which raises the risk of acquiring counterfeit, tainted, or even malicious equipment.

Part of the work of the OTTF is to present to all stakeholders, in industry and government alike, that there is a process that can be uniform, as has been stated by Sally and Dan as well, that can be applied in an environment to raise the bar of authenticity, security, and assurance to improve upon that risk management approach.

Gardner: Sally, we’ve talked about where you’re standing in terms of some progress in your development around these standards and activities. We’ve heard about the challenges and the need for improvement.

Before we talk about this really interesting concept of insurance that would come to bear on perhaps encouraging standardization and giving people more ways to reduce their risk and adhere to best practices, what do you expect to see in a few years? If things go well and if this is adopted widely and embraced in true good practices, what’s the result? What do we expect to see as an improvement?

What I am trying to get at here is that if there’s a really interesting golden nugget to shoot for, a golden ring to grab for, what is that we can accomplish by doing this well?

Powerful impact

Long: The most important and significant aspect of the accreditation program is when you look at the holistic nature of the program and how it could have a very powerful impact if it’s widely adopted.

The idea of an accreditation program is that a provider gets accredited for conforming to the best practices. A provider that can get accredited could be an integrator, an OEM, the component suppliers of hardware and software that provide the components to the OEM, and the value-add resellers and distributors.

Every important constituent in that supply chain could be accredited. So not only from a business perspective is it important for governments and commercial customers to look on the Accreditation Registry and see who has been accredited for the integrators they want to work with or for the OEMs they want to work with, but it’s also important and beneficial for OEMs to be able to look at that register and say, “These component suppliers are accredited. So I’ll work with them as business partners.” It’s the same for value-add resellers and distributors.

It builds in these real business-market incentives to make the concept work, and in the end, of course, the ultimate goal of having a more secure supply chain and more products with integrity will be achieved.

To me, that is one of the most important aspects that we can reach for, especially if we reach out internationally. What we’re starting to see internationally is that localized requirements are cropping up in different countries. What that’s going to mean is that vendors need to meet those different requirements, increasing their cost, and sometimes even there will end up being trade barriers.

Back to what Dan and Bob were saying, we need to look at this global standard and accreditation program that already exists. It’s not in development; we’ve been working on it for five years with consensus from many, many of the major players in the industry and government. So urging global adoption of what already exists and what could work holistically is really an important objective for our next couple of years.

Gardner: It certainty sounds like a win, win, win if everyone can participate, have visibility, and get designated as having followed through on those principles. But as you know and as you mentioned, it’s the marketplace. Economics often drives business behavior. So in addition to a standards process and the definitions being available, what is it about this notion of insurance that might be a parallel market force that would help encourage better practices and ultimately move more companies in this direction?

Let’s start with Dan. Explain to me how cyber insurance, as it pertains to the supply chain, would work?

Early stages

Reddy: It’s an interesting question. The cyber insurance industry is still in the early stages, even though it goes back to the ’70s, where crime insurance started applying to outsiders gaining physical access to computer systems. You didn’t really see the advent of hacker insurance policies until the late ’90s. Then, starting in 2000, some of the first forms of cyber insurance covering first and third party started to appear.

What we’re seeing today is primarily related to the breaches that we hear about in the paper everyday, where some organization has been comprised, and sensitive information, like credit card information, is exposed for thousands of customers. The remediation is geared toward the companies that have to pay the claim and sign people up for identity protection. It’s pretty cut and dried. That’s the wave that the insurance industry is riding right now.

What I see is that as attacks get to be more sophisticated and potentially include attacks on the supply chain, it’s going to represent a whole new area for cyber insurance. Having consistent ways to address supplier-related risk, as well as the other infrastructure related risks that go beyond simple data breach, is going to be where the marketplace has to make an adjustment. Standardization is critical there.

Gardner: Andras, how does this work in conjunction with OTTF? Would insurance companies begin their risk assessment by making sure that participants in the supply chain are already adhering to your standards and seeking accreditation? Then, maybe they would have premiums that would reflect the diligence that companies extend into their supply chains. Maybe you could just explain to me, not just the insurance, but how it would work in conjunction with OTTF, maybe to each’s mutual benefit.

Szakal: You made a really great point earlier about the economic element that would drive compliance. For us in IBM, the economic element is the ability to prove that we’re providing the right assurance that is being specified in the requests for proposals (RFPs), not only in the federal sector, but outside the federal sector in critical infrastructure and finance. We continue to win those opportunities, and that’s driven our compliance, as well as the government policy aspect worldwide.

But from an insurance point of view, insurance comes in two forms. I buy policy insurance in a case where there are risks that are out of my control, and I apply protective measures that are under my control. So in the case of the supply chain, the OTTF is a set of practices that help you gain control and lower the risk of threat in the manufacturing process.

The question is, do you buy a policy, and what’s the balance here between a cyber threat that is in your control, and those aspects of supply chain security which are out of your control? This is with the understanding that there is an infinite number of a resources or revenue that you can apply to allocate to both of these aspects.

There’s going to have to be a balance, and it really is going to be case by case, with respect to customers and manufacturers, as to where the loss of potential intellectual property (IP) with insurance, versus applying controls. Those resources are better applied where they actually have control, versus that of policies that are protecting you against things that are out of your control.

For example, you might buy a policy for providing code to a third party, which has high value IP to manufacture a component. You have to share that information with that third-party supplier to actually manufacture that component as part of the overarching product, but with the realization that if that third party is somehow hacked or intruded on and that IP is stolen, you have lost some significant amount of value. That will be an area where insurance would be applicable.

What’s working

Gardner: Bob Dix, if insurance comes to bear in conjunction with standards like what the OTTF is developing in supply chain assurance, it seems to me that the insurance providers themselves would be in a position of gathering information for their actuarial decisions and could be a clearing house for what’s working and what isn’t working.

It would be in their best interest to then share that back into the marketplace in order to reduce the risk. That’s a market-driven, data-driven approach that could benefit everyone. Do you see the advent of insurance as a benefit or accelerant to improvement here?

Dix: It’s a tool. This is a conversation that’s been going on in the community for quite some time, the lack of actuarial data for catastrophic losses produced by cyber events, that is impacting some of the rate setting and premium setting by insurance companies, and that has continued to be a challenge.

But from an incentive standpoint, it’s just like in your home. If you have an alarm system, if you have a fence, if you do other kinds of protective measures, your insurance on your homeowners or liability insurance may get a reduction in premium for those actions that you have taken.

As an incentive, the opportunity to have an insurance policy to either transfer or buy down risk can be driven by the type of controls that you have in your environment. The standard that the OTTF has put forward provides guidance about how best to accomplish that. So, there is an opportunity to leverage, as an incentive, the reduction in premiums for insurance to transfer or buy down risk.

Gardner: It’s interesting, Sally, that the insurance industry could benefit from OTTF, and by having more insurance available in the marketplace, it could encourage more participation and make the standard even more applicable and valuable. So it’s interesting to see over time how that plays out.

Any thoughts or comments on the relationship between what you are doing at OTTF and The Open Group and what the private insurance industry is moving toward?

Long: I agree with what everyone has said. It’s an up-and-coming field, and there is a lot more focus on it. I hear at every conference I go to, there is a lot more research on cyber security insurance. There is a place for the O-TTPS in terms of buying down risk, as Bob was mentioning.

The other thing that’s interesting is the NIST Cybersecurity Framework. That whole paradigm started out with the fact that there would be incentives for those that followed the NIST Cybersecurity Framework – that incentive piece became very hard to pull together, and still is. To my knowledge, there are no incentives yet associated with it. But insurance was one of the ideas they talked about for incentivizing adopters of the CSF.

The other thing that I think came out of one of the presentations that Dan and Larry Clinton will be giving at our Baltimore Conference, is that insurers are looking for simplicity. They don’t want to go into a client’s environment and have them prove that they are doing all of these things required of them or filling out a long checklist.

That’s why, in terms of simplicity, asking for O-TTPS-accredited providers or lowering their rates based on that – would be a very simplistic approach, but again not here yet. As Bob said, it’s been talked about a lot for a long time, but I think it is coming to the fore.

Market of interest

Gardner: Dan Reddy, back to you. When there is generally a large addressable market of interest in a product or service, there often rises a commercial means to satisfy that. How can enterprises, the people who are consuming these products, encourage acceptance of these standards, perhaps push for a stronger insurance capability in the marketplace, or also get involved with some of these standards and practices that we have been talking about?

If you’re a publicly traded company, you would want to reduce your exposure and be able to claim accreditation and insurance as well. Let’s look at this from the perspective of the enterprise. What should and could they be doing to improve on this?

Reddy: I want to link back to what Sally said about the NIST Cyber Security Framework. What’s been very useful in publishing the Framework is that it gives enterprises a way to talk about their overall operational risk in a consistent fashion.

I was at one of the workshops sponsored by NIST where enterprises that had adopted it talked about what they were doing internally in their own enterprises in changing their practices, improving their security, and using the language of the framework to address that.

Yet, when they talked about one aspect of their risk, their supplier risk, they were trying to send the NIST Cybersecurity Framework risk questions to their suppliers, and those questions aren’t really sufficient. They’re interesting. You care about the enterprise of your supplier, but you really care about the products of your supplier.

So one of the things that the OTTF did is look at the requirements in our standard related to suppliers and link them specifically to the same operational areas that were included in the NIST Cybersecurity Framework.

This gives the standard enterprise looking at risk, trying to do standard things, a way to use the language of our requirements in the standard and the accreditation program as a form of measurement to see how that aspect of supplier risk would be addressed.

But remember, cyber insurance is more than just the risk of suppliers. It’s the risk at the enterprise level. But the attacks are going to change over time, and we’ll go beyond the simple breaches. That’s where the added complexity will be needed.

Gardner: Andras, any suggestions for how enterprises, suppliers, vendors, systems integrators, and now, of course, the cloud services providers, should get involved? Where can they go for more information? What can they do to become part of the solution on this?

International forum

Szakal: Well, they can always become a member of the Trusted Technology Forum, where we have an international forum.

Gardner: I thought you might say that.

Szakal: That’s an obvious one, right? But there are a couple of places where you can go to learn more about this challenge.

One is certainly our website. Download the framework, which was a compendium of best practices, which we gathered as a result of a lot of hard work of sharing in an open, penalty-free environment all of the best practices that the major vendors are employing to mitigate risks to counterfeit and maliciously tainted products, as well as other supply chain risks. I think that’s a good start, understanding the standard.

Then, it’s looking at how you might measure the standard against what your practices are currently using the accreditation criteria that we have established.

Other places would be NIST. I believe that it’s 161 that is the current pending standard for protecting supply chain security. There are several really good reports that the Defense Science Board and other organizations have conducted in the past within the federal government space. There are plenty of materials out there, a lot of discussion about challenges.

But I think the only place where you really find solutions, or at least one of the only places that I have seen is in the TTF, embedded in the standard as a set of practices that are very practical to implement.

Gardner: Sally, the same question to you. Where can people go to get involved? What should they perhaps do to get started?

Long: I’d reiterate what Andras said. I’d also point them toward the accreditation website, which is www.opengroup.org/accreditation/o-ttps. And on that accreditation site you can see the policy, standard and supporting docs. We publicize our assessment procedures so you have a good idea of what the assessment process will entail.

The program is based on evidence of conformance as well as a warranty from the applicant. So the assessment procedures being public will allow any organizations thinking about getting accredited to know exactly what they need to do.

As always, we would appreciate any new members, because we’ll be evolving the standard and the accreditation program, and it is done by consensus. So if you want a say in that, whether our standard needs to be stronger, weaker, broader, etc., join the forum and help us evolve it.

Impact on business

Gardner: Dan Reddy, when we think about managing these issues, often it falls on the shoulders of IT and their security apparatus, the Chief Information Security Officer perhaps. But it seems that the impact on business is growing. So should other people in the enterprise be thinking about this? I am thinking about procurement or the governance risk and compliance folks. Who else should be involved other than IT in their security apparatus in mitigating the risks as far as IT supply chain activity?

Reddy: You’re right that the old model of everything falls on IT is expanding, and now you see issues of enterprise risk and supply chain risk making it up to the boards of directors, who are asking tough questions. That’s one reason why boards look at cyber insurance as a way to mitigate some of the risk that they can’t control.

They’re asking tough questions all the way around, and I think acquisition people do need to understand what are the right questions to ask of technology providers.

To me, this comes back to scalability. This one-off approach of everyone asking questions of each of their vendors just isn’t going to make it. The advantage that we have here is that we have a consistent standard, built by consensus, freely available, and it’s measurable.

There are a lot of other good documents that talk about supply chain risk and secure engineering, but you can’t get a third-party assessment in a straightforward method, and I think that’s going to be appealing over time.

Gardner: Bob Dix, last word to you. What do you see happening in the area of government affairs and public policy around these issues? What should we hope for or expect from different governments in creating an atmosphere that improves risk across supply chain?

Dix: A couple things have to happen, Dana. First, we have got to quit blaming victims when we have breaches and compromises and start looking at solutions. The government has a tendency in the United States and in other countries around the world, to look at legislating and trying to pass regulatory measures that impose requirements on industry without a full understanding of what industry is already doing.

In this particular example, the government has had a tendency to take an approach that excludes vendors from being able to participate in federal procurement activities based on a risk level that they determine.

The really great thing about the work of the OTTF and the standard that’s being produced is it allows a different way to look at it and instead look at those that are accredited as having met the standard and being able to provide a higher assurance level of authenticity and security around the products and services that they deliver. I think that’s a much more productive approach.

Working together

And from a standpoint of public policy, this example on the great work that’s being done by industry and government working together globally to be able to deliver the standard provides the government a basis by which they can think about it a little differently.

Instead of just focusing on who they want to exclude, let’s look at who actually is delivering the value and meeting the requirements to be a trusted provider. That’s a different approach and it’s one that we are very proud of in terms of the work of The Open Group and we will continue to work that going forward.

Gardner: Excellent. I’m afraid we will have to leave it there. We’ve been exploring ways to address supply chain risk in the information technology sector marketplace, and we’ve seen how The Open Group Trusted Technology Forum standards and accreditation activities are enhancing the security of global supply chain and improving the integrity of openly available IT products and components. And we have also learned how the age-old practice of insurance is coming to bear on the problem of IT supply chain risk.

This special BriefingsDirect Thought Leadership Panel Discussion comes to you in conjunction with The Open Group’s upcoming conference on July 20, 2015 in Baltimore. It’s not too late to register on The Open Group’s website or to follow the proceedings online and via Twitter and other social media during the week of the presentation.

So a big thank you to our guests. We’ve been joined today by Sally Long, Director of The Open Group Trusted Technology Forum. Thanks so much, Sally.

Long: Thank you, Dana.

Gardner: And a big thank you to Andras Szakal, Vice President and Chief Technology Officer for IBM U.S. Federal and Chairman of The Open Group Trusted Technology Forum. Thank you, Andras.

Szakal: Thank you very much for having us and come join the TTF. We can use all the help we can get.

Gardner: Great. A big thank you too to Bob Dix, Vice President of Global Government Affairs & Public Policy for Juniper Networks and a member of The Open Group Trusted Technology Forum. Thanks, Bob.

Dix: Appreciate the invitation. I look forward to joining you again.

Gardner: And lastly, thank you to Dan Reddy, Supply Chain Assurance Specialist, college instructor and Lead of The Open Group Trusted Technology Forum Global Outreach and Standards Harmonization Work Group. I appreciate your input, Dan.

Reddy: Glad to be here.

Gardner: And lastly, a big thank you to our audience for joining us at the special Open Group sponsored Thought Leadership Panel Discussion.

I’m Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, your host and moderator for these Open Group discussions associated with the Baltimore Conference ( (Register Here). Thanks again for listening, and come back next time.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes. Get the mobile app for iOS or Android. Sponsor: The Open Group

Join the conversation @theopengroup #ogchat #ogBWI

Transcript of a Briefings Direct discussion on ways to address supply chain risk in the information technology sector marketplace. Copyright The Open Group and Interarbor Solutions, LLC, 2005-2015. All rights reserved.

You may also be interested in:

1 Comment

Filed under Cybersecurity, OTTF, Supply chain risk, The Open Group Baltimore 2015

The Open Group Panel Explores How the Big Data Era Now Challenges the IT Status Quo

By Dana Gardner, Interarbor Solutions

Listen to the recorded podcast here: The Open Group panel explores how the Big Data era now challenges the IT status quo, or view the on-demand video recording on this discussion here: http://new.livestream.com/opengroup/events/1838807.

We recently assembled a panel of experts to explore how Big Data changes the status quo for architecting the enterprise. The bottom line from the discussion is that large enterprises should not just wade into Big Data as an isolated function, but should anticipate the strategic effects and impacts of Big Data — as well the simultaneous complicating factors of Cloud Computing and mobile– as soon as possible.

The panel consisted of Robert Weisman, CEO and Chief Enterprise Architect at Build The Vision; Andras Szakal, Vice President and CTO of IBM’s Federal Division; Jim Hietala, Vice President for Security at The Open Group, and Chris Gerty, Deputy Program Manager at the Open Innovation Program at NASA. I served as the moderator.

And this special thought leadership interview series comes to you in conjunction with The Open Group Conference recently held in Newport Beach, California. The conference focused on “Big Data — he transformation we need to embrace today.”

Threaded factors

An interesting thread for me throughout the conference was to factor where Big Data begins and plain old data, if you will, ends. Of course, it’s going to vary quite a bit from organization to organization.

But Gerty from NASA, part of our panel, provided a good example: It’s when you run out of gas with your old data methods, and your ability to deal with the data — and it’s not just the size of the data itself.

Therefore, Big Data means do things differently — not just to manage the velocity and the volume and the variety of the data, but to really think about data fundamentally and differently. And, we need to think about security, risk and governance. If it’s a “boundaryless organization” when it comes your data, either as a product or service or a resource, that control and management of which data should be exposed, which should be opened, and which should be very closely guarded all need to be factored, determined and implemented.

Here are some excerpts from the on-stage discussion:

Dana Gardner: You mentioned that Big Data to you is not a factor of the size, because NASA’s dealing with so much. It’s when you run out of steam, as it were, with the methodologies. Maybe you could explain more. When do you know that you’ve actually run out of steam with the methodologies?

Gerty: When we collect data, we have some sort of goal in minds of what we might get out of it. When we put the pieces from the data together, it either maybe doesn’t fit as well as you thought or you are successful and you continue to do the same thing, gathering archives of information.

Gardner: Andras, does that square with where you are in your government interactions — that data now becomes a different type of resource, and that you need to know when to do things differently?At that point, where you realize there might even something else that you want to do with the data, different than what you planned originally, that’s when we have to pivot a little bit and say, “Now I need to treat this as a living archive. It’s a ‘it may live beyond me’ type of thing.” At that point, I think you treat it as setting up the infrastructure for being used later, whether it’d be by you or someone else. That’s an important transition to make and might be what one could define as Big Data.

Szakal: The importance of data hasn’t changed. The data itself, the veracity of the data, is still important. Transactional data will always need to exist. The difference is that you have certainly the three or four Vs, depending on how you look at it, but the importance of data is in its veracity, and your ability to understand or to be able to use that data before the data’s shelf life runs out.

Gardner: Bob, we’ve seen the price points on storage go down so dramatically. We’ve seem people just decide to hold on to data that they wouldn’t have before, simply because they can and they can afford to do so. That means we need to try to extract value and use that data. From the perspective of an enterprise architect, how are things different now, vis-à-vis this much larger set of data and variety of data, when it comes to planning and executing as architects?Some data has a shelf life that’s long lived. Other data has very little shelf life, and you would use different approaches to being able to utilize that information. It’s ultimately not about the data itself, but it’s about gaining deep insight into that data. So it’s not storing data or manipulating data, but applying those analytical capabilities to data.

Weisman: One of the major issues is that normally organizations are holding two orders of magnitude more data then they need. It’s an huge overhead, both in terms of the applications architecture that has a code basis, larger than it should be, and also from the technology architecture that is supporting a horrendous number of servers and a whole bunch of technology stuff that they don’t need.

The issue for the architect is to figure out as what data is useful, institute a governance process, so that you can have data lifecycle management, have a proper disposition,  focus the organization on information data and knowledge that is basically going to provide business value to the organization, and help them innovate and have a competitive advantage.

Can’t afford it

And in terms of government, just improve service delivery, because there’s waste right now on information infrastructure, and we can’t afford it anymore.

Gardner: So it’s difficult to know what to keep and what not to keep. I’ve actually spoken to a few people lately who want to keep everything, just because they want to mine it, and they are willing to spend the money and effort to do that.

Jim Hietala, when people do get to this point of trying to decide what to keep, what not to keep, and how to architect properly for that, they also need to factor in security. It shouldn’t become later in the process. It should come early. What are some of the precepts that you think are important in applying good security practices to Big Data?

Hietala: One of the big challenges is that many of the big-data platforms weren’t built from the get-go with security in mind. So some of the controls that you’ve had available in your relational databases, for instance, you move over to the Big Data platforms and the access control authorizations and mechanisms are not there today.

Gardner: There are a lot of unknown unknowns out there, as we discovered with our tweet chat last month. Some people think that the data is just data, and you apply the same security to it. Do you think that’s the case with Big Data? Is it just another follow-through of what you always did with data in the first place?Planning the architecture, looking at bringing in third-party controls to give you the security mechanisms that you are used to in your older platforms, is something that organizations are going to have to do. It’s really an evolving and emerging thing at this point.

Hietala: I would say yes, at a conceptual level, but it’s like what we saw with virtualization. When there was a mad rush to virtualize everything, many of those traditional security controls didn’t translate directly into the virtualized world. The same thing is true with Big Data.

When you’re talking about those volumes of data, applying encryption, applying various security controls, you have to think about how those things are going to scale? That may require new solutions from new technologies and that sort of thing.

Gardner: Chris Gerty, when it comes to that governance, security, and access control, are there any lessons that you’ve learned that you are aware of in terms of the best of openness, but also with the ability to manage the spigot?

Gerty: Spigot is probably a dangerous term to use, because it implies that all data is treated the same. The sooner that you can tag the data as either sensitive or not, mostly coming from the person or team that’s developed or originated the data, the better.

Kicking the can

Once you have it on a hard drive, once you get crazy about storing everything, if you don’t know where it came from, you’re forced to put it into a secure environment. And that’s just kicking the can down the road. It’s really a disservice to people who might use the data in a useful way to address their problems.

We constantly have satellites that are made for one purpose. They send all the data down. It’s controlled either for security or for intellectual property (IP), so someone can write a paper. Then, after the project doesn’t get funded or it just comes to a nice graceful close, there is that extra step, which is almost a responsibility of the originators, to make it useful to the rest of the world.

Gardner: Let’s look at Big Data through the lens of some other major trends right now. Let’s start with Cloud. You mentioned that at NASA, you have your own private Cloud that you’re using a lot, of course, but you’re also now dabbling in commercial and public Clouds. Frankly, the price points that these Cloud providers are offering for storage and data services are pretty compelling.

So we should expect more data to go to the Cloud. Bob, from your perspective, as organizations and architects have to think about data in this hybrid Cloud on-premises off-premises, moving back and forth, what do you think enterprise architects need to start thinking about in terms of managing that, planning for the right destination of data, based on the right mix of other requirements?

Weisman: It’s a good question. As you said, the price point is compelling, but the security and privacy of the information is something else that has to be taken into account. Where is that information going to reside? You have to have very stringent service-level agreements (SLAs) and in certain cases, you might say it’s a price point that’s compelling, but the risk analysis that I have done means that I’m going to have to set up my own private Cloud.

Gardner: Andras, how do the Cloud and Big Data come together in a way that’s intriguing to you?Right now, everybody’s saying is the public Cloud is going to be the way to go. Vendors are going to have to be very sensitive to that and many are, at this point in time, addressing a lot of the needs of some of the large client basis. So it’s not one-size-fits-all and it’s more than just a price for service. Architecture can bring down the price pretty dramatically, even within an enterprise.

Szakal: Actually it’s a great question. We could take the rest of the 22 minutes talking on this one question. I helped lead the President’s Commission on Big Data that Steve Mills from IBM and — I forget the name of the executive from SAP — led. We intentionally tried to separate Cloud from Big Data architecture, primarily because we don’t believe that, in all cases, Cloud is the answer to all things Big Data. You have to define the architecture that’s appropriate for your business needs.

However, it also depends on where the data is born. Take many of the investments IBM has made into enterprise market management, for example, Coremetrics, several of these services that we now offer for helping customers understand deep insight into how their retail market or supply chain behaves.

Born in the Cloud

All of that information is born in the Cloud. But if you’re talking about actually using Cloud as infrastructure and moving around huge sums of data or constructing some of these solutions on your own, then some of the ideas that Bob conveyed are absolutely applicable.

I think it becomes prohibitive to do that and easier to stand up a hybrid environment for managing the amount of data. But I think that you have to think about whether your data is real-time data, whether it’s data that you could apply some of these new technologies like Hadoop to, Hadoop MapReduce-type solutions, or whether it’s traditional data warehousing.

Data warehouses are going to continue to exist and they’re going to continue to evolve technologically. You’re always going to use a subset of data in those data warehouses, and it’s going to be an applicable technology for many years to come.

Gardner: So suffice it to say, an enterprise architect who is well versed in both Cloud infrastructure requirements, technologies, and methods, as well as Big Data, will probably be in quite high demand. That specialization in one or the other isn’t as valuable as being able to cross-pollinate between them.

Szakal: Absolutely. It’s enabling our architects and finding deep individuals who have this unique set of skills, analytics, mathematics, and business. Those individuals are going to be the future architects of the IT world, because analytics and Big Data are going to be integrated into everything that we do and become part of the business processing.

Gardner: Well, that’s a great segue to the next topic that I am interested in, and it’s around mobility as a trend and also application development. The reason I lump them together is that I increasingly see developers being tasked with mobile first.

When you create a new app, you have to remember that this is going to run in the mobile tier and you want to make sure that the requirements, the UI, and the complexity of that app don’t go beyond the ability of the mobile app and the mobile user. This is interesting to me, because data now has a different relationship with apps.

We used to think of apps as creating data and then the data would be stored and it might be used or integrated. Now, we have applications that are simply there in order to present the data and we have the ability now to present it to those mobile devices in the mobile tier, which means it goes anywhere, everywhere all the time.

Let me start with you Jim, because it’s security and risk, but it’s also just rethinking the way we use data in a mobile tier. If we can do it safely, and that’s a big IF, how important should it be for organizations to start thinking about making this data available to all of these devices and just pour out into that mobile tier as possible?

Hietala: In terms of enabling the business, it’s very important. There are a lot of benefits that accrue from accessing your data from whatever device you happen to be on. To me, it is that question of “if,” because now there’s a whole lot of problems to be solved relative to the data floating around anywhere on Android, iOS, whatever the platform is, and the organization being able to lock down their data on those devices, forgetting about whether it’s the organization device or my device. There’s a set of issues around that that the security industry is just starting to get their arms around today.

Mobile ability

Gardner: Chris, any thoughts about this mobile ability that the data gets more valuable the more you can use it and apply it, and then the more you can apply it, the more data you generate that makes the data more valuable, and we start getting into that positive feedback loop?

Gerty: Absolutely. It’s almost an appreciation of what more people could do and get to the problem. We’re getting to the point where, if it’s available on your desktop, you’re going to find a way to make it available on your device.

That same security questions probably need to be answered anyway, but making it mobile compatible is almost an acknowledgment that there will be someone who wants to use it. So let me go that extra step to make it compatible and see what I get from them. It’s more of a cultural benefit that you get from making things compatible with mobile.

Gardner: Any thoughts about what developers should be thinking by trying to bring the fruits of Big Data through these analytics to more users rather than just the BI folks or those that are good at SQL queries? Does this change the game by actually making an application on a mobile device, simple, powerful but accessing this real time updated treasure trove of data?

Gerty: I always think of the astronaut on the moon. He’s got a big, bulky glove and he might have a heads-up display in front of him, but he really needs to know exactly a certain piece of information at the right moment, dealing with bandwidth issues, dealing with the environment, foggy helmet wherever.

It’s very analogous to what the day-to-day professional will use trying to find out that quick e-mail he needs to know or which meeting to go to — which one is more important — and it all comes down to putting your developer in the shoes of the user. So anytime you can get interaction between the two, that’s valuable.

Weisman: From an Enterprise Architecture point of view my background is mainly defense and government, but defense mobile computing has been around for decades. So you’ve always been dealing with that.

The main thing is that in many cases, if they’re coming up with information, the whole presentation layer is turning into another architecture domain with information visualization and also with your security controls, with an integrated identity management capability.

It’s like you were saying about astronaut getting it right. He doesn’t need to know everything that’s happening in the world. He needs to know about his heads-up display, the stuff that’s relevant to him.

So it’s getting the right information to person in an authorized manner, in a way that he can visualize and make sense of that information, be it straight data, analytics, or whatever. The presentation layer, ergonomics, visual communication are going to become very important in the future for that. There are also a lot of problems. Rather than doing it at the application level, you’re doing it entirely in one layer.

Governance and security

Gardner: So clearly the implications of data are cutting across how we think about security, how we think about UI, how we factor in mobility. What we now think about in terms of governance and security, we have to do differently than we did with older data models.

Jim Hietala, what about the impact on spurring people towards more virtualized desktop delivery, if you don’t want to have the date on that end device, if you want solve some of the issues about control and governance, and if you want to be able to manage just how much data gets into that UI, not too much not too little.

Do you think that some of these concerns that we’re addressing will push people to look even harder, maybe more aggressive in how they go to desktop and application virtualization, as they say, keep it on the server, deliver out just the deltas?

Hietala: That’s an interesting point. I’ve run across a startup in the last month or two that is doing is that. The whole value proposition is to virtualize the environment. You get virtual gold images. You don’t have to worry about what’s actually happening on the physical device and you know when the devices connect. The security threat goes away. So we may see more of that as a solution to that.

Gardner: Andras, do you see that that some of the implications of Big Data, far fetched as it may be, are propelling people to cultivate their servers more and virtualize their apps, their data, and their desktop right up to the end devices?

Szakal: Yeah, I do. I see IBM providing solutions for virtual desktop, but I think it was really a security question you were asking. You’re certainly going to see an additional number of virtualized desktop environments.

Ultimately, our network still is not stable enough or at a high enough bandwidth to really make that useful exercise for all but the most menial users in the enterprise. From a security point of view, there is a lot to be still solved.

And part of the challenge in the Cloud environment that we see today is the proliferation of virtual machines (VMs) and the inability to actually contain the security controls within those machines and across these machines from an enterprise perspective. So we’re going to see more solutions proliferate in this area and to try to solve some of the management issues, as well as the security issues, but we’re a long ways away from that.

Gerty: Big Data, by itself, isn’t magical. It doesn’t have the answers just by being big. If you need more, you need to pry deeper into it. That’s the example. They realized early enough that they were able to make something good.

Gardner: Jim Hietala, any thoughts about examples that illustrate where we’re going and why this is so important?

Hietala: Being a security guy, I tend to talk about scare stories, horror stories. One example from last year that struck me. One of the major retailers here in the U.S. hit the news for having predicted, through customer purchase behavior, when people were pregnant.

They could look and see, based upon buying 20 things, that if you’re buying 15 of these and your purchase behavior has changed, they can tell that. The privacy implications to that are somewhat concerning.

An example was that this retailer was sending out coupons related to somebody being pregnant. The teenage girl, who was pregnant hadn’t told her family yet. The father found it. There was alarm in the household and at the local retailer store, when the father went and confronted them.

Privacy implications

There are privacy implications from the use of Big Data. When you get powerful new technology in marketing people’s hands, things sometimes go awry. So I’d throw that out just as a cautionary tale that there is that aspect to this. When you can see across people’s buying transactions, things like that, there are privacy considerations that we’ll have to think about, and that we really need to think about as an industry and a society.

Comments Off on The Open Group Panel Explores How the Big Data Era Now Challenges the IT Status Quo

Filed under Conference

SOA Provides Needed Support for Enterprise Architecture in Cloud, Mobile, Big Data, Says Open Group Panel

By Dana Gardner, BriefingsDirect

There’s been a resurgent role for service-oriented architecture (SOA) as a practical and relevant ingredient for effective design and use of Cloud, mobile, and big data technologies.

To find out why, The Open Group recently gathered an international panel of experts to explore the concept of “architecture is destiny,” especially when it comes to hybrid services delivery and management. The panel shows how SOA is proving instrumental in allowing the needed advancements over highly distributed services and data, when it comes to scale, heterogeneity support, and governance.

The panel consists of Chris Harding, Director of Interoperability at The Open Group, based in the UK; Nikhil Kumar, President of Applied Technology Solutions and Co-Chair of the SOA Reference Architecture Projects within The Open Group, and he’s based in Michigan, and Mats Gejnevall, Enterprise Architect at Capgemini and Co-Chair of The Open Group SOA Work Group, and he’s based in Sweden. The discussion is moderated by Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions.

The full podcast can be found here.

Here are some excerpts:

Gardner: Why this resurgence in the interest around SOA?

Harding: My role in The Open Group is to support the work of our members on SOA, Cloud computing, and other topics. We formed the SOA Work Group back in 2005, when SOA was a real emerging hot topic, and we set up a number of activities and projects. They’re all completed.

I was thinking that the SOA Work Group would wind down, move into maintenance mode, and meet once every few months or so, but we still get a fair attendance at our regular web meetings.

In fact, we’ve started two new projects and we’re about to start a third one. So, it’s very clear that there is still an interest, and indeed a renewed interest, in SOA from the IT community within The Open Group.

Larger trends

Gardner: Nikhil, do you believe that this has to do with some of the larger trends we’re seeing in the field, like Cloud Software as a Service (SaaS)? What’s driving this renewal?

Kumar: What I see driving it is three things. One is the advent of the Cloud and mobile, which requires a lot of cross-platform delivery of consistent services. The second is emerging technologies, mobile, big data, and the need to be able to look at data across multiple contexts.

The third thing that’s driving it is legacy modernization. A lot of organizations are now a lot more comfortable with SOA concepts. I see it in a number of our customers. I’ve just been running a large Enterprise Architecture initiative in a Fortune 500 customer.

At each stage, and at almost every point in that, they’re now comfortable. They feel that SOA can provide the ability to rationalize multiple platforms. They’re restructuring organizational structures, delivery organizations, as well as targeting their goals around a service-based platform capability.

So legacy modernization is a back-to-the-future kind of thing that has come back and is getting adoption. The way it’s being implemented is using RESTful services, as well as SOAP services, which is different from traditional SOA, say from the last version, which was mostly SOAP-driven.

Gardner: Mats, do you think that what’s happened is that the marketplace and the requirements have changed and that’s made SOA more relevant? Or has SOA changed to better fit the market? Or perhaps some combination?

Gejnevall: I think that the Cloud is really a service delivery platform. Companies discover that to be able to use the Cloud services, the SaaS things, they need to look at SOA as their internal development way of doing things as well. They understand they need to do the architecture internally, and if they’re going to use lots of external Cloud services, you might as well use SOA to do that.

Also, if you look at the Cloud suppliers, they also need to do their architecture in some way and SOA probably is a good vehicle for them. They can use that paradigm and also deliver what the customer wants in a well-designed SOA environment.

Gardner: Let’s drill down on the requirements around the Cloud and some of the key components of SOA. We’re certainly seeing, as you mentioned, the need for cross support for legacy, Cloud types of services, and using a variety of protocol, transports, and integration types. We already heard about REST for lightweight approaches and, of course, there will still be the need for object brokering and some of the more traditional enterprise integration approaches.

This really does sound like the job for an Enterprise Service Bus (ESB). So let’s go around the panel and look at this notion of an ESB. Some people, a few years back, didn’t think it was necessary or a requirement for SOA, but it certainly sounds like it’s the right type of functionality for the job.

Loosely coupled

Harding: I believe so, but maybe we ought to consider that in the Cloud context, you’re not just talking about within a single enterprise. You’re talking about a much more loosely coupled, distributed environment, and the ESB concept needs to take account of that in the Cloud context.

Gardner: Nikhil, any thoughts about how to manage this integration requirement around the modern SOA environment and whether ESBs are more or less relevant as a result?

Kumar: In the context of a Cloud we really see SOA and the concept of service contracts coming to the fore. In that scenario, ESBs play a role as a broker within the enterprise. When we talk about the interaction across Cloud-service providers and Cloud consumers, what we’re seeing is that the service provider has his own concept of an ESB within its own internal context.

If you want your Cloud services to be really reusable, the concept of the ESB then becomes more for the routing and the mediation of those services, once they’re provided to the consumer. There’s a kind of separation of concerns between the concept of a traditional ESB and a Cloud ESB, if you want to call it that.

The Cloud context involves more of the need to be able to support, enforce, and apply governance concepts and audit concepts, the capabilities to ensure that the interaction meets quality of service guarantees. That’s a little different from the concept that drove traditional ESBs.

That’s why you’re seeing API management platforms like Layer 7Mashery, or Apigee and other kind of product lines. They’re also coming into the picture, driven by the need to be able to support the way Cloud providers are provisioning their services. As Chris put it, you’re looking beyond the enterprise. Who owns it? That’s where the role of the ESB is different from the traditional concept.

Most Cloud platforms have cost factors associated with locality. If you have truly global enterprises and services, you need to factor in the ability to deal with safe harbor issues and you need to factor in variations and law in terms of security governance.

The platforms that are evolving are starting to provide this out of the box. The service consumer or a service provider needs to be able to support those. That’s going to become the role of their ESB in the future, to be able to consume a service, to be able to assert this quality-of-service guarantee, and manage constraints or data-in-flight and data-at-rest.

Gardner: Mats, are there other aspects of the concept of ESB that are now relevant to the Cloud?

Entire stack

Gejnevall: One of the reasons SOA didn’t really take off in many organizations three, four, or five years ago was the need to buy the entire stack of SOA products that all the consultancies were asking companies to buy, wanting them to buy an ESB, governance tools, business process management tools, and a lot of sort of quite large investments to just get your foot into the door of doing SOA.

These days you can buy that kind of stuff. You can buy the entire stack in the Cloud and start playing with it. I did some searches on it today and I found a company that you can play with the entire stack, including business tools and everything like that, for zero dollars. Then you can grow and use more and more of it in your business, but you can start to see if this is something for you.

In the past, the suppliers or the consultants told you that you could do it. You couldn’t really try it out yourself. You needed both the software and the hardware in place. The money to get started is much lower today. That’s another reason people might be thinking about it these days.

Gardner: It sounds as if there’s a new type of on-ramp to SOA values, and the componentry that supports SOA is now being delivered as a service. On top of that, you’re also able to consume it in a pay-as-you-go manner.

Harding: That’s a very good point, but there are two contradictory trends we are seeing here. One is the kind of trend that Mats is describing, where the technology you need to handle a complex stack is becoming readily available in the Cloud.

And the other is the trend that Nikhil mentioned: to go for a simpler style, which a lot of people term REST, for accessing services. It will be interesting to see how those two tendencies play out against each other.

Kumar: I’d like to make a comment on that. The approach for the on-ramp is really one of the key differentiators of the Cloud, because you have the agility and the lack of capital investment (CAPEX) required to test things out.

But as we are evolving with Cloud platforms, I’m also seeing with a lot of Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) vendor scenarios that they’re trying the ESB in the stack itself. They’re providing it in their Cloud fabric. A couple of large players have already done that.

For example, Azure provides that in the forward-looking vision. I am sure IBM and Oracle have already started down that path. A lot of the players are going to provide it as a core capability.

Pre-integrated environment

Gejnevall: Another interesting thing is that they could get a whole environment that’s pre-integrated. Usually, when you buy these things from a vendor, a lot of times they don’t fit together that well. Now, there’s an effort to make them work together.

But some people put these open-source tools together. Some people have done that and put them out on the Cloud, which gives them a pretty cheap platform for themselves. Then, they can sell it at a reasonable price, because of the integration of all these things.

Gardner: The Cloud model may be evolving toward an all-inclusive offering. But SOA, by its definition, advances interoperability, to plug and play across existing, current, and future sets of service possibilities. Are we talking about SOA being an important element of keeping Clouds dynamic and flexible — even open?

Kumar: We can think about the OSI 7 Layer Model. We’re evolving in terms of complexity, right? So from an interoperability perspective, we may talk SOAP or REST, for example, but the interaction with AWS, SalesforceSmartCloud, or Azure would involve using APIs that each of these platforms provide for interaction.

Lock-in

So you could have an AMI, which is an image on the Amazon Web Services environment, for example, and that could support a lab stack or an open source stack. How you interact with it, how you monitor it, how you cluster it, all of those aspects now start factoring in specific APIs, and so that’s the lock-in.

From an architect’s perspective, I look at it as we need to support proper separation of concerns, and that’s part of [The Open Group] SOA Reference Architecture. That’s what we tried to do, to be able to support implementation architectures that support that separation of concerns.

There’s another factor that we need to understand from the context of the Cloud, especially for mid-to-large sized organizations, and that is that the Cloud service providers, especially the large ones — Amazon, Microsoft, IBM — encapsulate infrastructure.

If you were to go to Amazon, Microsoft, or IBM and use their IaaS networking capabilities, you’d have one of the largest WAN networks in the world, and you wouldn’t have to pay a dime to establish that infrastructure. Not in terms of the cost of the infrastructure, not in terms of the capabilities required, nothing. So that’s an advantage that the Cloud is bringing, which I think is going to be very compelling.

The other thing is that, from an SOA context, you’re now able to look at it and say, “Well, I’m dealing with the Cloud, and what all these providers are doing is make it seamless, whether you’re dealing with the Cloud or on-premise.” That’s an important concept.

Now, each of these providers and different aspects of their stacks are at significantly different levels of maturity. Many of these providers may find that their stacks do not interoperate with themselves either, within their own stacks, just because they’re using different run times, different implementations, etc. That’s another factor to take in.

From an SOA perspective, the Cloud has become very compelling, because I’m dealing, let’s say, with a Salesforce.com and I want to use that same service within the enterprise, let’s say, an insurance capability for Microsoft Dynamics or for SugarCRM. If that capability is exposed to one source of truth in the enterprise, you’ve now reduced the complexity and have the ability to adopt different Cloud platforms.

What we are going to start seeing is that the Cloud is going to shift from being just one à-la-carte solution for everybody. It’s going to become something similar to what we used to deal with in the enterprise context. You had multiple applications, which you service-enabled to reduce complexity and provide one service-based capability, instead of an application-centered approach.

You’re now going to move the context to the Cloud, to your multiple Cloud solutions, and maybe many implementations in a nontrivial environment for the same business capability, but they are now exposed to services in the enterprise SOA. You could have Salesforce. You could have Amazon. You could have an IBM implementation. And you could pick and choose the source of truth and share it.

So a lot of the core SOA concepts will still apply and are still applying.

Another on-ramp

Gardner: Perhaps yet another on-ramp to the use of SOA is the app store, which allows for discovery, socialization of services, but at the same time provides overnance and control?

Kumar: We’re seeing that with a lot of our customers, typically the vendors who support PaaS solution associate app store models along with their platform as a mechanism to gain market share.

The issue that you run into with that is, it’s okay if it’s on your cellphone or on your iPad, your tablet PC, or whatever, but once you start having managed apps, for example Salesforce, or if you have applications which are being deployed on an Azure or on a SmartCloud context, you have high risk scenario. You don’t know how well architected that application is. It’s just like going and buying an enterprise application.

When you deploy it in the Cloud, you really need to understand the Cloud PaaS platform for that particular platform to understand the implications in terms of dependencies and cross-dependencies across apps that you have installed. They have real practical implications in terms of maintainability and performance. We’ve seen that with at least two platforms in the last six months.

Governance becomes extremely important. Because of the low CAPEX implications to the business, the business is very comfortable with going and buying these applications and saying, “We can install X, Y, or Z and it will cost us two months and a few million dollars and we are all set.” Or maybe it’s a few hundred thousand dollars.

They don’t realize the implications in terms of interoperability, performance, and standard architectural quality attributes that can occur. There is a governance aspect from the context of the Cloud provisioning of these applications.

There is another aspect to it, which is governance in terms of the run-time, more classic SOA governance, to measure, assert, and to view the cost of these applications in terms of performance to your infrastructural resources, to your security constraints. Also, are there scenarios where the application itself has a dependency on a daisy chain, multiple external applications, to trace the data?

In terms of the context of app stores, they’re almost like SaaS with a particular platform in mind. They provide the buyer with certain commitments from the platform manager or the platform provider, such as security. When you buy an app from Apple, there is at least a reputational expectation of security from the vendor.

What you do not always know is if that security is really being provided. There’s a risk there for organizations who are exposing mission-critical data to that.

The second thing is there is still very much a place for the classic SOA registries and repositories in the Cloud. Only the place is for a different purpose. Those registries and repositories are used either by service providers or by consumers to maintain the list of services they’re using internally.

Different paradigms

There are two different paradigms. The app store is a place where I can go and I know that the gas I am going to get is 85 percent ethanol, versus I also have to maintain some basic set of goods at home to make that I have my dinner on time. These are different kind of roles and different kind of purposes they’re serving.

Above all, I think the thing that’s going to become more and more important in the context of the Cloud is that the functionality will be provided by the Cloud platform or the app you buy, but the governance will be a major IT responsibility, right from the time of picking the app, to the time of delivering it, to the time of monitoring it.

Gardner: How is The Open Group allowing architects to better exercise SOA principles, as they’re grappling with some of these issues around governance, hybrid services delivery and management, and the use and demand in their organizations to start consuming more Cloud services?

Harding: The architect’s primary concern, of course, has to be to meet the needs of the client and to do so in a way that is most effective and that is cost-effective. Cloud gives the architect a usability to go out and get different components much more easily than hitherto.

There is a problem, of course, with integrating them and putting them together. SOA can provide part of the solution to that problem, in that it gives a principle of loosely coupled services. If you didn’t have that when you were trying to integrate different functionality from different places, you would be in a real mess.

What The Open Group contributes is a set of artifacts that enable the architect to think through how to meet the client’s needs in the best way when working with SOA and Cloud.

For example, the SOA Reference Architecture helps the architect understand what components might be brought into the solution. We have the SOA TOGAF Practical Guide, which helps the architect understand how to use TOGAF® in the SOA context.

We’re working further on artifacts in the Cloud space, the Cloud Computing Reference Architecture, a notational language for enabling people to describe Cloud ecosystems on recommendations for Cloud interoperability and portability. We’re also working on recommendations for Cloud governance to complement the recommendations for SOA governance, the SOA Governance Framework Standards that we have already produced, and a number of other artifacts.

The Open Group’s real role is to support the architect and help the architect to better meet the needs of the architect client.

From the very early days, SOA was seen as bringing a closer connection between the business and technology. A lot of those promises that were made about SOA seven or eight years ago are only now becoming possible to fulfill, and that business front is what that project is looking at.

We’re also producing an update to the SOA Reference Architectures. We have input the SOA Reference Architecture for consideration by the ISO Group that is looking at an International Standard Reference Architecture for SOA and also to the IEEE Group that is looking at an IEEE Standard Reference Architecture.

We hope that both of those groups will want to work along the principles of our SOA Reference Architecture and we intend to produce a new version that incorporates the kind of ideas that they want to bring into the picture.

We’re also thinking of setting up an SOA project to look specifically at assistance to architects building SOA into enterprise solutions.

So those are three new initiatives that should result in new Open Group standards and guides to complement, as I have described already, the SOA Reference Architecture, the SOA Governance Framework, the Practical Guides to using TOGAF for SOA.

We also have the Service Integration Maturity Model that we need to assess the SOA maturity. We have a standard on service orientation applied to Cloud infrastructure, and we have a formal SOA Ontology.

Those are the things The Open Group has in place at present to assist the architect, and we are and will be working on three new things: version 2 of the Reference Architecture for SOA, SOA for business technology, and I believe shortly we’ll start on assistance to architects in developing SOA solutions.

Dana Gardner is the Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, which identifies and interprets the trends in Services-Oriented Architecture (SOA) and enterprise software infrastructure markets. Interarbor Solutions creates in-depth Web content and distributes it via BriefingsDirect™ blogs, podcasts and video-podcasts to support conversational education about SOA, software infrastructure, Enterprise 2.0, and application development and deployment strategies.

Comments Off on SOA Provides Needed Support for Enterprise Architecture in Cloud, Mobile, Big Data, Says Open Group Panel

Filed under Cloud, Cloud/SOA, Service Oriented Architecture

#ogChat Summary – Walled Garden Networks

By Patty Donovan, The Open Group

With hundreds of tweets flying at break-neck pace, yesterday’s #ogChat saw a very spirited discussion on the Internet’s movement toward a walled garden model. In case you missed the conversation, you’re in luck! Here’s a recap of yesterday’s #ogChat.

The full list of participants included:

Here is a high-level a snapshot of yesterday’s #ogChat:

Q1 In the context of #WWW, why has there been a shift from the open Internet to portals, apps and walled environs? #ogChat

Participants generally agreed that the impetus behind the walled garden trend was led by two factors: companies and developers wanting more control, and a desire by users to feel “safer.”

  • @charleneli: Q1 Peeps & developers like order, structure, certainty. Control can provide that. But too much and they leave. #ogChat.
  • @Technodad: User info & contributions are raw material of walled sites-“If you’re not paying for the service, the product being sold is you”. #ogChat
  • @AlanWebber #ogChat Q1 – People feel safer inside the “Walls” but don’t realize what they are loosing

Q2 How has this trend affected privacy/control? Do users have enough control over their IDs/content within #walledgarden networks? #ogChat

This was a hot topic as participants debated the tradeoffs between great content and privacy controls. Questions of where data was used and leaked to also emerged, as walled gardens are known to have backdoors.

  • @AlanWebber: But do people understand what they are giving up inside the walls? #ogChat
  • @TheTonyBradley: Q2 — Yes and no. Users have more control than they’re aware of, but for many its too complex and cumbersome to manage properly. #ogchat
  • @jim_hietala: #ogChat Q2 privacy and control trade offs need to be made more obvious, visible
  • @zdFYRashid: Q2 users assume that #walledgarden means nothing leaves, so they think privacy is implied. They don’t realize that isn’t the case #ogchat
  • @JohnFontana: Q2 Notion is wall and gate is at the front of garden where users enter. It’s the back that is open and leaking their data #ogchat
  • @subreyes94: #ogchat .@DanaGardner More walls coming down through integration. FB and Twitter are becoming de facto login credentials for other sites

Q3 What has been the role of social and #mobile in developing #walledgardens? Have they accelerated this trend? #ogChat

Everyone agreed that social and mobile catalyzed the formation of walled garden networks. Many also gave a nod to location as a nascent driver.

  • @jaycross: Q3 Mobile adds your location to potential violations of privacy. It’s like being under surveillance. Not very far along yet. #ogChat
  • @charleneli: Q3: Mobile apps make it easier to access, reinforcing behavior. But also enables new connections a la Zynga that can escape #ogChat
  • @subreyes94: #ogChatQ3 They have accelerated the always-inside the club. The walls have risen to keep info inside not keep people out.
    • @Technodad: @subreyes94 Humans are social, want to belong to community & be in touch with others “in the group”. Will pay admission fee of info. #ogChat

Q4 Can people use the internet today without joining a walled garden network? What does this say about the current web? #ogChat

There were a lot of parallels drawn between real and virtual worlds. It was interesting to see that walled gardens provided a sense of exclusivity that human seek out by nature. It was also interesting to see a generational gap emerge as many participants cited their parents as not being a part of a walled garden network.

  • @TheTonyBradley: Q4 — You can, the question is “would you want to?” You can still shop Amazon or get directions from Mapquest. #ogchat
  • @zdFYRashid: Q4 people can use the internet without joining a walled garden, but they don’t want to play where no one is. #ogchat
  • @JohnFontana: Q4 I believe we are headed to a time when people will buy back their anonymity. That is the next social biz. #ogchat

Q5 Is there any way to reconcile the ideals of the early web with the need for companies to own information about users? #ogChat

While walled gardens have started to emerge, the consumerization of the Internet and social media has really driven user participation and empowered users to create content within these walled gardens.

  • @JohnFontana: Q5 – It is going to take identity, personal data lockers, etc. to reconcile the two. Wall-garden greed heads can’t police themselves #ogchat
  • @charleneli: Q5: Early Web optimism was less about being open more about participation. B4 you needed to know HTML. Now it’s fill in a box. #ogChat
  • @Dana_Gardner: Q5 Early web was more a one-way street, info to a user. Now it’s a mix-master of social goo. No one knows what the goo is, tho. #ogChat
  • @AlanWebber: Q5, Once there are too many walls, people will begin to look on to the next (virtual) world. Happening already #ogChat

Q6 What #Web2.0 lessons learned should be implemented into the next iteration of the web? How to fix this? #ogChat

Identity was the most common topic with the sixth and final question. Single sign-on, personal identities on mobile phones/passports and privacy seemed to be the biggest issues facing the next iteration of the web.

  • @Technodad: Q6 Common identity is a key – need portable, mutually-recognized IDs that can be used for access control of shared info. #ogChat
  • @JohnFontana: Q6 Users want to be digital. Give them ways to do that safely and privately if so desired. #ogChat
  • @TheTonyBradley: Q6 — Single ID has pros and cons. Convenient to login everywhere with FB credentials, but also a security Achilles heel. #ogchat

Thank you to all the participants who made this such a great discussion!

Patricia Donovan is Vice President, Membership & Events, at The Open Group and a member of its executive management team. In this role she is involved in determining the company’s strategic direction and policy as well as the overall management of that business area. Patricia joined The Open Group in 1988 and has played a key role in the organization’s evolution, development and growth since then. She also oversees the company’s marketing, conferences and member meetings. She is based in the U.S.

Comments Off on #ogChat Summary – Walled Garden Networks

Filed under Tweet Jam

Social Networks – Challenging an Open Internet? Walled Gardens Tweet Jam

By Patty Donovan, The Open Group

On July 10, The Open Group will host a special tweet jam to examine “walled gardens” and the effect of social media networks on the web.

The World Wide Web was originally intended to be an open platform – from the early forums for programmers exchanging code or listservs to today’s daily photo blogs or corporate website providing product information. Information was meant to be free and available for public consumption, meaning any link on the World Wide Web could be accessed by anyone, anytime.

With the advent of Web 2.0, content no longer roams free. Increasingly, private companies and social networks, such as Facebook and Google Plus, have realized the value of controlling information and restricting the once open flow of the Internet. A link to a Facebook profile, for example, doesn’t lead to a member’s Facebook page, but instead to an invitation to join Facebook – a closed, member-only network where one must be inside the network to derive any benefit. And once one joins one of these “walled gardens,” personal content is shared in ways that are uncontrollable by the user.

As web data continues to explode and more and more information about Internet usage is gathered across sites, the pressure to “grow the gardens” with more personal data and content will continue to increase.

Please join us on July 10 at 9:00 a.m. PT/12:00 p.m. ET/5:00 p.m. BST for a tweet jam that will discuss the future of the web as it relates to information flow, identity management and privacy in the context of “walled garden” networks such as Facebook and Google. We welcome Open Group members and interested participants from all backgrounds to join the session and interact with our panel of experts, including:

To access the discussion, please follow the #ogChat hashtag next Tuesday during the allotted discussion time. Other hashtags we recommend you using include:

  • Open Group Conference, Washington, D.C.: #ogDCA
  • Facebook: #fb (Twitter account: @facebook)
  • Google: #google (Twitter account: @google)
  • Identity management: #idM
  • Mobile: #mobile
  • IT security: @ITsec
  • Semantic web: #semanticweb
  • Walled garden: #walledgarden
  • Web 2.0: #web20

Below is a list of the questions that will be addressed during the hour-long discussion:

  1. In the context of the World Wide Web, why has there been a shift from the open Internet to portals, apps and walled environments?
  2. How has this trend affected privacy and control? Do users have enough control over their IDs and content within walled garden networks?
  3. What has been the role of social and mobile in developing walled gardens? Have they accelerated this trend?
  4. Can people use the Internet today without joining a walled garden network? What does this say about the current web?
  5. Is there any way to reconcile the ideals of the early web with the need for companies to own information about users?
  6. What Web 2.0 lessons learned should be implemented into the next iteration of the web?

And for those of you who are unfamiliar with tweet jams, here is some background information:

What Is a Tweet Jam?

A tweet jam is a one hour “discussion” hosted on Twitter. The purpose of the tweet jam is to share knowledge and answer questions on a chosen topic. Each tweet jam is led by a moderator (Dana Gardner) and a dedicated group of experts to keep the discussion flowing. The public (or anyone using Twitter interested in the topic) is free (and encouraged!) to join the discussion.

Participation Guidance

Whether you’re a newbie or veteran Twitter user, here are a few tips to keep in mind:

  • Have your first #ogChat tweet be a self-introduction: name, affiliation, occupation.
  • Start all other tweets with the question number you’re responding to and the #ogChat hashtag.
    • Sample: “Q4 People can still use the Internet without joining a walled garden, but their content exposure would be extremely limited #ogChat”
  • Please refrain from product or service promotions. The goal of a tweet jam is to encourage an exchange of knowledge and stimulate discussion.
  • While this is a professional get-together, we don’t have to be stiff! Informality will not be an issue!
  • A tweet jam is akin to a public forum, panel discussion or Town Hall meeting – let’s be focused and thoughtful.

If you have any questions prior to the event, please direct them to Rod McLeod (rmcleod at bateman-group dot com). We anticipate a lively chat on July 10 and hope you will be able to join!

Patricia Donovan is Vice President, Membership & Events, at The Open Group and a member of its executive management team. In this role she is involved in determining the company’s strategic direction and policy as well as the overall management of that business area. Patricia joined The Open Group in 1988 and has played a key role in the organization’s evolution, development and growth since then. She also oversees the company’s marketing, conferences and member meetings. She is based in the US.

Comments Off on Social Networks – Challenging an Open Internet? Walled Gardens Tweet Jam

Filed under Identity Management, Tweet Jam

The Open Group and MIT Experts Detail New Advances in ID Management to Help Reduce Cyber Risk

By Dana Gardner, The Open Group

This BriefingsDirect thought leadership interview comes in conjunction with The Open Group Conference in Washington, D.C., beginning July 16. The conference will focus on how Enterprise Architecture (EA), enterprise transformation and securing global supply chains.

We’re joined in advance by some of the main speakers at the July 16 conference to examine the relationship between controlled digital identities in cyber risk management. Our panel will explore how the technical and legal support of ID management best practices have been advancing rapidly. And we’ll see how individuals and organizations can better protect themselves through better understanding and managing of their online identities.

The panelist are Jim Hietala, vice president of security at The Open Group; Thomas Hardjono, technical lead and executive director of the MIT Kerberos Consortium; and Dazza Greenwood, president of the CIVICS.com consultancy and lecturer at the MIT Media Lab. The discussion is moderated by Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions.

Here are some excerpts:

Gardner: What is ID management, and how does it form a fundamental component of cybersecurity?

Hietala: ID management is really the process of identifying folks who are logging onto computing services, assessing their identity, looking at authenticating them, and authorizing them to access various services within a system. It’s something that’s been around in IT since the dawn of computing, and it’s something that keeps evolving in terms of new requirements and new issues for the industry to solve.

Particularly as we look at the emergence of cloud and software-as-a-service (SaaS) services, you have new issues for users in terms of identity, because we all have to create multiple identities for every service we access.

You have issues for the providers of cloud and SaaS services, in terms of how they provision, where they get authoritative identity information for the users, and even for enterprises who have to look at federating identity across networks of partners. There are a lot of challenges there for them as well.

Key theme

Figuring out who is at the other end of that connection is fundamental to all of cybersecurity. As we look at the conference that we’re putting on this month in Washington, D.C., a key theme is cybersecurity — and identity is a fundamental piece of that.

You can look at things that are happening right now in terms of trojans, bank fraud, scammers and attackers, wire transferring money out of company’s bank accounts and other things you can point to.

There are failures in their client security and the customer’s security mechanisms on the client devices, but I think there are also identity failures. They need new approaches for financial institutions to adopt to prevent some of those sorts of things from happening. I don’t know if I’d use the word “rampant,” but they are clearly happening all over the place right now. So I think there is a high need to move quickly on some of these issues.

Gardner: Are we at a plateau? Or has ID management been a continuous progression over the past decade?

Hardjono: So it’s been at least a decade since the industry began addressing identity and identity federation. Someone in the audience might recall Liberty Alliance, the Project Liberty in its early days.

One notable thing about the industry is that the efforts have been sort of piecemeal, and the industry, as a whole, is now reaching the point where a true correct identity is absolutely needed now in transactions in a time of so many so-called Internet scams.

Gardner: Dazza, is there a casual approach to this, or a professional need? By that, I mean that we see a lot of social media activities, Facebook for example, where people can have an identity and may or may not be verified. That’s sort of the casual side, but it sounds like what we’re really talking about is more for professional business or eCommerce transactions, where verification is important. In other words, is there a division between these two areas that we should consider before we get into it more deeply?

Greenwood: Rather than thinking of it as a division, a spectrum would be a more useful way to look at it. On one side, you have, as you mentioned, a very casual use of identity online, where it may be self-asserted. It may be that you’ve signed a posting or an email.

On the other side, of course, the Internet and other online services are being used to conduct very high value, highly sensitive, or mission-critical interactions and transactions all the time. When you get toward that spectrum, a lot more information is needed about the identity authenticating, that it really is that person, as Thomas was starting to foreshadow. The authorization, workflow permissions, and accesses are also incredibly important.

In the middle, you have a lot of gradations, based partly on the sensitivity of what’s happening, based partly on culture and context as well. When you have people who are operating within organizations or within contexts that are well-known and well-understood — or where there is already a lot of not just technical, but business, legal and cultural understanding of what happens — if something goes wrong, there are the right kind of supports and risk management processes.

There are different ways that this can play out. It’s not always just a matter of higher security. It’s really higher confidence, and more trust based on a variety of factors. But the way you phrased it is a good way to enter this topic, which is, we have a spectrum of identity that occurs online, and much of it is more than sufficient for the very casual or some of the social activities that are happening.

Higher risk

But as the economy in our society moves into a digital age, ever more fully and at ever-higher speeds, much more important, higher risk, higher value interactions are occurring. So we have to revisit how it is that we have been addressing identity — and give it more attention and a more careful design, instead of architectures and rules around it. Then we’ll be able to make that transition more gracefully and with less collateral damage, and really get to the benefits of going online.

Gardner: What’s happening to shore this up and pull it together? Let’s look at some of the big news.

Hietala: I think the biggest recent news is the U.S. National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyber Space (NSTIC) initiative. It clearly shows that a large government, the United States government, is focused on the issue and is willing to devote resources to furthering an ID management ecosystem and construct for the future. To me that’s the biggest recent news.

At a crossroads

Greenwood: We’re just now is at a crossroads where finally industry, government and increasingly the populations in general, are understanding that there is a different playing field. In the way that we interact, the way we work, the way we do healthcare, the way we do education, the way our social groups cohere and communicate, big parts are happening online.

In some cases, it happens online through the entire lifecycle. What that means now is that a deeper approach is needed. Jim mentioned NSTIC as one of those examples. There are a number of those to touch on that are occurring because of the profound transition that requires a deeper treatment.

NSTIC is the U.S. government’s roadmap to go from its piecemeal approach to a coherent architecture and infrastructure for identity within the United States. It could provide a great model for other countries as well.

People can reuse their identity, and we can start to address what you’re talking about with identity and other people taking your ID, and more to the point, how to prove you are who you said you were to get that ID back. That’s not always so easy after identity theft, because we don’t have an underlying effective identity structure in the United States yet.

I just came back from the United Kingdom at a World Economic Forum meeting. I was very impressed by what their cabinet officers are doing with an identity-assurance scheme in large scale procurement. It’s very consistent with the NSTIC approach in the United States. They can get tens of millions of their citizens using secure well-authenticated identities across a number of transactions, while always keeping privacy, security, and also individual autonomy at the forefront.

There are a number of technology and business milestones that are occurring as well. Open Identity Exchange (OIX) is a great group that’s beginning to bring industry and other sectors together to look at their approaches and technology. We’ve had Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML). Thomas is co-chair of the PC, and that’s getting a facelift.

That approach was being brought to match scale with OpenID Connect, which is OpenID and OAuth. There are a great number of technology innovations that are coming online.

Legally, there are also some very interesting newsworthy harbingers. Some of it is really just a deeper usage of statutes that have been passed a few years ago — the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, among others, in the U.S.

There is eSignature Directive and others in Europe and in the rest of the world that have enabled the use of interactions online and dealt with identity and signatures, but have left to the private sector and to culture which technologies, approaches, and solutions we’ll use.

Now, we’re not only getting one-off solutions, but architectures for a number of different solutions, so that whole sectors of the economy and segments of society can more fully go online. Practically everywhere you look, you see news and signs of this transition that’s occurring, an exciting time for people interested in identity.

Gardner: What’s most new and interesting from your perspective on what’s being brought to bear on this problem, particularly from a technology perspective?

Two dimensions

Hardjono: It’s along two dimensions. The first one is within the Kerberos Consortium. We have a number of people coming from the financial industry. They all have the same desire, and that is to scale their services to the global market, basically sign up new customers abroad, outside United States. In wanting to do so, they’re facing a question of identity. How do we assert that somebody in a country is truly who they say they are.

The second, introduces a number of difficult technical problems. Closer to home and maybe at a smaller scale, the next big thing is user consent. The OpenID exchange and the OpenID Connect specifications have been completed, and people can do single sign-on using technology such as OAuth 2.0.

The next big thing is how can an attribute provider, banks, telcos and so on, who have data about me, share data with other partners in the industry and across the sectors of the industry with my expressed consent in a digital manner.

Gardner: Tell us a bit about the MIT Core ID approach and how this relates to the Jericho Forum approach.

Greenwood: I would defer to Jim of The Open Group to speak more authoritatively on Jericho Forum, which is a part of Open Group. But, in general, Jericho Forum is a group of experts in the security field from industry and, more broadly, who have done some great work in the past on deperimeterized security and some other foundational work.

In the last few years, they’ve been really focused on identity, coming to realize that identity is at the center of what one would have to solve in order to have a workable approach to security. It’s necessary, but not sufficient, for security. We have to get that right.

To their credit, they’ve come up with a remarkably good list of simple understandable principles, that they call the Jericho Forum Identity Commandments, which I strongly commend to everybody to read.

It puts forward a vision of an approach to identity, which is very constant with an approach that I’ve been exploring here at MIT for some years. A person would have a core ID identity, a core ID, and could from that create more than one persona. You may have a work persona, an eCommerce persona, maybe a social and social networking persona and so on. Some people may want a separate political persona.

You could cluster all of the accounts, interactions, services, attributes, and so forth, directly related to each of those to those individual personas, but not be in a situation where we’re almost blindly backing into right now. With a lot of the solutions in the market, your different aspects of life, unintentionally sometimes or even counter-intentionally, will merge.

Good architecture

Sometimes, that’s okay. Sometimes, in fact, we need to be able to have an inability to separate different parts of life. That’s part of privacy and can be part of security. It’s also just part of autonomy. It’s a good architecture. So Jericho Forum has got the commandments.

Many years ago, at MIT, we had a project called the Identity Embassy here in the Media Lab, where we put forward some simple prototypes and ideas, ways you could do that. Now, with all the recent activity we mentioned earlier toward full-scale usage of architectures for identity in U.S. with NSTIC and around the world, we’re taking a stronger, deeper run at this problem.

Thomas and I have been collaborating across different parts of MIT. I’m putting out what we think is a very exciting and workable way that you can in a high security manner, but also quite usably, have these core identifiers or individuals and inextricably link them to personas, but escape that link back to the core ID, and from across the different personas, so that you can get the benefits when you want them, keeping the personas separate.

Also it allows for many flexible business models and other personalization and privacy services as well, but we can get into that more in the fullness of time. But, in general, that’s what’s happening right now and we couldn’t be more excited about it.

Hardjono: For a global infrastructure for core identities to be able to develop, we definitely need collaboration between the governments of the world and the private sector. Looking at this problem, we were searching back in history to find an analogy, and the best analogy we could find was the rollout of a DNS infrastructure and the IP address assignment.

It’s not perfect and it’s got its critics, but the idea is that you could split blocks of IP addresses and get it sold and resold by private industry, really has allowed the Internet to scale, hitting limitations, but of course IPv6 is on the horizon. It’s here today.

So we were thinking along the same philosophy, where core identifiers could be arranged in blocks and handed out to the private sector, so that they can assign, sell it, or manage it on behalf of people who are Internet savvy, and perhaps not, such as my mom. So we have a number of challenges in that phase.

Gardner: Does this relate to the MIT Model Trust Framework System Rules project?

Greenwood: The Model Trust Framework System Rules project that we are pursuing in MIT is a very important aspect of what we’re talking about. Thomas and I talked somewhat about the technical and practical aspects of core identifiers and core identities. There is a very important business and legal layer within there as well.

So these trust framework system rules are ways to begin to approach the complete interconnected set of dimensions necessary to roll out these kinds of schemes at the legal, business, and technical layers.

They come from very successful examples in the past, where organizations have federated ID with more traditional approaches such as SAML and other approaches. There are some examples of those trust framework system rules at the business, legal, and technical level available.

Right now it’s CIVICS.com, and soon, when we have our model MIT under Creative Commons approach, we’ll take a lot of the best of what’s come before codified in a rational way. Business, legal, and technical rules can really be aligned in a more granular way to fit well, and put out a model that we think will be very helpful for the identity solutions of today that are looking at federate according to NSTIC and similar models. It absolutely would be applicable to how at the core identity persona underlying architecture and infrastructure that Thomas, I, and Jericho Forum are postulating could occur.

Hardjono: Looking back 10-15 years, we engineers came up with all sorts of solutions and standardized them. What’s really missing is the business models, business cases, and of course the legal side.

How can a business make revenue out of the management of identity-related aspects, management of attributes, and so on and how can they do so in such a manner that it doesn’t violate the user’s privacy. But it’s still user-centric in the sense that the user needs to give consent and can withdraw consent and so on. And trying to develop an infrastructure where everybody is protected.

Gardner: The Open Group, being a global organization focused on the collaboration process behind the establishment of standards, it sounds like these are some important aspects that you can bring out to your audience, and start to create that collaboration and discussion that could lead to more fuller implementation. Is that the plan, and is that what we’re expecting to hear more of at the conference next month?

Hietala: It is the plan, and we do get a good mix at our conferences and events of folks from all over the world, from government organizations and large enterprises as well. So it tends to be a good mixing of thoughts and ideas from around the globe on whatever topic we’re talking about — in this case identity and cybersecurity.

At the Washington, D.C. Conference, we have a mix of discussions. The kick-off one is a fellow by the name Joel Brenner who has written a book, America the Vulnerable, which I would recommend. He was inside the National Security Agency (NSA) and he’s been involved in fighting a lot of the cyber attacks. He has a really good insight into what’s actually happening on the threat and defending against the threat side. So that will be a very interesting discussion. [Read an interview with Joel Brenner.]

Then, on Monday, we have conference presentations in the afternoon looking at cybersecurity and identity, including Thomas and Dazza presenting on some of the projects that they’ve mentioned.

Cartoon videos

Then, we’re also bringing to that event for the first time, a series of cartoon videos that were produced for the Jericho Forum. They describe a lot of the commandments that Dazza mentioned in a more approachable way. So they’re hopefully understandable to laymen, and folks with not as much understanding about all the identity mechanisms that are out there. So, yeah, that’s what we are hoping to do.

Gardner: Perhaps we could now better explain what NSTIC is and does?

Greenwood:The best person to speak about NSTIC in the United States right now is probably President Barrack Obama, because he is the person that signed the policy. Our president and the administration has taken a needed, and I think a very well-conceived approach, to getting industry involved with other stakeholders in creating the architecture that’s going to be needed for identity for the United States and as a model for the world, and also how to interact with other models.

Jeremy Grant is in charge of the program office and he is very accessible. So if people want more information, they can find Jeremy online easily in at nist.gov/nstic. And nstic.us also has more information.

In general, NSTIC is a strategy document and a roadmap for how a national ecosystem can emerge, which is comprised of a governing body. They’re beginning to put that together this very summer, with 13 different stakeholders groups, each of which would self-organize and elect or appoint a person — industry, government, state and local government, academia, privacy groups, individuals — which is terrific — and so forth.

That governance group will come up with more of the details in terms of what the accreditation and trust marks look like, the types of technologies and approaches that would be favored according to the general principles I hope everyone reads within the NSTIC document.

At a lower level, Congress has appropriated more than $10 million to work with the White House for a number of pilots that will be under a million half dollars each for a year or two, where individual proof of concept, technologies, or approaches to trust frameworks will be piloted and put out into where they can be used in the market.

In general, by this time two months from now, we’ll know a lot more about the governing body, once it’s been convened and about the pilots once those contracts have been awarded and grants have been concluded. What we can say right now is that the way it’s going to come together is with trust framework system rules, the same exact type of entity that we are doing a model of, to help facilitate people’s understanding and having templates and well-thought through structures that they can pull down and, in turn, use as a starting point.

Circle of trust

So industry-by-industry, sector-by-sector, but also what we call circle of trust by circle of trust. Folks will come up with their own specific rules to define exactly how they will meet these requirements. They can get a trust mark, be interoperable with other trust framework consistent rules, and eventually you’ll get a clustering of those, which will lead to an ecosystem.

The ecosystem is not one size fits all. It’s a lot of systems that interoperate in a healthy way and can adapt and involve over time. A lot more, as I said, is available on nstic.us and nist.gov/nstic, and it’s exciting times. It’s certainly the best government document I have ever read. I’ll be so very excited to see how it comes out.

Gardner: What’s coming down the pike that’s going to make this yet more important?

Hietala: I would turn to the threat and attacks side of the discussion and say that, unfortunately, we’re likely to see more headlines of organizations being breached, of identities being lost, stolen, and compromised. I think it’s going to be more bad news that’s going to drive this discussion forward. That’s my take based on working in the industry and where it’s at right now.

Hardjono: I mentioned the user consent going forward. I think this is increasingly becoming an important sort of small step to address and to resolve in the industry and efforts like the User Managed Access (UMA) working group within the Kantara Initiative.

Folks are trying to solve the problem of how to share resources. How can I legitimately not only share my photos on Flickr with data, but how can I allow my bank to share some of my attributes with partners of the bank with my consent. It’s a small step, but it’s a pretty important step.

Greenwood: Keep your eyes on UMA out of Kantara. Keep looking at OASIS, as well, and the work that’s coming with SAML and some of the Model Trust Framework System Rules.

Most important thing

In my mind the most strategically important thing that will happen is OpenID Connect. They’re just finalizing the standard now, and there are some reference implementations. I’m very excited to work with MIT, with our friends and partners at MITRE Corporation and elsewhere.

That’s going to allow mass scales of individuals to have more ready access to identities that they can reuse in a great number of places. Right now, it’s a little bit catch-as-catch-can. You’ve got your Google ID or Facebook, and a few others. It’s not something that a lot of industries or others are really quite willing to accept to understand yet.

They’ve done a complete rethink of that, and use the best lessons learned from SAML and a bunch of other federated technology approaches. I believe this one is going to change how identity is done and what’s possible.

They’ve done such a great job on it, I might add It fits hand in glove with the types of Model Trust Framework System Rules approaches, a layer of UMA on top, and is completely consistent with the architecture rights, with a future infrastructure where people would have a Core ID and more than one persona, which could be expressed as OpenID Connect credentials that are reusable by design across great numbers of relying parties getting where we want to be with single sign-on.

So it’s exciting times. If it’s one thing you have to look at, I’d say do a Google search and get updates on OpenID Connect and watch how that evolves.

************

For more information on The Open Group’s upcoming conference in Washington, D.C., please visit: http://www.opengroup.org/dc2012

Dana Gardner is president and principal analyst at Interarbor Solutions, an enterprise IT analysis, market research, and consulting firm. Gardner, a leading identifier of software and Cloud productivity trends and new IT business growth opportunities, honed his skills and refined his insights as an industry analyst, pundit, and news editor covering the emerging software development and enterprise infrastructure arenas for the last 18 years.

1 Comment

Filed under Conference, Cybersecurity

Learn How Enterprise Architects Can Better Relate TOGAF and DoDAF to Bring Best IT Practices to Defense Contracts

By Dana Gardner, Interarbor Solutions

This BriefingsDirect thought leadership interview comes in conjunction with The Open Group Conference in Washington, D.C., beginning July 16. The conference will focus on how Enterprise Architecture (EA), enterprise transformation, and securing global supply chains.

We’re joined by one of the main speakers at the July 16 conference, Chris Armstrong, President of Armstrong Process Group, to examine how governments in particular are using various frameworks to improve their architectural planning and IT implementations.

Armstrong is an internationally recognized thought leader in EA, formal modeling, process improvement, systems and software engineering, requirements management, and iterative and agile development.

He represents the Armstrong Process Group at the Open Group, the Object Management Group (OMG), and Eclipse Foundation. Armstrong also co-chairs The Open Group Architectural Framework (TOGAF®), and Model Driven Architecture (MDA) process modeling efforts, and also the TOGAF 9 Tool Certification program, all at The Open Group.

At the conference, Armstrong will examine the use of TOGAF 9 to deliver Department of Defense (DoD) Architecture Framework or DoDAF 2 capabilities. And in doing so, we’ll discuss how to use TOGAF architecture development methods to drive the development and use of DoDAF 2 architectures for delivering new mission and program capabilities. His presentation will also be Livestreamed free from The Open Group Conference. The full podcast can be found here.

Here are some excerpts:

Gardner: TOGAF and DoDAF, where have they been? Where are they going? And why do they need to relate to one another more these days?

Armstrong: TOGAF [forms] a set of essential components for establishing and operating an EA capability within an organization. And it contains three of the four key components of any EA.

First, the method by which EA work is done, including how it touches other life cycles within the organization and how it’s governed and managed. Then, there’s a skills framework that talks about the skills and experiences that the individual practitioners must have in order to participate in the EA work. Then, there’s a taxonomy framework that describes the semantics and form of the deliverables and the knowledge that the EA function is trying to manage.

One-stop shop

One of the great things that TOGAF has going for it is that, on the one hand, it’s designed to be a one-stop shop — namely providing everything that a end-user organization might need to establish an EA practice. But it does acknowledge that there are other components, predominantly in the various taxonomies and reference models, that various end-user organizations may want to substitute or augment.

It turns out that TOGAF has a nice synergy with other taxonomies, such as DoDAF, as it provides the backdrop for how to establish the overall EA capability, how to exploit it, and put it into practice to deliver new business capabilities.

Frameworks, such as DoDAF, focus predominantly on the taxonomy, mainly the kinds of things we’re keeping track of, the semantics relationships, and perhaps some formalism on how they’re structured. There’s a little bit of method guidance within DoDAF, but not a lot. So we see the marriage of the two as a natural synergy.

Gardner: So their complementary natures allows for more particulars on the defense side, but the overall TOGAF looks at the implementation method and skills for how this works best. Is this something new, or are we just learning to do it better?

Armstrong: I think we’re seeing the state of industry advance and looking at trying to have the federal government, both United States and abroad, embrace global industry standards for EA work. Historically, particularly in the US government, a lot of defense agencies and their contractors have often been focusing on a minimalistic compliance perspective with respect to DoDAF. In order to get paid for this work or be authorized to do this work, one of our requirements is we must produce DoDAF.

People are doing that because they’ve been commanded to do it. We’re seeing a new level of awareness. There’s some synergy with what’s going on in the DoDAF space, particularly as it relates to migrating from DoDAF 1.5 to DoDAF 2.

Agencies need some method and technique guidance on exactly how to come up with those particular viewpoints that are going to be most relevant, and how to exploit what DoDAF has to offer, in a way that advances the business as opposed to just solely being to conforming or compliant?

Gardner: Have there been hurdles, perhaps culturally, because of the landscape of these different companies and their inability to have that boundary-less interaction. What’s been the hurdle? What’s prevented this from being more beneficial at that higher level?

Armstrong: Probably overall organizational and practitioner maturity. There certainly are a lot of very skilled organizations and individuals out there. However, we’re trying to get them all lined up with the best practice for establishing an EA capability and then operating it and using it to a business strategic advantage, something that TOGAF defines very nicely and which the DoDAF taxonomy and work products hold in very effectively.

Gardner: Help me understand, Chris. Is this discussion that you’ll be delivering on July 16 primarily for TOGAF people to better understand how to implement vis-à-vis, DoDAF, is this the other direction, or is it a two-way street?

Two-way street

Armstrong: It’s a two-way street. One of the big things that particularly the DoD space has going for it is that there’s quite a bit of maturity in the notion of formally specified models, as DoDAF describes them, and the various views that DoDAF includes.

We’d like to think that, because of that maturity, the general TOGAF community can glean a lot of benefit from the experience they’ve had. What does it take to capture these architecture descriptions, some of the finer points about managing some of those assets. People within the TOGAF general community are always looking for case studies and best practices that demonstrate to them that what other people are doing is something that they can do as well.

We also think that the federal agency community also has a lot to glean from this. Again, we’re trying to get some convergence on standard methods and techniques, so that they can more easily have resources join their teams and immediately be productive and add value to their projects, because they’re all based on a standard EA method and framework.

One of the major changes between DoDAF 1 and DoDAF 2 is the focusing on fitness for purpose. In the past, a lot of organizations felt that it was their obligation to describe all architecture viewpoints that DoDAF suggests without necessarily taking a step back and saying, “Why would I want to do that?”

So it’s trying to make the agencies think more critically about how they can be the most agile, mainly what’s the least amount of architecture description that we can invest and that has the greatest possible value. Organizations now have the discretion to determine what fitness for purpose is.

Then, there’s the whole idea in DoDAF 2, that the architecture is supposed to be capability-driven. That is, you’re not just describing architecture, because you have some tools that happened to be DoDAF conforming, but there is a new business capability that you’re trying to inject into the organization through capability-based transformation, which is going to involve people, process, and tools.

One of the nice things that TOGAF’s architecture development method has to offer is a well-defined set of activities and best practices for deciding how you determine what those capabilities are and how you engage your stakeholders to really help collect the requirements for what fit for purpose means.

Gardner: As with the private sector, it seems that everyone needs to move faster. I see you’ve been working on agile development. With organizations like the OMG and Eclipse is there something that doing this well — bringing the best of TOGAF and DoDAF together — enables a greater agility and speed when it comes to completing a project?

Different perspectives

Armstrong: Absolutely. When you talk about what agile means to the general community, you may get a lot of different perspectives and a lot of different answers. Ultimately, we at APG feel that agility is fundamentally about how well your organization responds to change.

If you take a step back, that’s really what we think is the fundamental litmus test of the goodness of an architecture. Whether it’s an EA, a segment architecture, or a system architecture, the architects need to think thoughtfully and considerately about what things are almost certainly going to happen in the near future. I need to anticipate, and be able to work these into my architecture in such a way that when these changes occur, the architecture can respond in a timely, relevant fashion.

We feel that, while a lot of people think that agile is just a pseudonym for not planning, not making commitments, going around in circles forever, we call that chaos, another five letter word. But agile in our experience really demands rigor, and discipline.

Of course, a lot of the culture of the DoD brings that rigor and discipline to it, but also the experience that that community has had, in particular, of formally modeling architecture description. That sets up those government agencies to act agilely much more than others.

Gardner: Do you know of anyone that has done it successfully or is in the process? Even if you can’t name them, perhaps you can describe how something like this works?

Armstrong: First, there has been some great work done by the MITRE organization through their work in collaboration at The Open Group. They’ve written a white paper that talks about which DoDAF deliverables are likely to be useful in specific architecture development method activities. We’re going to be using that as a foundation for the talk we’re going to be giving at the conference in July.

The biggest thing that TOGAF has to offer is that a nascent organization that’s jumping into the DoDAF space may just look at it from an initial compliance perspective, saying, “We have to create an AV-1, and an OV-1, and a SvcV-5,” and so on.

Providing guidance

TOGAF will provide the guidance for what is EA. Why should I care? What kind of people do I need within my organization? What kind of skills do they need? What kind of professional certification might be appropriate to get all of the participants up on the same page, so that when we’re talking about EA, we’re all using the same language?

TOGAF also, of course, has a great emphasis on architecture governance and suggests that immediately, when you’re first propping up your EA capability, you need to put into your plan how you’re going to operate and maintain these architectural assets, once they’ve been produced, so that you can exploit them in some reuse strategy moving forward.

So, the preliminary phase of the TOGAF architecture development method provides those agencies best practices on how to get going with EA, including exactly how an organization is going to exploit what the DoDAF taxonomy framework has to offer.

Then, once an organization or a contractor is charged with doing some DoDAF work, because of a new program or a new capability, they would immediately begin executing Phase A: Architecture Vision, and follow the best practices that TOGAF has to offer.

Just what is that capability that we’re trying to describe? Who are the key stakeholders, and what are their concerns? What are their business objectives and requirements? What constraints are we going to be placed under?

Part of that is to create a high-level description of the current or baseline architecture descriptions, and then the future target state, so that all parties have at least a coarse-grained idea of kind of where we’re at right now, and what our vision is of where we want to be.

Because this is really a high level requirements and scoping set of activities, we expect that that’s going to be somewhat ambiguous. As the project unfolds, they’re going to discover details that may cause some adjustment to that final target.

Internalize best practices

So, we’re seeing defense contractors being able to internalize some of these best practices, and really be prepared for the future so that they can win the greatest amount of business and respond as rapidly and appropriately as possible, as well as how they can exploit these best practices to affect greater business transformation across their enterprises.

Gardner: We mentioned that your discussion on these issues, on July 16 will be Livestreamed for free, but you’re also doing some pre-conference and post-conference activities — webinars, and other things. Tell us how this is all coming together, and for those who are interested, how they could take advantage of all of these.

Armstrong: We’re certainly very privileged that The Open Group has offered this as opportunity to share this content with the community. On Monday, June 25, we’ll be delivering a webinar that focuses on architecture change management in the DoDAF space, particularly how an organization migrates from DoDAF 1 to DoDAF 2.

I’ll be joined by a couple of other people from APG, David Rice, one of our Principal Enterprise Architects who is a member of the DoDAF 2 Working Group, as well as J.D. Baker, who is the Co-chair of the OMG’s Analysis and Design Taskforce, and a member of the Unified Profile for DoDAF and MODAF (UPDM) work group, a specification from the OMG.

We’ll be talking about things that organizations need to think about as they migrate from DoDAF 1 to DoDAF 2. We’ll be focusing on some of the key points of the DoDAF 2 meta-model, namely the rearrangement of the architecture viewpoints and the architecture partitions and how that maps from the classical DoDAF 1.5 viewpoint, as well as focusing on this notion of capability-driven architectures and fitness for purpose.

We also have the great privilege after the conference to be delivering a follow-up webinar on implementation methods and techniques around advanced DoDAF architectures. Particularly, we’re going to take a closer look at something that some people may be interested in, namely tool interoperability and how the DoDAF meta-model offers that through what’s called the Physical Exchange Specification (PES).

We’ll be taking a look a little bit more closely at this UPDM thing I just mentioned, focusing on how we can use formal modeling languages based on OMG standards, such as UML, SysML, BPMN, and SoaML, to do very formal architectural modeling.

One of the big challenges with EA is, at the end of the day, EA comes up with a set of policies, principles, assets, and best practices that talk about how the organization needs to operate and realize new solutions within that new framework. If EA doesn’t have a hand-off to the delivery method, namely systems engineering and solution delivery, then none of this architecture stuff makes a bit of a difference.

Driving the realization

We’re going to be talking a little bit about how DoDAF-based architecture description and TOGAF would drive the realization of those capabilities through traditional systems, engineering, and software development method.

************

For more information on The Open Group’s upcoming conference in Washington, D.C., please visit: http://www.opengroup.org/dc2012

Dana Gardner is president and principal analyst at Interarbor Solutions, an enterprise IT analysis, market research, and consulting firm. Gardner, a leading identifier of software and Cloud productivity trends and new IT business growth opportunities, honed his skills and refined his insights as an industry analyst, pundit, and news editor covering the emerging software development and enterprise infrastructure arenas for the last 18 years.

Comments Off on Learn How Enterprise Architects Can Better Relate TOGAF and DoDAF to Bring Best IT Practices to Defense Contracts

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