Tag Archives: Open Group Conference

Q&A with Allen Brown, President and CEO of The Open Group

By The Open Group

Last month, The Open Group hosted its San Francisco 2014 conference themed “Toward Boundaryless Information Flow™.” Boundaryless Information Flow has been the pillar of The Open Group’s mission since 2002 when it was adopted as the organization’s vision for Enterprise Architecture. We sat down at the conference with The Open Group President and CEO Allen Brown to discuss the industry’s progress toward that goal and the industries that could most benefit from it now as well as The Open Group’s new Dependability through Assuredness™ Standard and what the organization’s Forums are working on in 2014.

The Open Group adopted Boundaryless Information Flow as its vision in 2002, and the theme of the San Francisco Conference has been “Towards Boundaryless Information Flow.” Where do you think the industry is at this point in progressing toward that goal?

Well, it’s progressing reasonably well but the challenge is, of course, when we established that vision back in 2002, life was a little less complex, a little bit less fast moving, a little bit less fast-paced. Although organizations are improving the way that they act in a boundaryless manner – and of course that changes by industry – some industries still have big silos and stovepipes, they still have big boundaries. But generally speaking we are moving and everyone understands the need for information to flow in a boundaryless manner, for people to be able to access and integrate information and to provide it to the teams that they need.

One of the keynotes on Day One focused on the opportunities within the healthcare industry and The Open Group recently started a Healthcare Forum. Do you see Healthcare industry as a test case for Boundaryless Information Flow and why?

Healthcare is one of the verticals that we’ve focused on. And it is not so much a test case, but it is an area that absolutely seems to need information to flow in a boundaryless manner so that everyone involved – from the patient through the administrator through the medical teams – have all got access to the right information at the right time. We know that in many situations there are shifts of medical teams, and from one medical team to another they don’t have access to the same information. Information isn’t easily shared between medical doctors, hospitals and payers. What we’re trying to do is to focus on the needs of the patient and improve the information flow so that you get better outcomes for the patient.

Are there other industries where this vision might be enabled sooner rather than later?

I think that we’re already making significant progress in what we call the Exploration, Mining and Minerals industry. Our EMMM™ Forum has produced an industry-wide model that is being adopted throughout that industry. We’re also looking at whether we can have an influence in the airline industry, automotive industry, manufacturing industry. There are many, many others, government and retail included.

The plenary on Day Two of the conference focused on The Open Group’s Dependability through Assuredness standard, which was released last August. Why is The Open Group looking at dependability and why is it important?

Dependability is ultimately what you need from any system. You need to be able to rely on that system to perform when needed. Systems are becoming more complex, they’re becoming bigger. We’re not just thinking about the things that arrive on the desktop, we’re thinking about systems like the barriers at subway stations or Tube stations, we’re looking at systems that operate any number of complex activities. And they bring an awful lot of things together that you have to rely upon.

Now in all of these systems, what we’re trying to do is to minimize the amount of downtime because downtime can result in financial loss or at worst human life, and we’re trying to focus on that. What is interesting about the Dependability through Assuredness Standard is that it brings together so many other aspects of what The Open Group is working on. Obviously the architecture is at the core, so it’s critical that there’s an architecture. It’s critical that we understand the requirements of that system. It’s also critical that we understand the risks, so that fits in with the work of the Security Forum, and the work that they’ve done on Risk Analysis, Dependency Modeling, and out of the dependency modeling we can get the use cases so that we can understand where the vulnerabilities are, what action has to be taken if we identify a vulnerability or what action needs to be taken in the event of a failure of the system. If we do that and assign accountability to people for who will do what by when, in the event of an anomaly being detected or a failure happening, we can actually minimize that downtime or remove it completely.

Now the other great thing about this is it’s not only a focus on the architecture for the actual system development, and as the system changes over time, requirements change, legislation changes that might affect it, external changes, that all goes into that system, but also there’s another circle within that system that deals with failure and analyzes it and makes sure it doesn’t happen again. But there have been so many evidences of failure recently. In the banks for example in the UK, a bank recently was unable to process debit cards or credit cards for customers for about three or four hours. And that was probably caused by the work done on a routine basis over a weekend. But if Dependability through Assuredness had been in place, that could have been averted, it could have saved an awfully lot of difficulty for an awful lot of people.

How does the Dependability through Assuredness Standard also move the industry toward Boundaryless Information Flow?

It’s part of it. It’s critical that with big systems the information has to flow. But this is not so much the information but how a system is going to work in a dependable manner.

Business Architecture was another featured topic in the San Francisco plenary. What role can business architecture play in enterprise transformation vis a vis the Enterprise Architecture as a whole?

A lot of people in the industry are talking about Business Architecture right now and trying to focus on that as a separate discipline. We see it as a fundamental part of Enterprise Architecture. And, in fact, there are three legs to Enterprise Architecture, there’s Business Architecture, there’s the need for business analysts, which are critical to supplying the information, and then there are the solutions, and other architects, data, applications architects and so on that are needed. So those three legs are needed.

We find that there are two or three different types of Business Architect. Those that are using the analysis to understand what the business is doing in order that they can inform the solutions architects and other architects for the development of solutions. There are those that are more integrated with the business that can understand what is going on and provide input into how that might be improved through technology. And there are those that can actually go another step and talk about here we have the advances and the technology and here are the opportunities for advancing our competitiveness and organization.

What are some of the other key initiatives that The Open Group’s forum and work groups will be working on in 2014?

That kind question is like if you’ve got an award, you’ve got to thank your friends, so apologies to anyone that I leave out. Let me start alphabetically with the Architecture Forum. The Architecture Forum obviously is working on the evolution of TOGAF®, they’re also working with the harmonization of TOGAF with Archimate® and they have a number of projects within that, of course Business Architecture is on one of the projects going on in the Architecture space. The Archimate Forum are pushing ahead with Archimate—they’ve got two interesting activities going on at the moment, one is called ArchiMetals, which is going to be a sister publication to the ArchiSurance case study, where the ArchiSurance provides the example of Archimate is used in the insurance industry, ArchiMetals is going to be used in a manufacturing context, so there will be a whitepaper on that and there will be examples and artifacts that we can use. They’re also working on in Archimate a standard for interoperability for modeling tools. There are four tools that are accredited and certified by The Open Group right now and we’re looking for that interoperability to help organizations that have multiple tools as many of them do.

Going down the alphabet, there’s DirecNet. Not many people know about DirecNet, but Direcnet™ is work that we do around the U.S. Navy. They’re working on standards for long range, high bandwidth mobile networking. We can go to the FACE™ Consortium, the Future Airborne Capability Environment. The FACE Consortium are working on their next version of their standard, they’re working toward accreditation, a certification program and the uptake of that through procurement is absolutely amazing, we’re thrilled about that.

Healthcare we’ve talked about. The Open Group Trusted Technology Forum, where they’re working on how we can trust the supply chain in developed systems, they’ve released the Open Trusted Technology Provider™ Standard (O-TTPS) Accreditation Program, that was launched this week, and we already have one accredited vendor and two certified test labs, assessment labs. That is really exciting because now we’ve got a way of helping any organization that has large complex systems that are developed through a global supply chain to make sure that they can trust their supply chain. And that is going to be invaluable to many industries but also to the safety of citizens and the infrastructure of many countries. So the other part of the O-TTPS is that standard we are planning to move toward ISO standardization shortly.

The next one moving down the list would be Open Platform 3.0™. This is really exciting part of Boundaryless Information Flow, it really is. This is talking about the convergence of SOA, Cloud, Social, Mobile, Internet of Things, Big Data, and bringing all of that together, this convergence, this bringing together of all of those activities is really something that is critical right now, and we need to focus on. In the different areas, some of our Cloud computing standards have already gone to ISO and have been adopted by ISO. We’re working right now on the next products that are going to move through. We have a governance standard in process and an ecosystem standard has recently been published. In the area of Big Data there’s a whitepaper that’s 25 percent completed, there’s also a lot of work on the definition of what Open Platform 3.0 is, so this week the members have been working on trying to define Open Platform 3.0. One of the really interesting activities that’s gone on, the members of the Open Platform 3.0 Forum have produced something like 22 different use cases and they’re really good. They’re concise and they’re precise and the cover a number of different industries, including healthcare and others, and the next stage is to look at those and work on the ROI of those, the monetization, the value from those use cases, and that’s really exciting, I’m looking forward to peeping at that from time to time.

The Real Time and Embedded Systems Forum (RTES) is next. Real-Time is where we incubated the Dependability through Assuredness Framework and that was where that happened and is continuing to develop and that’s really good. The core focus of the RTES Forum is high assurance system, and they’re doing some work with ISO on that and a lot of other areas with multicore and, of course, they have a number of EC projects that we’re partnering with other partners in the EC around RTES.

The Security Forum, as I mentioned earlier, they’ve done a lot of work on risk and dependability. So they’ve not only their standards for the Risk Taxonomy and Risk Analysis, but they’ve now also developed the Open FAIR Certification for People, which is based on those two standards of Risk Analysis and Risk Taxonomy. And we’re already starting to see people being trained and being certified under that Open FAIR Certification Program that the Security Forum developed.

A lot of other activities are going on. Like I said, I probably left a lot of things out, but I hope that gives you a flavor of what’s going on in The Open Group right now.

The Open Group will be hosting a summit in Amsterdam May 12-14, 2014. What can we look forward to at that conference?

In Amsterdam we have a summit – that’s going to bring together a lot of things, it’s going to be a bigger conference that we had here. We’ve got a lot of activity in all of our activities; we’re going to bring together top-level speakers, so we’re looking forward to some interesting work during that week.

 

 

 

1 Comment

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

One Year Later: A Q&A Interview with Chris Harding and Dave Lounsbury about Open Platform 3.0™

By The Open Group

The Open Group launched its Open Platform 3.0™ Forum nearly one year ago at the 2013 Sydney conference. Open Platform 3.0 refers to the convergence of new and emerging technology trends such as Mobile, Social, Big Data, Cloud and the Internet of Things, as well as the new business models and system designs these trends are pushing organizations toward due to the consumerization of IT and evolving user behaviors. The Forum was created to help organizations address the architectural and structural considerations that businesses must consider to take advantage of and benefit from this evolutionary shift in how technology is used.

We sat down with The Open Group CTO Dave Lounsbury and Open Platform 3.0 Director Dr. Chris Harding at the recent San Francisco conference to catch up on the Forum’s activities and progress since launch and what they’ll be working on during 2014.

The Open Group’s Forum, Open Platform 3.0, was launched almost a year ago in April of 2013. What has the Forum been working on over the past year?

Chris Harding (CH): We launched at the Sydney conference in April of last year. What we’ve done since then first of all was to look at the requirements for the platform, and we did this using the proven TOGAF® technique of the Business Scenario. So over the course of last summer, the summer of 2013, we developed a Business Scenario capturing the requirements for Open Platform 3.0 and that was published just before The Open Group conference in October. Following that conference, the main activity that we’ve been doing is in fact furthering the requirements space. We’ve been developing analysis of use cases, so currently we have 22 different use cases that members of the forum have put together which are illustrating the use of the convergent technologies and most importantly the use of them in combination with each other.

What we’re doing here in this meeting in San Francisco is to obtain from that basis of requirements and use cases an understanding of what the platform fundamentally should be because it is our intention to produce a Snapshot definition of the platform by the end of March. So in the first year of the Forum, we hope that we will finish that year by producing a Snapshot definition of Open Platform 3.0.

Dave Lounsbury (DL): First, the roots of the Open Platform go deeper. Previous to that we had a number of works groups in the areas of Cloud, SOA and some other ones in terms of Semantic Interoperability. All of those were early pieces, and what we saw at the beginning of 2013 was a coalescing of that into this concept that businesses were looking for a new platform for their operations that combined aspects of Social, Mobile, Cloud computing, Big Data and the analytics that go along with it. We saw that emerging in the marketplace, and we formed the Forum to develop that direction. The Open Group always takes an end-to-end view of any problem – we like to look at the whole ecosystem. We want to make sure that the technical standards aren’t just point targets and actually address a business need.

Some of the work groups within The Open Group, such as Quantum Lifecycle Management (QLM) and Semantic Interoperability, have been brought under the umbrella of Open Platform 3.0, most notably the Cloud Work Group. How will the work of these groups continue under Platform 3.0?

CH: Some of the work already going on in The Open Group was directly or indirectly relevant to Open Platform 3.0. And that first and most importantly was the work of the Cloud Work Group, Cloud being one of the convergent technologies, and the Cloud Work Group became a part of Platform 3.0. Two other activities also became a part of Open Platform 3.0, one was of these was the Semantic Interoperability Work Group, and that is because we recognized that Semantic Interoperability has to be an important part of how these technologies work with each other. Though it may not be that we have a full definition of that in the first version of the standard – it’s a notoriously difficult area – but over the course of time, we hope to incorporate a Semantic Interoperability component in the Platform definition and that may well build on the work that we’ve been doing with the Universal Data Element Framework, the UDEF project, which is currently undergoing a major restructuring. The key thing from the Open Platform 3.0 perspective is how the semantic convention relates to the convergence of the technologies in the platform.

In terms of QLM, that became part become of Open Platform 3.0 because one of the key convergent technologies is the Internet of Things, and QLM overlaps significantly with that. QLM is not about the Internet of Things, as such, but it does have a strong component of understanding the way networked sensors and controls work, so that’s become an important contribution to the new Forum.

DL: Like in any platform there’s going to be multiple components. In Open Platform 3.0, one of the big drivers for this change is Big Data. Big Data is very trendy, right? But where does Big Data come from? Well, it comes from increased connectivity, increased use of mobile devices, increased use of sensors –  the ‘Internet of Things.’ All of these things are generating data about usage patterns, where people are, what they’re doing, what that they‘re buying, what they’re interested in and what their likes and dislikes are, creating a massive flood of data. Now the question becomes ‘how do you compute on that data?’ You need to handle that massively scalable stream of data. You need massively scalable computing  underneath it, you need the ability to move large amounts of information from one place to another. When you think about the analysis of data like that, you have algorithms that do a lot of data access and they’ll have big spikes of computation, as they create some model of it. If you’re going to look at 10 zillion records, you don’t want to buy enough computers so you can always look at 10 zillion records, you want to be able to turn that on, do your analysis and turn it back off.  That’s, of course, why Cloud is a critical component of Open Platform 3.0.

Open Platform 3.0 encompasses a lot of different technologies as well as how they are converging. How do you piece apart everything that Platform 3.0 entails to begin to formulate a standard for it?

CH: I mentioned that we developed 22 use cases. The way that we’re addressing this is to look at use cases and the business and technical ecosystems that those use cases exemplify and to abstract from that some fundamental architectural patterns. These we believe will be the basis for the initial definition of the platform.

DL: That gets back to this question about how were starting up. Again it’s The Open Group’s mantra that we look at a business problem as an end-to-end problem. So what you’ll see in Open Platform 3.0, is that we’ve done the Business Scenario to figure out what’s the business motivator, what do business people need to get this done, and we’re fleshing that out with these details in these detailed use cases.

One of the things that we’re very careful about in The Open Group is that we don’t replicate what’s going on in other standards bodies. If you look at what’s going on in Cloud, and what continues to go on in Cloud under the Open Platform 3.0, banner, we really focused in on what do business people really need in the cloud guides – those are how business people really use it.  We’ve stayed away for a long time from the bits and bytes – we’re now doing a Cloud Reference Architecture – but we’ve also created the Cloud Ecosystem Reference Model, which was just published. That Cloud Ecosystem Reference Model, if you read through it, isn’t about how bits flow around, it’s about how partners interact with each other – what to look for in your Cloud partner, who are the players? When you go to use Cloud in your business, what players do you have to engage with? What are the roles that you have to engage with them on? So again it’s really that business level of guidance that The Open Group is really good at, and we do liaison with other organizations in order to get technical stuff if we need it – or if not, we’ll create it ourselves because we’ve got very competent technical people – but again, it’s that balanced business approach that distinguishes The Open Group way.

Many industry pundits have said that Open Platform 3.0 is ultimately about a shift toward user-driven IT. How does that change the standards making process when most standards are ultimately put in place by technologists not necessarily end-users?

CH:  It’s an interesting question. I mentioned the Business Scenario that we developed over the summer – one of the key things that came out of that was that there is this shift towards a more direct use of the technologies by business users.  And that is partly because it’s becoming more possible. Cloud is one of the key factors that has shortened the cycle of procuring and putting IT in place to support business use, and made it more possible to manage IT directly. At the same time [users are] becoming impatient with delay and wanting to gain the benefits of technology directly and not at arms length through the IT department. We’re seeing in connection with these phenomena such as the business technologist, the technical specialist who works with or is employed by the business department rather than within a separate IT department, and one of whose key strengths is an understanding of the business.  So that is certainly an important dimension that we’re seeing and one of the requirements for the Platform is that it should be usable in an environment where business is using IT more directly.

But that wasn’t the question you asked. The question was, ‘isn’t it a problem that the standards are defined by technologists?’ We don’t believe it’s a problem provided that the technologists do have an understanding of the business environment. That was why in the Business Scenario activity that we conducted, one of the key inputs was a roundtable workshop with CIO level people, and that is where a lot of our perspective on why things are changing comes from. Open Platform 3.0 certainly does have dimension of fundamental architecture patterns and part of that is business architecture patterns but it also has a technical dimension, and obviously you do really need the technical people to explore that dimension though they do always need to keep in mind the technology is there to serve the business.

DL: If you actually look at trends in the marketplace about how IT is done, and in fact if you look at the last blog post that Allen [Brown] did about agile, the whole thrust of agile methodologies and its successor DevOps is to really get the implementers right next to the business people and have a very tight arrangement in order to get fast iteration and really have the implementer do what the business person needs. I actually view consumerization not as some outside threat but actually a logical extension of that trend. What’s happening in my opinion is that people who are not technologists, who are not part of the IT department, are getting comfortable using and managing their own technology. And so they’re making decisions that used to be made by the IT department years ago – or what used to be the IT department. First there was the big mainframe, and you handed in your cards at a window and you got your printout in your little cubby hole. Then the IT department bought your PC, and now we bring our own devices. There’s nothing wrong with that, that’s people getting comfortable with technology and making decisions. I think that’s one of the reasons we have need for an Open Platform 3.0 approach – to develop business guidance and eventually technical standards on how we keep up with that trend. Because it’s a very natural trend – people want to control the resources they need to get their job done, and if those resources are technical resources, and they’re comfortable doing that, great!

Convergence and Open Platform 3.0 seem to take us closer and closer to The Open Group’s vision of Boundaryless Information Flow™.  Is Open Platform 3.0 the fulfillment of that vision?

DL: I think I’d be crazy to say that it’s the endpoint of that vision. I think being able to move large amounts of data and make decisions on it is a significant step forward in Boundaryless Information Flow, but this is a two-edged sword. I talked about all that data being generated by mobile devices and sensors and retail networks and social networks and things like that. That data is growing exponentially.  The number of people who can make decisions on that data are growing at best linearly and not very quickly. So if there’s all this data out there and nobody to look at it, we need to ask if we have we lowered the boundary for communications or have we actually raised it by creating a pile of data that no one can climb? That’s why I think a next step is, in fact, more machine-assisted analytics and predictive analytics and machine learning that will help humans digest and understand that data. That will be, I think, yet another step toward Boundaryless Information Flow. Moving bits around does not equate to information flow – its only information when it moves from data to being information in a human’s brain. Until we lower that barrier as well, we’re not there. And even beyond that, there’s still lots of things that can be done, in terms of breaking down human language barriers and things like that or social networks in more intuitive ways. I think there’s a long way to go. I think this is a really important step forward, but fulfillment is too strong a word.

CH:  Not in itself, I don’t believe. It is a major contribution towards the vision of Boundaryless Information Flow but it is not the complete fulfillment of that vision. Since we’ve formulated the problem statement of Boundaryless Information Flow there have been a number of developments that have impacted on it and maybe helped to bring it closer. So you might think of SOA as an important enabling technology for Boundaryless Information Flow, replacing the information silos with interacting services. Now we’re seeing Open Platform 3.0, which is certainly going to have a service-oriented flavor, shall we say, although it probably will not look exactly like traditional SOA. The Boundaryless Information Flow requirement was a very far-reaching problem statement. The Interoperable Business Scenario was where it was first set out and since then we’ve been gradually making process toward it. Open Platform 3.0 will bring it closer, but I’m sure there will be other things still needed to make it happen. 

One of the key things for Boundaryless Information Flow is Enterprise Architecture. So within a particular enterprise, the business and IT needs to be architected to enable Boundaryless Information Flow, and TOGAF is the method that is defined and maintained by The Open Group for how enterprises define enterprise architectures. Open Platform 3.0 will complement that by providing a ‘this is what an architecture looks like that enables the business to take advantage of this new converging technologies.’ But there will still be a need for the Enterprise Architect to put that together with the other particular factors involved in an enterprise to create an architecture for Boundaryless Information Flow within that enterprise.

When can we expect the first standard from Open Platform 3.0?

DL: Well, we published the Cloud Ecosystem Reference Guide, and again the understanding of how business partners relate in the Cloud world is a key component of Open Platform 3.0. The Forum has a roadmap, and will start publishing the case studies still in process.

The message I would say is there’s already early value in the Cloud Ecosystem Reference Model, which is a logical continuation of cloud work that had already gone on in the Work Group, but is now part of the Forum as part of Open Platform 3.0.

CH: That’s always a tricky question however I can tell you what is planned. The intention, as I said, was to produce a Snapshot definition by the end of March and, given we are a quarter of the way through the meeting at this conference, which is the key meeting that will define the basis for that, the progress has been good so far, so I’m optimistic. A Snapshot is not a Standard. A Snapshot is a statement of ‘this is what we are thinking and might be what it will look like,’ but it’s not guaranteed in any way that the Standard will follow the Snapshot. We are intending to produce the first Standard definition of the platform in about a year’s time after the Snapshot.  That will give the opportunity for people not only within The Open Group but outside The Open Group to give us input and further understanding of the way people intend to use the platform as feedback on the snapshot, which should be the basis for the first published standard.

For more on the Open Platform 3.0 Forum, please visit: http://www3.opengroup.org/subjectareas/platform3.0.

If you have any questions about Open Platform 3.0 or if you would like to join the new Forum, please contact Chris Harding (c.harding@opengroup.org) for queries regarding the Forum or Chris Parnell (c.parnell@opengroup.org) for queries regarding membership.

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

Dave LounsburyDave is Chief Technical Officer (CTO) and Vice President, Services for The Open Group. As CTO, he ensures that The Open Group’s people and IT resources are effectively used to implement the organization’s strategy and mission.  As VP of Services, Dave leads the delivery of The Open Group’s proven collaboration processes for collaboration and certification both within the organization and in support of third-party consortia. Dave holds a degree in Electrical Engineering from Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and is holder of three U.S. patents.

Comments Off

Filed under Cloud, Cloud/SOA, Conference, Open Platform 3.0, Standards, TOGAF®

Facing the Challenges of the Healthcare Industry – An Interview with Eric Stephens of The Open Group Healthcare Forum

By The Open Group

The Open Group launched its new Healthcare Forum at the Philadelphia conference in July 2013. The forum’s focus is on bringing Boundaryless Information Flow™ to the healthcare industry to enable data to flow more easily throughout the complete healthcare ecosystem through a standardized vocabulary and messaging. Leveraging the discipline and principles of Enterprise Architecture, including TOGAF®, the forum aims to develop standards that will result in higher quality outcomes, streamlined business practices and innovation within the industry.

At the recent San Francisco 2014 conference, Eric Stephens, Enterprise Architect at Oracle, delivered a keynote address entitled, “Enabling the Opportunity to Achieve Boundaryless Information Flow” along with Larry Schmidt, HP Fellow at Hewlett-Packard. A veteran of the healthcare industry, Stephens was Senior Director of Enterprise Architects Excellus for BlueCross BlueShield prior to joining Oracle and he is an active member of the Healthcare Forum.

We sat down after the keynote to speak with Stephens about the challenges of healthcare, how standards can help realign the industry and the goals of the forum. The opinions expressed here are Stephens’ own, not of his employer.

What are some of the challenges currently facing the healthcare industry?

There are a number of challenges, and I think when we look at it as a U.S.-centric problem, there’s a disproportionate amount of spending that’s taking place in the U.S. For example, if you look at GDP or percentage of GDP expenditures, we’re looking at now probably 18 percent of GDP [in the U.S.], and other developed countries are spending a full 5 percent less than that of their GDP, and in some cases they’re getting better outcomes outside the U.S.

The mere fact that there’s the existence of what we call “medical tourism, where if I need a hip replacement, I can get it done for a fraction of the cost in another country, same or better quality care and have a vacation—a rehab vacation—at the same time and bring along a spouse or significant other, means there’s a real wide range of disparity there. 

There’s also a lack of transparency. Having worked at an insurance company, I can tell you that with the advent of high deductible plans, there’s a need for additional cost information. When I go on Amazon or go to a local furniture store, I know what the cost is going to be for what I’m about to purchase. In the healthcare system, we don’t get that. With high deductible plans, if I’m going to be responsible for a portion or a larger portion of the fee, I want to know what it is. And what happens is, the incentives to drive costs down force the patient to be a consumer. The consumer now asks the tough questions. If my daughter’s going in for a tonsillectomy, show me a bill of materials that shows me what’s going to be done – if you are charging me $20/pill for Tylenol, I’ll bring my own. Increased transparency is what will in turn drive down the overall costs.

I think there’s one more thing, and this gets into the legal side of things. There is an exorbitant amount of legislation and regulation around what needs to be done. And because every time something goes sideways, there’s going to be a lawsuit, doctors will prescribe an extra test, and extra X-ray for a patient whether they need it or not.

The healthcare system is designed around a vicious cycle of diagnose-treat-release. It’s not incentivized to focus on prevention and management. Oregon is promoting these coordinated care organizations (CCOs) that would be this intermediary that works with all medical professionals – whether it was physical, mental, dental, even social worker – to coordinate episodes of care for patients. This drives down inappropriate utilization – for example, using an ER as a primary care facility and drives the medical system towards prevention and management of health. 

Your keynote with Larry Schmidt of HP focused a lot on cultural changes that need to take place within the healthcare industry – what are some of the changes necessary for the healthcare industry to put standards into place?

I would say culturally, it goes back to those incentives, and it goes back to introducing this idea of patient-centricity. And for the medical community, to really start recognizing that these individuals are consumers and increased choice is being introduced, just like you see in other industries. There are disruptive business models. As a for instance, medical tourism is a disruptive business model for United States-based healthcare. The idea of pharmacies introducing clinical medicine for routine care, such as what you see at a CVS, Wal-Mart or Walgreens. I can get a flu shot, I can get a well-check visit, I can get a vaccine – routine stuff that doesn’t warrant a full-blown medical professional. It’s applying the right amount of medical care to a particular situation.

Why haven’t existing standards been adopted more broadly within the industry? What will help providers be more likely to adopt standards?

I think the standards adoption is about “what’s in it for me, the WIIFM idea. It’s demonstrating to providers that utilizing standards is going to help them get out of the medical administration business and focus on their core business, the same way that any other business would want to standardize its information through integration, processes and components. It reduces your overall maintenance costs going forward and arguably you don’t need a team of billing folks sitting in an doctor’s office because you have standardized exchanges of information.

Why haven’t they been adopted? It’s still a question in my mind. Why would a doctor not want to do that is perhaps a question we’re going to need to explore as part of the Healthcare Forum.

Is it doctors that need to adopt the standards or technologies or combination of different constituents within the ecosystem?

I think it’s a combination. We hear a lot about the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the health exchanges. What we don’t hear about is the legislation to drive toward standardization to increase interoperability. So unfortunately it would seem the financial incentives or things we’ve tried before haven’t worked, and we may simply have to resort to legislation or at least legislative incentives to make it happen because part of the funding does cover information exchanges so you can move health information between providers and other actors in the healthcare system.

You’re advocating putting the individual at the center of the healthcare ecosystem. What changes need to take place within the industry in order to do this?

I think it’s education, a lot of education that has to take place. I think that individuals via the incentive model around high deductible plans will force some of that but it’s taking responsibility and understanding the individual role in healthcare. It’s also a cultural/societal phenomenon.

I’m kind of speculating here, and going way beyond what enterprise architecture or what IT would deliver, but this is a philosophical thing around if I have an ailment, chances are there’s a pill to fix it. Look at the commercials, every ailment say hypertension, it’s easy, you just dial the medication correctly and you don’t worry as much about diet and exercise. These sorts of things – our over-reliance on medication. I’m certainly not going to knock the medications that are needed for folks that absolutely need them – but I think we can become too dependent on pharmacological solutions for our health problems.   

What responsibility will individuals then have for their healthcare? Will that also require a cultural and behavioral shift for the individual?

The individual has to start managing his or her own health. We manage our careers and families proactively. Now we need to focus on our health and not just float through the system. It may come to financial incentives for certain “individual KPIs such as blood pressure, sugar levels, or BMI. Advances in medical technology may facilitate more personal management of one’s health.

One of the Healthcare Forum’s goals is to help establish Boundaryless Information Flow within the Healthcare industry you’ve said that understanding the healthcare ecosystem will be a key component for that what does that ecosystem encompass and why is it important to know that first?

Very simply we’re talking about the member/patient/consumer, then we get into the payers, the providers, and we have to take into account government agencies and other non-medical agents, but they all have to work in concert and information needs to flow between those organizations in a very standardized way so that decisions can be made in a very timely fashion.

It can’t be bottled up, it’s got to be provided to the right provider at the right time, otherwise, best case, it’s going to cost more to manage all the actors in the system. Worst case, somebody dies or there is a “never event due to misinformation or lack of information during the course of care. The idea of Boundaryless Information Flow gives us the opportunity to standardize, have easily accessible information – and by the way secured – it can really aide in that decision-making process going forward. It’s no different than Wal-Mart knowing what kind of merchandise sells well before and after a hurricane (i.e., beer and toaster pastries, BTW). It’s the same kind of real-time information that’s made available to a Google car so it can steer its way down the road. It’s that kind of viscosity needed to make the right decisions at the right time.

Healthcare is a highly regulated industry, how can Boundarylesss Information Flow and data collection on individuals be achieved and still protect patient privacy?

We can talk about standards and the flow and the technical side. We need to focus on the security and privacy side.  And there’s going to be a legislative side because we’re going to touch on real fundamental data governance issue – who owns the patient record? Each actor in the system thinks they own the patient record. If we’re going to require more personal accountability for healthcare, then shouldn’t the consumer have more ownership? 

We also need to address privacy disclosure regulations to avoid catastrophic data leaks of protected health information (PHI). We need bright IT talent to pull off the integration we are talking about here. We also need folks who are well versed in the privacy laws and regulations. I’ve seen project teams of 200 have up to eight folks just focusing on the security and privacy considerations. We can argue about headcount later but my point is the same – one needs some focused resources around this topic.

What will standards bring to the healthcare industry that is missing now?

I think the standards, and more specifically the harmonization of the standards, is going to bring increased maintainability of solutions, I think it’s going to bring increased interoperability, I think it’s going to bring increased opportunities too. We see mobile computing or even DropBox, that has API hooks into all sorts of tools, and it’s well integrated – so I can integrate and I can move files between devices, I can move files between apps because they have hooks it’s easy to work with. So it’s building these communities of developers, apps and technical capabilities that makes it easy to move the personal health record for example, back and forth between providers and it’s not a cataclysmic event to integrate a new version of electronic health records (EHR) or to integrate the next version of an EHR. This idea of standardization but also some flexibility that goes into it.

Are you looking just at the U.S. or how do you make a standard that can go across borders and be international?

It is a concern, much of my thinking and much of what I’ve conveyed today is U.S.-centric, based on our problems, but many of these interoperability problems are international. We’re going to need to address it; I couldn’t tell you what the sequence is right now. There are other considerations, for example, single vs. multi-payer—that came up in the keynote. We tend to think that if we stay focused on the consumer/patient we’re going to get it for all constituencies. It will take time to go international with a standard, but it wouldn’t be the first time. We have a host of technical standards for the Internet (e.g., TCP/IP, HTTP). The industry has been able to instill these standards across geographies and vendors. Admittedly, the harmonization of health care-related standards will be more difficult. However, as our world shrinks with globalization an international lens will need to be applied to this challenge. 

Eric StephensEric Stephens (@EricStephens) is a member of Oracle’s executive advisory community where he focuses on advancing clients’ business initiatives leveraging the practice of Business and Enterprise Architecture. Prior to joining Oracle he was Senior Director of Enterprise Architecture at Excellus BlueCross BlueShield leading the organization with architecture design, innovation, and technology adoption capabilities within the healthcare industry.

 

Comments Off

Filed under Conference, Data management, Enterprise Architecture, Healthcare, Information security, Standards, TOGAF®

The Open Group San Francisco 2014 – Day Two Highlights

By Loren K. Baynes, Director, Global Marketing Communications

Day two, February 4th, of The Open Group San Francisco conference kicked off with a welcome and opening remarks from Steve Nunn, COO of The Open Group and CEO of the Association of Enterprise Architects.

Nunn introduced Allen Brown, President and CEO of The Open Group, who provided highlights from The Open Group’s last quarter.  As of Q4 2013, The Open Group had 45,000 individual members in 134 countries hailing from 449 member companies in 38 countries worldwide. Ten new member companies have already joined The Open Group in 2014, and 24 members joined in the last quarter of 2013, with the first member company joining from Vietnam. In addition, 6,500 individuals attended events sponsored by The Open Group in Q4 2013 worldwide.

Updates on The Open Group’s ongoing work were provided including updates on the FACE™ Consortium, DirectNet® Waveform Standard, Architecture Forum, Archimate® Forum, Open Platform 3.0™ Forum and Security Forum.

Of note was the ongoing development of TOGAF® and introduction of a three-volume work including individual volumes outlining the TOGAF framework, guidance and tools and techniques for the standard, as well as collaborative work that allows the Archimate modeling language to be used for risk management in enterprise architectures.

In addition, Open Platform 3.0 Forum has already put together 22 business use cases outlining ROI and business value for various uses related to technology convergence. The Cloud Work Group’s Cloud Reference Architecture has also been submitted to ISO for international standards certification, and the Security Forum has introduced certification programs for OpenFAIR risk management certification for individuals.

The morning plenary centered on The Open Group’s Dependability through Assuredness™ (O-DA) Framework, which was released last August.

Speaking first about the framework was Dr. Mario Tokoro, Founder and Executive Advisor for Sony Computer Science Laboratories. Dr. Tokoro gave an overview of the Dependable Embedded OS project (DEOS), a large national project in Japan originally intended to strengthen the country’s embedded systems. After considerable research, the project leaders discovered they needed to consider whether large, open systems could be dependable when it came to business continuity, accountability and ensuring consistency throughout the systems’ lifecycle. Because the boundaries of large open systems are ever-changing, the project leaders knew they must put together dependability requirements that could accommodate constant change, allow for continuous service and provide continuous accountability for the systems based on consensus. As a result, they put together a framework to address both the change accommodation cycle and failure response cycles for large systems – this framework was donated to The Open Group’s Real-Time Embedded Systems Forum and released as the O-DA standard.

Dr. Tokoro’s presentation was followed by a panel discussion on the O-DA standard. Moderated by Dave Lounsbury, VP and CTO of The Open Group, the panel included Dr. Tokoro; Jack Fujieda, Founder and CEO ReGIS, Inc.; T.J. Virdi, Senior Enterprise IT Architect at Boeing; and Bill Brierly, Partner and Senior Consultant, Conexiam. The panel discussed the importance of openness for systems, iterating the conference theme of boundaries and the realities of having standards that can ensure openness and dependability at the same time. They also discussed how the O-DA standard provides end-to-end requirements for system architectures that also account for accommodating changes within the system and accountability for it.

Lounsbury concluded the track by iterating that assuring systems’ dependability is not only fundamental to The Open Group mission of Boundaryless Information Flow™ and interoperability but also in preventing large system failures.

Tuesday’s late morning sessions were split into two tracks, with one track continuing the Dependability through Assuredness theme hosted by Joe Bergmann, Forum Chair of The Open Group’s Real-Time and Embedded Systems Forum. In this track, Fujieda and Brierly furthered the discussion of O-DA outlining the philosophy and vision of the standard, as well as providing a roadmap for the standard.

In the morning Business Innovation & Transformation track, Alan Hakimi, Consulting Executive, Microsoft presented “Zen and the Art of Enterprise Architecture: The Dynamics of Transformation in a Complex World.” Hakimi emphasized that transformation needs to focus on a holistic view of an organization’s ecosystem and motivations, economics, culture and existing systems to help foster real change. Based on Buddhist philosophy, he presented an eightfold path to transformation that can allow enterprise architects to approach transformation and discuss it with other architects and business constituents in a way that is meaningful to them and allows for complexity and balance.

This was followed by “Building the Knowledge-Based Enterprise,” a session given by Bob Weisman, Head Management Consultant for Build the Vision.

Tuesday’s afternoon sessions centered on a number of topics including Business Innovation and Transformation, Risk Management, Archimate, TOGAF tutorials and case studies and Professional Development.

In the Archimate track, Vadim Polyakov of Inovalon, Inc., presented “Implementing an EA Practice in an Agile Enterprise” a case study centered on how his company integrated its enterprise architecture with the principles of agile development and how they customized the Archimate framework as part of the process.

The Risk Management track featured William Estrem, President, Metaplexity Associates, and Jim May of Windsor Software discussing how the Open FAIR Standard can be used in conjunction with TOGAF 9.1 to enhance risk management in organizations in their session, “Integrating Open FAIR Risk Analysis into the Enterprise Architecture Capability.” Jack Jones, President of CXOWARE, also discussed the best ways for “Communicating the Value Proposition” for cohesive enterprise architectures to business managers using risk management scenarios.

The plenary sessions and many of the track sessions from today’s tracks can be viewed on The Open Group’s Livestream channel at http://new.livestream.com/opengroup.

The day culminated with dinner and a Lion Dance performance in honor of Chinese New Year performed by Leung’s White Crane Lion & Dragon Dance School of San Francisco.

We would like to express our gratitude for the support by our following sponsors:  BIZZDesign, Corso, Good e-Learning, I-Server and Metaplexity Associates.

IMG_1460 copy

O-DA standard panel discussion with Dave Lounsbury, Bill Brierly, Dr. Mario Tokoro, Jack Fujieda and TJ Virdi

Comments Off

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

The Open Group London – Day Two Highlights

By Loren K. Baynes, Director, Global Marketing Communications

We eagerly jumped into the second day of our Business Transformation conference in London on Tuesday October 22nd!  The setting is the magnificent Central Hall Westminster.

Steve Nunn, COO of The Open Group and CEO of Association of Enterprise Architects (AEA), started off the morning introducing our plenary based on Healthcare Transformation.  Steve noted that the numbers in healthcare spend are huge and bringing Enterprise Architecture (EA) to healthcare will help with efficiencies.

The well-renowned Dr. Peter Sudbury, Healthcare Specialist with HP Enterprise Services, discussed the healthcare crisis (dollars, demand, demographics), the new healthcare paradigm, barriers to change and innovation. Dr. Sudbury also commented on the real drivers of healthcare costs: healthcare inflation is higher intrinsically; innovation increases cost; productivity improvements lag other industries.

IMG_sudburyDr. Peter Sudbury

Dr. Sudbury, Larry Schmidt (Chief Technologist, HP) and Roar Engen (Head of Enterprise Architecture, Helse Sør-Øst RHF, Norway) participated in the Healthcare Transformation Panel, moderated by Steve Nunn.  The group discussed opportunities for improvement by applying EA in healthcare.  They mentioned that physicians, hospitals, drug manufacturers, nutritionists, etc. should all be working together and using Boundaryless Information Flow™ to ensure data is smoothly shared across all entities.  It was also stated that TOGAF® is beneficial for efficiencies.

Following the panel, Dr. Mario Tokoro (Founder & Executive Advisor of Sony Computer Science Laboratories, Inc. Japanese Science & Technology Agency, DEOS Project Leader) reviewed the Dependability through Assuredness™ standard, a standard of The Open Group.

The conference also offered many sessions in Finance/Commerce, Government and Tutorials/Workshops.

Margaret Ford, Consult Hyperion, UK and Henk Jonkers of BIZZdesign, Netherlands discussed “From Enterprise Architecture to Cyber Security Risk Assessment”.  The key takeaways were: complex cyber security risks require systematic, model-based risk assessment; attack navigators can provide this by linking ArchiMate® to the Risk Taxonomy.

“Applying Service-Oriented Architecture within a Business Technology Environment in the Finance Sector” was presented by Gerard Peters, Managing Consultant, Capgemini, The Netherlands. This case study is part of a white paper on Service-Oriented Architecture for Business Technology (SOA4BT).

You can view all of the plenary and many of the track presentations at livestream.com.  And for those who attended, full conference proceedings will be available.

The night culminated with a spectacular experience on the London Eye, the largest Ferris wheel in Europe located on the River Thames.

Comments Off

Filed under ArchiMate®, Cloud/SOA, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Transformation, Healthcare, Professional Development, Service Oriented Architecture, TOGAF®

The Open Group TweetJam on Digital-Disruption – by Tom Graves

On 2 October 2013, the Open Group ran one of its occasional ‘TweetJam’ Twitter-discussions – also known as an #ogChat. This time it was on digital disruption – disruption to existing business-models, typically (but, as we will see, not only) by changes in technology.

I think I captured almost all of the one-hour conversation – all tweets tagged with the #ogChat hashtag – but I may well have missed a few here and there. I’ve also attempted to bring the cross-chat (@soandso references) into correct sense-order, but I’ll admit I’m likely to have made more errors there. Each text-line is essentially as published on Twitter, minus the RT @ prefix and the identifying #ogChat tag.

The legal bit: Copyright of each statement is as per Twitter’s published policy: I make no claim whatsoever to any of the tweets here other than my own (i.e. tetradian). The material is re-published here under ‘fair-use’ rules for copyright, as a public service to the enterprise-architecture community.

The TweetJam was split into seven sections, each guided by a question previously summarised on the Open Group website – see Open Group, ‘Leading Business Disruption Strategy with Enterprise Architecture‘. I’ve also added a few extra comments of my own after each section.

Introductions

(The TweetJam started with a request for each person to introduce themselves, which also serves as a useful cross-reference between name and Twitter-ID. Not every who joined in the TweetJam did this, but most did so – enough to help make sense of the conversation, anyway.)

  • theopengroup: Please introduce yourself and get ready for question 1, identified by “Q1″ …and so on. You may respond with “A1″ and so on using #ogChat // And do tweet your agreement/disagreement with other participants’ views using #ogChat, we’re interested to hear from all sides #EntArch
  • enterprisearchs: Hi all, from Hugh Evans, Enterprise Architects (@enterprisearchs), CEO and Founder
  • tetradian: Tom Graves (tetradian)
  • eatraining: Craig Martin
  • TheWombatWho: Andrew Gallagher – Change Strategy / Business Architect
  • chrisjharding: Hi from Chris Harding, The Open Group Forum Director for Open Platform 3.0
  • dianedanamac: Good day! Social Media Manager, Membership & Events at @theopengroup   I’m your contact if you have questions on The Open Group.
  • InfoRacer: Chris Bradley
  • David_A_OHara: Hi all, Dave O’Hara here, enteprise/biz architect
  • TalmanAJ: Aarne Talman – IT Startegy/EA consultant at Accenture
  • zslayton: Good morning.  Zach Slayton here from Collaborative Consulting @consultcollab
  • efeatherston: Good morning. Ed Featherston, Enterprise Arch from Collaborative Consulting
  • filiphdr: Filip Hendrickx, business architect @AE_NV
  • Frustin_Jetwell: Hello, I’m late, Justin Fretwell here, technical enterprise architecture

Question 1: What is ‘disruption’?

  • theopengroup: Let’s kick things off: Q1 What is #Disruption? #EntArch
  • TheWombatWho: A1 Disruption is normality
  • enterprisearchs: A1 Disruptors offer a new #BizModel that defines a different frontier of value
  • enterprisearchs: A1 Disruptors often introduce new technologies or processes that set them apart
  • chrisjharding: A1 Could be many things. Cloud, mobile, social, and other new technologies are disrupting the relation between business and IT
  • tetradian: A1: anything that changes business-as-usual (scale from trivial to world-shaking)
  • enterprisearchs: A1 Disruptors offer equal or better performance at prices incumbents can’t match
  • TheWombatWho: A1 agree with @tetradian but add that it is normal state of things.
  • David_A_OHara: A1,  not just tech-led disruption, but consumers actively driving innovation by finding new ways to use tech in work & social lives
  • zslayton: A1:  Disruptors are anything that breaks a norm or widely-held paradigm
  • enterprisearchs: A1 #Disruption begins when the entrant catches up to incumbents
  • InfoRacer: A1 Disruption is inevitable & BAU for many organisations these day
  • chrisjharding: @TheWombatWho Yes we live in disruptive (and interesting) times.
  • enterprisearchs: A1 Thanks to disruptive forces business models now have a much shorter shelf-life
  • DadaBeatnik: A1: To disrupt doesn’t mean more of the same. Example – iPhone was a true disrupter – no more Blackberry!
  • TalmanAJ: A1: Business disruptors offer new business model(s).
  • eatraining: A1 Innovation that creates a new value network or reorganized value system
  • TheWombatWho: A1 Disruptors can be global mega trends but can be localised.  Localised can provide ‘canary down the mine’ opportunity
  • TalmanAJ: A1: IT disruptors fundamentally change the way IT supports business models or change the business model
  • tetradian: .@TheWombatWho: A1 “…but add that [disruption] is normal state of things” – problem is that many folks don’t recognise that! :-)
  • chrisjharding: @David_A_OHara and disrupting traditional organization because they want to use it hands on, not through IT department
  • efeatherston: @chrisjharding good point on the bypassing IT, thats the #mobile disruption in full force
  • DadaBeatnik: Re: “disruption” read http://t.co/y0HrM3fcKH
  • eatraining: A1 Digital allows a far more effective entrepreneur and innovator environment, putting disruptive pressures on incumbents

Note an important point that’s perhaps easily missed (as some responders in fact do): that ‘disruption’ may include technology, or may be driven by technology – but that’s not always the case at all. Consider, for example, the huge disruption – on a literally global scale – caused by financial deregulation in the US in the 1980s and beyond: changes in law, not technology.

And, yes, as several people commented above, significant disruptions are becoming more common and more intense – a trend that most of us in EA would probably accept is only accelerating. As some might suggest, “you ain’t seen nothin’ yet…”: certainly the old stable-seeming business-models and seeming-guaranteed ‘sustainable competitive-advantage’ and the like would seem to be like pleasant fantasies from a fast-fading past…

Question 2: What is ‘digital disruption’?

  • theopengroup: Q2 Some interesting views on disruption, but what then, is #DigitalDisruption?
  • efeatherston: A2: disruption that is focused/based on technology issue, changes in technology, how things are done
  • enterprisearchs: A2 Disruptive business models that leverage digital capabilities to create, distribute or market their offerings
  • enterprisearchs: A2 Commonly applies #Cloud, #Mobile, #Social and or #BigData capabilities
  • efeatherston: A2: yes, #SMAC is the latest #digitaldisruption
  • TheWombatWho: A2 key with digital is not the medium it is the shift of power & control to the end user.  Digital enables it but its power shift
  • tetradian: A2: ‘digital’ used to mean technology, also to mean e.g. social/mobile (i.e. not solely technology) or more open business generally
  • enterprisearchs: A2 Many incumbents defend #digitaldisruption by moving to customer centric #BizModel
  • chrisjharding: A2 Disruption caused by digital technology – the main source of enterprise disruption today
  • enterprisearchs: A2 #digitaldisruption is seeing a convergence of business, technology and marketing disciplines
  • eatraining: A1&A2 Disruption not always digital but is it always technological? JEEP disruption on modern warfare
  • zslayton: @TheWombatWho Agreed…excellent point.  Shift towards user is key for #SMAC especially
  • Technodad: @TalmanAJ Agree – but digital disruption also invalidates existing business models.
  • enterprisearchs: A2 #Cloud enables ubiquitous access and effortless scalability
  • enterprisearchs: A2 #Mobile offers access anywhere, anytime and opens up previously untapped socioeconomic segments
  • enterprisearchs: A2 #Social accelerates viral uptake of demand and opinion, creating brand opportunities and threats
  • chrisjharding: @efeatherston They do what works for the business
  • TheWombatWho: A2 @enterprisearchs is it really marketing?  That discipline is going through fundamental change – hardly recognisable old vs new
  • David_A_OHara: @eatraining  real disruption now social rather than purely technical but enabled by seamless integration of tech in daily life
  • zslayton: @enterprisearchs #cloud = effortless scalability…a bit of an over-simplification but I do get your point.
  • efeatherston: @chrisjharding agree completely, just changes the paradigm for IT who are struggling to adapt
  • enterprisearchs: A2 #BigData enables ultra-personalisation of customer experience and powerful market insights
  • InfoRacer: A2 Digital Disruption also means avoiding blind alleys & the “me too” chase after some trends.  Eg #BigData isn’t necessarily…
  • TheWombatWho: @enterprisearchs its where work of Marshall McLuhan is worth a revisit.
  • chrisjharding: @David_A_OHara @eatraining social disruption caused by tech-based social media
  • DadaBeatnik: Some of these answers sound like they come from one of those buzzword phrase generators!
  • InfoRacer: @DadaBeatnik Like Predictive big cloud master data governance ;-) Surely the next big thang!
  • David_A_OHara: @enterprisearchs easier to deploy mobile internet vs fixed in growing economies: demand from developing world is uncharted territory
  • eatraining: A2 Digital reduces barriers to entry and blurs category boundaries
  • efeatherston: @David_A_OHara @eatraining #socialmedia definitely having impact, how people interact with tech in personal now fully into business
  • zslayton: @David_A_OHara @enterprisearchs Business models in developing world also uncharted.  New opportunities and challenges
  • David_A_OHara: @chrisjharding @eatraining yup, we have lived through a rapid (tech-enabled) social revolution almost without realising!
  • TheWombatWho: A2 its not the ‘technology’ it’s what ‘they do with it’ that changes everything.  Old IT paradigms are yet to adapt to this
  • Technodad: @David_A_OHara Agree – Near-ubiquitous global-scale communication channels changes balance between customer and enterprise.
  • chrisjharding: @David_A_OHara @eatraining yes – and it’s not finished yet!
  • InfoRacer: @TheWombatWho Right, it’s not just the technology.  #BigData 3 Vs but without 4th V (value) then big data = little information
  • David_A_OHara: @TheWombatWho Bang on!  so there’s the real challenge for EA, right? Changing the traditional IT mindset…?
  • afigueiredo: A2 Development that transforms lives, businesses, causing impact to global economy

To me there are two quite different things going on, but which are often blurred together:

– ‘digital-disruption proper’ – disruptions within which existing and/or new digital-based technologies are explicitly the core drivers

– ‘disruption-with-digital’: ‘digital’ as a catch-all for sociotechnical changes in which digital-based technologies are, at most, an important yet never the sole enabler – in other words, where the social side of ‘sociotechnical’ is more central than the technology itself

In my experience and understanding, most of so-called ‘digital disruption’ is more correctly in the latter category, not the former. Hence, for example, my comment about the [UK] Government Digital Service: it’s actually far more about changes in the nature of government-services itself – in effect, a much more ‘customer-centric’ view of service – rather than a focus on ‘going digital’ for digital’s sake. This is not to say that the technology doesn’t matter – for example, I do understand and agree with Andrew McAfee’s complaint about critiques of his ‘Enterprise 2.0′ concept, that “it’s not not about the technology” – but again, it’s more sociotechnical, not merely technical as such, and that distinction is often extremely important.

Interestingly, most of the examples cited above as ‘digital-disruptions – the often-overhyped ‘cloud’ and ‘big-data’ and suchlike – are ultimately more sociotechnical issues than technical. By contrast, most of the themes I’d see as ‘digital-disruption proper’ – for example, the rapidly-expanding developments around ‘smart-materials’, ‘smart-cities’ and ‘the internet of things’ – don’t get a mention here at all. Odd…

 Question 3: What are good examples of disruptive business-models?

  • theopengroup: Q3 Bearing these points in mind, what are good examples of disruptive #Bizmodels? #EntArch
  • enterprisearchs: A3 @Airbnb: Disrupting the hotel industry with a #Cloud & #Social based model to open up lodging capacity for people seeking accom
  • enterprisearchs: A3 @Uber: leveraging #Cloud and #Mobile to release existing capacity in the personal transport industry http://t.co/31Xmj7LwQ6
  • enterprisearchs: A3 @99designs: Rethinking how we access good design through #Social, #Cloud and competitive #crowdsourcing
  • enterprisearchs: A3 @Groupon: re-architecting retail to provide #Social buying power, reducing cost per unit and increasing vendor volumes
  • eatraining: @zslayton Reverse innovation in developing countries producing disruption in developed nations
  • chrisjharding: A3: marketing using social media
  • TheWombatWho: @InfoRacer and combined with behavioural sciences & predictive analytics
  • efeatherston: A3: Netflix is a disruptive business model, they threw the whole cable/broadcast/rental industry on its ears
  • enterprisearchs: A3 @iTunesMusic: creating a #Cloud based platform to lock in customers and deliver #Digital content
  • eatraining: Reverse Innovation in Tech Startups: The Story of Capillary Technologies – @HarvardBiz http://t.co/Ud7UN7ZxzQ
  • TheWombatWho: @David_A_OHara not just mindset but also disciplines around portfolio & programme planning, aspects of project mgmt etc
  • enterprisearchs: A3 @facebook: Using #Social #Cloud #Mobile and #BigData to get you & 1 billion other people to generate their product: your updates
  • David_A_OHara: @enterprisearchs @Groupon Here’s retail disruption: why cant I just walk into store, scan stuff on my phone and walk out with it?
  • zslayton: @efeatherston Absolutely.  Discussed this in a recent blog posts:  http://t.co/zWzzAN4Fsn
  • Technodad: @David_A_OHara @TheWombatWho Don’t assume enterprises lead or control change. Many examples imposed externally, e.g. Music industry
  • eatraining: @efeatherston Agree – @netflix: Shifting the #ValueProposition to low-cost on demand video content from the #Cloud
  • tetradian: A3 (also A2): UK Government Digital Service (GDS) – is ‘digital’, but change of business-service/paradigm is even more important
  • mjcavaretta: Value from #BigData primarily from…  RT @TheWombatWho: @InfoRacer behavioural sciences & #predictive #analytics
  • zslayton: @Technodad @David_A_OHara @TheWombatWho Spot on.  External event triggers change.  Org treats as opportunity/threat. IT must adapt
  • InfoRacer: A3 Expedia, Travelocity etc … where are High st travel agents now?
  • enterprisearchs: A3 ING Direct: delivering a simple #ValueProposition of no-frills and trusted high returns for depositors
  • Technodad: @enterprisearchs Disagree. ITunes was the enterprise consolidation -original disruption was peer-to-peer delivery of ripped music.
  • chrisjharding: @David_A_OHara @enterprisearchs @Groupon or plan a mixed bus/train journey on my ‘phone and download tickets to it?
  • eatraining: A3 DELL – game changing cost structures
  • TheWombatWho: @tetradian Great example.  UK Gov digital is fascinating.  Take that approach & apply it to competitive commercial enviro.
  • eatraining: A3 MOOC Platforms disrupting education? Scalability disruption
  • eatraining: A3 Nespresso – getting us to pay 8 times more for a cup of coffee.
  • tetradian: A3: many non-IT-oriented technologies – nanotechnology, micro-satellites, materials-science (water-filtration etc)
  • filiphdr: @chrisjharding @David_A_OHara @enterprisearchs @Groupon bus/train combo: yes – download tickets: no
  • zslayton: @Technodad @enterprisearchs Maybe.  But now with Google, spotify etc, a new model has emerged.

Some good examples, but I’ll admit that I find it disappointing that almost all of them focus primarily on shunting data around in the ‘social/local/mobile’ space – yes, all of them valid, but a very narrow subset of the actual ‘digital-disruption’ that’s going on these days. (Near the end, there is a good example of the broader view: “Nespresso – getting us to pay 8 times more for a cup of coffee”.)

As enterprise-architects and business-architects, we really do need to break out of the seemingly-reflex assumptions of IT-centrism, and learn instead to look at the contexts from a much broader perspective. For example, a common illustration I use is that the key competition for Netflix is not some other streaming-video provider, but booksellers, bars and restaurants – other types of services entirely, but that compete for the same social/time-slots in potential-customers’ lives.

Question 4: What is the role of enterprise-architecture in driving and responding to disruption?

  • enterprisearchs: A4 #EntArch will identify which capabilities will be needed, and when, to enable disruptive strategies
  • efeatherston: A4: #entArch is key to surviving tech disruption, need the high level view/impact on the business
  • chrisjharding: A4: #EntArch must be business-led, not technology-led
  • InfoRacer: A4 #EntArch can play an orchestration, impact analysis and sanity check role
  • efeatherston: Agree 100%, its all about the impact to the business RT @chrisjharding: A4: #EntArch must be business-led, not technology-led
  • enterprisearchs: A4 #EntArch will lead enterprise response to #disruption by plotting the execution path to winning strategies http://t.co/FdgqXOVKug
  • chrisjharding: A4: and #Entarch must be able to focus on business differentiation not common technology
  • enterprisearchs: A4 #EntArch will lead enterprise response to #disruption by plotting the execution path to winning strategies http://t.co/FdgqXOVKug
  • afigueiredo: A4 #entarch should be flexible to accommodate/support #disruption caused by new advances and changes
  • TheWombatWho: A4 help clarify & stick to intent of business.  It is key in choosing the critical capabilities vs non essential capabilities
  • enterprisearchs: A4 #EntArch will provide the strategic insights to identify what business changes are viable
  • chrisjharding: @InfoRacer or enable business users to orchestrate – give them the tools
  • enterprisearchs: A4 #EntArch will provide the strategic infrastructure to bring cohesion to business change
  • TalmanAJ: A4: identify existing and needed business and IT capabilities and ensure agility to respond to disruption #entarch
  • efeatherston: a4: #entarch needs to work with business to determine how to leverage/use/survive  #disruption to help the business processes
  • David_A_OHara: @enterprisearchs so you need very business-savvy and creative EAs (no longer a tech discipline but sustainable biz innovation role?)
  • InfoRacer: RT @enterprisearchs: A4 #EntArch will provide the strategic insights to identify what business changes are viable
  • TheWombatWho: A4 have to travel light so linking intent to critical capability is essential if Biz is to remain flexible & adaptable
  • zslayton: A4 #EntArch must steer the IT ship to adapt in the new world.  steady hand on the tiller!
  • TheWombatWho: A4 have to travel light so linking intent to critical capability is essential if Biz is to remain flexible & adaptable
  • TheWombatWho: @enterprisearchs agree
  • chrisjharding: @David_A_OHara @enterprisearchs Yup!
  • efeatherston: @David_A_OHara @enterprisearchs Agree, EA’S need both business and tech, act as the bridge for the business to help them respond
  • enterprisearchs: A4 #EntArch will assist in managing lifecycles at the #BizModel, market model, product & service and operating model levels
  • zslayton: @chrisjharding Absolutely.  Focus on commoditized tech will lead to lagging IT.  Focus on differentiators is key.
  • eatraining: A4 Business design and architecture will facilitate a more structured approach to business prototyping
  • tetradian: A4: identifying/describing the overall shared-enterprise space (tech + human); also lean-startup style ‘jobs to be done’ etc
  • Technodad: @TheWombatWho yes, but a tough job- how would #entarch have advised Tower Records in face of digital music disruption, loss of ROE?
  • David_A_OHara: @Technodad @TheWombatWho good challenge: same question can be posed re: Game and HMV in the UK…
  • eatraining: A4 Business model prototyping is the conversation we have with our ideas – @tomwujec
  • tetradian: @eatraining re business-prototyping – yes, strong agree
  • tetradian: A4 for ‘digital disruption’, crucial that #entarch covers a much broader space than just IT – pref. out to entire shared-enterprise
  • enterprisearchs: @tetradian agree – the boundaries of the enterprise are defined by the value discipline orientation, not by the balance sheet

In contradiction to what I said just above, that too-common predominance of IT-centrism in current EA is not so much in evidence here. It’s a pleasant contrast, but it doesn’t last…

Question 5: Why is enterprise-architecture well placed to respond to disruption?

  • theopengroup: Q5 And on a similar note, what is the role of #EntArch in driving and responding to #disruption?
  • enterprisearchs: A5 #EntArch has a unique appreciation of existing and required business capabilities to execute strategy
  • enterprisearchs: A5 Speed to change is now a competitive advantage. #EntArch can map the shortest path to deliver business outcomes
  • filiphdr: A5 Keep short term decisions in line w/ long term vision
  • enterprisearchs: A5 #EntArch provides the tools to better manage investment lifecycles, helping to time capability deployment and divestment
  • InfoRacer: A5 Advising, giving informed analysis, recommendations & impact so the Business officers can make decision with their eyes open!
  • enterprisearchs: A5 #EntArch is the only discipline that stitches strategic and business management disciplines together in a coherent manner
  • enterprisearchs: A5 Speed of response requires a clear mandate and execution plan. #EntArch will deliver this
  • zslayton: @enterprisearchs Agreed.  Toss in leadership and we may have something!
  • TheWombatWho: @Technodad key is “why was tower special?”  Advice, passion & knowledge…..still relevant?  Not the music – was the knowledge.
  • efeatherston: @enterprisearchs well said #entarch
  • enterprisearchs: A5 #EntArch provides vital information about which capabilities currently exist and which need to be acquired or built
  • chrisjharding: A5: Set principles and standards to give consistent use of disruptive technologies in enterprise
  • eatraining: @Technodad @TheWombatWho A few cycles of business model prototyping might have revealed a an opportunity to respond better
  • zslayton: @Technodad @TheWombatWho Netflix again a good example.  Cannibalized their soon to be dying biz to innovate in new biz.
  • TalmanAJ: A5: #entarch should be the tool to drive/respond to disruptions in a controlled manner
  • enterprisearchs: A5 #ArchitectureThinking provides a robust approach to optimise change initiatives and accelerate delivery
  • David_A_OHara: @Technodad @TheWombatWho consider future of games consoles i.e. there will be NO consoles: smart TV will access all digital content
  • TheWombatWho: @David_A_OHara @Technodad HMV interesting – wasn’t  retail store a response to original disruption?
  • chrisjharding: A5: and ensure solutions comply with legal constraints and enterprise obligations
  • zslayton: @David_A_OHara @Technodad @TheWombatWho SmartTV is just a big ole, vertical tablet. #mobile
  • TheWombatWho: @zslayton @David_A_OHara @Technodad and value opportunity is how to keep finger prints off the screen!!!!
  • TheWombatWho: @David_A_OHara @Technodad so accessing content is not where value is?  Where is the value in that arena?
  • enterprisearchs: A5 #EntArch offers insight into which technology capabilities can be strategically applied
  • eatraining: A5 #EntArch can offer an extended value proposition not just into capability mixes but product and market mixes as well
  • TheWombatWho: @enterprisearchs @Technodad yes, yes, yes and yes.  I agree
  • Technodad: @zslayton Exactly. Decision to dump physical & go all-in on digital delivery & content was key. Wonder if #entarch led change?
  • David_A_OHara: @TheWombatWho @Technodad not much if U R console manuf!  Content IS the value, right? Smart TV democratises access to content
  • mjcavaretta: Value from #BigData primarily from…  RT @TheWombatWho: @InfoRacer behavioural sciences & #predictive #analytics
  • TheWombatWho: @enterprisearchs @Technodad getting Biz to talk through canvas & over-laying their discussions with IT choices is essential
  • zslayton: @Technodad I’m guessing product but #entarch had to rapidly adapt IT enviro to enable the product e.g. respond to the disruption
  • efeatherston: @zslayton @Technodad  Netflix seems to thrive on disruption, look at their testing model, chaos monkey , hope #entarch is involved

In a sense, the same as for Question 4: the too-usual IT-centrism is not so much in apparent evidence. Yet actually it is: I don’t think there’s a single example that moves more than half a step outside of some form of IT. Where are the references to EA for smart-materials, smart-sensors, nanotechnologies, changes in law, custom, even religion? – they’re conspicuous only by their absence. Again, we need to stop using IT as ‘the centre of everything’, because it really isn’t in the real-world: instead, we need to rethink our entire approach to architecture, shifting towards a more realistic awareness that “everything and nothing is ‘the centre’ of the architecture, all at the same time”.

Question 6: Who are the key stakeholders enterprise-architecture needs to engage when developing a disruption strategy?

  • theopengroup: Q6 So who are the key stakeholders #EntArch needs to engage when developing a #Disruption strategy?
  • filiphdr: A6 Customers
  • enterprisearchs: A6 #Disruption is the concern of the entire executive team and the board of directors – this is where #EntArch should be aiming
  • TalmanAJ: A6: Business leaders first, IT leaders second
  • chrisjharding: A6: CIOs
  • InfoRacer: A6 Customers, Shareholders, Investors, Partners
  • enterprisearchs: A6 Clearly the CEO is the key stakeholder for #EntArch to reach when contemplating new #BizModels
  • eatraining: A6 Welcome the arrival of the CDO. The chief digital officer. Is this the new sponsor for EA?
  • efeatherston: A6: As has been said, the C-level (not just CIO), as the focus must always be the business drivers, and what impact that has
  • zslayton: @Technodad emphasizing partnership and alignment between Tech #entarch and Biz entarch.
  • eatraining: A6 The Customer!!??
  • Technodad: @mjcavaretta Do you think replacement of knowledge workers by machine learning is next big disruption?
  • InfoRacer: @eatraining Hmm Chief Data Officer, because lets be honest the CIO mostly isn’t a Chief INFORMATION Officer anymore
  • TheWombatWho: A6 starts with biz, increasingly should include customers & suppliers & then IT
  • tetradian: A6: _all_ stakeholder-groups – that’s the whole point! (don’t centre it around any single stakeholder – all are ‘equal citizens’)
  • TheWombatWho: @tetradian A6 agree with Tom.  My bent is Biz 1st but you mine intel from all – whenever opportunity arrives.  Continual engagement

I’ll say straight off that I was shocked at most of the above: a sad mixture of IT-centrism and/or organisation-centrism, with only occasional indications – such as can be seen in Craig Martin’s plea of “The Customer!!??” – of much of a wider awareness. What we perhaps need to hammer home to the entire EA/BA ‘trade’ is that whilst we create an architecture for an organisation, it must be about the ‘enterprise’ or ecosystem within which that organisation operates. Crucial to this is the awareness that the enterprise is much larger than the organisation, and hence we’d usually be wise to start ‘outside-in‘ or even ‘outside-out’, rather than the literally self-centric ‘inside-in’ or ‘inside-out’.

Question 7: What current gaps in enterprise-architecture must be filled to effectively lead disruption strategy?

  • theopengroup: Q7, last one guys! What current gaps in #EntArch must be filled to effectively lead #Disruption strategy?
  • enterprisearchs: #EntArch should engage the biz to look at what sustaining & disruptive innovations are viable with the existing enterprise platform
  • zslayton: @efeatherston @Technodad Proactive disruption!  Technical tools to enable and anticipate change.  Great example.
  • enterprisearchs: A7 #EntArch needs to move beyond an IT mandate
  • enterprisearchs: A7 #EntArch needs to be recognised as a key guide in strategic business planning
  • InfoRacer: A7 Engage with biz.  Get away from tech.  Treat Information as real asset, get CDO role
  • eatraining: A7 The #EntArch mandate needs to move out of the IT space
  • chrisjharding: A7: #EntArch needs a new platform to deploy disruptive technologies – Open Platform 3.0
  • zslayton: A7 #entarch involvement during the idea stage of biz, not just the implementation.  True knight at the round table.
  • TheWombatWho: @enterprisearchs @Technodad its one of my best friends.  Evan the discipline of thought process sans formality of canvas
  • enterprisearchs: A7 #EntArchs need to improve their business engagement skills and vocabulary
  • zslayton: @eatraining Agreed!  Balance Biz #entarch with Tech #entarch.
  • efeatherston: A7: #entarch MUST be part of the business planning process, they are the connecting tissue between business drivers and IT
  • David_A_OHara: @theopengroup creative business modelling inc. hypothetical models, not simple IT response to mid term view based on today’s probs
  • TalmanAJ: A7: #entArch needs to move from its IT and technical focus to more business strategy focus
  • eatraining: @efeatherston Agreed
  • efeatherston: A7: #entarch  needs to get business to understand, they are not just the tech guys
  • eatraining: A7 There is room to expand into the products and services space as well as market model space
  • InfoRacer: A7 Common vocabulary eg by exploiting Conceptual model; Information is the lingua franca
  • enterprisearchs: A7 #EntArchs need to be more business-outcome oriented
  • chrisjharding: A7: Open Platform 3.0 #ogP3 will let architects worry about the business, not the technology
  • enterprisearchs: A7 #EntArchs need to be recruited from business domains and taught robust architecture practises
  • Technodad: A7 #EntArch can’t lose role of tracking/anticipating tech change, or business will be blindsided by next disruption.
  • filiphdr: @efeatherston Very true, and that’s a skills & communication challenge
  • eatraining: A7 Architects must focus more on becoming super mixers than on architecture utility development
  • enterprisearchs: A7 #EntArchs need to be experts in the application of #Cloud, #Mobile, #Social, #BigData and #Digital strategy
  • zslayton: @enterprisearchs Agreed.  We tend to have to push process more than models.  That is often the “ah ha”.  #entarch
  • eatraining: A7 Architecture must focus on actual change in helping design solutions that shift and change behavior as well
  • tetradian: A7: kill off the obsession with IT!!! :-) #entarch needs to cover the whole scope, not the trivial subset that is ‘digital’ alone…
  • enterprisearchs: @tetradian Disagree – Digital is a huge accelerant to #Disruption and #EntArchs in the near term need to have a v strong grip
  • tetradian: RT @enterprisearchs: A7 #EntArch needs to move beyond an IT mandate -> yes yes yes!!!
  • TalmanAJ: @tetradian Yes. Technology is just one aspect of the enterprise. Processes, strategies and people etc. are too.
  • scmunk: @tetradian this shows non-IT importance of #EntArch, also a pipeline for changes http://t.co/O4Cm4D5G7q
  • enterprisearchs: A7 #EntArchs need to be able to clearly articulate business context and motivation http://t.co/Sf4Ci8Ob7P
  • eatraining: @TheWombatWho Roadmap and plans implemented don’t show the true value because stakeholders shift back to old behavior habits.
  • TheWombatWho: A7 need to be evangelist for the ‘value’ in the Biz model not the hierarchy or structure or status quo
  • TheWombatWho: @eatraining agree.  Roadmap is point in time.  Need to establish principles, & links across value chain rather than structural links
  • DadaBeatnik: Never did understand the obsession with IT in #Entarch. Why is this? Not all biz IT-centric. Because of tools/language?
  • TheWombatWho: @DadaBeatnik accident of history?
  • TalmanAJ: @DadaBeatnik Could be historical. Origins of EA are in IT, EA function usually is in IT and EA people usually have IT background.

At least here we did see more awareness of the need to break out of the IT-centric box: it’s just that so many of the responses to the previous questions indicated that much of EA is still very much stuck there. Oh well. But, yeah, good signs that some moves are solidly underway now, at least.

One point I do need to pick up on from the tweets above. Yes, I’ll admit I somewhat dropped back to my usual rant – “kill off the obsession with IT!!! :-) ” – but please, please note that I do still very much include all forms of IT within the enterprise-architecture. I’m not objecting to IT at all: all that I’m saying is that we should not reflexively elevate IT above everything else. In other words, we need to start from an awareness – a strictly conventional, mainstream systemic-awareness – that in a viable ‘architecture of the enterprise, everything in that ‘ecosystem-as-system’ is necessary to that system, and hence necessarily an ‘equal citizen’ with everything else. Hence I do understand where Hugh Evans (@enterprisearchs) is coming from, in his riposte of “Disagree – Digital is a huge accelerant to #Disruption and #EntArchs in the near term need to have a v strong grip”: in a sense, he’s absolutely right. But the danger – and I’m sorry, but it is a huge danger – is that there’s still such as strong pull towards IT-centrism in current EA that we do need to be explicit in mitigating against it at just every step of the way. Yes, “digital is a huge accelerant to disruption”, and yes, we do need to be aware of the potential affordances offered by each new technology, yet we must always to start from the overall potential-disruption opportunity/risk first – and not from the technology.

Wrap-up

(This consisted of various people saying ‘thank you’, and ‘goodbye’, which is nice and socially-important and suchlike, yet not particularly central to the content of the TweetJam itself: I’ve dropped them from the record here, but you can chase them up on Twitter if you really need them. However, there were a couple of tweets pointing to further resources that might be helpful to some folks, so I’ll finish here with those.)

  • enterprisearchs: Look out for our upcoming webinar: http://t.co/lWvJ630BVJ ‘Leading Business Disruption Strategy with #EntArch’ Oct 10
  • dianedanamac: Thanks for joining! Continue the conversation at #ogLON, The Open Group London event Oct. 21-24

That’s it. Hope that’s been useful, anyways: over to you?

GravesTom_sq Tom Graves has been an independent consultant for more than three decades, in business transformation, enterprise architecture and knowledge management. His clients in Europe, Australasia and the Americas cover a broad range of industries including banking, utilities, manufacturing, logistics, engineering, media, telecoms, research, defence and government. He has a special interest in architecture for non-IT-centric enterprises, and integration between IT-based and non-IT-based services.

1 Comment

Filed under Business Architecture, Cloud, Enterprise Architecture, Open Platform 3.0

Gaining Dependability Across All Business Activities Requires Standard of Standards to Tame Dynamic Complexity, Says The Open Group CEO

By Dana Gardner, Interarbor Solutions

Listen to the recorded podcast here

Hello, and welcome to a special BriefingsDirect Thought Leadership

Interview series, coming to you in conjunction with The Open Group Conference on July 15, in Philadelphia.

88104-aaadanaI’m Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, your host and moderator throughout these discussions on enterprise transformation in the finance, government, and healthcare sector.

We’re here now with the President and CEO of The Open Group, Allen Brown, to explore the increasingly essential role of standards, in an undependable, unpredictable world. [Disclosure: The Open Group is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

Welcome back, Allen.

Allen Brown: It’s good to be here, Dana. abrown

Gardner: What are the environmental variables that many companies are facing now as they try to improve their businesses and assess the level of risk and difficulty? It seems like so many moving targets.

 Brown: Absolutely. There are a lot of moving targets. We’re looking at a situation where organizations are having to put in increasingly complex systems. They’re expected to make them highly available, highly safe, highly secure, and to do so faster and cheaper. That’s kind of tough.

Gardner: One of the ways that organizations have been working towards a solution is to have a standardized approach, perhaps some methodologies, because if all the different elements of their business approach this in a different way, we don’t get too far too quickly, and it can actually be more expensive.

Perhaps you could paint for us the vision of an organization like The Open Group in terms of helping organizations standardize and be a little bit more thoughtful and proactive towards these changed elements?

Brown: With the vision of The Open Group, the headline is “Boundaryless Information Flow.” That was established back in 2002, at a time when organizations were breakingdown the stovepipes or the silos within and between organizations and getting people to work together across functioning. They found, having done that, or having made some progress towards that, that the applications and systems were built for those silos. So how can we provide integrated information for all those people?

As we have moved forward, those boundaryless systems have become bigger

and much more complex. Now, boundarylessness and complexity are giving everyone different types of challenges. Many of the forums or consortia that make up The Open Group are all tackling it from their own perspective, and it’s all coming together very well.

We have got something like the Future Airborne Capability Environment (FACE) Consortium, which is a managed consortium of The Open Group focused on federal aviation. In the federal aviation world they’re dealing with issues like weapons systems.

New weapons

Over time, building similar weapons is going to be more expensive, inflation happens. But the changing nature of warfare is such that you’ve then got a situation where you’ve got to produce new weapons. You have to produce them quickly and you have to produce them inexpensively.

So how can we have standards that make for more plug and play? How can the avionics within a cockpit of whatever airborne vehicle be more interchangeable, so that they can be adapted more quickly and do things faster and at lower cost.

After all, cost is a major pressure on government departments right now.

We’ve also got the challenges of the supply chain. Because of the pressure on costs, it’s critical that large, complex systems are developed using a global supply chain. It’s impossible to do it all domestically at a cost. Given that, countries around the world, including the US and China, are all concerned about what they’re putting into their complex systems that may have tainted or malicious code or counterfeit products.

The Open Group Trusted Technology Forum (OTTF) provides a standard that ensures that, at each stage along the supply chain, we know that what’s going into the products is clean, the process is clean, and what goes to the next link in the chain is clean. And we’re working on an accreditation program all along the way.

We’re also in a world, which when we mention security, everyone is concerned about being attacked, whether it’s cybersecurity or other areas of security, and we’ve got to concern ourselves with all of those as we go along the way.

Our Security Forum is looking at how we build those things out. The big thing about large, complex systems is that they’re large and complex. If something goes wrong, how can you fix it in a prescribed time scale? How can you establish what went wrong quickly and how can you address it quickly?

If you’ve got large, complex systems that fail, it can mean human life, as it did with the BP oil disaster at Deepwater Horizon or with Space Shuttle Challenger. Or it could be financial. In many organizations, when something goes wrong, you end up giving away service.

An example that we might use is at a railway station where, if the barriers don’t work, the only solution may be to open them up and give free access. That could be expensive. And you can use that analogy for many other industries, but how can we avoid that human or financial cost in any of those things?

A couple of years after the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, a number of criteria were laid down for making sure you had dependable systems, you could assess risk, and you could know that you would mitigate against it.

What The Open Group members are doing is looking at how you can get dependability and assuredness through different systems. Our Security Forum has done a couple of standards that have got a real bearing on this. One is called Dependency Modeling, and you can model out all of the dependencies that you have in any system.

Simple analogy

A very simple analogy is that if you are going on a road trip in a car, you’ve got to have a competent driver, have enough gas in the tank, know where you’re going, have a map, all of those things.

What can go wrong? You can assess the risks. You may run out of gas or you may not know where you’re going, but you can mitigate those risks, and you can also assign accountability. If the gas gauge is going down, it’s the driver’s accountability to check the gauge and make sure that more gas is put in.

We’re trying to get that same sort of thinking through to these large complex systems. What you’re looking at doing, as you develop or evolve large, complex systems, is to build in this accountability and build in understanding of the dependencies, understanding of the assurance cases that you need, and having these ways of identifying anomalies early, preventing anything from failing. If it does fail, you want to minimize the stoppage and, at the same time, minimize the cost and the impact, and more importantly, making sure that that failure never happens again in that system.

The Security Forum has done the Dependency Modeling standard. They have also provided us with the Risk Taxonomy. That’s a separate standard that helps us analyze risk and go through all of the different areas of risk.

Now, the Real-time & Embedded Systems Forum has produced the Dependability through Assuredness, a standard of The Open Group, that brings all of these things together. We’ve had a wonderful international endeavor on this, bringing a lot of work from Japan, working with the folks in the US and other parts of the world. It’s been a unique activity.

Dependability through Assuredness depends upon having two interlocked cycles. The first is a Change Management Cycle that says that, as you look at requirements, you build out the dependencies, you build out the assurance cases for those dependencies, and you update the architecture. Everything has to start with architecture now.

You build in accountability, and accountability, importantly, has to be accepted. You can’t just dictate that someone is accountable. You have to have a negotiation. Then, through ordinary operation, you assess whether there are anomalies that can be detected and fix those anomalies by new requirements that lead to new dependabilities, new assurance cases, new architecture and so on.

The other cycle that’s critical in this, though, is the Failure Response Cycle. If there is a perceived failure or an actual failure, there is understanding of the cause, prevention of it ever happening again, and repair. That goes through the Change Accommodation Cycle as well, to make sure that we update the requirements, the assurance cases, the dependability, the architecture, and the accountability.

So the plan is that with a dependable system through that assuredness, we can manage these large, complex systems much more easily.

Gardner: Allen, many of The Open Group activities have been focused at the enterprise architect or business architect levels. Also with these risk and security issues, you’re focusing at chief information security officers or governance, risk, and compliance (GRC), officials or administrators. It sounds as if the Dependability through Assuredness standard shoots a little higher. Is this something a board-level mentality or leadership should be thinking about, and is this something that reports to them?

Board-level issue

Brown: In an organization, risk is a board-level issue, security has become a board-level issue, and so has organization design and architecture. They’re all up at that level. It’s a matter of the fiscal responsibility of the board to make sure that the organization is sustainable, and to make sure that they’ve taken the right actions to protect their organization in the future, in the event of an attack or a failure in their activities.

The risks to an organization are financial and reputation, and those risks can be very real. So, yes, they should be up there. Interestingly, when we’re looking at areas like business architecture, sometimes that might be part of the IT function, but very often now we’re seeing as reporting through the business lines. Even in governments around the world, the business architects are very often reporting up to business heads.

Gardner: Here in Philadelphia, you’re focused on some industry verticals, finance, government, health. We had a very interesting presentation this morning by Dr. David Nash, who is the Dean of the Jefferson School of Population Health, and he had some very interesting insights about what’s going on in the United States vis-à-vis public policy and healthcare.

One of the things that jumped out at me was, at the end of his presentation, he was saying how important it was to have behavior modification as an element of not only individuals taking better care of themselves, but also how hospitals, providers, and even payers relate across those boundaries of their organization.

That brings me back to this notion that these standards are very powerful and useful, but without getting people to change, they don’t have the impact that they should. So is there an element that you’ve learned and that perhaps we can borrow from Dr. Nash in terms of applying methods that actually provoke change, rather than react to change?

Brown: Yes, change is a challenge for many people. Getting people to change is like taking a horse to water, but will it drink? We’ve got to find methods of doing that.

One of the things about The Open Group standards is that they’re pragmatic and practical standards. We’ve seen’ in many of our standards’ that where they apply to product or service, there is a procurement pull through. So the FACE Consortium, for example, a $30 billion procurement means that this is real and true.

In the case of healthcare, Dr. Nash was talking about the need for boundaryless information sharing across the organizations. This is a major change and it’s a change to the culture of the organizations that are involved. It’s also a change to the consumer, the patient, and the patient advocates.

All of those will change over time. Some of that will be social change, where the change is expected and it’s a social norm. Some of that change will change as people and generations develop. The younger generations are more comfortable with authority that they perceive with the healthcare professionals, and also of modifying the behavior of the professionals.

The great thing about the healthcare service very often is that we have professionals who want to do a number of things. They want to improve the lives of their patients, and they also want to be able to do more with less.

Already a need

There’s already a need. If you want to make any change, you have to create a need, but in healthcare, there is already a pent-up need that people see that they want to change. We can provide them with the tools and the standards that enable it to do that, and standards are critically important, because you are using the same language across everyone.

It’s much easier for people to apply the same standards if they are using the same language, and you get a multiplier effect on the rate of change that you can achieve by using those standards. But I believe that there is this pent-up demand. The need for change is there. If we can provide them with the appropriate usable standards, they will benefit more rapidly.

Gardner: Of course, measuring the progress with the standards approach helps as well. We can determine where we are along the path as either improvements are happening or not happening. It gives you a common way of measuring.

The other thing that was fascinating to me with Dr. Nash’s discussion was that he was almost imploring the IT people in the crowd to come to the rescue. He’s looking for a cavalry and he’d really seemed to feel that IT, the data, the applications, the sharing, the collaboration, and what can happen across various networks, all need to be brought into this.

How do we bring these worlds together? There is this policy, healthcare and population statisticians are doing great academic work, and then there is the whole IT world. Is this something that The Open Group can do — bridge these large, seemingly unrelated worlds?

Brown: At the moment, we have the capability of providing the tools for them to do that and the processes for them to do that. Healthcare is a very complex world with the administrators and the healthcare professionals. You have different grades of those in different places. Each department and each organization has its different culture, and bringing them together is a significant challenge.

In some of that processes, certainly, you start with understanding what it is you’re trying to address. You start with what are the pain points, what are the challenges, what are the blockages, and how can we overcome those blockages? It’s a way of bringing people together in workshops. TOGAF, a standard of The Open Group, has the business scenario method, bringing people together, building business scenarios, and understanding what people’s pain points are.

As long as we can then follow through with the solutions and not disappoint people, there is the opportunity for doing that. The reality is that you have to do that in small areas at a time. We’re not going to take the entire population of the United States and get everyone in the workshop and work altogether.

But you can start in pockets and then generate evangelists, proof points, and successful case studies. The work will then start emanating out to all other areas.

Gardner: It seems too that, with a heightened focus on vertical industries, there are lessons that could be learned in one vertical industry and perhaps applied to another. That also came out in some of the discussions around big data here at the conference.

The financial industry recognized the crucial role that data plays, made investments, and brought the constituencies of domain expertise in finance with the IT domain expertise in data and analysis, and came up with some very impressive results.

Do you see that what has been the case in something like finance is now making its way to healthcare? Is this an enterprise or business architect role that opens up more opportunity for those individuals as business and/or enterprise architects in healthcare? Why don’t we see more enterprise architects in healthcare?

Good folks

Brown: I don’t know. We haven’t run the numbers to see how many there are. There are some very competent enterprise architects within the healthcare industry around the world. We’ve got some good folks there.

The focus of The Open Group for the last couple of decades or so has always been on horizontal standards, standards that are applicable to any industry. Our focus is always about pragmatic standards that can be implemented and touched and felt by end-user consumer organizations.

Now, we’re seeing how we can make those even more pragmatic and relevant by addressing the verticals, but we’re not going to lose the horizontal focus. We’ll be looking at what lessons can be learned and what we can build on. Big data is a great example of the fact that the same kind of approach of gathering the data from different sources, whatever that is, and for mixing it up and being able to analyze it, can be applied anywhere.

The challenge with that, of course, is being able to capture it, store it, analyze it, and make some sense of it. You need the resources, the storage, and the capability of actually doing that. It’s not just a case of, “I’ll go and get some big data today.”

I do believe that there are lessons learned that we can move from one industry to another. I also believe that, since some geographic areas and some countries are ahead of others, there’s also a cascading of knowledge and capability around the world in a given time scale as well.

Gardner: Well great. I’m afraid we’ll have to leave it there. We’ve been talking about the increasingly essential role of standards in a complex world, where risk and dependability become even more essential. We have seen how The Open Group is evolving to meet these challenges through many of its activities and through many of the discussions here at the conference.

Please join me now in thanking our guest, Allen Brown, President and CEO of The Open Group. Thank you.

Brown: Thanks for taking the time to talk to us, Dana.

Comments Off

Filed under ArchiMate®, Business Architecture, Cloud, Conference, Enterprise Architecture, Healthcare, Open Platform 3.0, Professional Development, Service Oriented Architecture, TOGAF, TOGAF®

The Open Group Conference to Emphasize Healthcare as Key Sector for Ecosystem-Wide Interactions

By Dana Gardner, Interarbor Solutions

Listen to the recorded podcast here

Dana Gardner: Hello, and welcome to a special BriefingsDirect Thought Leadership Interview series, coming to you in conjunction with The Open Group Conference on July 15, in Philadelphia. Registration to the conference remains open. Follow the conference on Twitter at #ogPHL.

Gardner

I’m Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, your host and moderator throughout these discussions on enterprise transformation in the finance, government, and healthcare sector.

We’re here now with a panel of experts to explore how new IT trends are empowering improvements, specifically in the area of healthcare. We’ll learn how healthcare industry organizations are seeking large-scale transformation and what are some of the paths they’re taking to realize that.

We’ll see how improved cross-organizational collaboration and such trends as big data and cloud computing are helping to make healthcare more responsive and efficient.

With that, please join me in welcoming our panel, Jason Uppal, Chief Architect and Acting CEO at clinicalMessage. Welcome, Jason.

Jason Uppal: Thank you, Dana.

Inside of healthcare and inside the healthcare ecosystem, information either doesn’t flow well or it only flows at a great cost.

Gardner: And we’re also joined by Larry Schmidt, Chief Technologist at HP for the Health and Life Sciences Industries. Welcome, Larry.

Larry Schmidt: Thank you.

Gardner: And also, Jim Hietala, Vice President of Security at The Open Group. Welcome back, Jim. [Disclosure: The Open Group and HP are sponsors of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

Jim Hietala: Thanks, Dana. Good to be with you.

Gardner: Let’s take a look at this very interesting and dynamic healthcare sector, Jim. What, in particular, is so special about healthcare and why do things like enterprise architecture and allowing for better interoperability and communication across organizational boundaries seem to be so relevant here?

Hietala: There’s general acknowledgement in the industry that, inside of healthcare and inside the healthcare ecosystem, information either doesn’t flow well or it only flows at a great cost in terms of custom integration projects and things like that.

Fertile ground

From The Open Group’s perspective, it seems that the healthcare industry and the ecosystem really is fertile ground for bringing to bear some of the enterprise architecture concepts that we work with at The Open Group in order to improve, not only how information flows, but ultimately, how patient care occurs.

Gardner: Larry Schmidt, similar question to you. What are some of the unique challenges that are facing the healthcare community as they try to improve on responsiveness, efficiency, and greater capabilities?

Schmidt: There are several things that have not really kept up with what technology is able to do today.

For example, the whole concept of personal observation comes into play in what we would call “value chains” that exist right now between a patient and a doctor. We look at things like mobile technologies and want to be able to leverage that to provide additional observation of an individual, so that the doctor can make a more complete diagnosis of some sickness or possibly some medication that a person is on.

We want to be able to see that observation in real life, as opposed to having to take that in at the office, which typically winds up happening. I don’t know about everybody else, but every time I go see my doctor, oftentimes I get what’s called white coat syndrome. My blood pressure will go up. But that’s not giving the doctor an accurate reading from the standpoint of providing great observations.

Technology has advanced to the point where we can do that in real time using mobile and other technologies, yet the communication flow, that information flow, doesn’t exist today, or is at best, not easily communicated between doctor and patient.

There are plenty of places that additional collaboration and communication can improve the whole healthcare delivery model.

If you look at the ecosystem, as Jim offered, there are plenty of places that additional collaboration and communication can improve the whole healthcare delivery model.

That’s what we’re about. We want to be able to find the places where the technology has advanced, where standards don’t exist today, and just fuel the idea of building common communication methods between those stakeholders and entities, allowing us to then further the flow of good information across the healthcare delivery model.

Gardner: Jason Uppal, let’s think about what, in addition to technology, architecture, and methodologies can bring to bear here? Is there also a lag in terms of process thinking in healthcare, as well as perhaps technology adoption?

Uppal: I’m going to refer to a presentation that I watched from a very well-known surgeon from Harvard, Dr. Atul Gawande. His point was is that, in the last 50 years, the medical industry has made great strides in identifying diseases, drugs, procedures, and therapies, but one thing that he was alluding to was that medicine forgot the cost, that everything is cost.

At what price?

Today, in his view, we can cure a lot of diseases and lot of issues, but at what price? Can anybody actually afford it?

Uppal

His view is that if healthcare is going to change and improve, it has to be outside of the medical industry. The tools that we have are better today, like collaborative tools that are available for us to use, and those are the ones that he was recommending that we need to explore further.

That is where enterprise architecture is a powerful methodology to use and say, “Let’s take a look at it from a holistic point of view of all the stakeholders. See what their information needs are. Get that information to them in real time and let them make the right decisions.”

Therefore, there is no reason for the health information to be stuck in organizations. It could go with where the patient and providers are, and let them make the best decision, based on the best practices that are available to them, as opposed to having siloed information.

So enterprise-architecture methods are most suited for developing a very collaborative environment. Dr. Gawande was pointing out that, if healthcare is going to improve, it has to think about it not as medicine, but as healthcare delivery.

There are definitely complexities that occur based on the different insurance models and how healthcare is delivered across and between countries.

Gardner: And it seems that not only are there challenges in terms of technology adoption and even operating more like an efficient business in some ways. We also have very different climates from country to country, jurisdiction to jurisdiction. There are regulations, compliance, and so forth.

Going back to you, Larry, how important of an issue is that? How complex does it get because we have such different approaches to healthcare and insurance from country to country?

Schmidt: There are definitely complexities that occur based on the different insurance models and how healthcare is delivered across and between countries, but some of the basic and fundamental activities in the past that happened as a result of delivering healthcare are consistent across countries.

As Jason has offered, enterprise architecture can provide us the means to explore what the art of the possible might be today. It could allow us the opportunity to see how innovation can occur if we enable better communication flow between the stakeholders that exist with any healthcare delivery model in order to give us the opportunity to improve the overall population.

After all, that’s what this is all about. We want to be able to enable a collaborative model throughout the stakeholders to improve the overall health of the population. I think that’s pretty consistent across any country that we might work in.

Ongoing work

Gardner: Jim Hietala, maybe you could help us better understand what’s going on within The Open Group and, even more specifically, at the conference in Philadelphia. There is the Population Health Working Group and there is work towards a vision of enabling the boundaryless information flow between the stakeholders. Any other information and detail you could offer would be great.[Registration to the conference remains open. Follow the conference on Twitter at #ogPHL.]

Hietala: On Tuesday of the conference, we have a healthcare focus day. The keynote that morning will be given by Dr. David Nash, Dean of the Jefferson School of Population Health. He’ll give what’s sure to be a pretty interesting presentation, followed by a reactors’ panel, where we’ve invited folks from different stakeholder constituencies.

Hietala

We are going to have clinicians there. We’re going to have some IT folks and some actual patients to give their reaction to Dr. Nash’s presentation. We think that will be an interesting and entertaining panel discussion.

The balance of the day, in terms of the healthcare content, we have a workshop. Larry Schmidt is giving one of the presentations there, and Jason and myself and some other folks from our working group are involved in helping to facilitate and carry out the workshop.

The goal of it is to look into healthcare challenges, desired outcomes, the extended healthcare enterprise, and the extended healthcare IT enterprise and really gather those pain points that are out there around things like interoperability to surface those and develop a work program coming out of this.

We want to be able to enable a collaborative model throughout the stakeholders to improve the overall health of the population.

So we expect it to be an interesting day if you are in the healthcare IT field or just the healthcare field generally, it would definitely be a day well spent to check it out.

Gardner: Larry, you’re going to be talking on Tuesday. Without giving too much away, maybe you can help us understand the emphasis that you’re taking, the area that you’re going to be exploring.

Schmidt: I’ve titled the presentation “Remixing Healthcare through Enterprise Architecture.” Jason offered some thoughts as to why we want to leverage enterprise architecture to discipline healthcare. My thoughts are that we want to be able to make sure we understand how the collaborative model would work in healthcare, taking into consideration all the constituents and stakeholders that exist within the complete ecosystem of healthcare.

This is not just collaboration across the doctors, patients, and maybe the payers in a healthcare delivery model. This could be out as far as the drug companies and being able to get drug companies to a point where they can reorder their raw materials to produce new drugs in the case of an epidemic that might be occurring.

Real-time model

It would be a real-time model that allows us the opportunity to understand what’s truly happening, both to an individual from a healthcare standpoint, as well as to a country or a region within a country and so on from healthcare. This remixing of enterprise architecture is the introduction to that concept of leveraging enterprise architecture into this collaborative model.

Then, I would like to talk about some of the technologies that I’ve had the opportunity to explore around what is available today in technology. I believe we need to have some type of standardized messaging or collaboration models to allow us to further facilitate the ability of that technology to provide the value of healthcare delivery or betterment of healthcare to individuals. I’ll talk about that a little bit within my presentation and give some good examples.

It’s really interesting. I just traveled from my company’s home base back to my home base and I thought about something like a body scanner that you get into in the airport. I know we’re in the process of eliminating some of those scanners now within the security model from the airports, but could that possibly be something that becomes an element within healthcare delivery? Every time your body is scanned, there’s a possibility you can gather information about that, and allow that to become a part of your electronic medical record.

There is a lot of information available today that could be used in helping our population to be healthier.

Hopefully, that was forward thinking, but that kind of thinking is going to play into the art of the possible, with what we are going to be doing, both in this presentation and talking about that as part of the workshop.

Gardner: Larry, we’ve been having some other discussions with The Open Group around what they call Open Platform 3.0™, which is the confluence of big data, mobile, cloud computing, and social.

One of the big issues today is this avalanche of data, the Internet of things, but also the Internet of people. It seems that the more work that’s done to bring Open Platform 3.0 benefits to bear on business decisions, it could very well be impactful for centers and other data that comes from patients, regardless of where they are, to a medical establishment, regardless of where it is.

So do you think we’re really on the cusp of a significant shift in how medicine is actually conducted?

Schmidt: I absolutely believe that. There is a lot of information available today that could be used in helping our population to be healthier. And it really isn’t only the challenge of the communication model that we’ve been speaking about so far. It’s also understanding the information that’s available to us to take that and make that into knowledge to be applied in order to help improve the health of the population.

As we explore this from an as-is model in enterprise architecture to something that we believe we can first enable through a great collaboration model, through standardized messaging and things like that, I believe we’re going to get into even deeper detail around how information can truly provide empowered decisions to physicians and individuals around their healthcare.

So it will carry forward into the big data and analytics challenges that we have talked about and currently are talking about with The Open Group.

Healthcare framework

Gardner: Jason Uppal, we’ve also seen how in other business sectors, industries have faced transformation and have needed to rely on something like enterprise architecture and a framework like TOGAF® in order to manage that process and make it something that’s standardized, understood, and repeatable.

It seems to me that healthcare can certainly use that, given the pace of change, but that the impact on healthcare could be quite a bit larger in terms of actual dollars. This is such a large part of the economy that even small incremental improvements can have dramatic effects when it comes to dollars and cents.

So is there a benefit to bringing enterprise architect to healthcare that is larger and greater than other sectors because of these economics and issues of scale?

Uppal: That’s a great way to think about this thing. In other industries, applying enterprise architecture to do banking and insurance may be easily measured in terms of dollars and cents, but healthcare is a fundamentally different economy and industry.

It’s not about dollars and cents. It’s about people’s lives, and loved ones who are sick, who could very easily be treated, if they’re caught in time and the right people are around the table at the right time. So this is more about human cost than dollars and cents. Dollars and cents are critical, but human cost is the larger play here.

Whatever systems and methods are developed, they have to work for everybody in the world.

Secondly, when we think about applying enterprise architecture to healthcare, we’re not talking about just the U.S. population. We’re talking about global population here. So whatever systems and methods are developed, they have to work for everybody in the world. If the U.S. economy can afford an expensive healthcare delivery, what about the countries that don’t have the same kind of resources? Whatever methods and delivery mechanisms you develop have to work for everybody globally.

That’s one of the things that a methodology like TOGAF brings out and says to look at it from every stakeholder’s point of view, and unless you have dealt with every stakeholder’s concerns, you don’t have an architecture, you have a system that’s designed for that specific set of audience.

The cost is not this 18 percent of the gross domestic product in the U.S. that is representing healthcare. It’s the human cost, which is many multitudes of that. That’s is one of the areas where we could really start to think about how do we affect that part of the economy, not the 18 percent of it, but the larger part of the economy, to improve the health of the population, not only in the North America, but globally.

If that’s the case, then what really will be the impact on our greater world economy is improving population health, and population health is probably becoming our biggest problem in our economy.

We’ll be testing these methods at a greater international level, as opposed to just at an organization and industry level. This is a much larger challenge. A methodology like TOGAF is a proven and it could be stressed and tested to that level. This is a great opportunity for us to apply our tools and science to a problem that is larger than just dollars. It’s about humans.

All “experts”

Gardner: Jim Hietala, in some ways, we’re all experts on healthcare. When we’re sick, we go for help and interact with a variety of different services to maintain our health and to improve our lifestyle. But in being experts, I guess that also means we are witnesses to some of the downside of an unconnected ecosystem of healthcare providers and payers.

One of the things I’ve noticed in that vein is that I have to deal with different organizations that don’t seem to communicate well. If there’s no central process organizer, it’s really up to me as the patient to pull the lines together between the different services — tests, clinical observations, diagnosis, back for results from tests, sharing the information, and so forth.

Have you done any studies or have anecdotal information about how that boundaryless information flow would be still relevant, even having more of a centralized repository that all the players could draw on, sort of a collaboration team resource of some sort? I know that’s worked in other industries. Is this not a perfect opportunity for that boundarylessness to be managed?

Hietala: I would say it is. We all have experiences with going to see a primary physician, maybe getting sent to a specialist, getting some tests done, and the boundaryless information that’s flowing tends to be on paper delivered by us as patients in all the cases.

So the opportunity to improve that situation is pretty obvious to anybody who’s been in the healthcare system as a patient. I think it’s a great place to be doing work. There’s a lot of money flowing to try and address this problem, at least here in the U.S. with the HITECH Act and some of the government spending around trying to improve healthcare.

We’ll be testing these methods at a greater international level, as opposed to just at an organization and industry level.

You’ve got healthcare information exchanges that are starting to develop, and you have got lots of pain points for organizations in terms of trying to share information and not having standards that enable them to do it. It seems like an area that’s really a great opportunity area to bring lots of improvement.

Gardner: Let’s look for some examples of where this has been attempted and what the success brings about. I’ll throw this out to anyone on the panel. Do you have any examples that you can point to, either named organizations or anecdotal use case scenarios, of a better organization, an architectural approach, leveraging IT efficiently and effectively, allowing data to flow, putting in processes that are repeatable, centralized, organized, and understood. How does that work out?

Uppal: I’ll give you an example. One of the things that happens when a patient is admitted to hospital and in hospital is that they get what’s called a high-voltage care. There is staff around them 24×7. There are lots of people around, and every specialty that you can think of is available to them. So the patient, in about two or three days, starts to feel much better.

When that patient gets discharged, they get discharged to home most of the time. They go from very high-voltage care to next to no care. This is one of the areas where in one of the organizations we work with is able to discharge the patient and, instead of discharging them to the primary care doc, who may not receive any records from the hospital for several days, they get discharged to into a virtual team. So if the patient is at home, the virtual team is available to them through their mobile phone 24×7.

Connect with provider

If, at 3 o’clock in the morning, the patient doesn’t feel right, instead of having to call an ambulance to go to hospital once again and get readmitted, they have a chance to connect with their care provider at that time and say, “This is what the issue is. What do you want me to do next? Is this normal for the medication that I am on, or this is something abnormal that is happening?”

When that information is available to that care provider who may not necessarily have been part of the care team when the patient was in the hospital, that quick readily available information is key for keeping that person at home, as opposed to being readmitted to the hospital.

We all know that the cost of being in a hospital is 10 times more than it is being at home. But there’s also inconvenience and human suffering associated with being in a hospital, as opposed to being at home.

Those are some of the examples that we have, but they are very limited, because our current health ecosystem is a very organization specific, not  patient and provider specific. This is the area there is a huge room for opportunities for healthcare delivery, thinking about health information, not in the context of the organization where the patient is, as opposed to in a cloud, where it’s an association between the patient and provider and health information that’s there.

Extending that model will bring infinite value to not only reducing the cost, but improving the cost and quality of care.

In the past, we used to have emails that were within our four walls. All of a sudden, with Gmail and Yahoo Mail, we have email available to us anywhere. A similar thing could be happening for the healthcare record. This could be somewhere in the cloud’s eco setting, where it’s securely protected and used by only people who have granted access to it.

Those are some of the examples where extending that model will bring infinite value to not only reducing the cost, but improving the cost and quality of care.

Schmidt: Jason touched upon the home healthcare scenario and being able to provide touch points at home. Another place that we see evolving right now in the industry is the whole concept of mobile office space. Both countries, as well as rural places within countries that are developed, are actually getting rural hospitals and rural healthcare offices dropped in by helicopter to allow the people who live in those communities to have the opportunity to talk to a doctor via satellite technologies and so on.

The whole concept of a architecture around and being able to deal with an extension of what truly lines up being telemedicine is something that we’re seeing today. It would be wonderful if we could point to things like standards that allow us to be able to facilitate both the communication protocols as well as the information flows in that type of setting.

Many corporations can jump on the bandwagon to help the rural communities get the healthcare information and capabilities that they need via the whole concept of telemedicine.

That’s another area where enterprise architecture has come into play. Now that we see examples of that working in the industry today, I am hoping that as part of this working group, we’ll get to the point where we’re able to facilitate that much better, enabling innovation to occur for multiple companies via some of the architecture or the architecture work we are planning on producing.

Single view

Gardner: It seems that we’ve come a long way on the business side in many industries of getting a single view of the customer, as it’s called, the customer relationship management, big data, spreading the analysis around among different data sources and types. This sounds like a perfect fit for a single view of the patient across their life, across their care spectrum, and then of course involving many different types of organizations. But the government also needs to have a role here.

Jim Hietala, at The Open Group Conference in Philadelphia, you’re focusing on not only healthcare, but finance and government. Regarding the government and some of the agencies that you all have as members on some of your panels, how well do they perceive this need for enterprise architecture level abilities to be brought to this healthcare issue?

Hietala: We’ve seen encouraging signs from folks in government that are encouraging to us in bringing this work to the forefront. There is a recognition that there needs to be better data flowing throughout the extended healthcare IT ecosystem, and I think generally they are supportive of initiatives like this to make that happen.

Gardner: Of course having conferences like this, where you have a cross pollination between vertical industries, will perhaps allow some of the technical people to talk with some of the government people too and also have a conversation with some of the healthcare people. That’s where some of these ideas and some of the collaboration could also be very powerful.

We’ve seen encouraging signs from folks in government that are encouraging to us in bringing this work to the forefront.

I’m afraid we’re almost out of time. We’ve been talking about an interesting healthcare transition, moving into a new phase or even era of healthcare.

Our panel of experts have been looking at some of the trends in IT and how they are empowering improvement for how healthcare can be more responsive and efficient. And we’ve seen how healthcare industry organizations can take large scale transformation using cross-organizational collaboration, for example, and other such tools as big data, analytics, and cloud computing to help solve some of these issues.

This special BriefingsDirect discussion comes to you in conjunction with The Open Group Conference this July in Philadelphia. Registration to the conference remains open. Follow the conference on Twitter at #ogPHL, and you will hear more about healthcare or Open Platform 3.0 as well as enterprise transformation in the finance, government, and healthcare sectors.

With that, I’d like to thank our panel. We’ve been joined today by Jason Uppal, Chief Architect and Acting CEO at clinicalMessage. Thank you so much, Jason.

Uppal: Thank you, Dana.

Gardner: And also Larry Schmidt, Chief Technologist at HP for the Health and Life Sciences Industries. Thanks, Larry.

Schmidt: You bet, appreciate the time to share my thoughts. Thank you.

Gardner: And then also Jim Hietala, Vice President of Security at The Open Group. Thanks so much.

Hietala: Thank you, Dana.

Gardner: This is Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, your host and moderator throughout these thought leader interviews. Thanks again for listening and come back next time.

Comments Off

Filed under ArchiMate®, Business Architecture, Cloud, Conference, Enterprise Architecture, Healthcare, Open Platform 3.0, Professional Development, Service Oriented Architecture, TOGAF, TOGAF®

Enterprise Architecture in China: Who uses this stuff?

by Chris Forde, GM APAC and VP Enterprise Architecture, The Open Group

Since moving to China in March 2010 I have consistently heard a similar set of statements and questions, something like this….

“EA? That’s fine for Europe and America, who is using it here?”

“We know EA is good!”

“What is EA?”

“We don’t have the ability to do EA, is it a problem if we just focus on IT?”

And

“Mr Forde your comment about western companies not discussing their EA programs because they view them as a competitive advantage is accurate here too, we don’t discuss we have one for that reason.” Following that statement the lady walked away smiling, having not introduced herself or her company.

Well some things are changing in China relative to EA and events organized by The Open Group; here is a snapshot from May 2013.

M GaoThe Open Group held an Enterprise Architecture Practitioners Conference in Shanghai China May 22nd 2013. The conference theme was EA and the spectrum of business value. The presentations were made by a mix of non-member and member organizations of The Open Group, most but not all based in China. The audience was mostly non-members from 55 different organizations in a range of industries. There was a good mix of customer, supplier, government and academic organizations presenting and in the audience. The conference proceedings are available to registered attendees of the conference and members of The Open Group. Livestream recordings will also be available shortly.

Organizations large and small presented about the fact that EA was integral to delivering business value. Here’s the nutshell.

China

Huawei is a leading global ICT communications provider based in Shenzhen China.  They presented on EA applied to their business transformation program and the ongoing development of their core EA practice.

GKHB is a software services organization based in Chengdu China. They presented on an architecture practice applied to real time forestry and endangered species management.

Nanfang Media is a State Owned Enterprise, the second largest media organization in the country based in Guangzhou China. They presented on the need to rapidly transform themselves to a modern integrated digital based organization.

McKinsey & Co a Management Consulting company based in New York USA presented an analysis of a CIO survey they conducted with Peking University.

Mr Wang Wei a Partner in the Shanghai office of McKinsey & Co’s Business Technology Practice reviewed a survey they conducted in co-operation with Peking University.

wang wei.jpg

The Survey of CIO’s in China indicated a common problem of managing complexity in multiple dimensions: 1) “Theoretically” Common Business Functions, 2) Across Business Units with differing Operations and Product, 3) Across Geographies and Regions. The recommended approach was towards “Organic Integration” and to carefully determine what should be centralized and what should be distributed. An Architecture approach can help with managing and mitigating these realities. The survey also showed that the CIO’s are evenly split amongst those dedicated to a traditional CIO role and those that have a dual Business and CIO role.

Mr Yang Li Chao Director of EA and Planning at Huawei and Ms Wang Liqun leader of the EA Center of Excellence at Huawei yang li chao.jpgwang liqun.jpgoutlined the 5-year journey Huawei has been on to deal with the development, maturation and effectiveness of an Architecture practice in a company that has seen explosive growth and is competing on a global scale. They are necessarily paying a lot of attention to Talent Management and development of their Architects, as these people are at the forefront of the company Business Transformation efforts. Huawei constantly consults with experts on Architecture from around the world and incorporates what they consider best practice into their own method and framework, which is based on TOGAF®.

 Mr He Kun CIO of Nanfang Media described the enormous pressures his traditional media organization is under, such as a concurrent loss of advertising and talent to digital media.

he kun.jpgHe gave and example where China Mobile has started its own digital newspaper leveraging their delivery platform. So naturally, Nanfang media is also undergoing a transformation and is looking to leverage its current advantages as a trusted source and its existing market position. The discipline of Architecture is a key enabler and aids as a foundation for clearly communicating a transformation approach to other business leaders. This does not mean using EA Jargon but communicating in the language of his peers for the purpose of obtaining funding to accomplish the transformation effectively.

Mr Chen Peng Vice General Manager of GKHB Chengdu described the use of an Architecture approach to managing precious national resources such as forestry, bio diversity and endangered species. He descrichen peng.jpgbed the necessity for real time information in observation, tracking and responses in this area and the necessity of “Informationalization” of Forestry in China as a part of eGovernment initiatives not only for the above topics but also for the countries growth particularly in supplying the construction industry. The Architecture approach taken here is also based on TOGAF®.

The take away from this conference is that Enterprise Architecture is alive and well amongst certain organizations in China. It is being used in a variety of industries.  Value is being realized by executives and practitioners, and delivered for both IT and Business units. However for many companies EA is also a new idea and to date its value is unclear to them.

The speakers also made it clear that there are no easy answers, each organization has to find its own use and value from Enterprise Architecture and it is a learning journey. They expressed their appreciation that The Open Group and its standards are a place where they can make connections, pull from and contribute to in regards to Enterprise Architecture.

Comments Off

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

Connect at The Open Group Conference in Sydney (#ogSYD) via Social Media

By The Open Group Conference Team

By attending The Open Group’s conferences, attendees are able to learn from industry experts, understand the latest technologies and standards and discuss and debate current industry trends. One way to maximize the benefits is to make technology work for you. If you are attending The Open Group Conference in Sydney next week, we’ve put together a few tips on how to leverage social media to make networking at the conference easier, quicker and more effective.

Using Twitter at #ogSYD

Twitter is a real-time news-sharing tool that anyone can use. The official hashtag for the conference is #ogSYD. This enables anybody, whether they are physically attending the event or not, to follow what’s happening at The Open Group Conference in Sydney in real-time and interact with each other.

Before the conference, be sure to update your Twitter account to monitor #ogSYD and, of course, to tweet about the conference.

Using Facebook at The Open Group Conference in Sydney

You can also track what is happening at the conference on The Open Group Facebook Page. We will be posting photos from conference events throughout the week. If you’re willing to share, your photos with us, we’re happy to post them to our page with a photo credit. Please email your photos, captions, full name and organization to photo (at) opengroup.org!

LinkedIn during The Open Group Conference in Sydney

Motivated by one of the sessions? Interested in what your peers have to say? Start a discussion on The Open Group LinkedIn Group page. We’ll also be sharing interesting topics and questions related to The Open Group Conference as it is happening. If you’re not a member already, requesting membership is easy. Simply go to the group page and click the “Join Group” button. We’ll accept your request as soon as we can!

Blogging during The Open Group Conference in Sydney

Stay tuned for conference recaps here on The Open Group blog. In case you missed a session or you weren’t able to make it to Sydney, we’ll be posting the highlights and recaps on the blog. If you are attending the conference and would like to submit a recap of your own, please contact ukopengroup (at) hotwirepr.com.

If you have any questions about social media usage at the conference, feel free to tweet the conference team @theopengroup.

Comments Off

Filed under Conference

The Open Group Conference in Sydney Plenary Sessions Preview

By The Open Group Conference Team

Taking place April 15-18, 2013, The Open Group Conference in Sydney will bring together industry experts to discuss the evolving role of Enterprise Architecture and how it transforms the enterprise. As the conference quickly approaches, let’s take a deeper look into the plenary sessions that kick-off day one and two. And if you haven’t already, register for The Open Group Conference in Sydney today!

Enterprise Transformation and the Role of Open Standards

By Allen Brown, President & CEO, The Open Group

Enterprise transformation seems to be gathering momentum within the Enterprise Architecture community.  The term, enterprise transformation, suggests the process of fundamentally changing an enterprise.  Sometimes the transformation is dramatic but for most of us it is a steady process. Allen will kick off the conference by discussing how to set expectations, the planning process for enterprise transformation and the role of standards, and provide an overview of ongoing projects by The Open Group’s members.

TOGAF® as a Powerful Took to Kick Start Business Transformation

By Peter Haviland, Chief Business Architect, and Martin Keywood, Partner, Ernst & Young

Business transformation is a tricky beast. It requires many people to work together toward a singular vision, and even more people to be aligned to an often multi-year execution program throughout which personal and organizational priorities will change. As a firm with considerable Business Architecture and transformation experience, Ernst & Young (EY) deploys multi-disciplinary teams of functional and technical experts and uses a number of approaches, anchored on TOGAF framework, to address these issues. This is necessary to get a handle on the complexity inherent to today’s business environment so that stakeholders are aligned and remain actively engaged, past investments in both processes and systems can be maximized, and transformation programs are set up for success and can be driven with sustained momentum.

In this session Peter and Martin will take us through EY’s Transformation Design approach – an approach that, within 12 weeks, can define a transformation vision, get executives on board, create a high level multi-domain architecture, broadly outline transformation alternatives and finally provide initial estimates of the necessary work packages to achieve transformation. They will also share case studies and metrics from the approach of financial services, oil and gas and professional services sectors. The session should interest executives looking to increase buy-in amongst their peers or professionals charged with stakeholder engagement and alignment. It will also show how to use the TOGAF framework within this situation.

Building a More Cohesive Organization Using Business Architecture

 By Craig Martin, COO & Chief Architect, Enterprise Architects

In shifting the focus away from Enterprise Architecture being seen purely as an IT discipline, organizations are beginning to formalize the development of Business Architecture practices and outcomes. The Open Group has made the differentiation between business, IT and enterprise architects through various working groups and certification tracks. However, industry at present is grappling to try to understand where the discipline of Business Architecture resides in the business and what value it can provide separate of the traditional project based business analysis focus.

Craig will provide an overview of some of the critical questions being asked by businesses and how these are addressed through Business Architecture. Using both method as well as case study examples, he will show an approach to building more cohesion across the business landscape. Craig will focus on the use of business motivation models, strategic scenario planning and capability based planning techniques to provide input into the strategic planning process.

Other plenary speakers include:

  • Capability Based Strategic Planning in Transforming a Mining Environment by David David, EA Manager, Rio Tinto
  • Development of the National Broadband Network IT Architecture – A Greenfield Telco Transformation by Roger Venning, Chief IT Architect, NBN Co. Ltd
  • Business Architecture in Finance Panel moderated by Chris Forde, VP Enterprise Architecture, The Open Group

More details about the conference can be found here: http://www.opengroup.org/sydney2013

1 Comment

Filed under Conference

3 Steps to Proactively Address Board-Level Security Concerns

By E.G. Nadhan, HP

Last month, I shared the discussions that ensued in a Tweet Jam conducted by The Open Group on Big Data and Security where the key takeaway was: Protecting Data is Good.  Protecting Information generated from Big Data is priceless.  Security concerns around Big Data continue to the extent that it has become a Board-level concern as explained in this article in ComputerWorldUK.  Board-level concerns must be addressed proactively by enterprises.  To do so, enterprises must provide the business justification for such proactive steps needed to address such board-level concerns.

Nadhan blog image

At The Open Group Conference in Sydney in April, the session on “Which information risks are shaping our lives?” by Stephen Singam, Chief Technology Officer, HP Enterprise Security Services, Australia provides great insight on this topic.  In this session, Singam analyzes the current and emerging information risks while recommending a proactive approach to address them head-on with adversary-centric solutions.

The 3 steps that enterprises must take to proactively address security concerns are below:

Computing the cost of cyber-crime

The HP Ponemon 2012 Cost of Cyber Crime Study revealed that cyber attacks have more than doubled in a three year period with the financial impact increasing by nearly 40 percent. Here are the key takeaways from this research:

  • Cyber-crimes continue to be costly. The average annualized cost of cyber-crime for 56 organizations is $8.9 million per year, with a range of $1.4 million to $46 million.
  • Cyber attacks have become common occurrences. Companies experienced 102 successful attacks per week and 1.8 successful attacks per company per week in 2012.
  • The most costly cyber-crimes are those caused by denial of service, malicious insiders and web-based attacks.

When computing the cost of cyber-crime, enterprises must address direct, indirect and opportunity costs that result from the loss or theft of information, disruption to business operations, revenue loss and destruction of property, plant and equipment. The following phases of combating cyber-crime must also be factored in to comprehensively determine the total cost:

  1. Detection of patterns of behavior indicating an impending attack through sustained monitoring of the enabling infrastructure
  2. Investigation of the security violation upon occurrence to determine the underlying root cause and take appropriate remedial measures
  3. Incident response to address the immediate situation at hand, communicate the incidence of the attack raise all applicable alerts
  4. Containment of the attack by controlling its proliferation across the enterprise
  5. Recovery from the damages incurred as a result of the attack to ensure ongoing business operations based upon the business continuity plans in place

Identifying proactive steps that can be taken to address cyber-crime

  1. “Better get security right,” says HP Security Strategist Mary Ann Mezzapelle in her keynote on Big Data and Security at The Open Group Conference in Newport Beach. Asserting that proactive risk management is the most effective approach, Mezzapelle challenged enterprises to proactively question the presence of shadow IT, data ownership, usage of security tools and standards while taking a comprehensive approach to security end-to-end within the enterprise.
  2. Art Gilliland suggested that learning from cyber criminals and understanding their methods in this ZDNet article since the very frameworks enterprises strive to comply with (such as ISO and PCI) set a low bar for security that adversaries capitalize on.
  3. Andy Ellis discussed managing risk with psychology instead of brute force in his keynote at the 2013 RSA Conference.
  4. At the same conference, in another keynote, world re-knowned game-designer and inventor of SuperBetter, Jane McGonigal suggested the application of the “collective intelligence” that gaming generates can combat security concerns.
  5. In this interview, Bruce Schneier, renowned security guru and author of several books including LIARS & Outliers, suggested “Bad guys are going to invent new stuff — whether we want them to or not.” Should we take a cue from Hollywood and consider the inception of OODA loop into the security hacker’s mind?

The Balancing Act.

Can enterprises afford to take such proactive steps? Or more importantly, can they afford not to?

Enterprises must define their risk management strategy and determine the proactive steps that are best in alignment with their business objectives and information security standards.  This will enable organizations to better assess the cost of execution for such measures.  While the actual cost is likely to vary by enterprise, inaction is not an acceptable alternative.  Like all other critical corporate initiatives, these proactive measures must receive the board-level attention they deserve.

Enterprises must balance the cost of executing such proactive measures against the potential cost of data loss and reputational harm. This will ensure that the right proactive measures are taken with executive support.

How about you?  Has your enterprise taken the steps to assess the cost of cybercrime?  Have you considered various proactive steps to combat cybercrime?  Share your thoughts with me in the comments section below.

NadhanHP Distinguished Technologist, E.G.Nadhan has over 25 years of experience in the IT industry across the complete spectrum of selling, delivering and managing enterprise level solutions for HP customers. He is the founding co-chair for The Open Group SOCCI project and is also the founding co-chair for the Open Group Cloud Computing Governance project. Twitter handle @NadhanAtHP.

1 Comment

Filed under Conference

Join us for The Open Group Conference in Sydney – April 15-18

By The Open Group Conference Team

The Open Group is busy gearing up for the Sydney conference, which will take place on April 15-18, 2013. With over 2,000 Associate of Enterprise Architects (AEA) members in Australia, Sydney is an ideal setting for industry experts from around the world to gather and discuss the evolution of Enterprise Architecture and its role in transforming the enterprise. Be sure to register today!

The conference offers roughly 60 sessions on a varied of topics including:

  • Cloud infrastructure as an enabler of innovation in enterprises
  • Simplifying data integration in the government and defense sectors
  • Merger transformation with TOGAF® framework and ArchiMate® modeling language
  • Measuring and managing cybersecurity risks
  • Pragmatic IT road-mapping with ArchiMate modeling language
  • The value of Enterprise Architecture certification within a professional development framework

Plenary speakers will include:

  • Allen Brown, President & CEO, The Open Group
  • Peter Haviland, Chief Business Architect, with Martin Keywood, Partner, Ernst & Young
  • David David, EA Manager, Rio Tinto
  • Roger Venning, Chief IT Architect, NBN Co. Ltd
  • Craig Martin, COO & Chief Architect, Enterprise Architects
  • Chris Forde, VP Enterprise Architecture, The Open Group

The full conference agenda is available here. Tracks include:

  • Finance & Commerce
  • Government & Defense
  • Energy & Natural Resources

And topics of discussion include, but are not limited to:

  • Cloud
  • Business Transformation
  • Enterprise Architecture
  • Technology & Innovation
  • Data Integration/Information Sharing
  • Governance & Security
  • Architecture Reference Models
  • Strategic Planning
  • Distributed Services Architecture

Upcoming Conference Submission Deadlines

Would you like a chance to speak an Open Group conference? There are upcoming deadlines for speaker proposal submissions for upcoming conferences in Philadelphia and London. To submit a proposal to speak, click here.

Venue Industry Focus Submission Deadline
Philadelphia (July 15-17) Healthcare, Finance, Government & Defense April 5, 2013
London (October 21-23) Finance, Government, Healthcare July 8, 2013

 

The agenda for Philadelphia and London are filling up fast, so it is important for proposals to be submitted as early as possible. Proposals received after the deadline dates will still be considered, space permitting; if not, proposals may be carried over to a future conference. Priority will be given to proposals received by the deadline dates and to proposals that include an end-user organization, at least as a co-presenter.

Comments Off

Filed under Conference

Beyond Big Data

By Chris Harding, The Open Group

The big bang that started The Open Group Conference in Newport Beach was, appropriately, a presentation related to astronomy. Chris Gerty gave a keynote on Big Data at NASA, where he is Deputy Program Manager of the Open Innovation Program. He told us how visualizing deep space and its celestial bodies created understanding and enabled new discoveries. Everyone who attended felt inspired to explore the universe of Big Data during the rest of the conference. And that exploration – as is often the case with successful space missions – left us wondering what lies beyond.

The Big Data Conference Plenary

The second presentation on that Monday morning brought us down from the stars to the nuts and bolts of engineering. Mechanical devices require regular maintenance to keep functioning. Processing the mass of data generated during their operation can improve safety and cut costs. For example, airlines can overhaul aircraft engines when it needs doing, rather than on a fixed schedule that has to be frequent enough to prevent damage under most conditions, but might still fail to anticipate failure in unusual circumstances. David Potter and Ron Schuldt lead two of The Open Group initiatives, Quantum Lifecycle management (QLM) and the Universal Data Element Framework (UDEF). They explained how a semantic approach to product lifecycle management can facilitate the big-data processing needed to achieve this aim.

Chris Gerty was then joined by Andras Szakal, vice-president and chief technology officer at IBM US Federal IMT, Robert Weisman, chief executive officer of Build The Vision, and Jim Hietala, vice-president of Security at The Open Group, in a panel session on Big Data that was moderated by Dana Gardner of Interarbor Solutions. As always, Dana facilitated a fascinating discussion. Key points made by the panelists included: the trend to monetize data; the need to ensure veracity and usefulness; the need for security and privacy; the expectation that data warehouse technology will exist and evolve in parallel with map/reduce “on-the-fly” analysis; the importance of meaningful presentation of the data; integration with cloud and mobile technology; and the new ways in which Big Data can be used to deliver business value.

More on Big Data

In the afternoons of Monday and Tuesday, and on most of Wednesday, the conference split into streams. These have presentations that are more technical than the plenary, going deeper into their subjects. It’s a pity that you can’t be in all the streams at once. (At one point I couldn’t be in any of them, as there was an important side meeting to discuss the UDEF, which is in one of the areas that I support as forum director). Fortunately, there were a few great stream presentations that I did manage to get to.

On the Monday afternoon, Tom Plunkett and Janet Mostow of Oracle presented a reference architecture that combined Hadoop and NoSQL with traditional RDBMS, streaming, and complex event processing, to enable Big Data analysis. One application that they described was to trace the relations between particular genes and cancer. This could have big benefits in disease prediction and treatment. Another was to predict the movements of protesters at a demonstration through analysis of communications on social media. The police could then concentrate their forces in the right place at the right time.

Jason Bloomberg, president of Zapthink – now part of Dovel – is always thought-provoking. His presentation featured the need for governance vitality to cope with ever changing tools to handle Big Data of ever increasing size, “crowdsourcing” to channel the efforts of many people into solving a problem, and business transformation that is continuous rather than a one-time step from “as is” to “to be.”

Later in the week, I moderated a discussion on Architecting for Big Data in the Cloud. We had a well-balanced panel made up of TJ Virdi of Boeing, Mark Skilton of Capgemini and Tom Plunkett of Oracle. They made some excellent points. Big Data analysis provides business value by enabling better understanding, leading to better decisions. The analysis is often an iterative process, with new questions emerging as answers are found. There is no single application that does this analysis and provides the visualization needed for understanding, but there are a number of products that can be used to assist. The role of the data scientist in formulating the questions and configuring the visualization is critical. Reference models for the technology are emerging but there are as yet no commonly-accepted standards.

The New Enterprise Platform

Jogging is a great way of taking exercise at conferences, and I was able to go for a run most mornings before the meetings started at Newport Beach. Pacific Coast Highway isn’t the most interesting of tracks, but on Tuesday morning I was soon up in Castaways Park, pleasantly jogging through the carefully-nurtured natural coastal vegetation, with views over the ocean and its margin of high-priced homes, slipways, and yachts. I reflected as I ran that we had heard some interesting things about Big Data, but it is now an established topic. There must be something new coming over the horizon.

The answer to what this might be was suggested in the first presentation of that day’s plenary, Mary Ann Mezzapelle, security strategist for HP Enterprise Services, talked about the need to get security right for Big Data and the Cloud. But her scope was actually wider. She spoke of the need to secure the “third platform” – the term coined by IDC to describe the convergence of social, cloud and mobile computing with Big Data.

Securing Big Data

Mary Ann’s keynote was not about the third platform itself, but about what should be done to protect it. The new platform brings with it a new set of security threats, and the increasing scale of operation makes it increasingly important to get the security right. Mary Ann presented a thoughtful analysis founded on a risk-based approach.

She was followed by Adrian Lane, chief technology officer at Securosis, who pointed out that Big Data processing using NoSQL has a different architecture from traditional relational data processing, and requires different security solutions. This does not necessarily mean new techniques; existing techniques can be used in new ways. For example, Kerberos may be used to secure inter-node communications in map/reduce processing. Adrian’s presentation completed the Tuesday plenary sessions.

Service Oriented Architecture

The streams continued after the plenary. I went to the Distributed Services Architecture stream, which focused on SOA.

Bill Poole, enterprise architect at JourneyOne in Australia, described how to use the graphical architecture modeling language ArchiMate® to model service-oriented architectures. He illustrated this using a case study of a global mining organization that wanted to consolidate its two existing bespoke inventory management applications into a single commercial off-the-shelf application. It’s amazing how a real-world case study can make a topic come to life, and the audience certainly responded warmly to Bill’s excellent presentation.

Ali Arsanjani, chief technology officer for Business Performance and Service Optimization, and Heather Kreger, chief technology officer for International Standards, both at IBM, described the range of SOA standards published by The Open Group and available for use by enterprise architects. Ali was one of the brains that developed the SOA Reference Architecture, and Heather is a key player in international standards activities for SOA, where she has helped The Open Group’s Service Integration Maturity Model and SOA Governance Framework to become international standards, and is working on an international standard SOA reference architecture.

Cloud Computing

To start Wednesday’s Cloud Computing streams, TJ Virdi, senior enterprise architect at The Boeing Company, discussed use of TOGAF® to develop an Enterprise Architecture for a Cloud ecosystem. A large enterprise such as Boeing may use many Cloud service providers, enabling collaboration between corporate departments, partners, and regulators in a complex ecosystem. Architecting for this is a major challenge, and The Open Group’s TOGAF for Cloud Ecosystems project is working to provide guidance.

Stuart Boardman of KPN gave a different perspective on Cloud ecosystems, with a case study from the energy industry. An ecosystem may not necessarily be governed by a single entity, and the participants may not always be aware of each other. Energy generation and consumption in the Netherlands is part of a complex international ecosystem involving producers, consumers, transporters, and traders of many kinds. A participant may be involved in several ecosystems in several ways: a farmer for example, might consume energy, have wind turbines to produce it, and also participate in food production and transport ecosystems.

Penelope Gordon of 1-Plug Corporation explained how choice and use of business metrics can impact Cloud service providers. She worked through four examples: a start-up Software-as-a-Service provider requiring investment, an established company thinking of providing its products as cloud services, an IT department planning to offer an in-house private Cloud platform, and a government agency seeking budget for government Cloud.

Mark Skilton, director at Capgemini in the UK, gave a presentation titled “Digital Transformation and the Role of Cloud Computing.” He covered a very broad canvas of business transformation driven by technological change, and illustrated his theme with a case study from the pharmaceutical industry. New technology enables new business models, giving competitive advantage. Increasingly, the introduction of this technology is driven by the business, rather than the IT side of the enterprise, and it has major challenges for both sides. But what new technologies are in question? Mark’s presentation had Cloud in the title, but also featured social and mobile computing, and Big Data.

The New Trend

On Thursday morning I took a longer run, to and round Balboa Island. With only one road in or out, its main street of shops and restaurants is not a through route and the island has the feel of a real village. The SOA Work Group Steering Committee had found an excellent, and reasonably priced, Italian restaurant there the previous evening. There is a clear resurgence of interest in SOA, partly driven by the use of service orientation – the principle, rather than particular protocols – in Cloud Computing and other new technologies. That morning I took the track round the shoreline, and was reminded a little of Dylan Thomas’s “fishing boat bobbing sea.” Fishing here is for leisure rather than livelihood, but I suspected that the fishermen, like those of Thomas’s little Welsh village, spend more time in the bar than on the water.

I thought about how the conference sessions had indicated an emerging trend. This is not a new technology but the combination of four current technologies to create a new platform for enterprise IT: Social, Cloud, and Mobile computing, and Big Data. Mary Ann Mezzapelle’s presentation had referenced IDC’s “third platform.” Other discussions had mentioned Gartner’s “Nexus of forces,” the combination of Social, Cloud and Mobile computing with information that Gartner says is transforming the way people and businesses relate to technology, and will become a key differentiator of business and technology management. Mark Skilton had included these same four technologies in his presentation. Great minds, and analyst corporations, think alike!

I thought also about the examples and case studies in the stream presentations. Areas as diverse as healthcare, manufacturing, energy and policing are using the new technologies. Clearly, they can deliver major business benefits. The challenge for enterprise architects is to maximize those benefits through pragmatic architectures.

Emerging Standards

On the way back to the hotel, I remarked again on what I had noticed before, how beautifully neat and carefully maintained the front gardens bordering the sidewalk are. I almost felt that I was running through a public botanical garden. Is there some ordinance requiring people to keep their gardens tidy, with severe penalties for anyone who leaves a lawn or hedge unclipped? Is a miserable defaulter fitted with a ball and chain, not to be removed until the untidy vegetation has been properly trimmed, with nail clippers? Apparently not. People here keep their gardens tidy because they want to. The best standards are like that: universally followed, without use or threat of sanction.

Standards are an issue for the new enterprise platform. Apart from the underlying standards of the Internet, there really aren’t any. The area isn’t even mapped out. Vendors of Social, Cloud, Mobile, and Big Data products and services are trying to stake out as much valuable real estate as they can. They have no interest yet in boundaries with neatly-clipped hedges.

This is a stage that every new technology goes through. Then, as it matures, the vendors understand that their products and services have much more value when they conform to standards, just as properties have more value in an area where everything is neat and well-maintained.

It may be too soon to define those standards for the new enterprise platform, but it is certainly time to start mapping out the area, to understand its subdivisions and how they inter-relate, and to prepare the way for standards. Following the conference, The Open Group has announced a new Forum, provisionally titled Open Platform 3.0, to do just that.

The SOA and Cloud Work Groups

Thursday was my final day of meetings at the conference. The plenary and streams presentations were done. This day was for working meetings of the SOA and Cloud Work Groups. I also had an informal discussion with Ron Schuldt about a new approach for the UDEF, following up on the earlier UDEF side meeting. The conference hallways, as well as the meeting rooms, often see productive business done.

The SOA Work Group discussed a certification program for SOA professionals, and an update to the SOA Reference Architecture. The Open Group is working with ISO and the IEEE to define a standard SOA reference architecture that will have consensus across all three bodies.

The Cloud Work Group had met earlier to further the TOGAF for Cloud ecosystems project. Now it worked on its forthcoming white paper on business performance metrics. It also – though this was not on the original agenda – discussed Gartner’s Nexus of Forces, and the future role of the Work Group in mapping out the new enterprise platform.

Mapping the New Enterprise Platform

At the start of the conference we looked at how to map the stars. Big Data analytics enables people to visualize the universe in new ways, reach new understandings of what is in it and how it works, and point to new areas for future exploration.

As the conference progressed, we found that Big Data is part of a convergence of forces. Social, mobile, and Cloud Computing are being combined with Big Data to form a new enterprise platform. The development of this platform, and its roll-out to support innovative applications that deliver more business value, is what lies beyond Big Data.

At the end of the conference we were thinking about mapping the new enterprise platform. This will not require sophisticated data processing and analysis. It will take discussions to create a common understanding, and detailed committee work to draft the guidelines and standards. This work will be done by The Open Group’s new Open Platform 3.0 Forum.

The next Open Group conference is in the week of April 15, in Sydney, Australia. I’m told that there’s some great jogging there. More importantly, we’ll be reflecting on progress in mapping Open Platform 3.0, and thinking about what lies ahead. I’m looking forward to it already.

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

2 Comments

Filed under Conference

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

Filed under Conference

Open Group Panel Explores Changing Field of Risk Management and Analysis in the Era of Big Data

By Dana Gardner, Interarbor Solutions

Listen to the recorded podcast here: The Open Group Panel Explores Changing Field of Risk Management and Analysis in Era of Big Data

This is a transcript of a sponsored podcast discussion on the threats from and promise of Big Data in securing enterprise information assets in conjunction with the The Open Group Conference in Newport Beach.

Dana Gardner: Hello, and welcome to a special thought leadership interview series coming to you in conjunction with The Open Group Conference on January 28 in Newport Beach, California.

I’m Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, and I’ll be your host and moderator throughout these business transformation discussions. The conference itself is focusing on Big Data the transformation we need to embrace today.

We’re here now with a panel of experts to explore new trends and solutions in the area of risk management and analysis. We’ll learn how large enterprises are delivering risk assessments and risk analysis, and we’ll see how Big Data can be both an area to protect from in form of risks, but also as a tool for better understanding and mitigating risks.

With that, please join me in welcoming our panel. We’re here with Jack Freund, PhD, the Information Security Risk Assessment Manager at TIAA-CREF. Welcome, Jack.

Jack Freund: Hello Dana, how are you?

Gardner: I’m great. Glad you could join us.

We are also here with Jack Jones, Principal of CXOWARE. He has more than nine years of experience as a Chief Information Security Officer, is the inventor of the Factor Analysis Information Risk (FAIR) framework. Welcome, Jack.

Jack Jones: Thank you. And we’re also here with Jim Hietala, Vice President, Security for The Open Group. Welcome, Jim.

Jim Hietala: Thanks, Dana.

Gardner: All right, let’s start out with looking at this from a position of trends. Why is the issue of risk analysis so prominent now? What’s different from, say, five years ago? And we’ll start with you, Jack Jones.

Jones: The information security industry has struggled with getting the attention of and support from management and businesses for a long time, and it has finally come around to the fact that the executives care about loss exposure — the likelihood of bad things happening and how bad those things are likely to be.

It’s only when we speak of those terms or those issues in terms of risk, that we make sense to those executives. And once we do that, we begin to gain some credibility and traction in terms of getting things done.

Gardner: So we really need to talk about this in the terms that a business executive would appreciate, not necessarily an IT executive.

Effects on business

Jones: Absolutely. They’re tired of hearing about vulnerabilities, hackers, and that sort of thing. It’s only when we can talk in terms of the effect on the business that it makes sense to them.

Gardner: Jack Freund, I should also point out that you have more than 14 years in enterprise IT experience. You’re a visiting professor at DeVry University and you chair a risk-management subcommittee for ISACA? Is that correct?

Freund: ISACA, yes.

Gardner: And do you agree?

Freund: The problem that we have as a profession, and I think it’s a big problem, is that we have allowed ourselves to escape the natural trend that the other IT professionals have already taken.

There was a time, years ago, when you could code in the basement, and nobody cared much about what you were doing. But now, largely speaking, developers and systems administrators are very focused on meeting the goals of the organization.

Security has been allowed to miss that boat a little. We have been allowed to hide behind this aura of a protector and of an alerter of terrible things that could happen, without really tying ourselves to the problem that the organizations are facing and how can we help them succeed in what they’re doing.

Gardner: Jim Hietala, how do you see things that are different now than a few years ago when it comes to risk assessment?

Hietala: There are certainly changes on the threat side of the landscape. Five years ago, you didn’t really have hacktivism or this notion of an advanced persistent threat (APT).

That highly skilled attacker taking aim at governments and large organizations didn’t really exist -– or didn’t exist to the degree it does today. So that has changed.

You also have big changes to the IT platform landscape, all of which bring new risks that organizations need to really think about. The mobility trend, the Cloud trend, the big-data trend that we are talking about today, all of those things bring new risk to the organization.

As Jack Jones mentioned, business executives don’t want to hear about, “I’ve got 15 vulnerabilities in the mobility part of my organization.” They want to understand what’s the risk of bad things happening because of mobility, what we’re doing about it, and what’s happening to risk over time?

So it’s a combination of changes in the threats and attackers, as well as just changes to the IT landscape, that we have to take a different look at how we measure and present risk to the business.

Gardner: Because we’re at a big-data conference, do you share my perception, Jack Jones, that Big Data can be a source of risk and vulnerability, but also the analytics and the business intelligence (BI) tools that we’re employing with Big Data can be used to alert you to risks or provide a strong tool for better understanding your true risk setting or environment.

Crown jewels

Jones: You are absolutely right. You think of Big Data and, by definition, it’s where your crown jewels, and everything that leads to crown jewels from an information perspective, are going to be found. It’s like one-stop shopping for the bad guy, if you want to look at it in that context. It definitely needs to be protected. The architecture surrounding it and its integration across a lot of different platforms and such, can be leveraged and probably result in a complex landscape to try and secure.

There are a lot of ways into that data and such, but at least if you can leverage that same Big Data architecture, it’s an approach to information security. With log data and other threat and vulnerability data and such, you should be able to make some significant gains in terms of how well-informed your analyses and your decisions are, based on that data.

Gardner: Jack Freund, do you share that? How does Big Data fit into your understanding of the evolving arena of risk assessment and analysis?

Freund: If we fast-forward it five years, and this is even true today, a lot of people on the cutting edge of Big Data will tell you the problem isn’t so much building everything together and figuring out what it can do. They are going to tell you that the problem is what we do once we figure out everything that we have. This is the problem that we have traditionally had on a much smaller scale in information security. When everything is important, nothing is important.

Gardner: To follow up on that, where do you see the gaps in risk analysis in large organizations? In other words, what parts of organizations aren’t being assessed for risk and should be?

Freund: The big problems that exist largely today in the way that risk assessments are done, is the focus on labels. We want to quickly address the low, medium, and high things and know where they are. But the problem is that there are inherent problems in the way that we think about those labels, without doing any of the analysis legwork.

I think that’s what’s really missing is that true analysis. If the system goes offline, do we lose money? If the system becomes compromised, what are the cost-accounting things that will happen that allow us to figure out how much money we’re going to lose.

That analysis work is largely missing. That’s the gap. The gap is if the control is not in place, then there’s a risk that must be addressed in some fashion. So we end up with these very long lists of horrible, terrible things that can be done to us in all sorts of different ways, without any relevance to the overall business of the organization.

Every day, our organizations are out there selling products, offering services, which is and of itself, its own risky venture. So tying what we do from an information security perspective to that is critical for not just the success of the organization, but the success of our profession.

Gardner: So we can safely say that large companies are probably pretty good at a cost-benefit analysis or they wouldn’t be successful. Now, I guess we need to ask them to take that a step further and do a cost-risk analysis, but in business terms, being mindful that their IT systems might be a much larger part of that than they had at once considered. Is that fair, Jack?

Risk implications

Jones: Businesses have been making these decisions, chasing the opportunity, but generally, without any clear understanding of the risk implications, at least from the information security perspective. They will have us in the corner screaming and throwing red flags in there, and talking about vulnerabilities and threats from one thing or another.

But, we come to the table with red, yellow, and green indicators, and on the other side of the table, they’ve got numbers. Well, here is what we expect to earn in revenue from this initiative, and the information security people are saying it’s crazy. How do you normalize the quantitative revenue gain versus red, yellow, and green?

Gardner: Jim Hietala, do you see it in the same red, yellow, green or are there some other frameworks or standard methodologies that The Open Group is looking at to make this a bit more of a science?

Hietala: Probably four years ago, we published what we call the Risk Taxonomy Standard which is based upon FAIR, the management framework that Jack Jones invented. So, we’re big believers in bringing that level of precision to doing risk analysis. Having just gone through training for FAIR myself, as part of the standards effort that we’re doing around certification, I can say that it really brings a level of precision and a depth of analysis to risk analysis that’s been lacking frequently in IT security and risk management.

Gardner: We’ve talked about how organizations need to be mindful that their risks are higher and different than in the past and we’ve talked about how standardization and methodologies are important, helping them better understand this from a business perspective, instead of just a technology perspective.

But, I’m curious about a cultural and organizational perspective. Whose job should this fall under? Who is wearing the white hat in the company and can rally the forces of good and make all the bad things managed? Is this a single person, a cultural, an organizational mission? How do you make this work in the enterprise in a real-world way? Let’s go to you, Jack Freund.

Freund: The profession of IT risk management is changing. That profession will have to sit between the business and information security inclusive of all the other IT functions that make that happen.

In order to be successful sitting between these two groups, you have to be able to speak the language of both of those groups. You have to be able to understand profit and loss and capital expenditure on the business side. On the IT risk side, you have to be technical enough to do all those sorts of things.

But I think the sum total of those two things is probably only about 50 percent of the job of IT risk management today. The other 50 percent is communication. Finding ways to translate that language and to understand the needs and concerns of each side of that relationship is really the job of IT risk management.

To answer your question, I think it’s absolutely the job of IT risk management to do that. From my own experiences with the FAIR framework, I can say that using FAIR is the Rosetta Stone for speaking between those two groups.

Necessary tools

It gives you the tools necessary to speak in the insurance and risk terms that business appreciate. And it gives you the ability to be as technical and just nerdy, if you will, as you need to be in order to talk to IT security and the other IT functions in order to make sure everybody is on the same page and everyone feels like their concerns are represented in the risk-assessment functions that are happening.

Gardner: Jack Jones, can you add to that?

Jones: I agree with what Jack said wholeheartedly. I would add, though, that integration or adoption of something like this is a lot easier the higher up in the organization you go.

For CFOs traditionally, their neck is most clearly on the line for risk-related issues within most organizations. At least in my experience, if you get their ear on this and present the information security data analyses to them, they jump on board, they drive it through the organization, and it’s just brain-dead easy.

If you try to drive it up through the ranks, maybe you get an enthusiastic supporter in the information security organization, especially if it’s below the CISO level, and they try a grassroots sort of effort to bring it in, it’s a tougher thing. It can still work. I’ve seen it work very well, but, it’s a longer row to hoe.

Gardner: There have been a lot of research, studies, and surveys on data breaches. What are some of the best sources, or maybe not so good sources, for actually measuring this? How do you know if you’re doing it right? How do you know if you’re moving from yellow to green, instead of to red? To you, Jack Freund.

Freund: There are a couple of things in that question. The first is there’s this inherent assumption in a lot of organizations that we need to move from yellow to green, and that may not be the case. So, becoming very knowledgeable about the risk posture and the risk tolerance of the organization is a key.

That’s part of the official mindset of IT security. When you graduate an information security person today, they are minted knowing that there are a lot of bad things out there, and their goal in life is to reduce them. But, that may not be the case. The case may very well be that things are okay now, but we have bigger things to fry over here that we’re going to focus on. So, that’s one thing.

The second thing, and it’s a very good question, is how we know that we’re getting better? How do we trend that over time? Overall, measuring that value for the organization has to be able to show a reduction of a risk or at least reduction of risk to the risk-tolerance levels of the organization.

Calculating and understanding that requires something that I always phrase as we have to become comfortable with uncertainty. When you are talking about risk in general, you’re talking about forward-looking statements about things that may or may not happen. So, becoming comfortable with the fact that they may or may not happen means that when you measure them today, you have to be willing to be a little bit squishy in how you’re representing that.

In FAIR and in other academic works, they talk about using ranges to do that. So, things like high, medium, and low, could be represented in terms of a minimum, maximum, and most likely. And that tends to be very, very effective. People can respond to that fairly well.

Gathering data

Jones: With regard to the data sources, there are a lot of people out there doing these sorts of studies, gathering data. The problem that’s hamstringing that effort is the lack of a common set of definitions, nomenclature, and even taxonomy around the problem itself.

You will have one study that will have defined threat, vulnerability, or whatever differently from some other study, and so the data can’t be normalized. It really harms the utility of it. I see data out there and I think, “That looks like that can be really useful.” But, I hesitate to use it because I don’t understand. They don’t publish their definitions, approach, and how they went after it.

There’s just so much superficial thinking in the profession on this that we now have dug under the covers. Too often, I run into stuff that just can’t be defended. It doesn’t make sense, and therefore the data can’t be used. It’s an unfortunate situation.

I do think we’re heading in a positive direction. FAIR can provide a normalizing structure for that sort of thing. The VERIS framework, which by the way, is also derived in part from FAIR, also has gained real attraction in terms of the quality of the research they have done and the data they’re generating. We’re headed in the right direction, but we’ve got a long way to go.

Gardner: Jim Hietala, we’re seemingly looking at this on a company-by-company basis. But, is there a vertical industry slice or industry-wide slice where we could look at what’s happening to everyone and put some standard understanding, or measurement around what’s going on in the overall market, maybe by region, maybe by country?

Hietala: There are some industry-specific initiatives and what’s really needed, as Jack Jones mentioned, are common definitions for things like breach, exposure, loss, all those, so that the data sources from one organization can be used in another, and so forth. I think about the financial services industry. I know that there is some information sharing through an organization called the FS-ISAC about what’s happening to financial services organizations in terms of attacks, loss, and those sorts of things.

There’s an opportunity for that on a vertical-by-vertical basis. But, like Jack said, there is a long way to go on that. In some industries, healthcare for instance, you are so far from that, it’s ridiculous. In the US here, the HIPAA security rule says you must do a risk assessment. So, hospitals have done annual risk assessments, will stick the binder on the shelf, and they don’t think much about information security in between those annual risk assessments. That’s a generalization, but various industries are at different places on a continuum of maturity of their risk management approaches.

Gardner: As we get better with having a common understanding of the terms and the measurements and we share more data, let’s go back to this notion of how to communicate this effectively to those people that can use it and exercise change management as a result. That could be the CFO, the CEO, what have you, depending on the organization.

Do you have any examples? Can we look to an organization that’s done this right, and examine their practices, the way they’ve communicated it, some of the tools they’ve used and say, “Aha, they’re headed in the right direction maybe we could follow a little bit.” Let’s start with you, Jack Freund.

Freund: I have worked and consulted for various organizations that have done risk management at different levels. The ones that have embraced FAIR tend to be the ones that overall feel that risk is an integral part of their business strategy. And I can give a couple of examples of scenarios that have played out that I think have been successful in the way they have been communicated.

Coming to terms

The key to keep in mind with this is that one of the really important things is that when you’re a security professional, you’re again trained to feel like you need results. But, the results for the IT risk management professional are different. The results are “I’ve communicated this effectively, so I am done.” And then whatever the results are, are the results that needed to be. And that’s a really hard thing to come to terms with.

I’ve been involved in large-scale efforts to assess risk for a Cloud venture. We needed to move virtually every confidential record that we have to the Cloud in order to be competitive with the rest of our industry. If our competitors are finding ways to utilize the Cloud before us, we can lose out. So, we need to find a way to do that, and to be secure and compliant with all the laws and regulations and such.

Through that scenario, one of the things that came out was that key ownership became really, really important. We had the opportunity to look at the various control structures and we analyzed them using FAIR. What we ended up with was sort of a long-tail risk. Most people will probably do their job right over a long enough period of time. But, over that same long period of time, the odds of somebody making a mistake not in your favor are probably likely, but, not significantly enough so that you can’t make the move.

But, the problem became that the loss side, the side that typically gets ignored with traditional risk-assessment methodologies, was so significant that the organization needed to make some judgment around that, and they needed to have a sense of what we needed to do in order to minimize that.

That became a big point of discussion for us and it drove the conversation away from bad things could happen. We didn’t bury the lead. The lead was that this is the most important thing to this organization in this particular scenario.

So, let’s talk about things we can do. Are we comfortable with it? Do we need to make any sort of changes? What are some control opportunities? How much do they cost? This is a significantly more productive conversation than just, “Here is a bunch of bad things that happen. I’m going to cross my arms and say no.”

Gardner: Jack Jones, examples at work?

Jones: In an organization that I’ve been working with recently, their board of directors said they wanted a quantitative view of information security risk. They just weren’t happy with the red, yellow, green. So, they came to us, and there were really two things that drove them there. One was that they were looking at cyber insurance. They wanted to know how much cyber insurance they should take out, and how do you figure that out when you’ve got a red, yellow, green scale?

They were able to do a series of analyses on a population of the scenarios that they thought were relevant in their world, get an aggregate view of their annualized loss exposure, and make a better informed decision about that particular problem.

Gardner: I’m curious how prevalent cyber insurance is, and is that going to be a leveling effect in the industry where people speak a common language the equivalent of actuarial tables, but for security in enterprise and cyber security?

Jones: One would dream and hope, but at this point, what I’ve seen out there in terms of the basis on which insurance companies are setting their premiums and such is essentially the same old “risk assessment” stuff that the industry has been doing poorly for years. It’s not based on data or any real analysis per se, at least what I’ve run into. What they do is set their premiums high to buffer themselves and typically cover as few things as possible. The question of how much value it’s providing the customers becomes a problem.

Looking to the future

Gardner: We’re coming up on our time limit. So, let’s quickly look to the future. Is there such thing as risk management as a service? Can we outsource this? Is there a way in which moving more of IT into Cloud or hybrid models would mitigate risk, because the Cloud provider would standardize? Then, many players in that environment, those who were buying those services, would be under that same umbrella? Let’s start with you Jim Hietala. What’s the future of this and what do the Cloud trends bring to the table?

Hietala: I’d start with a maxim that comes out of the financial services industry, which is that you can outsource the function, but you still own the risk. That’s an unfortunate reality. You can throw things out in the Cloud, but it doesn’t absolve you from understanding your risk and then doing things to manage it to transfer it if there’s insurance or whatever the case may be.

That’s just a reality. Organizations in the risky world we live in are going to have to get more serious about doing effective risk analysis. From The Open Group standpoint, we see this as an opportunity area.

As I mentioned, we’ve standardized the taxonomy piece of FAIR. And we really see an opportunity around the profession going forward to help the risk-analysis community by further standardizing FAIR and launching a certification program for a FAIR-certified risk analyst. That’s in demand from large organizations that are looking for evidence that people understand how to apply FAIR and use it in doing risk analyses.

Gardner: Jack Freund, looking into your crystal ball, how do you see this discipline evolving?

Freund: I always try to consider things as they exist within other systems. Risk is a system of systems. There are a series of pressures that are applied, and a series of levers that are thrown in order to release that sort of pressure.

Risk will always be owned by the organization that is offering that service. If we decide at some point that we can move to the Cloud and all these other things, we need to look to the legal system. There is a series of pressures that they are going to apply, and who is going to own that, and how that plays itself out.

If we look to the Europeans and the way that they’re managing risk and compliance, they’re still as strict as we in United States think that they may be about things, but there’s still a lot of leeway in a lot of the ways that laws are written. You’re still being asked to do things that are reasonable. You’re still being asked to do things that are standard for your industry. But, we’d still like the ability to know what that is, and I don’t think that’s going to go away anytime soon.

Judgment calls

We’re still going to have to make judgment calls. We’re still going to have to do 100 things with a budget for 10 things. Whenever that happens, you have to make a judgment call. What’s the most important thing that I care about? And that’s why risk management exists, because there’s a certain series of things that we have to deal with. We don’t have the resources to do them all, and I don’t think that’s going to change over time. Regardless of whether the landscape changes, that’s the one that remains true.

Gardner: The last word to you, Jack Jones. It sounds as if we’re continuing down the path of being mostly reactive. Is there anything you can see on the horizon that would perhaps tip the scales, so that the risk management and analysis practitioners can really become proactive and head things off before they become a big problem?

Jones: If we were to take a snapshot at any given point in time of an organization’s loss exposure, how much risk they have right then, that’s a lagging indicator of the decisions they’ve made in the past, and their ability to execute against those decisions.

We can do some great root-cause analysis around that and ask how we got there. But, we can also turn that coin around and ask how good we are at making well-informed decisions, and then executing against them, the asking what that implies from a risk perspective downstream.

If we understand the relationship between our current state, and past and future states, we have those linkages defined, especially, if we have an analytic framework underneath it. We can do some marvelous what-if analysis.

What if this variable changed in our landscape? Let’s run a few thousand Monte Carlo simulations against that and see what comes up. What does that look like? Well, then let’s change this other variable and then see which combination of dials, when we turn them, make us most robust to change in our landscape.

But again, we can’t begin to get there, until we have this foundational set of definitions, frameworks, and such to do that sort of analysis. That’s what we’re doing with FAIR, but without some sort of framework like that, there’s no way you can get there.

Gardner: I am afraid we’ll have to leave it there. We’ve been talking with a panel of experts on how new trends and solutions are emerging in the area of risk management and analysis. And we’ve seen how new tools for communication and using Big Data to understand risks are also being brought to the table.

This special BriefingsDirect discussion comes to you in conjunction with The Open Group Conference in Newport Beach, California. I’d like to thank our panel: Jack Freund, PhD, Information Security Risk Assessment Manager at TIAA-CREF. Thanks so much Jack.

Freund: Thank you, Dana.

Gardner: We’ve also been speaking with Jack Jones, Principal at CXOWARE.

Jones: Thank you. Thank you, pleasure to be here.

Gardner: And last, Jim Hietala, the Vice President for Security at The Open Group. Thanks.

Hietala: Thanks, Dana.

Gardner: This is Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions; your host and moderator through these thought leadership interviews. Thanks again for listening and come back next time.

Comments Off

Filed under Security Architecture

On Demand Broadcasts from Day One at The Open Group Conference in Newport Beach

By The Open Group Conference Team

Since not everyone could make the trip to The Open Group Conference in Newport Beach, we’ve put together a recap of day one’s plenary speakers. Stay tuned for more recaps coming soon!

Big Data at NASA

In his talk titled, “Big Data at NASA,” Chris Gerty, deputy program manager, Open Innovation Program, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), discussed how Big Data is being interpreted by the next generation of rocket scientists. Chris presented a few lessons learned from his experiences at NASA:

  1. A traditional approach is not always the best approach. A tried and proven method may not translate. Creating more programs for more data to store on bigger hard drives is not always effective. We need to address the never-ending challenges that lie ahead in the shift of society to the information age.
  2. A plan for openness. Based on a government directive, Chris’ team looked to answer questions by asking the right people. For example, NASA asked the people gathering data on a satellite to determine what data was the most important, which enabled NASA to narrow focus and solve problems. Furthermore, by realizing what can also be useful to the public and what tools have already been developed by the public, open source development can benefit the masses. Through collaboration, governments and citizens can work together to solve some of humanity’s biggest problems.
  3. Embrace the enormity of the universe. Look for Big Data where no one else is looking by putting sensors and information gathering tools. If people continue to be scared of Big Data, we will be resistant to gathering more of it. By finding Big Data where it has yet to be discovered, we can solve problems and innovate.

To view Chris’s presentation, please watch the broadcasted session here: http://new.livestream.com/opengroup/Gerty-NPB13

Bringing Order to the Chaos

David Potter, chief technical officer at Promise Innovation and Ron Schuldt, senior partner at UDEF-IT, LLC discussed how The Open Group’s evolving Quantum Lifecycle Management (QLM) standard coupled with its complementary Universal Data Element Framework (UDEF) standard help bring order to the terminology chaos that faces Big Data implementations.

The QLM standard provides a framework for the aggregation of lifecycle data from a multiplicity of sources to add value to the decision making process. Gathering mass amounts of data is useless if it cannot be analyzed. The QLM framework provides a means to interpret the information gathered for business intelligence. The UDEF allows each piece of data to be paired with an unambiguous key to provide clarity. By partnering with the UDEF, the QLM framework is able to separate itself from domain-specific semantic models. The UDEF also provides a ready-made key for international language support. As an open standard, the UDEF is data model independent and as such supports normalization across data models.

One example of successful implementation is by Compassion International. The organization needed to find a balance between information that should be kept internal (e.g., payment information) and information that should be shared with its international sponsors. In this instance, UDEF was used as a structured process for harmonizing the terms used in IT systems between funding partners.

The beauty of the QLM framework and UDEF integration is that they are flexible and can be applied to any product, domain and industry.

To view David and Ron’s presentation, please watch the broadcasted session here: http://new.livestream.com/opengroup/potter-NPB13

Big Data – Panel Discussion

Moderated by Dana Gardner, Interarbor Solution, Robert Weisman , Build The Vision, Andras Szakal, IBM, Jim Hietala, The Open Group, and Chris Gerty, NASA, discussed the implications of Big Data and what it means for business architects and enterprise architects.

Big Data is not about the size but about analyzing that data. Robert mentioned that most organizations store more data than they need or use, and from an enterprise architect’s perspective, it’s important to focus on the analysis of the data and to provide information that will ultimately aid it in some way. When it comes to security, Jim explained that newer Big Data platforms are not built with security in mind. While data is data, many security controls don’t translate to new platforms or scale with the influx of data.

Cloud Computing is Big Data-ready, and price can be compelling, but there are significant security and privacy risks. Robert brought up the argument over public and private Cloud adoption, and said, “It’s not one size fits all.” But can Cloud and Big Data come together? Andras explained that Cloud is not the almighty answer to Big Data. Every organization needs to find the Enterprise Architecture that fits its needs.

The fruits of Big Data can be useful to more than just business intelligence professionals. With the trend of mobility and application development in mind, Chris suggested that developers keep users in mind. Big Data can be used to tell us many different things, but it’s about finding out what is most important and relevant to users in a way that is digestible.

Finally, the panel discussed how Big Data bringing about big changes in almost every aspect of an organization. It is important not to generalize, but customize. Every enterprise needs its own set of architecture to fit its needs. Each organization finds importance in different facets of the data gathered, and security is different at every organization. With all that in mind, the panel agreed that focusing on the analytics is the key.

To view the panel discussion, please watch the broadcasted session here: http://new.livestream.com/opengroup/events/1838807

Comments Off

Filed under Conference

Capturing The Open Group Conference in Newport Beach

By The Open Group Conference Team

It is time to announce the winners of the Newport Beach Photo Contest! For those of you who were unable to attend, conference attendees submitted some of their best photos to the contest for a chance to win one free conference pass to one of The Open Group’s global conferences over the next year – a prize valued at more than $1,000/€900 value.

Southern California is known for its palm trees and warm sandy beaches. While Newport Beach is most recognized for its high-end real estate and association with popular television show, “The OC,” enterprise architects invaded the beach and boating town for The Open Group Conference.

The contest ended Friday at noon PDT, and it is time to announce the winners…

Best of The Open Group Conference in Newport Beach - For any photo taken during conference activities

The winner is Henry Franken, BiZZdesign!

 Henry Franken 01 BiZZdesign table

A busy BiZZdesign exhibitor booth

The Real OC Award – For best photo taken in or around Newport Beach

The winner is Andrew Josey, The Open Group!

 Andrew Josey 02

A local harbor in Newport Beach, Calif.

Thank you to all those who participated in this contest – whether it was submitting one of your own photos or voting for your favorites. Please visit The Open Group’s Facebook page to view all of the submissions and conference photos.

We’re always trying to improve our programs, so if you have any feedback regarding the photo contest, please email photo@opengroup.org or leave a comment below. We’ll see you in Sydney!

Comments Off

Filed under Conference

The Open Group Conference Plenary Speaker Sees Big-Data Analytics as a Way to Bolster Quality, Manufacturing and Business Processes

By Dana Gardner, Interarbor Solutions

Listen to the recorded podcast here: The Open Group Keynoter Sees Big-Data Analytics as a Way to Bolster Quality, Manufacturing and Business Processes

This is a transcript of a sponsored podcast discussion on Big Data analytics and its role in business processes, in conjunction with the The Open Group Conference in Newport Beach.

Dana Gardner: Hello, and welcome to a special thought leadership interview series coming to you in conjunction with The Open Group® Conference on January 28 in Newport Beach, California.

I’m Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, and I’ll be your host and moderator throughout these business transformation discussions. The conference will focus on big data and the transformation we need to embrace today.

We are here now with one of the main speakers at the conference; Michael Cavaretta, PhD, Technical Leader of Predictive Analytics for Ford Research and Advanced Engineering in Dearborn, Michigan.

We’ll see how Ford has exploited the strengths of big data analytics by directing them internally to improve business results. In doing so, they scour the metrics from the company’s best processes across myriad manufacturing efforts and through detailed outputs from in-use automobiles, all to improve and help transform their business.

Cavaretta has led multiple data-analytic projects at Ford to break down silos inside the company to best define Ford’s most fruitful datasets. Ford has successfully aggregated customer feedback, and extracted all the internal data to predict how best new features in technologies will improve their cars.

As a lead-in to his Open Group presentation, Michael and I will now explore how big data is fostering business transformation by allowing deeper insights into more types of data efficiently, and thereby improving processes, quality control, and customer satisfaction.

With that, please join me in welcoming Michael Cavaretta. Welcome to BriefingsDirect, Michael.

Michael Cavaretta: Thank you very much.

Gardner: Your upcoming presentation for The Open Group Conference is going to describe some of these new approaches to big data and how that offers some valuable insights into internal operations, and therefore making a better product. To start, what’s different now in being able to get at this data and do this type of analysis from, say, five years ago?

Cavaretta: The biggest difference has to do with the cheap availability of storage and processing power, where a few years ago people were very much concentrated on filtering down the datasets that were being stored for long-term analysis. There has been a big sea change with the idea that we should just store as much as we can and take advantage of that storage to improve business processes.

Gardner: That sounds right on the money, but how do we get here? How do we get to the point where we could start using these benefits from a technology perspective, as you say, better storage, networks, being able to move big dataset, that sort of thing, to wrenching out benefits. What’s the process behind the benefit?

Cavaretta: The process behind the benefits has to do with a sea change in the attitude of organizations, particularly IT within large enterprises. There’s this idea that you don’t need to spend so much time figuring out what data you want to store and worry about the cost associated with it, and more about data as an asset. There is value in being able to store it, and being able to go back and extract different insights from it. This really comes from this really cheap storage, access to parallel processing machines, and great software.

Gardner: It seems to me that for a long time, the mindset was that data is simply the output from applications, with applications being primary and the data being almost an afterthought. It seems like we sort flipped that. The data now is perhaps as important, even more important, than the applications. Does that seem to hold true?

Cavaretta: Most definitely, and we’ve had a number of interesting engagements where people have thought about the data that’s being collected. When we talk to them about big data, storing everything at the lowest level of transactions, and what could be done with that, their eyes light up and they really begin to get it.

Gardner: I suppose earlier, when cost considerations and technical limitations were at work, we would just go for a tip of the iceberg level. Now, as you say, we can get almost all the data. So, is this a matter of getting at more data, different types of data, bringing in unstructured data, all the above? How much you are really going after here?

Cavaretta: I like to talk to people about the possibility that big data provides and I always tell them that I have yet to have a circumstance where somebody is giving me too much data. You can pull in all this information and then answer a variety of questions, because you don’t have to worry that something has been thrown out. You have everything.

You may have 100 questions, and each one of the questions uses a very small portion of the data. Those questions may use different portions of the data, a very small piece, but they’re all different. If you go in thinking, “We’re going to answer the top 20 questions and we’re just going to hold data for that,” that leaves so much on the table, and you don’t get any value out of it.

Gardner: I suppose too that we can think about small samples or small datasets and aggregate them or join them. We have new software capabilities to do that efficiently, so that we’re able to not just look for big honking, original datasets, but to aggregate, correlate, and look for a lifecycle level of data. Is that fair as well?

Cavaretta: Definitely. We’re a big believer in mash-ups and we really believe that there is a lot of value in being able to take even datasets that are not specifically big-data sizes yet, and then not go deep, not get more detailed information, but expand the breadth. So it’s being able to augment it with other internal datasets, bridging across different business areas as well as augmenting it with external datasets.

A lot of times you can take something that is maybe a few hundred thousand records or a few million records, and then by the time you’re joining it, and appending different pieces of information onto it, you can get the big dataset sizes.

Gardner: Just to be clear, you’re unique. The conventional wisdom for big data is to look at what your customers are doing, or just the external data. You’re really looking primarily at internal data, while also availing yourself of what external data might be appropriate. Maybe you could describe a little bit about your organization, what you do, and why this internal focus is so important for you.

Cavaretta: I’m part of a larger department that is housed over in the research and advanced-engineering area at Ford Motor Company, and we’re about 30 people. We work as internal consultants, kind of like Capgemini or Ernst & Young, but only within Ford Motor Company. We’re responsible for going out and looking for different opportunities from the business perspective to bring advanced technologies. So, we’ve been focused on the area of statistical modeling and machine learning for I’d say about 15 years or so.

And in this time, we’ve had a number of engagements where we’ve talked with different business customers, and people have said, “We’d really like to do this.” Then, we’d look at the datasets that they have, and say, “Wouldn’t it be great if we would have had this. So now we have to wait six months or a year.”

These new technologies are really changing the game from that perspective. We can turn on the complete fire-hose, and then say that we don’t have to worry about that anymore. Everything is coming in. We can record it all. We don’t have to worry about if the data doesn’t support this analysis, because it’s all there. That’s really a big benefit of big-data technologies.

Gardner: If you’ve been doing this for 15 years, you must be demonstrating a return on investment (ROI) or a value proposition back to Ford. Has that value proposition been changing? Do you expect it to change? What might be your real value proposition two or three years from now?

Cavaretta: The real value proposition definitely is changing as things are being pushed down in the company to lower-level analysts who are really interested in looking at things from a data-driven perspective. From when I first came in to now, the biggest change has been when Alan Mulally came into the company, and really pushed the idea of data-driven decisions.

Before, we were getting a lot of interest from people who are really very focused on the data that they had internally. After that, they had a lot of questions from their management and from upper level directors and vice-president saying, “We’ve got all these data assets. We should be getting more out of them.” This strategic perspective has really changed a lot of what we’ve done in the last few years.

Gardener: As I listen to you Michael, it occurs to me that you are applying this data-driven mentality more deeply. As you pointed out earlier, you’re also going after all the data, all the information, whether that’s internal or external.

In the case of an automobile company, you’re looking at the factory, the dealers, what drivers are doing, what the devices within the automobile are telling you, factoring that back into design relatively quickly, and then repeating this process. Are we getting to the point where this sort of Holy Grail notion of a total feedback loop across the lifecycle of a major product like an automobile is really within our grasp? Are we getting there, or is this still kind of theoretical. Can we pull it altogether and make it a science?

Cavaretta: The theory is there. The question has more to do with the actual implementation and the practicality of it. We still are talking a lot of data where even with new advanced technologies and techniques that’s a lot of data to store, it’s a lot of data to analyze, there’s a lot of data to make sure that we can mash-up appropriately.

And, while I think the potential is there and I think the theory is there. There is also a work in being able to get the data from multiple sources. So everything which you can get back from the vehicle, fantastic. Now if you marry that up with internal data, is it survey data, is it manufacturing data, is it quality data? What are the things do you want to go after first? We can’t do everything all at the same time.

Our perspective has been let’s make sure that we identify the highest value, the greatest ROI areas, and then begin to take some of the major datasets that we have and then push them and get more detail. Mash them up appropriately and really prove up the value for the technologists.

Gardner: Clearly, there’s a lot more to come in terms of where we can take this, but I suppose it’s useful to have a historic perspective and context as well. I was thinking about some of the early quality gurus like Deming and some of the movement towards quality like Six Sigma. Does this fall within that same lineage? Are we talking about a continuum here over that last 50 or 60 years, or is this something different?

Cavaretta: That’s a really interesting question. From the perspective of analyzing data, using data appropriately, I think there is a really good long history, and Ford has been a big follower of Deming and Six Sigma for a number of years now.

The difference though, is this idea that you don’t have to worry so much upfront about getting the data. If you’re doing this right, you have the data right there, and this has some great advantages. You’ll have to wait until you get enough history to look for somebody’s patterns. Then again, it also has some disadvantage, which is you’ve got so much data that it’s easy to find things that could be spurious correlations or models that don’t make any sense.

The piece that is required is good domain knowledge, in particular when you are talking about making changes in the manufacturing plant. It’s very appropriate to look at things and be able to talk with people who have 20 years of experience to say, “This is what we found in the data. Does this match what your intuition is?” Then, take that extra step.

Gardner: Tell me a little about sort a day in the life of your organization and your team to let us know what you do. How do you go about making more data available and then reaching some of these higher-level benefits?

Cavaretta: We’re very much focused on interacting with the business. Most of all, we do have to deal with working on pilot projects and working with our business customers to bring advanced analytics and big data technologies to bear against these problems. So we work in kind of what we call push-and-pull model.

We go out and investigate technologies and say these are technologies that Ford should be interested in. Then, we look internally for business customers who would be interested in that. So, we’re kind of pushing the technologies.

From the pull perspective, we’ve had so many successful engagements in such good contacts and good credibility within the organization that we’ve had people come to us and say, “We’ve got a problem. We know this has been in your domain. Give us some help. We’d love to be able to hear your opinions on this.”

So we’ve pulled from the business side and then our job is to match up those two pieces. It’s best when we will be looking at a particular technology and we have somebody come to us and we say, “Oh, this is a perfect match.”

Those types of opportunities have been increasing in the last few years, and we’ve been very happy with the number of internal customers that have really been very excited about the areas of big data.

Gardner: Because this is The Open Group conference and an audience that’s familiar with the IT side of things, I’m curious as to how this relates to software and software development. Of course there are so many more millions of lines of code in automobiles these days, software being more important than just about everything. Are you applying a lot of what you are doing to the software side of the house or are the agile and the feedback loops and the performance management issues a separate domain, or it’s your crossover here?

Cavaretta: There’s some crossover. The biggest area that we’ve been focused on has been picking information, whether internal business processes or from the vehicle, and then being able to bring it back in to derive value. We have very good contacts in the Ford IT group, and they have been fantastic to work with in bringing interesting tools and technology to bear, and then looking at moving those into production and what’s the best way to be able to do that.

A fantastic development has been this idea that we’re using some of the more agile techniques in this space and Ford IT has been pushing this for a while. It’s been fantastic to see them work with us and be able to bring these techniques into this new domain. So we’re pushing the envelope from two different directions.

Gardner: It sounds like you will be meeting up at some point with a complementary nature to your activities.

Cavaretta: Definitely.

Gardner: Let’s move on to this notion of the “Internet of things,” a very interesting concept that lot of people talk about. It seems relevant to what we’ve been discussing. We have sensors in these cars, wireless transfer of data, more-and-more opportunity for location information to be brought to bear, where cars are, how they’re driven, speed information, all sorts of metrics, maybe making those available through cloud providers that assimilate this data.

So let’s not go too deep, because this is a multi-hour discussion all on its own, but how is this notion of the Internet of things being brought to bear on your gathering of big data and applying it to the analytics in your organization?

Cavaretta: It is a huge area, and not only from the internal process perspective —  RFID tags within the manufacturing plans, as well as out on the plant floor, and then all of the information that’s being generated by the vehicle itself.

The Ford Energi generates about 25 gigabytes of data per hour. So you can imagine selling couple of million vehicles in the near future with that amount of data being generated. There are huge opportunities within that, and there are also some interesting opportunities having to do with opening up some of these systems for third-party developers. OpenXC is an initiative that we have going on to add at Research and Advanced Engineering.

We have a lot of data coming from the vehicle. There’s huge number of sensors and processors that are being added to the vehicles. There’s data being generated there, as well as communication between the vehicle and your cell phone and communication between vehicles.

There’s a group over at Ann Arbor Michigan, the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI), that’s investigating that, as well as communication between the vehicle and let’s say a home system. It lets the home know that you’re on your way and it’s time to increase the temperature, if it’s winter outside, or cool it at the summer time. The amount of data that’s been generated there is invaluable information and could be used for a lot of benefits, both from the corporate perspective, as well as just the very nature of the environment.

Gardner: Just to put a stake in the ground on this, how much data do cars typically generate? Do you have a sense of what now is the case, an average?

Cavaretta: The Energi, according to the latest information that I have, generates about 25 gigabytes per hour. Different vehicles are going to generate different amounts, depending on the number of sensors and processors on the vehicle. But the biggest key has to do with not necessarily where we are right now but where we will be in the near future.

With the amount of information that’s being generated from the vehicles, a lot of it is just internal stuff. The question is how much information should be sent back for analysis and to find different patterns? That becomes really interesting as you look at external sensors, temperature, humidity. You can know when the windshield wipers go on, and then to be able to take that information, and mash that up with other external data sources too. It’s a very interesting domain.

Gardner: So clearly, it’s multiple gigabytes per hour per vehicle and probably going much higher.

Cavaretta: Easily.

Gardner: Let’s move forward now for those folks who have been listening and are interested in bringing this to bear on their organizations and their vertical industries, from the perspective of skills, mindset, and culture. Are there standards, certification, or professional organizations that you’re working with in order to find the right people?

It’s a big question. Let’s look at what skills do you target for your group, and what ways you think that you can improve on that. Then, we’ll get into some of those larger issues about culture and mindset.

Cavaretta: The skills that we have in our department, in particular on our team, are in the area of computer science, statistics, and some good old-fashioned engineering domain knowledge. We’ve really gone about this from a training perspective. Aside from a few key hires, it’s really been an internally developed group.

The biggest advantage that we have is that we can go out and be very targeted with the amount of training that we have. There are such big tools out there, especially in the open-source realm, that we can spin things up with relatively low cost and low risk, and do a number of experiments in the area. That’s really the way that we push the technologies forward.

Gardner: Why The Open Group? Why is that a good forum for your message, and for your research here?

Cavaretta: The biggest reason is the focus on the enterprise, where there are a lot of advantages and a lot of business cases, looking at large enterprises and where there are a lot of systems, companies that can take a relatively small improvement, and it can make a large difference on the bottom-line.

Talking with The Open Group really gives me an opportunity to be able to bring people on board with the idea that you should be looking at a difference in mindset. It’s not “Here’s a way that data is being generated, look, try and conceive of some questions that we can use, and we’ll store that too.” Let’s just take everything, we’ll worry about it later, and then we’ll find the value.

Gardner: I’m sure the viewers of your presentation on January 28 will be gathering a lot of great insights. A lot of the people that attend The Open Group conferences are enterprise architects. What do you think those enterprise architects should be taking away from this? Is there something about their mindset that should shift in recognizing the potential that you’ve been demonstrating?

Cavaretta: It’s important for them to be thinking about data as an asset, rather than as a cost. You even have to spend some money, and it may be a little bit unsafe without really solid ROI at the beginning. Then, move towards pulling that information in, and being able to store it in a way that allows not just the high-level data scientist to get access to and provide value, but people who are interested in the data overall. Those are very important pieces.

The last one is how do you take a big-data project, how do you take something where you’re not storing in the traditional business intelligence (BI) framework that an enterprise can develop, and then connect that to the BI systems and look at providing value to those mash-ups. Those are really important areas that still need some work.

Gardner: Another big constituency within The Open Group community are those business architects. Is there something about mindset and culture, getting back to that topic, that those business-level architects should consider? Do you really need to change the way you think about planning and resource allocation in a business setting, based on the fruits of things that you are doing with big data?

Cavaretta: I really think so. The digital asset that you have can be monetized to change the way the business works, and that could be done by creating new assets that then can be sold to customers, as well as improving the efficiencies of the business.

This idea that everything is going to be very well-defined and there is a lot of work that’s being put into  making sure that data has high quality, I think those things need to be changed somewhat. As you’re pulling the data in, as you are thinking about long-term storage, it’s more the access to the information, rather than the problem in just storing it.

Gardner: Interesting that you brought up that notion that the data becomes a product itself and even a profit center perhaps.

Cavaretta: Exactly. There are many companies, especially large enterprises, that are looking at their data assets and wondering what can they do to monetize this, not only to just pay for the efficiency improvement but as a new revenue stream.

Gardner: We’re almost out of time. For those organizations that want to get started on this, are there any 20/20 hindsights or Monday morning quarterback insights you can provide. How do you get started? Do you appoint a leader? Do you need a strategic roadmap, getting this culture or mindset shifted, pilot programs? How would you recommend that people might begin the process of getting into this?

Cavaretta: We’re definitely a huge believer in pilot projects and proof of concept, and we like to develop roadmaps by doing. So get out there. Understand that it’s going to be messy. Understand that it maybe going to be a little bit more costly and the ROI isn’t going to be there at the beginning.

But get your feet wet. Start doing some experiments, and then, as those experiments turn from just experimentation into really providing real business value, that’s the time to start looking at a more formal aspect and more formal IT processes. But you’ve just got to get going at this point.

Gardner: I would think that the competitive forces are out there. If you are in a competitive industry, and those that you compete against are doing this and you are not, that could spell some trouble.

Cavaretta:  Definitely.

Gardner: We’ve been talking with Michael Cavaretta, PhD, Technical Leader of Predictive Analytics at Ford Research and Advanced Engineering in Dearborn, Michigan. Michael and I have been exploring how big data is fostering business transformation by allowing deeper insights into more types of data and all very efficiently. This is improving processes, updating quality control and adding to customer satisfaction.

Our conversation today comes as a lead-in to Michael’s upcoming plenary presentation. He is going to be talking on January 28 in Newport Beach California, as part of The Open Group conference.

You will hear more from Michael and others, the global leaders on big data that are going to be gathering to talk about business transformation from big data at this conference. So a big thank you to Michael for joining us in this fascinating discussion. I really enjoyed it and I look forward to your presentation on the 28.

Cavaretta: Thank you very much.

Gardner: And I would encourage our listeners and readers to attend the conference or follow more of the threads in social media from the event. Again, it’s going to be happening from January 27 to January 30 in Newport Beach, California.

This is Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, your host and moderator through the thought leadership interviews. Thanks again for listening, and come back next time.

1 Comment

Filed under Conference, Uncategorized

Leveraging Social Media at The Open Group Newport Beach Conference (#ogNB)

By The Open Group Conference Team

By attending conferences hosted by The Open Group®, attendees are able to learn from industry experts, understand the latest technologies and standards and discuss and debate current industry trends. One way to maximize the benefits is to make technology work for you. If you are attending The Open Group Conference in Newport Beach next week, we’ve put together a few tips on how to leverage social media to make networking at the conference easier, quicker and more effective.

Using Twitter at #ogNB

Twitter is a real-time news-sharing tool that anyone can use. The official hashtag for the conference is #ogNB. This enables anybody, whether they are physically attending the event or not, to follow what’s happening at the Newport Beach conference in real-time and interact with each other.

Before the conference, be sure to update your Twitter account to monitor #ogNB and, of course, to tweet about the conference.

Using Facebook at The Open Group Conference in Newport Beach

You can also track what is happening at the conference on The Open Group Facebook page. We will be running another photo contest, where all of entries will be uploaded to our page. Members and Open Group Facebook fans can vote by “liking” a photo. The photos with the most “likes” in each category will be named the winner. Submissions will be uploaded in real-time, so the sooner you submit a photo, the more time members and fans will have to vote for it!

For full details of the contest and how to enter see The Open Group blog at: http://blog.opengroup.org/2013/01/22/the-open-group-photo-contest-document-the-magic-at-the-newport-beach-conference/

LinkedIn during The Open Group Conference in Newport Beach

Inspired by one of the sessions? Interested in what your peers have to say? Start a discussion on The Open Group LinkedIn Group page. We’ll also be sharing interesting topics and questions related to The Open Group Conference as it is happening. If you’re not a member already, requesting membership is easy. Simply go to the group page and click the “Join Group” button. We’ll accept your request as soon as we can!

Blogging during The Open Group Conference in Newport Beach

Stay tuned for daily conference recaps here on The Open Group blog. In case you missed a session or you weren’t able to make it to Newport Beach, we’ll be posting the highlights and recaps on the blog. If you are attending the conference and would like to submit a recap of your own, please contact opengroup (at) bateman-group.com.

If you have any questions about social media usage at the conference, feel free to tweet the conference team @theopengroup.

Comments Off

Filed under Uncategorized