Tag Archives: SOA

RECAP: The Open Group Brazil Conference – May 24, 2012

By Isabela Abreu, The Open Group

Under an autumn Brazilian sky, The Open Group held its first regional event in São Paulo, Brazil, and it turned out to be a great success. More than 150 people attended the conference – including Open Group platinum members (CapGemini, HP, IBM and Oracle), the Brazil chapter of the Association of Enterprise Architecture (AEA), and Brazilian organizations (Daryus, Sensedia) – displaying a robust interest for Enterprise Architecture (EA) within the world’s sixth largest economy. The Open Group also introduced its mission, vision and values to the marketplace – a working model not very familiar to the Brazilian environment.

After the 10 hour, one-day event, I’m pleased to say that The Open Group’s first formal introduction to Brazil was well received, and the organization’s mission was immediately understood!

Introduction to Brazil

The event started with a brief introduction of The Open Group by myself, Isabela Abreu, Open Group country manager of Brazil, and was followed by an impressive presentation by Allen Brown, CEO of The Open Group, on how enterprise architects hold the power to change an organization’s future, and stay ahead of competitors, by using open standards that drive business transformation.

The conference aimed to provide an overview of trending topics, such as business transformation, EA, TOGAF®, Cloud Computing, SOA and Information Security. The presentations focused on case studies, including one by Marcelo Sávio of IBM that showed how the organization has evolved through the use of EA Governance; and one by Roberto Soria of Oracle that provided an introduction to SOA Governance.

Enterprise Architecture

Moving on to architecture, Roberto Severo, president of the AEA in Brazil, pointed out why architects must join the association to transform the Brazil EA community into a strong and ethical tool for transforming EA. He also demonstrated how to align tactical decisions to strategic objectives using Cloud Computing. Then Cecilio Fraguas of CPM Braxis CapGemini provided an introduction to TOGAF®; and Courtnay Guimarães of Instisys comically evinced that although it is sometimes difficult to apply, EA is a competitive tool for investment banks

Security

On the security front, Rodrigo Antão of Apura showed the audience that our enemies know us, but we don’t know them, in a larger discussion about counter-intelligence and cybersecurity; he indicated that architects are wrong when tend to believe EA has nothing to do with Information Security. In his session titled, “OSIMM: How to Measure Success with SOA and Design the Roadmap,” Luís Moraes of Sensedia provided a good overview for architects and explained how to measure success with SOA and design roadmaps with OSIMM - a maturity model of integration services soon to become an ISO standard, based on SOA and developed by The Open Group. Finally, Alberto Favero of Ernst & Young presented the findings of the Ernst & Young 2011 Global Information Security Survey, closing the event.

Aside from the competitive raffle, the real highlight of the event happened at lunch when I noticed the networking between conference attendees. I can testify that the Brazilian EA community actively ideas, in the spirit of The Open Group!

By the end of the day, everybody returned home with new ideas and new friends. I received many inquiries on how to keep the community engaged after the conference, and I promise to keep activities up and running here, in Brazil.

Stay tuned, as we plan sending on a survey to conference attendees, as well the link to all of the presentations. Thanks to everyone who made the conference a great success!

Isabela Abreu is The Open Group country manager for Brazil. She is a member of AEA Brazil and has participated in the translation of the glossary of TOGAF® 9.1, ISO/IEC 20000:1 and ISO/IEC 20000:5 and ITIL V3 to Portuguese. Abreu has worked for itSMF Brazil, EXIN Brazil – Examination Institute for Information Science, and PATH ITTS Consultancy, and is a graduate of São Paulo University.

1 Comment

Filed under Cloud, Conference, Cybersecurity, Enterprise Architecture, TOGAF®

The Right Way to Transform to the World of Cloud Computing

By E.G. Nadhan, HP Enterprise Services

There are myriad options available for moving to cloud computing today involving the synthetic realization and integration of different components that enable the overall solution. It is important that the foundational components across the compute, network, storage and facility domains are realized and integrated the right way for enterprises to realize the perceived benefits of moving to the cloud. To that end, this post outlines the key factors to be addressed when embarking on this transformation journey to the cloud:

  • Right Cloud. There are multiple forces at play when the CIOs of today consider moving to the cloud, further complicated by the availability of various deployment models — private, public, hybrid, etc. It is important that enterprises deploy solutions to the right mix of cloud environments. It is not a one-environment-fits-all scenario. Enterprises need to define the criteria that enable the effective determination of the optimal mix of environments that best addresses their scenarios.
  • Right Architecture. While doing so, it is important that there is a common reference architecture across various cloud deployment models that is accommodative of the traditional environments. This needs to be defined factoring in the overall IT strategy for the enterprise in alignment with the business objectives. A common reference architecture addresses the over-arching concepts across the various environments while accommodating nuances specific to each one.
  • Right Services. I discussed in one of my earlier posts that the foundational principles of cloud have evolved from SOA. Thus, it is vital that enterprises have a well-defined SOA strategy in place that includes the identification of services used across the various architectural layers within the enterprise, as well as the services to be availed from external providers.
  • Right Governance. While governance is essential within the enterprise, it needs to be extended to the extra-enterprise that includes the ecosystem of service providers in the cloud. This is especially true if the landscape comprises a healthy mix of various types of cloud environments. Proper governance ensures that the right solutions are deployed to the right environments while addressing key areas of concern like security, data privacy, compliance regulations, etc.
  • Right Standard. Conformance to industry standards is always a prudent approach for any solution — especially for the cloud. The Open Group recently published the first Cloud Computing Technical Standard — Service Oriented Cloud Computing Infrastructure which bears strong consideration in addition to other standards from NIST and other standards bodies.

These factors come together to define the “Right” way of transforming to the cloud. In addition, there are other factors that are unique to the transformation of applications as I outline in the Cloud Computing Transformation Bill of RIghts.

In addition to the publication of the SOCCI standard, the Cloud Work Group within The Open Group is addressing several aspects in this space including the Reference Architecture, Governance and Security.

How is your Transformation to the cloud going? Are there other factors that come to your mind? Please let me know.

HP 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 Cloud, Cloud/SOA, Service Oriented Architecture, Standards

Enterprise Transformation Takes the French Riviera

By The Open Group Conference Team

The Open Group Conference in Cannes, France is just around the corner. Taking place April 23-27, the conference will bring together leading minds in technology to discuss the process of Enterprise Transformation, and the role of Enterprise Architecture (EA) and IT in Enterprise Transformation.

The French Riviera is a true playground for the rich and famous. As the location of the next Open Group Conference, (not to mention the next Open Cannes Awards) it seems only fitting that we not only have an incredible venue for the event, the JW Marriott Cannes, but have our own star-studded lineup of speakers, sessions and activities that are sure to make the conference an unforgettable experience.

In addition to tutorial sessions on TOGAF and ArchiMate, the conference offers roughly 60 sessions on a varied of topics, including:

  • Enterprise Transformation, including Enterprise Architecture and SOA
  • Cybersecurity, Cloud Security and Trusted Technology for the Supply Chain
  • Cloud Computing for Business, Collaborative Cloud Frameworks and Cloud Architectures

The conference theme “Enterprise Transformation” will highlight how Enterprise Architecture can be used to truly change how companies do business and create models and architectures that help them make those changes. Keynote speakers include:

  • Dr. Alexander Osterwalder, Best-selling Author and Entrepreneur

Dr. Osterwalder is a renowned thought leader on business model design and innovation. Many executives and entrepreneurs and world-leading organizations have applied Dr. Osterwalderʼs approach to strengthen their business model and achieve a competitive advantage through business model innovation. His keynote session at the conference, titled: “Business Models, IT, and Enterprise Transformation,” will discuss how to use the Business Model Canvas approach to better align IT and business strategy, empower multi-disciplinary teams and contribute to Enterprise Transformation.

  • Herve Gouezel, Advisor to the CEO at BNP Paribas & Eric Boulay, Founder and CEO of Arismore

Keynote: “EA and Transformation: An Enterprise Issue, a New Role for the CIO?” will examine governance within the Enterprise and what steps need to take place to create a collaborative Enterprise.

  • Peter Haviland, Chief Architect and Head of Business Architecture Advisory Services at Ernst & Young, US

Keynote: “World Class EA 2012: Putting Your Architecture Team in the Middle of Enterprise Transformation,” will identify and discuss key activities leading practice architecture teams are performing to create and sustain value, to remain at the forefront of enterprise transformation.

  • Kirk Avery, Software Architect at Lockheed Martin & Robert Sweeney, MSMA Lead Systems Engineer at Naval Air Systems Command

Keynote: “FACE: Transforming the DoD Avionics Software Industry Through the Use of Open Standards,” will address the DoD Avionics Industry’s need for providing complex mission capability in less time and in an environment of shrinking government budgets

The Common Criteria Workshop and the European Commission

We are also pleased to be hosting the first Common Criteria Workshop during the Cannes Conference. This two-day event – taking place April 25 to 26 – offers a rich opportunity to hear from distinguished speakers from the Common Criteria Security community, explore viewpoints through panel discussions and work with minded people towards common goals.

One of the keynote speakers during the workshop is Andrea Servida, the Deputy Head of the Internet, Network and Information Security unit with the European Commission in Brussels, Belgium. With extensive experience defining and implementing strategies and policies on network and information security and critical information infrastructure protection, Mr. Servida is an ideal speaker as we kick-off the first workshop.

The Open Cannes Awards

What trip would be complete to Cannes without an awards ceremony? Presented by The Open Group, The Open Cannes Awards is an opportunity for our members to recognize each other’s accomplishments within The Open Group with a little fun during the gala ceremony on the night of Tuesday, April 24. The goal is to acknowledge the success stories, the hard work and dedication that members, either as individuals or as organizations, have devoted to The Open Group’s ideals and vision over the past decade.

We hope to see you in Cannes! For more information on the conference tracks or to register, please visit our conference registration page, and please stay tuned throughout the next month as we continue to release blog posts and information leading up to The Open Group Conference in Cannes, France!

Comments Off

Filed under Cloud, Cloud/SOA, Conference, Cybersecurity, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Transformation, FACE™, Semantic Interoperability, Service Oriented Architecture

Top 5 Tell-tale Signs of SOA Evolving to the Cloud

By E.G. Nadhan, HP Enterprise Services

Rewind two decades and visualize what a forward-thinking prediction would have looked like then —  IT is headed towards a technology agnostic, service-based applications and infrastructure environment, consumed when needed, with usage-based chargeback models in place for elastic resources. A forward thinking tweet would have simply said – IT is headed for the Cloud. These concepts have steadily evolved within applications first with virtualization expediting their evolution within infrastructure across enterprises. Thus, IT has followed an evolutionary pattern over the years forcing enterprises to continuously revisit their overall strategy.

What started as SOA has evolved into the Cloud.  Here are five tell-tale signs:

  • As-a-service model:  Application interfaces being exposed as services in a standardized fashion were the technical foundation to SOA. This concept was slowly but steadily extended to the infrastructure environment leading to IaaS and eventually, [pick a letter of your choice]aaS. Infrastructure components, provisioned as services, had to be taken into account as part of the overall SOA strategy. Given the vital role of IaaS within the Cloud, a holistic SOA enterprise-wide SOA strategy is essential for successful Cloud deployment.
  • Location transparency: Prior to service orientation, applications had to be aware of the logistics of information sources. Service orientation introduced location transparency so that the specifics of the physical location where the services were executed did not matter as much. Extending this paradigm, Cloud leverages the available resources as and when needed for execution of the services provided.
  • Virtualization: Service orientation acted as a catalyst for virtualization of application interfaces wherein the standardization of the interfaces was given more importance than the actual execution of the services. Virtualization was extended to infrastructure components facilitating their rapid provisioning as long as it met the experience expectations of the consumers.
  • Hardware: IaaS provisioning based on virtualization along with the partitioning of existing physical hardware into logically consumable segments resulted in hardware being shared across multiple applications. Cloud extends this notion into a pool of hardware resources being shared across multiple applications.
  • Chargeback: SOA was initially focused on service implementation after which the focus shifted to SOA Governance and SOA Management including the tracking of metrics and chargeback mechanism. Cloud is following a similar model, which is why the challenges of metering and chargeback mechanisms that IT is dealing with in the Cloud are fundamentally similar to monitoring service consumption across the enterprise.

These are my tell-tale signs. I would be very interested to know about practical instances of similar signs on your end.

Figure 1: The Open Group Service Oriented Cloud Computing Infrastructure Technical Standard

It is no surprise that the very first Cloud technical standard published by The Open Group — Service Oriented Cloud Computing Infrastructure – initially started as the Service Oriented Infrastructure (SOI) project within The Open Group SOA Work Group. As its co-chair, I had requested extending SOI into the Open Group Cloud Work Group when it was formed making it a joint project across both work groups. Today, you will see how the SOCCI technical standard calls out the evolution of SOI into SOCCI for the Cloud.

To find out more about the new SOCCI technical standard, please check out: http://www3.opengroup.org/news/press/open-group-publishes-new-standards-soa-and-cloud

 This blog post was originally posted on HP’s Technical Support Services Blog.

HP 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.

4 Comments

Filed under Cloud, Cloud/SOA, Service Oriented Architecture, Standards

San Francisco Conference Observations: Enterprise Transformation, Enterprise Architecture, SOA and a Splash of Cloud Computing

By Chris Harding, The Open Group 

This week I have been at The Open Group conference in San Francisco. The theme was Enterprise Transformation which, in simple terms means changing how your business works to take advantage of the latest developments in IT.

Evidence of these developments is all around. I took a break and went for coffee and a sandwich, to a little cafe down on Pine and Leavenworth that seemed to be run by and for the Millennium generation. True to type, my server pulled out a cellphone with a device attached through which I swiped my credit card; an app read my screen-scrawled signature and the transaction was complete.

Then dinner. We spoke to the hotel concierge, she tapped a few keys on her terminal and, hey presto, we had a window table at a restaurant on Fisherman’s Wharf. No lengthy phone negotiations with the Maitre d’. We were just connected with the resource that we needed, quickly and efficiently.

The power of ubiquitous technology to transform the enterprise was the theme of the inspirational plenary presentation given by Andy Mulholland, Global CTO at Capgemini. Mobility, the Cloud, and big data are the three powerful technical forces that must be harnessed by the architect to move the business to smarter operation and new markets.

Jeanne Ross of the MIT Sloan School of Management shared her recipe for architecting business success, with examples drawn from several major companies. Indomitable and inimitable, she always challenges her audience to think through the issues. This time we responded with, “Don’t small companies need architecture too?” Of course they do, was the answer, but the architecture of a big corporation is very different from that of a corner cafe.

Corporations don’t come much bigger than Nissan. Celso Guiotoko, Corporate VP and CIO at the Nissan Motor Company, told us how Nissan are using enterprise architecture for business transformation. Highlights included the concept of information capitalization, the rationalization of the application portfolio through SOA and reusable services, and the delivery of technology resource through a private cloud platform.

The set of stimulating plenary presentations on the first day of the conference was completed by Lauren States, VP and CTO Cloud Computing and Growth Initiatives at IBM. Everyone now expects business results from technical change, and there is huge pressure on the people involved to deliver results that meet these expectations. IT enablement is one part of the answer, but it must be matched by business process excellence and values-based culture for real productivity and growth.

My role in The Open Group is to support our work on Cloud Computing and SOA, and these activities took all my attention after the initial plenary. If you had, thought five years ago, that no technical trend could possibly generate more interest and excitement than SOA, Cloud Computing would now be proving you wrong.

But interest in SOA continues, and we had a SOA stream including presentations of forward thinking on how to use SOA to deliver agility, and on SOA governance, as well as presentations describing and explaining the use of key Open Group SOA standards and guides: the Service Integration Maturity Model (OSIMM), the SOA Reference Architecture, and the Guide to using TOGAF for SOA.

We then moved into the Cloud, with a presentation by Mike Walker of Microsoft on why Enterprise Architecture must lead Cloud strategy and planning. The “why” was followed by the “how”: Zapthink’s Jason Bloomberg described Representational State Transfer (REST), which many now see as a key foundational principle for Cloud architecture. But perhaps it is not the only principle; a later presentation suggested a three-tier approach with the client tier, including mobile devices, accessing RESTful information resources through a middle tier of agents that compose resources and carry out transactions (ACT).

In the evening we had a CloudCamp, hosted by The Open Group and conducted as a separate event by the CloudCamp organization. The original CloudCamp concept was of an “unconference” where early adopters of Cloud Computing technologies exchange ideas. Its founder, Dave Nielsen, is now planning to set up a demo center where those adopters can experiment with setting up private clouds. This transition from idea to experiment reflects the changing status of mainstream cloud adoption.

The public conference streams were followed by a meeting of the Open Group Cloud Computing Work Group. This is currently pursuing nine separate projects to develop standards and guidance for architects using cloud computing. The meeting in San Francisco focused on one of these – the Cloud Computing Reference Architecture. It compared submissions from five companies, also taking into account ongoing work at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), with the aim of creating a base from which to create an Open Group reference architecture for Cloud Computing. This gave a productive finish to a busy week of information gathering and discussion.

Ralph Hitz of Visana, a health insurance company based in Switzerland, made an interesting comment on our reference architecture discussion. He remarked that we were not seeking to change or evolve the NIST service and deployment models. This may seem boring, but it is true, and it is right. Cloud Computing is now where the automobile was in 1920. We are pretty much agreed that it will have four wheels and be powered by gasoline. The business and economic impact is yet to come.

So now I’m on my way to the airport for the flight home. I checked in online, and my boarding pass is on my cellphone. Big companies, as well as small ones, now routinely use mobile technology, and my airline has a frequent-flyer app. It’s just a shame that they can’t manage a decent cup of coffee.

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. Before joining The Open Group, he was a consultant, and a designer and development manager of communications software. With a PhD in mathematical logic, he welcomes the current upsurge of interest in semantic technology, and the opportunity to apply logical theory to practical use. He has presented at Open Group and other conferences on a range of topics, and contributes articles to on-line journals. He is a member of the BCS, the IEEE, and the AOGEA, and is a certified TOGAF practitioner.

Comments Off

Filed under Cloud, Cloud/SOA, Conference, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Transformation, Service Oriented Architecture, Standards

OSIMM Goes de Jure: The First International Standards on SOA

By Heather Kreger, CTO International Standards, IBM

I was very excited to see OSIMM pass its ratification vote within the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) on January 8, 2012, becoming the first International Standard on SOA.  This is the culmination of a two year process that I’ve been driving for The Open Group in ISO/IEC JTC1.  Having the OSIMM standard recognized globally is a huge validation of the work that The Open Group and the SOA Work Group have been doing over the past few years since OSIMM first became an Open Group standard in 2009.  Even though the process for international standard ratification is a lengthy one, it has been worth the effort and we’ve already submitted additional Open Group standards to ISO.  For those of you interested in the process, read on…

How it works

In order for OSIMM to become an international standard, The Open Group had to first be approved as an “Approved Reference Organization” and “Publically Available Specification” (PAS) Submitter, in a vote by every JTC1 country.

What does this REALLY mean? It means Open Group standards can be referenced by international standards and it means the Open Group can submit standards to ISO/IEC and ask for them to follow the PAS process, which ratifies standards as they are as International Standards if they pass the international vote.  Each country votes and comments on the specification and if there are comments, there is a ballot resolution meeting with potentially an update to the submitted specification. This all sounds straightforward until you mix in The Open Group’s timeline for approving updates to standards with the JTC1 process. In the end, this takes about a year.

Why drag you through this?  I just wanted you to appreciate what an accomplishment the OSIMM V2 ISO/IEC 16680 is for The Open Group.  The SOA Governance Framework Standard is now following the same process. The SOA Ontology and new SOA Reference Architecture Standards have also been submitted to ISO’s SOA Work Group (in SC38) as input to a normal working group processes.

The OSIMM benefit

Let’s also revisit OSIMM, since it’s been awhile since OSIMM V1 was first standardized in 2009. OSIMM V2 is technically equivalent to OSIMM V1, although we did some clarifications to answer comments from the PAS processes and added an appendix positioning OSIMM with them maturity models in ISO/IEC JTC1.

OSIMM leverages proven best practices to allow consultants and IT practitioners to assess an organization’s readiness and maturity level for adopting services in SOA and Cloud solutions. It defines a process to create a roadmap for incremental adoption that maximizes business benefits at each stage along the way. The model consists of seven levels of maturity and seven dimensions of consideration that represent significant views of business and IT capabilities where the application of SOA principles is essential for the deployment of services. OSIMM acts as a quantitative model to aid in assessment of current state and desired future state of SOA maturity. OSIMM also has an extensible framework for understanding the value of implementing a service model, as well as a comprehensive guide for achieving their desired level of service maturity.

There are a couple of things I REALLY like about OSIMM, especially for those new to SOA:

First, it’s an easy, visual way to grasp the full breadth of what is SOA. From no services to simple, single, hand-developed services or dynamically created services.  In fact, the first three levels of maturity are “pre-services” approaches we all know and use (i.e.: object-oriented and components). With this, everyone can find what they are using…even if they are not using services at all.

Second, it’s a self assessment. You use this to gauge your own use of services today and where you want to be. You can reassess to “track” your progress (sort of like weight loss) on employing services. Because you have to customize the indicators and the weight of the maturity scores will differ according to what is important to your company, it doesn’t make sense to compare scores between two companies. In addition, every company has a different target goal. So, no, sorry, you cannot brag that you are more mature than your arch competitor!  However, some of the process assessments in ISO/IEC SC7 ARE for just that, so check out the OSIMM appendix for links and pointers!

Which brings me to my third point–there is no “right” level of maturity. The most mature level doesn’t make sense for most companies.  OSIMM is a great tool to force your business and IT staff into a discussion to agree together on what the current level is and what the right level is for them – everyone on the same page.

Finally, it’s flexible. You can add indicators and adjust weightings to make it accurate and a reflection of the needs of your business AND IT departments.  You can skip levels, be at different levels of maturity for different business dimensions.  You work on advancing the use of services in the dimension that gives you the most business value, you don’t have to give them all “equal attention” or get them to the same level.

Resources

The following resources are available if you are interested in learning more about the OSIMM V2 Standard:

IBM is also presenting next week during The Open Group Conference in San Francisco, which will discuss how to extend OSIMM for your organization.

Heather KregerHeather Kreger is IBM’s lead architect for Smarter Planet, Policy, and SOA Standards in the IBM Software Group, with 15 years of standards experience. She has led the development of standards for Cloud, SOA, Web services, Management and Java in numerous standards organizations, including W3C, OASIS, DMTF, and Open Group.Heather is currently co-chair for The Open Group’s SOA Work Group and liaison for the Open Group SOA and Cloud Work Groups to ISO/IEC JTC1 SC7 SOA SG and INCITS DAPS38 (US TAG to ISO/IEC JTC 1 SC38). Heather is also the author of numerous articles and specifications, as well as the book Java and JMX, Building Manageable Systems, and most recently was co-editor of Navigating the SOA Open Standards Landscape Around Architecture.

1 Comment

Filed under Cloud/SOA, Service Oriented Architecture, Standards

SF Conference to Explore Architecture Trends

By The Open Group Conference Team

In addition to exploring the theme of “Enterprise Transformation,” speakers at The Open Group San Francisco conference in January will explore a number of other trends related to enterprise architecture and the profession, including trends in service oriented architectures and business architecture. 

The debate about the role of EA in the development of high-level business strategy is a long running one. EA clearly contributes to business strategy, but does it formulate, plan or execute on business strategy?  If the scope of EA is limited to EA alone, it could have a diminutive role in business strategy and Enterprise Transformation going forward.

EA professionals will have the opportunity to discuss and debate these questions and hear from peers about their practical experiences, including the following tracks:

  • Establishing Value Driven EA as the Enterprise Embarks on Transformation (EA & Enterprise Transformation Track)  – Madhav Naidu, Lead Enterprise Architedt, Ciena Corp., US; and Mark Temple, Chief Architect, Ciena Corp.
  • Building an Enterprise Architecture Practice Foundation for Enterprise Transformation Execution  (EA & Business Innovation Track) – Frank Chen, Senior Manager & Principal Enterprise Architect, Cognizant, US
  • Death of IT: Rise of the Machines (Business Innovation & Technological Disruption: The Challenges to EA Track) –  Mans Bhuller, Senior Director, Oracle Corporation, US
  • Business Architecture Profession and Case Studies  (Business Architecture Track) – Mieke Mahakena, Capgemini,; and Peter Haviland, Chief Architect/Head of Business Architecture, Ernst & Young
  • Constructing the Architecture of an Agile Enterprise Using the MSBI Method (Agile Enterprise Architecture Track) – Nick Malike, Senior Principal Enterprise Architect, Microsoft Corporation, US
  • There’s a SEA Change in Your Future: How Sustainable EA Enables Business Success in Times of Disruptive Change (Sustainable EA Track)  – Leo Laverdure & Alex Conn, Managing Partners, SBSA Partners LLC, US
  • The Realization of SOA’s Using the SOA Reference Architecture  (Tutorials) – Nikhil Kumar, President, Applied Technology Solutions, US
  • SOA Governance: Thinking Beyond Services (SOA Track) – Jed Maczuba, Senior Manager, Accenture, US

In addition, a number of conference tracks will explore issues and trends related to the enterprise architecture profession and role of enterprise architects within organizations.  Tracks addressing professional concerns include:

  • EA: Professionalization or Marketing Needed? (Professional Development Track)  – Peter Kuppen, Senior Manager, Deloitte Consulting, BV, Netherlands
  • Implementing Capabilities With an Architecture Practice (Setting up a Successful EA Practice Track)  – Mike Jacobs, Director and Principal Architect, OmptumInsight; and Joseph May, Director, Architecture Center of Excellence, OmptumInsight
  • Gaining and Retaining Stakeholder Buy-In: The Key to a Successful EA Practice Practice (Setting up a Successful EA Practice Track)   – Russ Gibfried, Enterprise Architect, CareFusion Corporation, US
  • The Virtual Enterprise Architecture Team (Nature & Role of the Enterprise Architecture) – Nicholas Hill, Principal Enterprise Architect, Consulting Services, FSI, Infosys; and Musharal Mughal, Director of EA, Manulife Financials, Canada

 Our Tutorials track will also provide practical guidance for attendees interested in learning more about how to implement architectures within organizations.  Topics will include tutorials on subjects such as TOGAF®, Archimate®, Service Oriented Architectures,  and architecture methods and techniques.

For more information on EA conference tracks, please visit the conference program on our website.

Comments Off

Filed under Cloud/SOA, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Transformation, Semantic Interoperability, Service Oriented Architecture

Save the Date—The Open Group Conference San Francisco!

By Patty Donovan, The Open Group

It’s that time again to start thinking ahead to The Open Group’s first conference of 2012 to be held in San Francisco, January 30 – February 3, 2012. Not only do we have a great venue for the event, the Intercontinental Mark Hopkins (home of the famous “Top of the Mark” sky lounge—with amazing views of all of San Francisco!), but we have stellar line up for our winter conference centered on the theme of Enterprise Transformation.

Enterprise Transformation is a theme that is increasingly being used by organizations of all types to represent the change processes they implement in response to internal and external business drivers. Enterprise Architecture (EA) can be a means to Enterprise Transformation, but most enterprises today because EA is still largely limited to the IT department and transformation must go beyond the IT department to be successful. The San Francisco conference will focus on the role that both IT and EA can play within the Enterprise Transformation process, including the following:

  • The differences between EA and Enterprise Transformation and how they relate  to one another
  • The use of EA to facilitate Enterprise Transformation
  • How EA can be used to create a foundation for Enterprise Transformation that the Board and business-line managers can understand and use to their advantage
  • How EA facilitates transformation within IT, and how does such transformation support the transformation of the enterprise as a whole
  • How EA can help the enterprise successfully adapt to “disruptive technologies” such as Cloud Computing and ubiquitous mobile access

In addition, we will be featuring a line-up of keynotes by some of the top industry leaders to discuss Enterprise Transformation, as well as themes around our regular tracks of Enterprise Architecture and Professional Certification, Cloud Computing and Cybersecurity. Keynoting at the conference will be:

  • Joseph Menn, author and cybersecurity correspondent for the Financial Times (Keynote: What You’re Up Against: Mobsters, Nation-States and Blurry Lines)
  • Celso Guiotoko, Corporate Vice President and CIO, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. (Keynote: How Enterprise Architecture is helping NISSAN IT Transformation)
  • Jeanne W. Ross, Director & Principal Research Scientist, MIT Center for Information Systems Research (Keynote: The Enterprise Architect: Architecting Business Success)
  • Lauren C. States, Vice President & Chief Technology Officer, Cloud Computing and Growth Initiatives, IBM Corp. (Keynote: Making Business Drive IT Transformation Through Enterprise Architecture)
  • Andy Mulholland, Chief Global Technical Officer, Capgemini (Keynote: The Transformed Enterprise)
  • William Rouse, Executive Director, Tennenbaum Institute at Georgia Institute of Technology (Keynote: Enterprise Transformation: An Architecture-Based Approach)

For more on the conference tracks or to register, please visit our conference registration page. And stay tuned throughout the next month for more sneak peeks leading up to The Open Group Conference San Francisco!

1 Comment

Filed under Cloud, Cloud/SOA, Cybersecurity, Data management, Enterprise Architecture, Semantic Interoperability, Standards

Cloud Computing predictions for 2012

By The Open Group Cloud Work Group Members 

With 2012 fast approaching, Cloud Computing will remain a hot topic for IT professionals everywhere. The Open Group Cloud Work Group worked on various initiatives in 2011, including the Cloud Computing Survey, which explored the business impact and primary drivers for Cloud within organizations, and the release of Cloud Computing for Business, a guide that examines how enterprises can derive the greatest business benefits from Cloud Computing from a business process standpoint.

As this year comes to an end, here are a few predictions from various Cloud Work Group members.

Non-IT executives will increasingly use the term “Cloud” in regular business conversations

By Penelope Gordon, 1 Plug

In 2012, the number of non-IT business executives seeking ways to leverage Cloud will increase, and consequently references to Cloud Computing will increasingly appear in general business publications.

This increase in Cloud references will in part be due to the availability of consumer-oriented Cloud services such as email and photo sharing. For example, the October 2011 edition of the Christian Science Monitor included an article titled “Five things you need to know about ‘the cloud’” by Chris Gaylord that discussed Cloud services in the same vein as mobile phone capabilities. Another factor behind the increase (unintentionally) highlighted in this article is the overuse – and consequent dilution – of the term “Cloud” – Web services and applications running on Cloud infrastructure are not necessarily themselves Cloud services.

The most important factor behind the increase will be due to the relevance of Cloud – especially the SaaS, BPaaS, and cloud-enabled BPO variants – to these executives. In contrast to SOA, Cloud Computing buying decisions related to business process enablement can be very granular and incremental and can thus be made independently of the IT Department – not that I advocate bypassing IT input. Good governance ensures both macro-level optimization and interoperability.

New business models in monetizing your Information-as–a-Service

By Mark Skilton, Capgemini

Personal data is rapidly become less restricted to individual control and management as we see exponential growth in the use of digital media and social networking to exchange ideas, conduct business and enable whole markets, products and services to be accessible. This has significant ramifications not only for individuals and organizations to maintain security and protection over what is public and private; it also represents a huge opportunity to understand both small and big data and the “interstitial connecting glue” – the metadata within and at the edge of Clouds that are like digital smoke trails of online community activities and behaviors.

At the heart of this is the “value of information” to organizations that can extract and understand how to maximize this information and, in turn, monetize it. This can be as simple as profiling customers who “like” products and services to creating secure backup Cloud services to retrieve in times of need and support of emergency services. The point is that new metadata combinations are possible through the aggregation of data inside and outside of organizations to create new value.

There are many new opportunities to create new business models that recognize this new wave of Information-as- a-Service (IaaS) as the Cloud moves further into new value model territories.

Small and large enterprise experiences when it comes to Cloud

By Pam Isom, IBM

The Cloud Business Use Case (CBUC) team is in the process of developing and publishing a paper that is focused on the subject of Cloud for Small-Medium-Enterprises (SME’s). The CBUC team is the same team that contributed to the book Cloud Computing for Business with a concerted focus on Cloud business benefits, use cases, and justification. When it comes to small and large enterprise comparisons of Cloud adoption, some initial observations are that the increased agility associated with Cloud helps smaller organizations with rapid time-to-market and, as a result, attracts new customers in a timely fashion. This faster time-to-market not only helps SME’s gain new customers who otherwise would have gone to competitors, but prevents those competitors from becoming stronger – enhancing the SME’s competitive edge. Larger enterprises might be more willing to have a dedicated IT organization that is backed with support staff and they are more likely to establish full-fledged data center facilities to operate as a Cloud service provider in both a public and private capacity, whereas SME’s have lower IT budgets and tend to focus on keeping their IT footprint small, seeking out IT services from a variety of Cloud service providers.

A recent study conducted by Microsoft surveyed more than 3000 small businesses across 16 countries with the objective of understanding whether they have an appetite for adopting Cloud Computing. One of the findings was that within three years, “43 percent of workloads will become paid cloud services.” This is one of many statistics that stress the significance of Cloud on small businesses in this example and the predictions for larger enterprise as Cloud providers and consumers are just as profound.

Penelope Gordon specializes in adoption strategies for emerging technologies, and portfolio management of early stage innovation. While with IBM, she led innovation, strategy, and product development efforts for all of IBM’s product and service divisions; and helped to design, implement, and manage one of the world’s first public clouds.

Mark Skilton is Global Director for Capgemini, Strategy CTO Group, Global Infrastructure Services. His role includes strategy development, competitive technology planning including Cloud Computing and on-demand services, global delivery readiness and creation of Centers of Excellence. He is currently author of the Capgemini University Cloud Computing Course and is responsible for Group Interoperability strategy.

Pamela K. Isom is the Chief Architect for complex cloud integration and application innovation services such as serious games. She joined IBM in June 2000 and currently leads efforts that drive Smarter Planet efficiencies throughout client enterprises using, and often times enhancing, its’ Enterprise Architecture (EA). Pamela is a Distinguished Chief/Lead IT Architect with The Open Group where she leads the Cloud Business Use Cases Work Group.

3 Comments

Filed under Cloud, Cloud/SOA, Enterprise Transformation, Semantic Interoperability

Are Business Process Management and Business Architecture a perfect match?

by Serge Thorn, Architecting the Enterprise

Whenever I suggest collaboration between these two worlds, I always observe some sort of astonishment from my interlocutors. Many Enterprise Architects or Business Architects do not realise there may be synergies. Business Process Management (BPM) team have not understood what Enterprise Architecture is all about and the other way around… There is no a single definition of Business Process Management, often it means different things to different people. To keep it very generic, BPM relates to any activities an organization does to support its process efforts.

There are many activities which can be included in such efforts:

  • The use of industry Business Reference Model (or Business Process Reference Model), a reference for the operational activities of an organization, a framework facilitating a functional Lines of Business, such as
      • The Federal Enterprise Architecture Business Reference Model of the US Federal Government
      • The DoD Business Reference Model
      • The Open Group Exploration and Mining Business Reference Model
      • Frameworx (eTOM) for Telco companies
      • The Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR®) model
      • The SAP R/3 Reference Model
      • The Oracle Business Models : Oracle Industry Reference Model for Banking, (IRM), Oracle Retail Reference Model
      • And others…
  • The use of organization specific Business Reference models
  • The use of Business process improvement methodologies
      • Lean, a quantitative data driven methodology based on statistics, process understanding and process control
      • Six Sigma, a methodology that mainly focuses on eliminating bad products or services to clients by using statistical evaluation
  • Business Process Reengineering, which in reality is a facet of BPM
  • The understanding of Business Change Management, the process that empowers staff to accept changes that will improve performance and productivity
  • The understanding of Business Transformation, the continuous process, essential to any organization in implementing its business strategy and achieving its vision
  • The use of Business Rules Management which enables organizations to manage business rules for decision automation
  • The understanding of Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) services to reduce costs and increase efficiency
  • The support of Business Process modeling and design, which is illustrated description of business processes, usually created with flow diagrams. The model contains the relationship between activities, processes, sub-processes and information, as well as roles, the organization and resources. This can done with many notations such as flow chart, functional flow block diagram, control flow diagram, Gantt chart, PERT diagram, IDEF, and nowadays with the standard de facto notations such as UML and BPMN
  • The support of BPM tools and suites implementation. With the right, process models can be simulated, to drive workflow or BPMS systems, and can be used as the basis for an automated process monitoring system (BAM)
  • The support of Business Activity Monitoring (BAM), the ability to have end-to-end visibility and control over all parts of a process or transaction that spans multiple applications and people in one or even more companies

To combine Business Process Management and Enterprise Architecture for better business outcomes is definitely the way forward, where BPM provides the business context, understanding, and- metrics, and Enterprise Architecture provides the discipline to translate business vision and strategy into architectural changes. Both are needed for sustainable continuous improvement. When referring to Enterprise Architecture, we would mainly refer to Business Architecture. Business Architecture involves more than just the structure of business processes. It also entails the organization of departments, roles, documents, assets, and all other process-related information.

Business Architects may be defining and implementing the Business Process framework and, in parallel, influencing the strategic direction for Business Process Management and improvement methodologies (e.g. Lean, Six Sigma). The business process owners and Business Analysts are working within their guidelines at multiple levels throughout the organizations’ business process. They have roles and responsibilities to manage, monitor and control their processes.

An important tool in developing Business Architecture is a Business Reference Model. These types of models are enormously beneficial. They can be developed in the organization to build and extend the information architecture. The shared vocabulary (verbal and visual) that emerges from these efforts promotes clear and effective communication.

To illustrate the touch points between Enterprise Architecture and Business Process Management, I have illustrated in the table below the synergies between the two approaches using TOGAF® 9.

In this table, we observe that, there is a perfect match between Business Process Management and the use of an Enterprise Architecture framework such as TOGAF. BPM is often project based and the Business Architect (or Enterprise Architect) may be responsible for identifying cross-project and cross-process capabilities. It can be considered as being the backbone of an Enterprise Architecture program. We can also add to this, that Service Oriented Architecture is the core operational or transactional capability while BPM does the coordination and integration into business processes.

When using BPM tools and suites, you should also consider the following functionalities: workflow, enterprise application integration, content management and business activity monitoring. These four components are traditionally provided by vendors as separate applications which are merged through BPM into a single application with high levels of integration. The implementation of a BPM solution should theoretically eliminate the maintenance and support cost of these four applications resulting in reducing the total cost of ownership.

Business Architecture provides the governance, alignment and transformational context for BPM across business units and silos. Enterprise Architects, Business Architects, Business Analysts should work together with BPM teams, when approaching the topic of Business Process Management. BPM efforts need structures and appropriate methodologies. It needs a structure to guide efforts at different levels of abstraction (separating “the what“ (the hierarchical structure of business functions) from “the how” (how the desired results are achieved), a documented approach and structure to navigate among the business processes of the organization, i.e. a Business Architecture. They also need a methodology such as an Enterprise Architecture framework to retain and leverage what they have learned about managing and conducting BPM projects.

Editor’s note: The Open Group Architecture Forum and the TM Forum have published a technical report exploring the synergies and identifying integration points between TOGAF and Frameworx. Download it here

This article has previously appeared in Serge Thorn’s personal blog and appears here with his permission.

Serge Thorn is CIO of Architecting the Enterprise.  He has worked in the IT Industry for over 25 years, in a variety of roles, which include; Development and Systems Design, Project Management, Business Analysis, IT Operations, IT Management, IT Strategy, Research and Innovation, IT Governance, Architecture and Service Management (ITIL). He has more than 20 years of experience in Banking and Finance and 5 years of experience in the Pharmaceuticals industry. Among various roles, he has been responsible for the Architecture team in an international bank, where he gained wide experience in the deployment and management of information systems in Private Banking, Wealth Management, and also in IT architecture domains such as the Internet, dealing rooms, inter-banking networks, and Middle and Back-office. He then took charge of IT Research and Innovation (a function which consisted of motivating, encouraging creativity, and innovation in the IT Units), with a mission to help to deploy a TOGAF based Enterprise Architecture, taking into account the company IT Governance Framework. He also chaired the Enterprise Architecture Governance worldwide program, integrating the IT Innovation initiative in order to identify new business capabilities that were creating and sustaining competitive advantage for his organization. Serge has been a regular speaker at various conferences, including those by The Open Group. His topics have included, “IT Service Management and Enterprise Architecture”, “IT Governance”, “SOA and Service Management”, and “Innovation”. Serge has also written several articles and whitepapers for different magazines (Pharma Asia, Open Source Magazine). He is the Chairman of the itSMF (IT Service Management forum) Swiss chapter and is based in Geneva, Switzerland.

3 Comments

Filed under Enterprise Architecture, TOGAF®

Finding the value in SOA

by Stephen Bennett, Oracle

Republished with permission from CIO Update from an article published on behalf of The Open Group.

Confronted with the age old problems of agility and complexity, today’s CIOs are under more pressure than ever to improve the strategic value of IT to the business. At best, these challenges have increased costs, limited innovation and increased risk. At worst, they have reduced IT’s ability to respond to changing business needs in a timely fashion.

Yet, changes for business and IT are continuing to occur at an ever-increasing pace. To keep up, enterprises need to adopt an agile, flexible architecture style with a proven strategic approach to delivering IT to the business.

Over the last year, I have seen a resurgence of CIOs using Enterprise Architecture (EA) as a key tool to address these challenges. In the past, EA has experienced difficulties within the enterprise. It has been unfairly seen as primarily a documentation exercise and, when applied incorrectly, EA can — ironically — become a silo in of itself. To make sure that EA has better success this time, CIOs must make their EA efforts more actionable.

Step back: SOA

Service oriented architecture (SOA) has been positioned as an architectural style specifically intended to reduce costs, increase agility and, most importantly, simplify the business and the interoperation of different parts of that business.

A key principle of SOA is the structuring of business capabilities into meaningful, granular services as opposed to opaque and siloed business functions. This makes it possible to quickly identify and reuse any existing realized functional capabilities, thus avoiding the duplication of similar capabilities across the organization. By standardizing the behavior and interoperation of these services, it’s possible to limit the impacts of change and to forecast the likely chain of impacts.

Despite its popularity, relatively few enterprises have been able to measure and demonstrate the value of SOA. This is due primarily to the approach that enterprises have taken when adopting and applying SOA. In most cases, enterprises interpret SOA as simply another solution development approach. As a result, SOA has been relegated or wrongly positioned as a purely integration technology, rather than the strategic enabler that it can be.

Because of this, SOA must not be seen as a solution development approach that starts and ends once a solution is delivered. It must be seen as an on-going process that, when coupled with a strategic framework, can change and evolve with the business over time. Unfortunately, many enterprises adopt SOA without utilizing a strategic framework, causing a host of challenges for their business.

Just a few of the challenges I have seen include:

  • More complexity and moving parts
  • Increased costs
  • Projects taking longer than before
  • Solutions more fragile than ever
  • Little or no agility
  • Difficulty identifying and discovering services
  • Exponentially growing governance challenges
  • Limited service re-use
  • Duplication of effort leading to service sprawl
  • Multiple siloed technology focused SOAs
  • Funding for service oriented projects being cut

It’s no wonder that SOA has a bad reputation.

To address these challenges, enterprises utilizing or considering adopting SOA must align it with an EA framework that elevates the importance of the needs of the enterprise rather than only considering the requirements of individual projects.

Step forward: TOGAF® 9

Now used by 80 percent of the Fortune Global 50, TOGAF® , an Open Group standard, is an architecture framework that contains a detailed method and set of supporting resources for developing an EA. As a comprehensive, open method for EA, TOGAF 9 complements and can be used in conjunction with other frameworks that are more focused on specific aspects of architecture, such as MDA and ITIL.

The Open Group’s new guide, Using TOGAF to Define and Govern Service-Oriented Architectures, aims to facilitate common understanding of the development of SOA while offering a phased approach to maximizing its business impact based on the popular TOGAF methodology. Let’s take a look at the main takeaways from the guide:

Organization readiness - An enterprise first needs to adopt the principle of service-orientation. However, successful SOA depends on the readiness of the enterprise to become service-oriented. To get started with SOA, the guide recommends conducting a maturity assessment. Such an assessment is available from The Open Group and enables a practitioner to assess an organization’s SOA maturity level and define a roadmap for incremental adoption to maximize business benefits at each stage along the way.

Scope - The size and complexity of an enterprise affects the way its architecture develops. Where there are many different organizational and business models, it is not practical to integrate them within a single architecture. It is therefore generally not appropriate to develop a single, integrated SOA for a large and complex enterprise.

TOGAF defines enterprise as any collection of organizations that has a common set of goals. For example, an enterprise could be a government agency, a whole corporation, a division of a corporation, a single department, or a chain of geographically distant organizations linked together by common ownership.

The guide highlights an approach for enterprise architects to identify the business areas where SOA will be of greatest benefit and make a significant impact so that they can be prioritized. This approach will help organizations avoid using SOA with the wrong situations to maximize their investment and overall business impact.

Communication, communication, communication - Aspects of TOGAF 9 were extended and enhanced to cover specific service-oriented concepts and terminology such as service contracts. Service contracts formalize the functional and non-functional characteristics of a business service and how it interacts with other business services. This enables a business vocabulary to be derived that allows IT to converse with the business in terms of business process and business services and abstracting away the complexity of the underlying technical services.

Governance - The identification of service and service portfolios is a key task for SOA. The questions of what service and service portfolios the enterprise will have, and how they will be managed must be taken with an enterprise level view.

Just because you have identified a number of services does not automatically mean they will add value to the enterprise and that they should be realized (at least not initially). Governance plays a key role here and the guide recommends the establishment of a SOA governance and creating a linkage to both IT and EA governance in the enterprise.

The Open Group has a wealth of information available in this area, specifically an SOA governance framework that provides context and definitions that enable organizations to understand, customize, and deploy SOA governance.

The relationship between EA and SOA is a powerful and synergistic one. They are key enablers for one another, making EA actionable while making the wider business benefits of SOA obtainable.

SOA is certainly not the only architectural approach that your enterprise will require. But it can smooth the alignment and adoption of other architecture styles (e.g., business process management, event-driven architecture) into an EA framework. So rather than reinvent the wheel, organizations should consider using a well-established framework such as TOGAF to elevate and extend the value of SOA.

The Open Group’s new guide is a must-read for any enterprise architect currently using TOGAF, but remember that it needs to be customized and extended to your enterprises unique situation. Now, if only The Open Group had a guide on using TOGAF to define and govern Cloud Computing!

Stephen Bennett is a senior enterprise architect at Oracle, an author, and a 25-year technologist focused on providing thought leadership, best practices, and architecture guidance around SOA and Cloud Computing. He has co-chaired a number of Work Groups within The Open Group around SOA Governance and TOGAF/SOA.

Comments Off

Filed under Service Oriented Architecture

Twtpoll results from The Open Group Conference, Austin

The Open Group set up two informal Twitter polls this week during The Open Group Conference, Austin. If you wondered about the results, or just want to see what our Twitter followers think about some topline issues in the industry in very simple terms, see our twtpoll.com results below.

On Day One of the Conference, when the focus of the discussions was on Enterprise Architecture, we polled our Twitter followers about the profession of EA: Do you think we will see a shortage of enterprise architects within the next decade? Why or why not?

The results were split right down the middle.  A sampling of responses:

  • “Yes, if you mean good enterprise architects. No, if you are just referring to those who take the training but have no clue.”
  • “Yes, retirement of Boomers; not enough professionalization.”
  • “Yes, we probably will. EA is becoming more and more important because of fast-changing economies which request fast company change.”
  • “No: budgets, not a priority.”
  • “No. Over just one year, I can see the significant increase of the number of people who are talking EA and realizing the benefits of EA practices.”
  • “No, a majority of companies will still be focusing on short-term improvement because of ongoing current economic status, etc. EA is not a priority.”

On Day Two, while we focused on security, we queried our Twitter followers about data security protection: What type of data security do you think provides the most comprehensive protection of PII? Again, the results were split evenly into thirds:

What do you think of our informal poll results? Do you agree? Disagree? And why?

And let us know if you have thoughts on this one: Do you think SOA is essential for Cloud implementation?

Want some survey results you can really sink your teeth into? View the results of The Open Group’s State of the Industry Cloud Survey. Download the slide deck from The Open Group Bookstore, or read a previous blog post about it.

The Open Group Conference, Austin is now in member meetings. Join us in Taipei or San Francisco for our next Conferences! Hear best practices and case studies on Enterprise Architecture, Cloud, Security and more, presented by preeminent thought leaders in the industry.

Comments Off

Filed under Cloud/SOA, Cybersecurity, Enterprise Architecture

New Open Group Guide Shows Enterprise Architects How to Maximize SOA Business Value with TOGAF®

By Awel Dico, Bank of Montreal

Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) has promised many benefits for both IT and business. As a result, it has been widely adopted as an architectural style among both private business and government enterprises. Despite SOA’s popularity, however, relatively few of these enterprises are able to measure and demonstrate the value of SOA to their organization. What is the problem and why is it so hard to demonstrate that SOA can deliver the much needed business value it promises? In this post I will point out some root causes for this problem and highlight how The Open Group’s new guide, titled “Using TOGAF® to Define and Govern Service-Oriented Architectures,” can help organizations maximize their return on investment with SOA.

The main problem is rooted in the way SOA adoption is approached. In most cases, organizations approach SOA by limiting the scope to individual solution implementation projects – using it purely as a tool to group software functions into services described by some standard interface. As a result, each SOA implementation is disconnected and void of the larger business problem context. This creates disconnected, technology-focused SOA silos that are difficult to manage and govern. Reuse of services across business lines, arguably one of the main advantages of SOA, in turn becomes very limited if not impossible without increased cost of integration.

SOA calls for standard-based service infrastructure that requires big investment. I have seen many IT organizations struggle to establish a common SOA infrastructure, but fail to do so. The main reason for this failure is again the way SOA is approached in those organizations; limiting SOA’s scope to solution projects makes it hard for individual projects to justify the investment in service infrastructure. As a result they fall back to their tactical implementation which cannot be reused by other projects down the road.

The other culprit is that many organizations think SOA can be applied to all situations – failing to realize that there are cases when SOA is not a good approach at all. An SOA approach is not cheap, and trying to fit it to all situations results in an increased cost without any ROI.

Fortunately there’s a solution to this problem. The Open Group SOA Work Group recently developed a short guide on how to use TOGAF® to define and govern SOA. The guide’s main goal is to enable enterprises to deliver the expected business value from their SOA initiatives. What’s great about TOGAF® in helping organizations approach SOA is the fact that it’s an architecture-style, agnostic and flexible framework that can be customized to various enterprise needs, architectural scopes and styles. In a nutshell, the guide recommends the incorporation of SOA style in the EA framework through customization and enhancement of TOGAF® 9.

How does this solve the problem I pointed out above? Well, here’s how:

SOA, as an architectural style, becomes recognized as part of the organization’s overall Enterprise Architecture instead of leaving it linked to only individual projects. The guide advises the identification of SOA principles and establishment of supporting architectural capabilities at the preliminary phase of TOGAF®. It also recommends establishment of SOA governance and creating linkage to both IT and EA governance in the enterprise. These architecture capabilities lift the heavy weight from the solution projects and ensure that any SOA initiative delivers business value to the enterprise. This means SOA projects in the enterprise share a larger enterprise context and each project adds value to the whole enterprise business in an incremental, reusable fashion.

When TOGAF® is applied at the strategic level, then SOA concepts can be incorporated into the strategy by indentifying the business areas or segments in the enterprise that benefit from a SOA approach. Likewise, the strategy could point out the areas in which SOA is not adding any value to the business. This allows users to identify the expected key metrics from the start and focus their SOA investment on high value projects. This also makes sure that each smaller SOA project is initiated in the context of larger business objectives and as such, can add measurable business value.

In summary, this short and concise guide links all the moving parts (such as SOA principles, SOA governance, Reference Architectures, SOA maturity, SOA Meta-model, etc.) and I think it is a must-read for any enterprise architect using TOGAF® as their organization’s EA framework and SOA as an architectural style. If you are wondering how these architectural elements fit together, I recommend you look at the guide and customize or extend its key concepts to your own situation. If you read it carefully, you will understand why SOA projects must have larger enterprise business context and how this can be done by customizing TOGAF® to define and govern your own SOA initiatives.

To download the guide for free, please visit The Open Group’s online bookstore.

Awel Dico, Ph. D., is Enterprise Architect for the Bank of Montreal. He is currently working on enterprise integration architecture and establishing best practice styles and patterns for bank wide services integration.  In the past he has consulted on various projects and worked with many teams across the organization and worked on many architecture initiatives, some of which include: leading mid-tier service infrastructure architecture; developing enterprise SOA principles, guidelines and standards; Developing SOA Service Compliance process; developing and applying architectural patterns; researching technology and industry trends, and contributing to the development of bank’s Enterprise Reference Architecture blueprint. In addition, Dr. Dico currently co-chairs The Open Group SOA Work Group and The Open Group SOA/TOGAF Practical Guide Project. He also co-supervises PhD candidates at Addis Ababa University, Computer Science – in Software Engineering track. Dr. Dico is also a founder of Community College helping students in rural areas of Ethiopia.

2 Comments

Filed under Service Oriented Architecture

SOA is not differentiating, Cloud Computing is

By Mark Skilton, Capgemini

Warning: I confess at the start of this blog that I chose a deliberately evocative title to try to get your attention and guess I did if are reading this now. Having written a couple of blogs to date with what I believed were finely honed words on current lessons learnt and futures of technology had created little reaction, so I thought I’d try the more direct approach and head directly towards a pressing matter of architectural and strategic concern.

Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) is now commonplace across all software development lifecycles and has entered the standard language of information technology design. We hear “service oriented” and “service enabled” as standard phrases handed out as common terms of reference. The point is that the processes and practices of SOA are industrial and are not differentiating, as everyone is doing these either from a design standpoint or as a business systems service approach. They enable standardization and abstraction of services in the design and build stages to align with key business and technology strategy goals, and enable technology to be developed or utilized that meets specific technical or business service requirements.

SOA practices are prerequisites to good design practice. SOA is a foundation of Service Management ITIL processes and is to be found in diverse software engineering methods from Business Process Management Systems (BPMS) to rapid Model Driven Architecture design techniques that build compose web-enabled services. SOA is seen as a key method along the journey to industrialization supporting consolidation and rationalization, as well as lean engineering techniques to optimize business and systems landscape. SOA provides good development practice in defining user requirements that provide what the user wants, and in translating these into understanding how best to build agile, decoupled and flexible architectural solutions.

My point is that these methods are now mainstream, and merely putting SOA into your proposal or as a stated capability is no longer going to be a “deal clincher” or a key “business differentiator”. The counterview I hear practitioners in SOA will say is that SOA is not just the standardized service practices but is also how the services can be identified that are differentiating. But that’s the rub. If SOA treats every requirement or design as a service problem, where is the difference?

A possible answer is in how SOA will be used. In the future and today it will be a business differentiator in the way the SOA method is used. But not all SOA methods are equal, and what will be necessary to highlight SOA method differentiation for business benefit?

Enter Cloud Computing, its origins in utility computing and the ubiquitous web services and Internet. The definitions of what is Cloud Computing, much like the early days of Service Orientation, is still evolving in understanding where the boundary and types of services it encompasses. But the big disruptive step change has been the new business model the Cloud Computing mode has introduced.

Cloud Computing has introduced automatic provisioning, self-service, automatic load balancing and scaling of resources in technology. Building on virtualization principles, it has extended into on-demand metering and billing consumption models, large-scale computing resource data centers, and large-scale distributed businesses on the web using the power of the Internet to reach and run new business models. I can hear industry observers say this is just a consequence of the timely convergence of pervasive technology network standards, the rapid falling costs per compute and storage costs and the massive “hockey stick” movement of bandwidth, smart devices and wide-scale adoption of web-based services.

But this is a step change movement from a simple realization that it’s just “another technology phase”.

Put another way: It has brought the back office computing resources and the on-demand Software as a Service Models into a dynamic new business model that changes the way business and IT work. It has “merged” physical and logical services into a new marketplace on-demand model that hitherto was “good practice“ to design as separate consumer and provider services. All that’s changed.

But does SOA fully realize these aspects of a Cloud Computing Architecture? Answer these three simple questions:

  • Does the logical service contracts define how multi-tenant environments need to work to support many concurrent services users?
  • Does SOA enable automating balancing and scaling to be considered if the initial set of declarative conditions in the service contract don’t “fit” the new operating conditions that need scaling up or down?
  • Does SOA recognize the wider marketplace and ecosystem dynamics that may result in evolving consumer/producer patterns that are dynamic and not static, driving new sourcing behaviors and usage patterns that may involve using services through a portal with no contract?

For sure, ecosystem principles are axiomatic in that they will drive standards for containers, protocols and semantics which SOA standards are perfect to adopt as boundary conditions for service contracts in a Service Portfolio. But my illustrations here are to broaden the debate as to how to engage SOA as a differentiator when it meets a “new kid on the block” like Cloud, which is rapidly morphing into new models “as we speak” extending into social networks, mobile services and location aware integration.

My real intention is to raise awareness and interest in the subjects and the activities that The Open Group is engaged in to address such topics. I sincerely hope you can follow these up as further reading and investigation with The Open Group; and of course, do feel free to comment and contact me J

Cloud Computing and SOA are key topics of discussion at The Open Group Conference, London, May 9-13, which is underway. 

Mark Skilton, Director, Capgemini, is the Co-Chair of The Open Group Cloud Computing Work Group. He has been involved in advising clients and developing of strategic portfolio services in Cloud Computing and business transformation. His recent contributions include the publication of Return on Investment models on Cloud Computing widely syndicated that achieved 50,000 hits on CIO.com and in the British Computer Society 2010 Annual Review. His current activities include development of a new Cloud Computing Model standards and best practices on the subject of Cloud Computing impact on Outsourcing and Off-shoring models and contributed to the second edition of the Handbook of Global Outsourcing and Off-shoring published through his involvement with Warwick Business School UK Specialist Masters Degree Program in Information Systems Management.

3 Comments

Filed under Cloud/SOA

Cloud impact on platforms and applications – a perspective on architecture

By Shripadraj Mujumdar, Cognizant Technology Solutions

Context

Today’s large businesses are heavily characterized by globalization and interconnectedness. Therefore, the key effective trends of importance can be summarized as- Business process improvement and consolidations, supply chains. Reducing enterprise costs and managing change initiatives, increasing the use of analytics. Improving enterprise workforce effectiveness, enable innovation and Targeting customers and markets more effectively. In a nutshell, organizations are looking for shorter lines of communication, deeper relationships between stakeholders, and more shared knowledge and data of the company and business, up and down the ranks and across linked partners.

Similarly, with ever-increasing definitions of the enterprise, boundaries to support above key focus areas in an organization’s set of technologies which are playing a pivotal role can be identified as virtualization and Cloud, Service Oriented Architecture, Web 2.0, mobile technologies, unified communications, business intelligence and document management and storage. The game changer here is specifically “The Cloud,” which provides the necessary model to commoditize the platforms, Infrastructure and applications.

Software application architectures have traversed the path of separation of functions, objects and  layers till separation of concerns in terms of services. The new applications are more open, collaborative, and social, and the main factor for facilitation has been maturity and adoption of standards for interoperability and compliance on feature sets. With Cloud power playing its role, this core definition of software and applications is set to undergo yet another paradigm shift, impacting the direction on how Enterprise IT systems are architected, leveraged and governed.

Impact of Cloud on platforms and architecture

In most of the literature, more often than less, the advantages listed for Cloud Computing put more emphasis on its infrastructure aspect and its economic benefit. The economic change that may come to computing services is in terms of changes in patterns and factors of production and consumption, besides aggregation of supply and demand. Moreover, the ability to make over the counter choice and substitution is also an important factor that will impact overall economics of computing in times to come. The real power of the Cloud model will be realized in terms of how platforms, applications and services will get proliferated on pay-per-use or more creative models. For applications which follow new generation of styles, here are possible considerations for impact that may happen in the architecture definition and process. In the future, off-the-shelf patterns will emerge to internalize many such considerations and we may hopefully even see support available at a platform/framework level.

  • Business Architecture: The base-level business processes would be set to benefit more from Cloud-based IT service choices in an open model, thus impacting overall business architecture at the enterprise level, driven by the need and ability to explore opportunities for optimization, enhancement and scaling
  • Enterprise Assets Reorganization- Based on the speed of adoption, there would be a trend to consolidate the enterprise assets, and replace and reassemble some of them using Cloud-based trusted services, platforms and infrastructure, thus eliminating redundancy. There will be a boost to such service-based outsourcing to leverage cost advantages and minimize in-house maintenance. The data architecture, again, will have a consolidation phase and should be planned to leverage Cloud-based data services – Data as Service — and segregate data within enterprise boundaries and across a public Cloud, creating data virtualization. Moreover, as more Cloud security standards and specifications evolve, potentially there will be shifts in data organization. The possibility of easy access to big data will drive enterprise-level data models to further levels
  • Solution and Application Architecture- The most important impact that is happening due to Cloud is on ability of solutions and applications to pop their head out of the traditional box and utilize on massive computing power and scale. Some of the features described below may apply based on the actual application scenario. However, for large-scale, multi-client, multi-scenario applications, all would make sense in the longer term
    • Service Orientation- The Cloud-based applications architecture provides a real home to service orientation of applications. With Cloud-based architectures, there would be out-of-the-box support, service end point abstractions, available for SAAS choice available, hence the new applications’ need to expose service interfaces beyond regular access channels to support virtualized service mash-ups. The applications which operate in hybrid mode may well be thought about as assembled from Cloud and non-Cloud parts of services and data
    • Multi-tenancy- Similar to the Cloud environment, this facilitates sharing of computing infrastructure across multiple consumers, Cloud applications, running on top of it need to support multiple tenants to avail economies of scale. There can be flexibility to adopt for specific tenancy models based on consumer preferences, accordingly isolation levels can be worked out
    • New Integration Scenarios- While applications and business platforms move to Cloud, their interlinkages will invariably have to shift in a similar way. It gives rise to possible new scenarios in which Cloud-based integration can be performed utilizing possible advantage points to find optimal ways
    • Cost of Operation/Consumption- The effect of commoditization will directly create a requirement at applications and related level to support similar model. Thus multiple models may have to be supported with blended price structure, similar to support levels we have in regular service provisioning
    • Interoperability- The applications and its services need to follow interoperability models considering wide scenario of usage. As of today, the Cloud platforms by themselves don’t set a great example of portability and interoperation. However, the services hosted on such platforms have more scale of access scenarios and need to follow well-established standards to facilitate mash-up scenarios
    • Dynamic & Flexible Definition- Considering pay-per-use model and service orientation, applications will need to support the selection of features and services to be used, and pricing model around those services, in order to be competitive and optimal. This is also in terms of transferring the benefit of granular pricing model at Cloud-level to end consumers
    • Extensibility- Many sorts of software today also have some extension features which hook up online for doing certain tasks. Going forward, the application extensibility will not be limited to local scenarios, but to be able to choose background services and features for consumption and addition of features dynamically. This will allow the creation of very powerful applications. However, from an architecture standpoint, provisioning for such extension points have to be well thought of
    • Elasticity- Configuration & Self Service- In order to support scalability and load variance, the dynamic elasticity on Cloud needs to be utilized in an optimal way. Applications may have to provision for a self-service model for configuration of load modeling and accordingly provision the Cloud resources. Similarly, a self-service model may have to be extended to encompass feature selection scenarios, and pricing will then depend on such selection
    • Parallelism– The batch process framework and scenarios in today’s applications may get redefined going forward, due to massive parallelization capabilities which can come out of Cloud-based infrastructure. This in essence will also have an impact on certain business processes when latency is removed. For generic frameworks and applications supporting a wide range of consumption patterns, this may have to be configurable
    • Context Awareness- The applications may have to be context-aware in order to be more usable. While the applications move to few centralized locations from a deployment perspective, the consumptions will increase due to high levels of commoditization and access, and a common base will have to cater to variety of contexts
    • Service Discovery and Catalogs- With multiple capabilities expected out of services and parameters, and pricing models they would support, discovery and metadata of services will undergo extensions with reference to description of services. The frameworks which support service discovery and facilitate consumption will undergo a change to support the same in the future
    • Monitoring, Operations- The monitoring and operational support on Cloud components in an application would be more complex and limited by facilities exposed by such components. Thus, based on specific need and Cloud infrastructure, the frameworks and architectural elements need to be considered for support
    • Metrics, SLAs- The Metrics and SLA as used in on-premise software may have change in their definitions. Those will be aggregated functions of on-premise and Cloud services/components collectively. Thus, beyond functional aspect of catalogs in Cloud services, the other aspects of operational specifications may also need to be noted and can become important aspect while choosing amongst similar components

In conclusion, The Cloud, which used to be one of the abstractions in traditional architecture diagrams, is now set to swallow other neighboring elements. When Cloud reaches its fully adopted level, it will influence application architectures by driving them to be more componentized and service-oriented to support agility, commoditization and choice. Consolidating on these points, my presentation on the “Reverse Impact of Cloud” on May 11, at The Open Group Conference, London, 2011 will cover some of the factors which are important considerations for being Cloud-ready, architectures and present scenarios which depict application integration possibilities with Cloud.

Shripadraj Mujumdar will be presenting on the “Reverse Impact of Cloud on Platforms and Architecture” at The Open Group Conference, London, May 9-13. Join us for best practices and case studies on Enterprise Architecture, Cloud, Security and more, presented by preeminent thought leaders in the industry.

Shripadraj R Mujumdar [Prasanna], Senior Architect at Cognizant Technology Solutions, India, is part of Cognizant’s Global Technology Office and carries with him an extensive experience of 16 years of consulting and architecting strategic technology initiatives in corporate and customer programs. He has been instrumental in the inception of new service offerings through COEs, competency & delivery excellence, and in leadership capacity to create high performance technology/domain-focused teams. Shripadraj has done substantial work in India and abroad for several top-notch global customers in order to provide technology solutions and consulting — solving their critical business issues. Apart from his work interest , he actively participates in the blogosphere and is avid reader of science and philosophy. He holds a degree in engineering and has undergone the corporate education program on business leadership.

1 Comment

Filed under Cloud/SOA, Enterprise Architecture

The Open Group Conference, London: An open environment for challenging times

By Allen Brown, CEO, The Open Group

In little over a week, The Open Group will convene in London to debate some of today’s key IT issues such as Cloud Computing and Enterprise Architecture.

Our members span a range of companies and organisations, including Capgemini, HP, IBM, Oracle, Kingdee and SAP, and hail from around the globe. It’s not easy trying to get such a range of individuals to reach some sort of consensus; our conferences are vital in developing open standards and certifications. Our rich and varied membership certainly makes for interesting and lively debates. During the London Conference, May 9-13, we’ll hear plenty of opinions on a variety of topics including enterprise architecture (EA), business transformation, cyber-security, Cloud Computing, SOA and skills-based certifications.

We’ve got an excellent group of speakers attending the conference including Peter Edwards, Associate Director, IT & Communications Consulting, Arup, who’ll describe his experiences of being an Enterprise Architect in the land of Architects and Civil Engineers. His speech will discuss his position at Arup and some aspects of his role as Chief Enterprise Architect for the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA)​. He’ll discuss examples from recent work on major airports, sports facilities, “smart cities” and efficient data centres, explaining how these all rely heavily and increasingly on complex, integrated systems and how the concepts, tools and techniques of enterprise architecture are helpful in planning and integrating such systems, and in helping to bridge the communication gap between the different types of stakeholders.

Other presenters will address the role of technical experts to investigate organised crime, Cloud vendor selection (how to pick the right combination of better, faster and cheaper), architecting Cloud Computing, securing the global supply chain and much more.

As the IT media is dominated by stories on Cloud and cyber-security, it will be refreshing to debate these in an open environment and discuss the many challenges we all face in navigating an increasingly complex IT world. I’d love to hear your views on the type of questions you’d like answered and any particular issues you feel passionate about.

The Open Group Conference, London, May 9-13 is almost here! Join us for best practices and case studies on Enterprise Architecture, Cloud, Security and more, presented by preeminent thought leaders in the industry.

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

Comments Off

Filed under Cloud/SOA, Cybersecurity, Enterprise Architecture

“Making Standards Work®”

By Andrew Josey, The Open Group

Next month as part of the ongoing process of “Making Standards Work®,” we will be setting standards and policy with those attending the member meetings at The Open Group Conference, London, (May 9-12, Central Hall Westminster). The standards development activities include a wide range of subject areas from Cloud Computing, Tools and People certification, best practices for Trusted Technology, SOA and Quantum Lifecycle Management, as well as maintenance of existing standards such as TOGAF® and ArchiMate®. The common link with all these activities is that all of these are open standards developed by members of The Open Group.

Why do our members invest their time and efforts in development of open standards? The key reasons as I see them are as follows:

  1. Open standards are a core part of today’s infrastructure
  2. Open standards allow vendors to differentiate their offerings by offering a level of openness (portable interfaces and interoperability)
  3. Open standards establish a baseline from which competitors can innovate
  4. Open standards backed with certification enable customers to buy with increased confidence

This is all very well, you say — but what differentiates The Open Group from other standards organizations? Well, when The Open Group develops a new standard, we take an end-to-end view of the ecosystem all the way through from customer requirements, developing consensus standards to certification and procurement. We aim to deliver standards that meet a need in the marketplace and then back those up with certification that delivers an assurance about the products or in the case of people certification, their knowledge or skills and experience. We then take regular feedback on our standards, maintain them and evolve them according to marketplace needs. We also have a deterministic, timely process for developing our standards that helps to avoid the stalemate that can occur in some standards development.

Let’s look briefly at two of the most well known Open Group standards:  UNIX® and TOGAF®,. The UNIX® and TOGAF® standards are both examples of where a full ecosystem has been developed around the standard.

The UNIX® standard for operating systems has been around since 1995 and is now in its fourth major iteration. High reliability, availability and scalability are all attributes associated with certified UNIX® systems. As well as the multi-billion-dollar annual market in server systems from HP, Oracle, IBM and Fujitsu, there is an installed base of 50 million users* using The Open Group certified UNIX® systems on the desktop.

TOGAF® is the standard enterprise architecture method and framework. It encourages use with other frameworks and adoption of best practices for enterprise architecture. Now in its ninth iteration, it is freely available for internal use by any organization globally and is widely adopted with over 60% of the Fortune 50 and more than 80% of the Global Forbes 50. The TOGAF® certification program now has more than 15,000 certified individuals, including over 6,000 for TOGAF® 9.

If you are able to join us in London in May, I hope you will be able to also join us at the member meetings to continue making standards work. If you are not yet a member then I hope you will attend the conference itself and network with the members to find out more and consider joining us in Making Standards Work®!

For more information on The Open Group Standards Process visit http://www.opengroup.org/standardsprocess/

(*) Apple estimated number from Briefing October 2010. Mac OS X is certified to the UNIX 03 standard.

Standards development will be part of member meetings taking place at The Open Group Conference, London, May 9-13. Join us for best practices and case studies on Enterprise Architecture, Cloud, Security and more, presented by preeminent thought leaders in the industry.

Andrew Josey is Director of Standards within The Open Group, responsible for the Standards Process across the organization. Andrew leads the standards development activities within The Open Group Architecture Forum, including the development and maintenance of TOGAF® 9, and the TOGAF® 9 People certification program. He also chairs the Austin Group, the working group responsible for development and maintenance the POSIX 1003.1 standard that forms the core volumes of the Single UNIX® Specification. He is the ISO project editor for ISO/IEC 9945 (POSIX). He is a member of the IEEE Computer Society’s Golden Core and is the IEEE P1003.1 chair and the IEEE PASC Functional chair of Interpretations. Andrew is based in the UK.

Comments Off

Filed under Standards, TOGAF, UNIX

The Cloud, multiple Platforms within Platforms

By Mark Skilton, Capgemini

I recently attended The Open Group India Conference in March. This was the first time that The Open Group India had launched such an event, and they had the ambitious target of visiting three cities in the week. The event itself was a platform for discussion of Indian perspectives on all aspects of Architect Best Practices, and in particular, the India market on Enterprise Architecture and Cloud Computing. It drew a significant cross section of public and private industry sector professionals at all the venues, with keen debate and presentations demonstrating industry-leading thought leadership and case study.

The highly successful event raised important questions and discussion on significant topics of the moment in architecture and the Indian perspective. One that stands out in Cloud Computing was the development of Cloud Architectures and the role of Cloud as a platform for services.

Significant Cloud Computing commentary from the Cloud panel sessions included:

  • The role Indian government IT services strategy development could play in applying Cloud Computing, Grid and SOA concepts to the public sector services to the federated and regional citizenship
  • How the Indian market could exploit the SMB and youth demographic that see the Cloud as a rapid resource delivery platform, and huge potential for services in the Cloud to local and international markets
  • The evolution of Cloud services, notably in Big Data and content as a service and in applications software development in the Cloud using PaaS. Both need further focus on master data semantics and interoperability standards to help versioning, persistence of data and support of multiple Cloud virtual environments to drive the potential reality going forward

The debate of Cloud Architectures and Platforms ran throughout the three-city Conference, with notable observations and lessons learnt, including:

  • Support of multiple locations by “location-aware Clouds” was an interesting aspect when developing shared platforms that need to recognize the delivery and localization of “last mile logistics” and end-user experience of the service. One-size-fits-all needed some abstraction of end point use in enabling adoption flexibility and relevancy
  • Cloud Architectures had to be “platforms” that “evolved” like the ecosystem that made up its internal and external components and services. This was a fact as many Clouds and integration adaptor strategies using open source and proprietary technologies where driving ahead with different standards and speeds of development. Understanding the solution options needed to “design for change” was a matter of urgency in architectural design practice for Cloud
  • Mobile Cloud, including the Internet of things (IoT) and the spread of mobile channel services everywhere, drew considerable interest as a strong potential second wave of the Cloud as it enters the next stage of added-value services, virtual communities and multi-Cloud service marketplaces

The underlying theme seemed to be the emergence of service platforms and services enabled by the Cloud and its pervasiveness into social media and social networks underpinned by Cloud infrastructure and data centers. Platforms enabling other platforms in a distributed regional, wireless, global bandwidth enabled world.

I remembered that, at the same time as the Indian event, there was a shining example of technological inspiration right above our heads orbiting 200 miles around the Earth: the STS133 mission and final space flight of the Space Shuttle Discovery. This in itself was an inspiring magnificent achievement. The shuttle had flown more missions than any other — 39 in the 25-year flight history — but that was not the whole picture. Discovery was the platform that launched another platform, the Hubble Space Telescope, into the heavens. And look what discoveries came of that: the first pictures of the now-famous Eagle Nebula stellar nurseries, new insights into the distribution of galaxies and the universal constant, and the list goes on. One platform borne upon another; how much further will our children see tomorrow?

Cloud Computing will be a topic of discussion at The Open Group Conference, London, May 9-13. Join us for best practices, case studies and the future of information security, presented by preeminent thought leaders in the industry.

Mark Skilton, Director, Capgemini, is the Co-Chair of The Open Group Cloud Computing Work Group. He has been involved in advising clients and developing of strategic portfolio services in Cloud Computing and business transformation. His recent contributions include the publication of Return on Investment models on Cloud Computing widely syndicated that achieved 50,000 hits on CIO.com and in the British Computer Society 2010 Annual Review. His current activities include development of a new Cloud Computing Model standards and best practices on the subject of Cloud Computing impact on Outsourcing and Off-shoring models and contributed to the second edition of the Handbook of Global Outsourcing and Off-shoring published through his involvement with Warwick Business School UK Specialist Masters Degree Program in Information Systems Management.

1 Comment

Filed under Cloud/SOA

PODCAST: Cloud Computing panel forecasts transition phase for Enterprise Architecture

By Dana Gardner, Interabor Solutions

Listen to this recorded podcast here: BriefingsDirect-Open Group Cloud Panel Forecasts Transition Phase for Enterprise IT

The following is the transcript of a sponsored podcast panel discussion on newly emerging Cloud models and their impact on business and government, from The Open Group Conference, San Diego 2011.

Dana Gardner: Hi, this is Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, and you’re listening to BriefingsDirect.

We now present a sponsored podcast discussion coming to you live from The Open Group 2011 Conference in San Diego. We’re here the week of February 7, and we have assembled a distinguished panel to examine the expectation of new types of cloud models and perhaps cloud specialization requirements emerging quite soon.

By now, we’re all familiar with the taxonomy around public cloud, private cloud, software as a service (SaaS), platform as a service (PaaS), and my favorite, infrastructure as a service (IaaS), but we thought we would do you all an additional service and examine, firstly, where these general types of cloud models are actually gaining use and allegiance, and we’ll look at vertical industries and types of companies that are leaping ahead with cloud, as we now define it. [Disclosure: The Open Group is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

Then, second, we’re going to look at why one-size-fits-all cloud services may not fit so well in a highly fragmented, customized, heterogeneous, and specialized IT world.

How much of cloud services that come with a true price benefit, and that’s usually at scale and cheap, will be able to replace what is actually on the ground in many complex and unique enterprise IT organizations?

What’s more, we’ll look at the need for cloud specialization, based on geographic and regional requirements, as well as based on the size of these user organizations, which of course can vary from 5 to 50,000 seats. Can a few types of cloud work for all of them?

Please join me now in welcoming our panel. Here to help us better understand the quest for “fit for purpose” cloud balance and to predict, at least for some time, the considerable mismatch between enterprise cloud wants and cloud provider offerings we’re here with Penelope Gordon, the cofounder of 1Plug Corporation, based in San Francisco. Welcome, Penelope.

Penelope Gordon: Thank you.

Gardner: We’re also here with Mark Skilton. He is the Director of Portfolio and Solutions in the Global Infrastructure Services with Capgemini in London. Thank you for coming, Mark.

Mark Skilton: Thank you.

Gardner: Ed Harrington joins us. He is the Principal Consultant in Virginia for the UK-based Architecting the Enterprise organization. Thank you, Ed.

Ed Harrington: Thank you.

Gardner: Tom Plunkett is joining us. He is a Senior Solution Consultant with Oracle in Huntsville, Alabama.

Tom Plunkett: Thank you, Dana.

Gardner: And lastly, we’re here with TJ Virdi. He is Computing Architect in the CAS IT System Architecture Group at Boeing based in Seattle. Welcome.

TJ Virdi: Thank you.

Gardner: Let me go first to you, Mark Skilton. One size fits all has rarely worked in IT. If it has, it has been limited in its scope and, most often, leads to an additional level of engagement to make it work with what’s already there. Why should cloud be any different?

Three areas

Skilton: Well, Dana, from personal experience, there are probably three areas of adaptation of cloud into businesses. For sure, there are horizontal common services to which, what you call, the homogeneous cloud solution could be applied common to a number of business units or operations across a market.

But, we’re starting to increasingly see the need for customization to meet vertical competitive needs of a company or the decisions within that large company. So, differentiation and business models are still there, they are still in platform cloud as they were in the pre-cloud era.

But, the key thing is that we’re seeing a different kind of potential that a business can do now with cloud — a more elastic, explosive expansion and contraction of a business model. We’re seeing fundamentally the operating model of the business growing, and the industry can change using cloud technology.

So, there are two things going on in the business and the technologies are changing because of the cloud.

Gardner: Well, for us to understand where it fits best, and perhaps not so good, is to look at where it’s already working. Ed, you talked about the federal government. They seem to be going like gangbusters in the cloud. Why so?

Harrington: Perceived cost savings, primarily. The (US) federal government has done some analysis. In particular, the General Services Administration (GSA), has done some considerable analysis on what they think they can save by going to, in their case, a public cloud model for email and collaboration services. They’ve issued a $6.7 million contract to Unisys as the systems integrator, with Google being the cloud services supplier.

So, the debate over the benefits of cloud, versus the risks associated with cloud, is still going on quite heatedly.

Gardner: How about some other verticals? Where is this working? We’ve seen in some pharma, health-care, and research environments, which have a lot of elasticity, it makes sense, given that they have very variable loads. Any other suggestions on where this works, Tom?

Plunkett: You mentioned variable workloads. Another place where we are seeing a lot of customers approach cloud is when they are starting a new project. Because then, they don’t have to migrate from the existing infrastructure. Instead everything is brand new. That’s the other place where we see a lot of customers looking at cloud, your greenfields.

Gardner: TJ, any verticals that you are aware of? What are you seeing that’s working now?

Virdi: It’s not probably related with any vertical market, but I think what we are really looking for speed to put new products into the market or evolve the products that we already have and how to optimize business operations, as well as reduce the cost. These may be parallel to any vertical industries, where all these things are probably going to be working as a cloud solution.

Gardner: We’ve heard the application of “core and context” to applications, but maybe there is an application of core and context to cloud computing, whereby there’s not so much core and lot more context. Is that what you’re saying so far?

Unstructured data

Virdi: In a sense, you would have to measure not only the structured documents or structured data, but unstructured data as well. How to measure and create a new product or solutions is the really cool things you would be looking for in the cloud. And, it has proved pretty easy to put a new solution into the market. So, speed is also the big thing in there.

Gardner: Penelope, use cases or verticals where this is working so far?

Gordon: One example in talking about core and context is when you look in retail. You can have two retailers like a Walmart or a Costco, where they’re competing in the same general space, but are differentiating in different areas.

Walmart is really differentiating on the supply chain, and so it’s not a good candidate for public cloud computing solutions. We did discuss it that might possibly be a candidate for private cloud computing.

But that’s really where they’re going to invest in the differentiating, as opposed to a Costco, where it makes more sense for them to invest in their relationship with their customers and their relationship with their employees. They’re going to put more emphasis on those business processes, and they might be more inclined to outsource some of the aspects of their supply chain.

A specific example within retail is pricing optimization. A lot of grocery stores need to do pricing optimization checks once a quarter, or perhaps once a year in some of their areas. It doesn’t makes sense for smaller grocery store chains to have that kind of IT capability in house. So, that’s a really great candidate, when you are looking at a particular vertical business process to outsource to a cloud provider who has specific industry domain expertise.

Gardner: So for small and medium businesses (SMBs) that would be more core for them than others.

Gordon: Right. That’s an example, though, where you’re talking about what I would say is a particular vertical business process. Then, you’re talking about a monetization strategy and then part of the provider, where they are looking more at a niche strategy, rather than a commodity, where they are doing a horizontal infrastructure platform.

Gardner: Ed, you had a thought?

Harrington: Yeah, and it’s along the SMB dimension. We’re seeing a lot of cloud uptake in the small businesses. I work for a 50-person company. We have one “sort of” IT person and we do virtually everything in the cloud. We’ve got people in Australia and Canada, here in the States, headquartered in the UK, and we use cloud services for virtually everything across that. I’m associated with a number of other small companies and we are seeing big uptake of cloud services.

Gardner: Allow me to be a little bit of a skeptic, because I’m seeing these reports from analyst firms on the tens of billions of dollars in potential cloud market share and double-digit growth rates for the next several years. Is this going to come from just peripheral application context activities, mostly SMBs? What about the core in the enterprises? Does anybody have an example of where cloud is being used in either of those?

Skilton: In the telecom sector, which is very IT intensive, I’m seeing the emergence of their core business of delivering service to a large end user or multiple end user channels, using what I call cloud brokering.

Front-end cloud

So, if where you’re going with your question is that, certainly in the telecom sector we’re seeing the emergence of front end cloud, customer relationship management (CRM) type systems and also sort of back-end content delivery engines using cloud.

The fundamental shift away from the service orientated architecture (SOA) era is that we’re seeing more business driven self-service, more deployment of services as a business model, which is a big difference of the shift of the cloud. Particularly in telco, we’re seeing almost an explosion in that particular sector.

Gordon: A lot of companies don’t even necessarily realize that they’re using cloud services, particularly when you talk about SaaS. There are a number of SaaS solutions that are becoming more and more ubiquitous. If you look at large enterprise company recruiting sites, often you will see Taleo down at the bottom. Taleo is a SaaS. So, that’s a cloud solution, but it’s just not thought necessarily of in that context.

Gardner: Right. Tom?

Plunkett: Another place we’re seeing a lot of growth with regards to private clouds is actually on the defense side. The Defense Department is looking at private clouds, but they also have to deal with this core and context issue. We’re in San Diego today. The requirements for a shipboard system are very different from the land-based systems.

Ships have to deal with narrow bandwidth and going disconnected. They also have to deal with coalition partners or perhaps they are providing humanitarian assistance and they are dealing even with organizations we wouldn’t normally consider military. So, they have to deal with lots of information, assurance issues, and have completely different governance concerns that we normally think about for public clouds.

Gardner: However, in the last year or two, the assumption has been that this is something that’s going to impact every enterprise, and everybody should get ready. Yet, I’m hearing mostly this creeping in through packaged applications on a on-demand basis, SMBs, greenfield organizations, perhaps where high elasticity is a requirement.

What would be necessary for these cloud providers to be able to bring more of the core applications the large enterprises are looking for? What’s the new set of requirements? As I pointed out, we have had a general category of SaaS and development, elasticity, a handful of infrastructure services. What’s the next set of requirements that’s going to make it palatable for these core activities and these large enterprises to start doing this? Let me start with you, Penelope.

Gordon: It’s an interesting question and it was something that we were discussing in a session yesterday afternoon. Here is a gentleman from a large telecommunications company, and from his perspective, trust was a big issue. To him, part of it was just an immaturity of the market, specifically talking about what the new style of cloud is and that branding. Some of the aspects of cloud have been around for quite some time.

Look at Linux adoption as an analogy. A lot of companies started adopting Linux, but it was for peripheral applications and peripheral services, some web services that weren’t business critical. It didn’t really get into the core enterprise until much later.

We’re seeing some of that with cloud. It’s just a much bigger issue with cloud, especially as you start looking at providers wanting to moving up the food chain and providing greater value. This means that they have to have more industry knowledge and that they have to have more specialization. It becomes more difficult for large enterprises to trust a vendor to have that kind of knowledge.

No governance

Another aspect of what came up in the afternoon is that, at this point, while we talk about public cloud specifically, it’s not the same as saying it’s a public utility. We talk about “public utility,” but there is no governance, at this point, to say, “Here is certification that these companies have been tested to meet certain delivery standards.” Until that exists, it’s going to be difficult for some enterprises to get over that trust issue.

Gardner: Assuming that the trust and security issues are worked out over time, that experience leads to action, it leads to trust, it leads to adoption, and we have already seen that with SaaS applications. We’ve certainly seen it with the federal government, as Ed pointed out earlier.

Let’s just put that aside as one of the requirements that’s already on the drawing board and that we probably can put a checkmark next to at some point. What’s next? What about customization? What about heterogeneity? What about some of these other issues that are typical in IT, Mark Skilton?

Skilton: One of the under-played areas is PaaS. We hear about lock-in of technology caused by the use of the cloud, either putting too much data in or doing customization of parameters and you lose the elastic features of that cloud.

As to your question about what do vendors or providers need to do more to help the customer use the cloud, the two things we’re seeing are: one, more of an appliance strategy, where they can buy modular capabilities, so the licensing issue, solutioning issue, is more contained. The client can look at it more in a modular appliance sort of way. Think of it as cloud in a box.

The second thing is that we need to be seeing is much more offering transition services, transformation services, to accelerate the use of the cloud in a safe way, and I think that’s something that we need to really push hard to do. There’s a great quote from a client, “It’s not the destination, it’s the journey to the cloud that I need to see.”

Gardner: You mentioned PaaS. We haven’t seen too much yet with a full mature offering of the full continuum of PaaS to IaaS. That’s one where new application development activities and new integration activities would be built of, for, and by the cloud and coordinated between the dev and the ops, with the ops being any number of cloud models — on-premises, off-premises, co-lo, multi-tenancy, and so forth.

So what about that? Is that another requirement that there is continuity between the past and the infrastructure and deployment, Tom?

Plunkett: We’re getting there. PaaS is going to be a real requirement going forward, simply because that’s going to provide us the flexibility to reach some of those core applications that we were talking about before. The further you get away from the context, the more you’re focusing on what the business is really focused in on, and that’s going to be the core, which is going to require effective PaaS.

Gardner: TJ.

More regulatory

Virdi: I want to second that, but at the same time, we’re looking for more regulatory and other kind of licensing and configuration issues as well. Those also make it a little better to use the cloud. You don’t really have to buy, or you can go for the demand. You need to make your licenses a little bit better in such a way that you can just put the product or business solutions into the market, test the water, and then you can go further on that.

Gardner: Penelope, where do you see any benefit of having a coordinated or integrated platform and development test and deploy functions? Is that going to bring this to a more core usage in large enterprises?

Gordon: It depends. I see a lot more of the buying of cloud moving out to the non-IT line of business executives. If that accelerates, there is going to be less and less focus. Companies are really separating now what is differentiating and what is core to my business from the rest of it.

There’s going to be less emphasis on, “Let’s do our scale development on a platform level” and more, “Let’s really seek out those vendors that are going to enable us to effectively integrate, so we don’t have to do double entry of data between different solutions. Let’s look out for the solutions that allow us to apply the governance and that effectively let us tailor our experience with these solutions in a way that doesn’t impinge upon the provider’s ability to deliver in a cost effective fashion.”

That’s going to become much more important. So, a lot of the development onus is going to be on the providers, rather than on the actual buyers.

Gardner: Now, this is interesting. On one hand, we have non-IT people, business people, specifying, acquiring, and using cloud services. On the other hand we’re perhaps going to see more PaaS, the new application development, be it custom or more of a SaaS type of offering that’s brought in with a certain level of adjustment and integration. But, these are going off without necessarily any coordination. At some point, they are going to even come together. It’s inevitable, another “integrationness” perhaps.

Mark Skilton, is that what you see, that we have not just one cloud approach but multiple approaches and then some need to rationalize?

Skilton: There are two key points. There’s a missing architecture practice that needs to be there, which is a workers analysis, so that you design applications to fit specific infrastructure containers, and you’ve got a bridge between the the application service and the infrastructure service. There needs to be a piece of work by enterprise architects that starts to bring that together as a deliberate design for applications to be able to operate in the cloud, and the PaaS platform is a perfect environment.

The second thing is that there’s a lack of policy management in terms of technical governance, and because of the lack of understanding, there needs to be more of a matching exercise going on. The key thing is that that needs to evolve.

Part of the work we’re doing in The Open Group with the Cloud Computing Work Group is to develop new standards and methodologies that bridge those gaps between infrastructure, PaaS, platform development, and SaaS.

Gardner: We already have the Trusted Technology Forum. Maybe soon we’ll see an open trusted cloud technology forum.

Skilton: I hope so.

Gardner: Ed Harrington, you mentioned earlier that the role of the enterprise architect is going to benefit from cloud. Do you see what we just described in terms of dual tracks, multiple inception points, heterogeneity, perhaps overlap and redundancy? Is that where the enterprise architect flourishes?

Shadow IT

Harrington: I think we talked about line management IT getting involved in acquiring cloud services. If you think we’ve got this thing called “shadow IT” today, wait a few years. We’re going to have a huge problem with shadow IT.

From the architect’s perspective, there’s lot to be involved with and a lot to play with, as I said in my talk. There’s an awful lot of analysis to be done — what is the value that the cloud solution being proposed is going to be supplying to the organization in business terms, versus the risk associated with it? Enterprise architects deal with change, and that’s what we’re talking about. We’re talking about change, and change will inherently involve risk.

Gardner: TJ.

Virdi: All these business decisions are going to be coming upstream, and business executives need to be more aware about how cloud could be utilized as a delivery model. The enterprise architects and someone with a technical background needs to educate or drive them to make the right decisions and choose the proper solutions.

It has an impact how you want to use the cloud, as well as how you get out of it too, in case you want to move to different cloud vendors or providers. All those things come into play upstream rather than downstream.

Gardner: We all seem to be resigned to this world of, “Well, here we go again. We’re going to sit back and wait for all these different cloud things to happen. Then, we’ll come in, like the sheriff on the white horse, and try to rationalize.” Why not try to rationalize now before we get to that point? What could be done from an architecture standpoint to head off mass confusion around cloud? Let me start at one end and go down the other. Tom?

Plunkett: One word: governance. We talked about the importance of governance increasing as the IT industry went into SOA. Well, cloud is going to make it even more important. Governance throughout the lifecycle, not just at the end, not just at deployment, but from the very beginning.

Gardner: TJ.

Virdi: In addition to governance, you probably have to figure out how you want to plan to adapt to the cloud also. You don’t want to start as a Big Bang theory. You want to start in incremental steps, small steps, test out what you really want to do. If that works, then go do the other things after that.

Gardner: Penelope, how about following the money? Doesn’t where the money flows in and out of organizations tend to have a powerful impact on motivating people or getting them moving towards governance or not?

Gordon: I agree, and towards that end, it’s enterprise architects. Enterprise architects need to break out of the idea of focusing on how to address the boundary between IT and the business and talk to the business in business terms.

One way of doing that that I have seen as effective is to look at it from the standpoint of portfolio management. Where you were familiar with financial portfolio management, now you are looking at a service portfolio, as well as looking at your overall business and all of your business processes as a portfolio. How can you optimize at a macro level for your portfolio of all the investment decisions you’re making, and how the various processes and services are enabled? Then, it comes down to, as you said, a money issue.

Gardner: Perhaps one way to head off what we seem to think is an inevitable cloud chaos situation is to invoke more shared services, get people to consume services and think about how to pay for them along the way, regardless of where they come from and regardless of who specified them. So back to SOA, back to ITIL, back to the blocking and tackling that’s just good enterprise architecture. Anything to add to that, Mark?

Not more of the same

Skilton: I think it’s a mistake to just describe this as more of the same. ITIL, in my view, needs to change to take into account self-service dynamics. ITIL is kind of a provider service management process. It’s thing that you do to people. Cloud changes that direction to the other way, and I think that’s something that needs to be done.

Also, fundamentally the data center and network strategies need to be in place to adopt cloud. From my experience, the data center transformation or refurbishment strategies or next generation networks tend to be done as a separate exercise from the applications area. So a strong, strong recommendation from me would be to drive a clear cloud route map to your data center.

Gardner: So, perhaps a regulating effect on the self-selection of cloud services would be that the network isn’t designed for it and it’s not going to help.

Skilton: Exactly.

Gardner: That’s one way to govern your cloud. Ed Harrington, any other further thoughts on working towards a cloud future without the pitfalls?

Harrington: Again, the governance, certification of some sort. I’m not in favor of regulation, but I am in favor of some sort of third party certification of services that consumers can rely upon safely. But, I will go back to what I said earlier. It’s a combination of governance, treating the cloud services as services per se, and enterprise architecture.

Gardner: What about the notion that was brought up earlier about private clouds being an important on-ramp to this? If I were a public cloud provider, I would do my market research on what’s going on in the private clouds, because I think they are going to be incubators to what might then become hybrid and ultimately a full-fledged third-party public cloud providing assets and services.

What can we learn from looking at what’s going on with private cloud now, seemingly a lot of trying to reduce cost and energy consumption, but what does that tell us about what we should expect in the next few years? Again, let’s start with you, Tom.

Plunkett: What we’re seeing with private cloud is that it’s actually impacting governance, because one of the things that you look at with private cloud is chargeback between different internal customers. This is forcing these organizations to deal with complex money, business issues that they don’t really like to do.

Nowadays, it’s mostly vertical applications, where you’ve got one owner who is paying for everything. Now, we’re actually going back to, as we were talking about earlier, dealing with some of the tricky issues of SOA.

Gardner: TJ, private cloud as an incubator. What we should expect?

Securing your data

Virdi: Configuration and change management — how in the private cloud we are adapting to it and supporting different customer segments is really the key. This could be utilized in the public cloud too, as well as how you are really securing your information and data or your business knowledge. How you want to secure that is key, and that’s why the private cloud is there. If we can adapt to or mimic the same kind of controls in the public cloud, maybe we’ll have more adoptions in the public cloud too.

Gardner: Penelope, any thoughts on that, the private to public transition?

Gordon: I also look at it in a little different way. For example, in the U.S., you have the National Security Agency (NSA). For a lot of what you would think of as their non-differentiating processes, for example payroll, they can’t use ADP. They can’t use that SaaS for payroll, because they can’t allow the identities of their employees to become publicly known.

Anything that involves their employee data and all the rest of the information within the agency has to be kept within a private cloud. But, they’re actively looking at private cloud solutions for some of the other benefits of cloud.

In one sense, I look at it and say that private cloud adoption to me tells a provider that this is an area that’s not a candidate for a public-cloud solution. But, private clouds could also be another channel for public cloud providers to be able to better monetize what they’re doing, rather than just focusing on public cloud solutions.

Gardner: So, then, you’re saying this is a two-way street. Just as we could foresee someone architecting a good private cloud and then looking to take that out to someone else’s infrastructure, you’re saying there is a lot of public services that for regulatory or other reasons might then need to come back in and be privatized or kept within the walls. Interesting.

Mark Skilton, any thoughts on this public-private tension and/or benefit?

Skilton: I asked an IT service director the question about what was it like running a cloud service for the account. This is a guy who had previously been running hosting and management and with many years experience.

The surprising thing was that he was quite shocked that the disciplines that he previously had for escalating errors and doing planned maintenance, monitoring, billing and charging back to the customer fundamentally were changing, because it had to be done more in real time. You have to fix before it fails. You can’t just wait for it to fail. You have to have a much more disciplined approach to running a private cloud.

The lessons that we’re learning in running private clouds for our clients is the need to have a much more of a running-IT-as-a-business ethos and approach. We find that if customers try to do it themselves, either they may find that difficult, because they are used to buying that as a service, or they have to change their enterprise architecture and support service disciplines to operate the cloud.

Gardner: Perhaps yet another way to offset potential for cloud chaos in the future is to develop the core competencies within the private-cloud environment and do it sooner rather than later? This is where you can cut your teeth or get your chops, some number of metaphors come to mind, but this is something that sounds like a priority. Would you agree with that Ed, coming up with a private-cloud capability is important?

Harrington: It’s important, and it’s probably going to dominate for the foreseeable future, especially in areas that organizations view as core. They view them as core, because they believe they provide some sort of competitive advantage or, as Penelope was saying, security reasons. ADP’s a good idea. ADP could go into NSA and set up a private cloud using ADP and NSA. I think is a really good thing.

Trust a big issue

But, I also think that trust is still a big issue and it’s going to come down to trust. It’s going to take a lot of work to have anything that is perceived by a major organization as core and providing differentiation to move to other than a private cloud.

Gardner: TJ.

Virdi: Private clouds actually allow you to make more business modular. Your capability is going to be a little bit more modular and interoperability testing could happen in the private cloud. Then you can actually use those same kind of modular functions, utilize the public cloud, and work with other commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) vendors that really package this as new holistic solutions.

Gardner: Does anyone consider the impact of mergers and acquisitions on this? We’re seeing the economy pick up, at least in some markets, and we’re certainly seeing globalization, a very powerful trend with us still. We can probably assume, if you’re a big company, that you’re going to get bigger through some sort of merger and acquisition activity. Does a cloud strategy ameliorate the pain and suffering of integration in these business mergers, Tom?

Plunkett: Well, not to speak on behalf of Oracle, but we’ve gone through a few mergers and acquisitions recently, and I do believe that having a cloud environment internally helps quite a bit. Specifically, TJ made the earlier point about modularity. Well, when we’re looking at modules, they’re easier to integrate. It’s easier to recompose services, and all the benefits of SOA really.

Gardner: TJ, mergers and acquisitions in cloud.

Virdi: It really helps. At the same time, we were talking about legal and regulatory compliance stuff. EU and Japan require you to put the personally identifiable information (PII) in their geographical areas. Cloud could provide a way to manage those things without having the hosting where you have your own business.

Gardner: Penelope, any thoughts, or maybe even on a slightly different subject, of being able to grow rapidly vis-à-vis cloud experience and expertise and having architects that understand it?

Gordon: Some of this comes back to some of the discussions we were having about the extra discipline that comes into play, if you are going to effectively consume and provide cloud services, if you do become much more rigorous about your change management, your configuration management, and if you then apply that out to a larger process level.

So, if you define certain capabilities within the business in a much more modular fashion, then, when you go through that growth and add on people, you have documented procedures and processes. It’s much easier to bring someone in and say, “You’re going to be a product manager, and that job role is fungible across the business.”

That kind of thinking, the cloud constructs applied up at a business architecture level, enables a kind of business expansion that we are looking at.

Gardner: Mark Skilton, thoughts about being able to manage growth, mergers and acquisitions, even general business agility vis-à-vis more cloud capabilities.

Skilton: Right now, I’m involved in merging in a cloud company that we bought last year in May, and I would say yes and no. The no point is that I’m trying to bundle this service that we acquired in each product and with which we could add competitive advantage to the services that we are offering. I’ve had a problem with trying to bundle that into our existing portfolio. I’ve got to work out how they will fit and deploy in our own cloud. So, that’s still a complexity problem.

Faster launch

But, the upside is that I can bundle that service that we acquired, because we wanted to get that additional capability, and rewrite design techniques for cloud computing. We can then launch that bundle of new service faster into the market.

It’s kind of a mixed blessing with cloud. With our own cloud services, we acquire these new companies, but we still have the same IT integration problem to then exploit that capability we’ve acquired.

Gardner: That might be a perfect example of where cloud is or isn’t. When you run into the issue of complexity and integration, it doesn’t compute, so to speak.

Skilton: It’s not plug and play yet, unfortunately.

Gardner: Ed, what do you think about this growth opportunity, mergers and acquisitions, a good thing or bad thing?

Harrington: It’s a challenge. I think, as Mark presented it, it’s got two sides. It depends a lot on how close the organizations are, how close their service portfolios are, to what degree has each of the organizations adapted the cloud, and is that going to cause conflict as well. So I think there is potential.

Skilton: Each organization in the commercial sector can have different standards, and then you still have that interoperability problem that we have to translate to make it benefit, the post merger integration issue.

Gardner: We’ve been discussing the practical requirements of various cloud computing models, looking at core and context issues where cloud models would work, where they wouldn’t. And, we have been thinking about how we might want to head off the potential mixed bag of cloud models in our organizations and what we can do now to make the path better, but perhaps also make our organizations more agile, service oriented, and able to absorb things like rapid growth and mergers.

I’d like to thank you all for joining and certainly want to thank our guests. This is a sponsored podcast discussion coming to you from The Open Group’s 2011 Conference in San Diego. We’re here the week of February 7, 2011. A big thank you now to Penelope Gordon, cofounder of 1Plug Corporation. Thanks.

Gordon: Thank you.

Gardner: Mark Skilton, Director of Portfolio and Solutions in the Global Infrastructure Services with Capgemini. Thank you, Mark.

Skilton: Thank you very much.

Gardner: Ed Harrington, Principal Consultant in Virginia for the UK-based Architecting the Enterprise.

Harrington: Thank you, Dana.

Gardner: Tom Plunkett, Senior Solution Consultant with Oracle. Thank you.

Plunkett: Thank you, Dana.

Gardner: TJ Virdi, the Computing Architect in the CAS IT System Architecture group at Boeing.

Virdi: Thank you.

Gardner: I’m Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions. You’ve been listening to a sponsored BriefingsDirect podcast. Thanks for joining, and come back next time.

Copyright The Open Group and Interarbor Solutions, LLC, 2005-2011. All rights reserved.

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

Comments Off

Filed under Cloud/SOA, Enterprise Architecture

Cloud Conference — and Unconference

By Dr. Chris Harding, The Open Group

The Wednesday of The Open Group Conference in San Diego included a formal Cloud Computing conference stream. This was followed in the evening by an unstructured CloudCamp, which made an interesting contrast.

The Cloud Conference Stream

The Cloud conference stream featured presentations on Architecting for Cloud and Cloud Security, and included a panel discussion on the considerations that must be made when choosing a Cloud solution.

In the first session of the morning, we had two presentations on Architecting for Cloud. Both considered TOGAF® as the architectural context. The first, from Stuart Boardman of Getronics, explored the conceptual difference that Cloud makes to enterprise architecture, and the challenge of communicating an architecture vision and discussing the issues with stakeholders in the subsequent TOGAF® phases. The second, from Serge Thorn of Architecting the Enterprise, looked at the considerations in each TOGAF® phase, but in a more specific way. The two presentations showed different approaches to similar subject matter, which proved a very stimulating combination.

This session was followed by a presentation from Steve Else of EA Principals in which he shared several use cases related to Cloud Computing. Using these, he discussed solution architecture considerations, and put forward the lessons learned and some recommendations for more successful planning, decision-making, and execution.

We then had the first of the day’s security-related presentations. It was given by Omkhar Arasaratnam of IBM and Stuart Boardman of Getronics. It summarized the purpose and scope of the Security for the Cloud and SOA project that is being conducted in The Open Group as a joint project of The Open Group’s Cloud Computing Work Group, the SOA Work Group, and Security Forum. Omkhar and Stuart described the usage scenarios that the project team is studying to guide its thinking, the concepts that it is developing, and the conclusions that it has reached so far.

The first session of the afternoon was started by Ed Harrington, of Architecting the Enterprise, who gave an interesting presentation on current U.S. Federal Government thinking on enterprise architecture, showing clearly the importance of Cloud Computing to U.S. Government plans. The U.S. is a leader in the use of IT for government and administration, so we can expect that its conclusions – that Cloud Computing is already making its way into the government computing fabric, and that enterprise architecture, instantiated as SOA and properly governed, will provide the greatest possibility of success in its implementation – will have a global impact.

We then had a panel session, moderated by Dana Gardner with his usual insight and aplomb, that explored the considerations that must be made when choosing a Cloud solution — custom or shrink-wrapped — and whether different forms of Cloud Computing are appropriate to different industry sectors. The panelists represented different players in the Cloud solutions market – customers, providers, and consultants – so that the topic was covered in depth and from a variety of viewpoints. They were Penelope Gordon of 1Plug Corporation, Mark Skilton of Capgemini, Ed Harrington of Architecting the Enterprise, Tom Plunkett of Oracle, and TJ Virdi of the Boeing Company.

In the final session of the conference stream, we returned to the topic of Cloud Security. Paul Simmonds, a member of the Board of the Jericho Forum®, gave an excellent presentation on de-risking the Cloud through effective risk management, in which he explained the approach that the Jericho Forum has developed. The session was then concluded by Andres Kohn of Proofpoint, who addressed the question of whether data can be more secure in the Cloud, considering public, private and hybrid Cloud environment.

CloudCamp

The CloudCamp was hosted by The Open Group but run as a separate event, facilitated by CloudCamp organizer Dave Nielsen. There were around 150-200 participants, including conference delegates and other people from the San Diego area who happened to be interested in the Cloud.

Dave started by going through his definition of Cloud Computing. Perhaps he should have known better – starting a discussion on terminology and definitions can be a dangerous thing to do with an Open Group audience. He quickly got into a good-natured argument from which he eventually emerged a little bloodied, metaphorically speaking, but unbowed.

We then had eight “lightning talks”. These were five-minute presentations covering a wide range of topics, including how to get started with Cloud (Margaret Dawson, Hubspan), supplier/consumer relationship (Brian Loesgen, Microsoft), Cloud-based geographical mapping (Ming-Hsiang Tsou, San Diego University), a patterns-based approach to Cloud (Ken Klingensmith, IBM), efficient large-scale data processing (AlexRasmussen, San Diego University), using desktop spare capacity as a Cloud resource (Michael Krumpe, Intelligent Technology Integration), cost-effective large-scale data processing in the Cloud (Patrick Salami, Temboo), and Cloud-based voice and data communication (Chris Matthieu, Tropo).

The participants then split into groups to discuss topics proposed by volunteers. There were eight topics altogether. Some of these were simply explanations of particular products or services offered by the volunteers’ companies. Others related to areas of general interest such as data security and access control, life-changing Cloud applications, and success stories relating to “big data”.

I joined the groups discussing Cloud software development on Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Microsoft Azure. These sessions had excellent information content which would be valuable to anyone wishing to get started in – or already engaged in – software development on these platforms. They also brought out two points of general interest. The first is that the dividing line between IaaS and PaaS can be very thin. AWS and Azure are in theory on opposite sides of this divide; in practice they provide the developer with broadly similar capabilities. The second point is that in practice your preferred programming language and software environment is likely to be the determining factor in your choice of Cloud development platform.

Overall, the CloudCamp was a great opportunity for people to absorb the language and attitudes of the Cloud community, to discuss ideas, and to pick up specific technical knowledge. It gave an extra dimension to the conference, and we hope that this can be repeated at future events by The Open Group.

Cloud and SOA are a topic of discussion at The Open Group Conference, San Diego, which is currently underway.

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. Before joining The Open Group, he was a consultant, and a designer and development manager of communications software. With a PhD in mathematical logic, he welcomes the current upsurge of interest in semantic technology, and the opportunity to apply logical theory to practical use. He has presented at Open Group and other conferences on a range of topics, and contributes articles to on-line journals. He is a member of the BCS, the IEEE, and the AOGEA, and is a certified TOGAF® practitioner.

1 Comment

Filed under Cloud/SOA