Tag Archives: TOGAF

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

By The Open Group

This is part one in a two part series.

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

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

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

What are some of the latest trends you’re seeing in training today?

If I look at the kinds of things we’ve been helping people with, we definitely continue to do professional certifications like TOGAF®. It appears that the U.S. is still lagging behind Europe with penetration of TOGAF certifications. For example, the trend has been that the U.K. is number one in certifications and the U.S. is number two. Based on sheer numbers of workers, there should actually be far more people certified in the U.S., but that could be related to cultural differences in regional markets as related to certification.

Another trend we’re seeing a lot of is “How do I do this in the real world?” TOGAF intentionally does not go to the level of detail that prescribes how you really do things. Many practitioners are looking for more focused, detailed training specific to different Enterprise Architecture (EA) domains. APG does quite a bit of that with our enterprise clients to help institutionalize EA practices. There are also many tool vendors that provide tools to help accomplish EA tasks and we help with training on those.

We also find that there’s a need for balance between how much to train someone in terms of formal training vs. mentoring and coaching them. As a profession, we do a lot of classroom training, but we need to follow up more with how we’re going to apply it in the real world and in our environment with on-the-job training. Grasping the concepts in an instructor-led class isn’t the same as doing it for real, when trying to solve a problem you actually care about.

When people are interested in becoming Enterprise Architects, what kind of training should they pursue?

That’s a pretty compelling question as it has to do with the state of the architecture profession, which is still in its infancy. From a milestone perspective, it’s still hard to call Enterprise Architecture a “true” profession if you can’t get educated on it. With other professions—attorneys or medical doctors—you can go to an accredited university and get a degree or a master’s and participate in continuing education. There are some indicators that things are progressing though. Now there are master’s programs in Enterprise Architecture at institutions like Penn State. We’ve donated some of our architecture curriculum as a gift- in-kind to the program and have a seat on their corporate advisory board. It was pretty awesome to make that kind of contribution to support and influence their program.

We talk about this in our Enterprise Architecture training to help to make people aware of that milestone. However, do you think that getting a four-year degree in Computer Science or Math or Engineering and then going on to get a master’s is sufficient to be a successful Enterprise Architect? Absolutely not. So if that’s insufficient, we have to agree what additional experiences individuals should have in order to become Enterprise Architects.

It seems like we need the kind of post-graduate experience of a medical doctor where there’s an internship and a residency, based on on-the-ground experience in the real world with guidance from seasoned professionals. That’s been that approach to most professional trades—apprentice, journeyman, to master—they require on-the-job training. You become a master artisan after a certain period of time and experience. Now there are board-level certifications and some elements of a true profession, but we’re just not there yet in Enterprise Architecture. Len Fehskens at the Association of Enterprise Architects (AEA) has been working on this a lot recently. I think it’s still unclear what it will take to legitimize this as a profession, and while I’m not sure I know the answer, there may be some indicators to consider.

I think as Enterprise Architecture becomes more commonplace, there will be more of an expectation for it. Part of the uptake issue is that most people running today’s organizations likely have an MBA and when they got it 20, 30 or 40 years ago, EA was not recognized as a key business capability. Now that there are EA master’s programs, future MBA candidates will have been exposed to it in their education, which will remove some of the organizational barriers to adoption.

I think it will still be another 20 or 30 years for mass awareness. As more organizations become successful in showing how they have exploited Enterprise Architecture to deliver real business benefits (increased profitability and reduced risk), the call for qualified people will increase. And because of the consequences of the decisions Enterprise Architects are involved in, business leaders will want assurance that their people are qualified and have the requisite accreditation and experience that they’d expect from an attorney or doctor.

Maybe one other thing to call out—in order for us to overcome some of these barriers, we need to be thinking about what kind of education do we need to be providing our business leaders about Enterprise Architecture so that they are making the right kinds of investments. It’s not just Architect education that we need, but also business leader education.

What kind of architecture skills are most in demand right now?

Business Architecture has a lot of legs right now because it’s an essential part of the alignment with the business. I do see some risks of bifurcation between the “traditional” EA community and the emerging Business Architecture community. The business is enterprise, so it’s critical that the EA and BA communities are unified. There is more in common amongst us than differences as professionals, and I think there’s strength in numbers. And while Business Architecture seems to have some good velocity right now, at the end of the day you still need to be able to support your business with IT Architecture.

There is a trend coming up I do wonder about, which is related to Technology Architecture, as it’s known in TOGAF. Some people may also call it Infrastructure Architecture. With the evolution of cloud as a platform, it’s becoming in my mind—and this might be just because I’m looking at it from the perspective of a start-up IT company with APG—it’s becoming less and less of an issue to have to care as much about the technology and the infrastructure because in many cases people are making investments in these platforms where that’s taken care of by other people. I don’t want to say we don’t care at all about the technology, but a lot of the challenges organizations have of standardizing on technology to make sure that things can be easily sustainable from a cost and risk perspective, many of those may change when more and more organizations start putting things in the cloud, so it could possibly mean that a lot of the investments that organizations have made in technical architecture could become less important.

Although, that will have to be compensated for from a different perspective, particularly an emerging domain that some people call Integration Architecture. And that also applies to Application Architecture as well—as many organizations move away from custom development to packaged solutions and SaaS solutions, when they think about where they want to make investments, it may be that when all these technologies and application offerings are being delivered to us via the cloud, we may need to focus more on how they’re integrated with one another.

But there’s still obviously a big case for the entirety of the discipline—Enterprise Architecture—and really being able to have that clear line of sight to the business.

What are some of the options currently available for ongoing continuing education for Enterprise Architects?

The Association of Enterprise Architects (AEA) provides a lot of programs to help out with that by supplementing the ecosystem with additional content. It’s a blend between formal classroom training and conference proceedings. We’re doing a monthly webinar series with the AEA entitled “Building an Architecture Platform,” which focuses on how to establish capabilities within the organization to deliver architecture services. The topics are about real-world concerns that have to do with the problems practitioners are trying to address. Complementing professional skills development with these types of offerings is another part of the APG approach.

One of the things APG is doing, and this is a project we’re working on with others at The Open Group, is defining an Enterprise Architecture capability model. One of the things that capability model will be used for is to decide where organizations need to make investments in education. The current capability model and value chain that we have is pretty broad and has a lot of different dimensions to it. When I take a look at it and think “How do people do those things?” I see an opportunity for education and development. Once we continue to elaborate the map of things that comprise Enterprise Architecture, I think we’ll see a lot of opportunity for getting into a lot of different dimensions of how Enterprise Architecture affects an organization.

And one of the things we need to think about is how we can deliver just-in-time training to a diverse, global community very rapidly and effectively. Exploiting online learning management systems and remote coaching are some of the avenues that APG is pursuing.

Are there particular types of continuing education programs that EAs should pursue from a career development standpoint?

One of the things I’ve found interesting is that I’ve seen a number of my associates in the profession going down the MBA path. My sense is that that’s a representation of an interest in understanding better how the business executives see the enterprise from their world and to help perhaps frame the question “How can I best anticipate and understand where they’re coming from so that I can more effectively position Enterprise Architecture at a different level?” So that’s cross-disciplinary training. Of course that makes a lot of sense, because at the end of the day, that’s what Enterprise Architecture is all about—how to exploit the synergy that exists within an enterprise. A lot of times that’s about going horizontal within the organization into places where people didn’t necessarily think you had any business in. So raising that awareness and understanding of the relevance of EA is a big part of it.

Another thing that certainly is driving many organizations is regulatory compliance, particularly general risk management. A lot of organizations are becoming aware that Enterprise Architecture plays an essential role in supporting that. Getting cross-training in those related disciplines would make a lot of sense. At the end of the day, those parts of an organizations typically have a lot more authority, and consequently, a lot more funding and money than Enterprise Architecture does, because the consequence of non-conformance is very punitive—the pulling of licenses to operate, heavy fines, bad publicity. We’re just not quite there that if an organization were to not do “good” on Enterprise Architecture, that it’d become front-page news in The New York Times. But when someone steals 30 million cardholders’ personal information, that does become headline news and the subject of regulatory punitive damages. And not to say that Enterprise Architecture is the savior of all things, but it is well-accepted within the EA community that Enterprise Architecture is an essential part of building an effective governance and a regulatory compliance environment.

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

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

Join the conversation!  @theopengroup #ogchat

Leave a comment

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

A Historical Look at Enterprise Architecture with John Zachman

By The Open Group

John Zachman’s Zachman Framework is widely recognized as the foundation and historical basis for Enterprise Architecture. On Tuesday, Feb. 3, during The Open Group’s San Diego 2015 event, Zachman will be giving the morning’s keynote address entitled “Zachman on the Zachman Framework and How it Complements TOGAF® and Other Frameworks.”

We recently spoke to Zachman in advance of the event about the origins of his framework, the state of Enterprise Architecture and the skills he believes EAs need today.

As a discipline, Enterprise Architecture is still fairly young. It began getting traction in the mid to late 1980s after John Zachman published an article describing a framework for information systems architectures in the IBM Systems Journal. Zachman said he lived to regret initially calling his framework “A Framework for Information Systems Architecture,” instead of “Enterprise Architecture” because the framework actually has nothing to do with information systems.

Rather, he said, it was “A Framework for Enterprise Architecture.” But at the time of publication, the idea of Enterprise Architecture was such a foreign concept, Zachman said, that people didn’t understand what it was. Even so, the origins of his ontological framework were already almost 20 years old by the time he first published them.

In the late 1960s, Zachman was working as an account executive in the Marketing Division of IBM. His account responsibility was working with the Atlantic Richfield Company (better known as ARCO). In 1969, ARCO had just been newly formed out of the merger of three separate companies, Atlantic Refining out of Philadelphia and Richfield in California, which merged and then bought Sinclair Oil in New York in 1969.

“It was the biggest corporate merger in history at the time where they tried to integrate three separate companies into one company. They were trying to deal with an enterprise integration issue, although they wouldn’t have called it that at the time,” Zachman said.

With three large companies to merge, ARCO needed help in figuring out how to do the integration. When the client asked Zachman how they should handle such a daunting task, he said he’d try to get some help. So he turned to a group within IBM called the Information Systems Control and Planning Group and the group’s Director of Architecture, Dewey Walker, for guidance.

Historically, when computers were first used in commercial applications, there already were significant “Methods and Procedures” systems communities in most large organizations whose job was to formalize many manual systems in order to manage the organization, Zachman said. When computers came on the scene, they were used to improve organizational productivity by replacing the people performing the organizations’ processes. However, because manual systems defined and codified organizational responsibilities, when management made changes within an organization, as they often did, it would render the computer systems obsolete, which required major redevelopment.

Zachman recalled Walker’s observation that “organizational responsibilities” and “processes” were two different things. As such, he believed systems should be designed to automate the process, not to encode the organizational responsibilities, because the process and the organization changed independently from one another. By separating these two independent variables, management could change organizational responsibilities without affecting or changing existing systems or the organization. Many years later, Jim Champy and Mike Hammer popularized this notion in their widely read 1991 book, “Reengineering the Corporation,” Zachman said.

According to Zachman, Walker created a methodology for defining processes as separate entities from the organizational structure. Walker came out to Los Angeles, where Zachman and ARCO were based to help provide guidance on the merger. Zachman recalls Walker telling him that the key to defining the systems for Enterprise purposes was in the data, not necessarily the process itself. In other words, the data across the company needed to be normalized so that they could maintain visibility into the assets and structure of the enterprise.

“The secret to this whole thing lies in the coding and the classification of the data,” Zachman recalled Walker saying. Walker’s methodology, he said, began by classifying data by its existence not by its use.

Since all of this was happening well before anyone came up with the concept of data modeling, there were no data models from which to design their system. “Data-oriented words were not yet in anyone’s vocabulary,” Zachman said. Walker had difficulty articulating his concepts because the words he had at his disposal were inadequate, Zachman said.

Walker understood that to have structural control over the enterprise, they needed to look at both processes and data as independent variables, Zachman said. That would provide the flexibility and knowledge base to accommodate escalating change. This was critical, he said, because the system is the enterprise. Therefore, creating an integrated structure of independent variables and maintaining visibility into that structure are crucial if you want to be able to manage and change it. Otherwise, he says, the enterprise “disintegrates.”

Although Zachman says Walker was “onto this stuff early on,” Walker eventually left IBM, leaving Zachman with the methodology Walker had named “Business Systems Planning.” (Zachman said Walker knew that it wasn’t just about the information systems, but about the business systems.) According to Zachman, he inherited Walker’s methodology because he’d been working closely with Walker. “I was the only person that had any idea what Dewey was doing,” he said.

What he was left with, Zachman says, was what today he would call a “Row 1 methodology”—or the “Executive Perspective” and the “Scope Contexts” in what would eventually become his ontology.

According to Zachman, Walker had figured out how to transcribe enterprise strategy in such a fashion that engineering work could be derived from it. “What we didn’t know how to do,” Zachman said, “was to transform the strategy (Zachman Framework Row 1), which tends to be described at a somewhat abstract level of definition into the operating Enterprise (Row 6), which was comprised of very precise instructions (explicit or implicit) for behavior of people and/or machines.”

Zachman said that they knew that “Architecture” had something to do with the Strategy to Instantiation transformation logic but they didn’t know what architecture for enterprises was in those days. His radical idea was to ask someone who did architecture for things like buildings, airplanes, locomotives, computers or battleships. What the architecture was for those Industrial Age products. Zachman believed if he could find out what they thought architecture was for those products, he might be able to figure out what architecture was for enterprises and thereby figure out how to transform the strategy into the operating enterprise to align the enterprise implementation with the strategy.

With this in mind, Zachman began reaching out to people in other disciplines to see how they put together things like buildings or airplanes. He spoke to an architect friend and also to some of the aircraft manufacturers that were based in Southern California at the time. He began gathering different engineering specs and studying them.

One day while he was sitting at his desk, Zachman said, he began sorting the design artifacts he’d collected for buildings and airplanes into piles. Suddenly he noticed there was something similar in how the design patterns were described.

“Guess what?” he said. “The way you describe buildings is identical to the way you describe airplanes, which turns out to be identical to the way you describe locomotives, which is identical to the way you describe computers. Which is identical to the way you describe anything else that humanity has ever described.”

Zachman says he really just “stumbled across” the way to describe the enterprise and attributes his discovery to providence, a miracle! Despite having kick-started the discipline of Enterprise Architecture with this recognition, Zachman claims he’s “actually not very innovative,” he said.

“I just saw the pattern and put enterprise names on it,” he said

Once he understood that Architectural design descriptions all used the same categories and patterns, he knew that he could also define Architecture for Enterprises. All it would take would be to apply the enterprise vocabulary to the same pattern and structure of the descriptive representations of everything else.

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

Thus the Zachman Framework was born.

Ontology vs. Methodology

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

“Architecture is architecture is architecture. My framework is just the definition and structure of the descriptive representation for enterprises,” he said.

That’s where methodologies, such as TOGAF®, an Open Group standard, DoDAF or other methodological frameworks come in. To create and execute an Architecture, practitioners need both the ontology—to help them define, translate and place structure around the enterprise descriptive representations—and they need a methodology to populate and implement it. Both are needed—it’s an AND situation, not an OR, he said. The methodology simply needs to use (or reuse) the ontological constructs in creating the implementation instantiations in order for the enterprise to be “architected.”

The Need for Architecture

Unfortunately, Zachman says, there are still a lot of companies today that don’t understand the need to architect their enterprise. Enterprise Architecture is simply not on the radar of general management in most places.

“It’s not readily acknowledged on the general management agenda,” Zachman said.

Instead, he says, most companies focus their efforts on building and running systems, not engineering the enterprise as a holistic unit.

“We haven’t awakened to the concept of Enterprise Architecture,” he says. “The fundamental reason why is people think it takes too long and it costs too much. That is a shibboleth – it doesn’t take too long or cost too much if you know what you’re doing and have an ontological construct.”

Zachman believes many companies are particularly guilty of this type of thinking, which he attributes to a tendency to think that there isn’t any work being done unless the code is up and running. Never mind all the work it took to get that code up and running in the first place.

“Getting the code to run, I’m not arguing against that, but it ought to be in the context of the enterprise design. If you’re just providing code, you’re going to get exactly what you have right now—code. What does that have to do with management’s intentions or the Enterprise in its entirety?”

As such, Zachman compares today’s enterprises to log cabins rather than skyscrapers. Many organizations have not gotten beyond that “primitive” stage, he says, because they haven’t been engineered to be integrated or changed.

According to Zachman, the perception that Enterprise Architecture is too costly and time consuming must change. And, people also need to stop thinking that Enterprise Architecture belongs solely under the domain of IT.

“Enterprise Architecture is not about building IT models. It’s about solving general management problems,” he said. “If we change that perception, and we start with the problem and we figure out how to solve that problem, and then, oh by the way we’re doing Architecture, then we’re going to get a lot of Architecture work done.”

Zachman believes one way to do this is to build out the Enterprise Architecture iteratively and incrementally. By tackling one problem at a time, he says, general management may not even need to know whether you’re doing Enterprise Architecture or not, as long as their problem is being solved. The governance system controls the architectural coherence and integration of the increments. He expects that EA will trend in that direction over the next few years.

“We’re learning much better how to derive immediate value without having the whole enterprise engineered. If we can derive immediate value, that dispels the shibboleth—the misperception that architecture takes too long and costs too much. That’s the way to eliminate the obstacles for Enterprise Architecture.”

As far as the skills needed to do EA into the future, Zachman believes that enterprises will eventually need to have multiple types of architects with different skill sets to make sure everything is aligned. He speculates that someday, there may need to be specialists for every cell in the framework, saying that there is potentially room for a lot of specialization and people with different skill sets and a lot of creativity. Just as aircraft manufacturers need a variety of engineers—from aeronautic to hydraulic and everywhere in between—to get a plane built. One engineer does not engineer the entire airplane or a hundred-story building or an ocean liner, or, for that matter, a personal computer. Similarly, increasingly complex enterprises will likely need multiple types of engineering specialties. No one person knows everything.

“Enterprises are far more complex than 747s. In fact, an enterprise doesn’t have to be very big before it gets really complex,” he said. “As enterprise systems increase in size, there is increased potential for failure if they aren’t architected to respond to that growth. And if they fail, the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of thousand of people can be affected, particularly if it’s a public sector Enterprise.”

Zachman believes it may ultimately take a generation or two for companies to understand the need to better architect the way they run. As things are today, he says, the paradigm of the “system process first” Industrial Age is still too ingrained in how systems are created. He believes it will be a while before that paradigm shifts to a more Information Age-centric way of thinking where the enterprise is the object rather than the system.

“Although this afternoon is not too early to start working on it, it is likely that it will be the next generation that will make Enterprise Architecture an essential way of life like it is for buildings and airplanes and automobiles and every other complex object,” he said.

By The Open GroupJohn A. Zachman, Founder & Chairman, Zachman International, Executive Director of FEAC Institute, and Chairman of the Zachman Institute

Join the conversation – @theopengroup, #ogchat, #ogSAN

1 Comment

Filed under Enterprise Architecture, Standards, TOGAF®, Uncategorized

The Open Group Executive Round Table Event at Mumbai

By Bala Peddigari, Head – HiTech TEG and Innovation Management, Tata Consultancy Services Limited

The Open Group organized the Executive Round Table Event at Taj Lands End in Mumbai on November 12, 2014. The goal was to brief industry executives on how The Open Group can help in promoting Enterprise Architecture within the organization, and how it helps to stay relevant to the Indianized context in realizing and bringing in positive change. Executives from the Government of Maharastra, Reserve Bank of India, NSDL, Indian Naval Service, SVC Bank, Vodafone, SVC Bank, SP Jain Institute, Welingkar Institute of Management, VSIT,Media Lab Asia, Association of Enterprise Architects (AEA), Computer Society of India and others were present.

By Bala PeddigariJames de Raeve, Vice President, Certification of The Open Group introduced The Open Group to the executives and explained the positive impact it is creating in driving Enterprise Architecture. He noted most of the EA functions, Work Groups and Forums are driven by the participating companies and Architects associated with them. James revealed facts stating that India is in fourth position in TOGAF® certification and Bangalore is second only to London. He also discussed the newest Forum, The Open Group IT4IT™ Forum and its objective to solve some of the key business problems and build Reference Architecture for managing the business of IT.  The mission of The Open Group IT4IT Forum is to develop, evolve and drive the adoption of the vendor-neutral IT4IT Reference Architecture.

Rajesh Aggarwal, Principal Secretary IT, Government of Maharashtra, attended the Round Table and shared his view on how Enterprise Architecture can help some of the key Government initiatives drive citizen-centric change. An example he used is the change in policies for senior citizens who seek pension. They show up every November at the bank to identify themselves for Life Certificate to continue getting pension. This process can be simplified through IT. He used an excellent analogy of making phone calls to have pizza delivered from Pizza Hut and consumer goods from Flipkart. Similarly his vision is to get Smart and Digital Governance where citizens can call and get the services at their door.

MumbaiRajeesh Aggarwal

70886-uppalJason Uppal, Chief Architect (Open CA Level 3 Certified), QR Systems in Canada presented a session on “Digital Economy and Enterprise Architecture”. Jason emphasized the need for Enterprise Architecture and why now in the networked and digital economy you need intent but not money to drive change. He also shared his thoughts on tools for this new game – Industrial Engineering and Enterprise Architecture focus to improve the performance capabilities across the value chain. Jason explained how EA can help in building the capability in the organization, defined value chain leveraging EA capabilities and transforming enterprise capabilities to apply those strategies. The key performance indicators of Enterprise Architecture can be measured through Staff Engagement, Time and Cost, Project Efficiency, Capability Effectiveness, Information Quality which explains the maturity of Enterprise Architecture in the organization. During his talk, Jason brought out many analogies to share his own experiences where Enterprise Architecture simplified and brought in much transformation in Healthcare. Jason shared an example of Carlos Ghosn who manages three companies worth $140 billion USD. He explains further the key to his success is to protect his change-agents and provide them the platform and opportunity to experiment. Enterprise Architecture is all about people who make it happen and bring impact.

The heart of the overall Executive Round Table Event was a panel session on “Enterprise Architecture in India Context”. Panelists were Jason Uppal, Rakhi Gupta from TCS and myself who shared perspectives on the following questions:

  1. Enterprise Architecture and Agile – Do they complement?
  2. How are CIOs seeing Enterprise Architecture when compared to other CXOs?
  3. I have downloaded TOGAF, what should I do next?
  4. How is Enterprise Architecture envisioned in the next 5 years?
  5. How can Enterprise Architecture help the “Make in India” initiative?
  6. Should Enterprise Architecture have a course in academics for students?

I explained how Enterprise Architecture is relevant in academics and how it can enable the roots to build agile-based system to quickly respond to the changes. I also brought in my perspective how Enterprise Architecture can show strengths while covering the weaknesses. Furthermore, TOGAF applies and benefits the context of the Indian future economy. Jason explained the change in dynamics in the education system to build a query-based learning approach to find and use. Rakhi shared her thoughts based on experience associated with Department of Posts Transformation keeping a citizen-centric Enterprise Architecture approach.

Overall, it has created a positive wave of understanding the importance of Enterprise Architecture and applying the TOGAF knowledge consistently to pave the road for the future. The event was well organized by Abraham Koshy and team, with good support from CSI Mumbai and AEA Mumbai chapters.

By Bala PeddigariBala Prasad Peddigari has worked with Tata Consultancy Services Limited for over 15 years. Bala practices Enterprise Architecture and evangelizes platform solutions, performance and scalable architectures and Cloud technology initiatives within TCS.  He heads the Technology Excellence Group for HiTech Vertical. Bala drives the architecture and technology community initiatives within TCS through coaching, mentoring and grooming techniques.

Bala has a Masters in Computer Applications from University College of Engineering, Osmania. He is an Open Group Master IT Certified Architect and serves as a Board Member in The Open Group Certifying Authority. He received accolades for his cloud architectural strengths and published his papers in IEEE.  Bala is a regular speaker in Open Group and technology events and is a member of The Open Group Open Platform 3.0™.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Accreditations, architecture, Certifications, Cloud, Conference, Enterprise Architecture, Open CA, Open CITS, Open Platform 3.0, Standards, TOGAF, TOGAF®

TOGAF® 9 Certification Growth

By Andrew Josey, The Open Group, Director of Standards

Number of individuals certified continues to increase over past 12 months – now 37,800

The number of individuals certified in the TOGAF® 9 certification program as of November 21, 2014 is 37,800. This represents over 10,000 new certifications in the past twelve-month period. TOGAF continues to be adopted globally with certified individuals from over 100 different countries.

The certifications for the period ending October 1, 2014 are shown in the figure below:

By Andrew Josey

The top five countries are UK, USA, Netherlands, India and Australia.

Individuals certified by Country – TOP 10 Countries – October 2014

Rank # Individuals Country Percentage
1 5350 UK 14.68%
2 4488 USA 12.32%
3 3056 Netherlands 8.39%
4 2835 India 7.78%
5 2264 Australia 6.21%
6 1641 Canada 4.5%
7 1305 France 3.58%
8 1272 South Africa 3.07%
9 1117 China 3.07%
10 984 Finland 2.7%

 

An interactive map showing detailed information on the number of certifications is available at http://www.togaf.info/togaf-visualmap.html

TOGAF Visual Heat map Oct 1 2014

There are over 50 accredited TOGAF 9 training course providers worldwide. More information on TOGAF 9 Certification, including the directory of Certified People and official accredited training course calendar, can be obtained from The Open Group website at: http://www.opengroup.org/togaf9/cert.

By Andrew JoseyAndrew Josey is Director of Standards within The Open Group. He is currently managing the standards process for The Open Group, and has recently led the standards development projects for TOGAF® 9.1, ArchiMate® 2.0, IEEE Std 1003.1-2008 (POSIX), and the core specifications of the Single UNIX® Specification, Version 4. Previously, he has led the development and operation of many of The Open Group certification development projects, including industry-wide certification programs for the UNIX system, the Linux Standard Base, TOGAF, and IEEE POSIX. He is a member of the IEEE, USENIX, UKUUG, and the Association of Enterprise Architects.

 

 

 

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under Certifications, Standards, TOGAF, TOGAF®, Uncategorized

Business Benefit from Public Data

By Dr. Chris Harding, Director for Interoperability, The Open Group

Public bodies worldwide are making a wealth of information available, and encouraging its commercial exploitation. This sounds like a bonanza for the private sector at the public expense, but entrepreneurs are holding back. A healthy market for products and services that use public-sector information would provide real benefits for everyone. What can we do to bring it about?

Why Governments Give Away Data

The EU directive of 2003 on the reuse of public sector information encourages the Member States to make as much information available for reuse as possible. This directive was revised and strengthened in 2013. The U.S. Open Government Directive of 2009 provides similar encouragement, requiring US government agencies to post at least three high-value data sets online and register them on its data.gov portal. Other countries have taken similar measures to make public data publicly available.

Why are governments doing this? There are two main reasons.

One is that it improves the societies that they serve and the governments themselves. Free availability of information about society and government makes people more effective citizens and makes government more efficient. It illuminates discussion of civic issues, and points a searchlight at corruption.

The second reason is that it has a positive effect on the wealth of nations and their citizens. The EU directive highlights the ability of European companies to exploit the potential of public-sector information, and contribute to economic growth and job creation. Information is not just the currency of democracy. It is also the lubricant of a successful economy.

Success Stories

There are some big success stories.

If you drive a car, you probably use satellite navigation to find your way about, and this may use public-sector information. In the UK, for example, map data that can be used by sat-nav systems is supplied for commercial use by a government agency, the Ordnance Survey.

When you order something over the web for delivery to your house, you often enter a postal code and see most of the address auto-completed by the website. Postcode databases are maintained by national postal authorities, which are generally either government departments or regulated private corporations, and made available by them for commercial use. Here, the information is not directly supporting a market, but is contributing to the sale of a range of unrelated products and services.

The data may not be free. There are commercial arrangements for supply of map and postcode data. But it is available, and is the basis for profitable products and for features that make products more competitive.

The Bonanza that Isn’t

These successes are, so far, few in number. The economic benefits of open government data could be huge. The McKinsey Global Institute estimates a potential of between 3 and 5 trillion dollars annually. Yet the direct impact of Open Data on the EU economy in 2010, seven years after the directive was issued, is estimated by Capgemini at only about 1% of that, although the EU accounts for nearly a quarter of world GDP.

The business benefits to be gained from using map and postcode data are obvious. There are other kinds of public sector data, where the business benefits may be substantial, but they are not easy to see. For example, data is or could be available about public transport schedules and availability, about population densities, characteristics and trends, and about real estate and land use. These are all areas that support substantial business activity, but businesses in these areas seldom make use of public sector information today.

Where are the Products?

Why are entrepreneurs not creating these potentially profitable products and services? There is one obvious reason. The data they are interested in is not always available and, where it is available, it is provided in different ways, and comes in different formats. Instead of a single large market, the entrepreneur sees a number of small markets, none of which is worth tackling. For example, the market for an application that plans public transport journeys across a single town is not big enough to justify substantial investment in product development. An application that could plan journeys across any town in Europe would certainly be worthwhile, but is not possible unless all the towns make this data available in a common format.

Public sector information providers often do not know what value their data has, or understand its applications. Working within tight budgets, they cannot afford to spend large amounts of effort on assembling and publishing data that will not be used. They follow the directives but, without common guidelines, they simply publish whatever is readily to hand, in whatever form it happens to be.

The data that could support viable products is not available everywhere and, where it is available, it comes in different formats. (One that is often used is PDF, which is particularly difficult to process as an information source.) The result is that the cost of product development is high, and the expected return is low.

Where is the Market?

There is a second reason why entrepreneurs hesitate. The shape of the market is unclear. In a mature market, everyone knows who the key players are, understands their motivations, and can predict to some extent how they will behave. The market for products and services based on public sector information is still taking shape. No one is even sure what kinds of organization will take part, or what they will do. How far, for example, will public-sector bodies go in providing free applications? Can large corporations buy future dominance with loss-leader products? Will some unknown company become an overnight success, like Facebook? With these unknowns, the risks are very high.

Finding the Answers

Public sector information providers and standards bodies are tackling these problems. The Open Group participates in SHARE-PSI, the European network for the exchange of experience and ideas around implementing open data policies in the public sector. The experience gained by SHARE-PSI will be used by the World-Wide Web Consortium as a basis for standards and guidelines for publication of public sector information. These standards and guidelines may be used, not just by the public sector, but by not-for-profit bodies and even commercial corporations, many of which have information that they want to make freely available.

The Open Group is making a key contribution by helping to map the shape of the market. It is using the Business Scenario technique from its well-known Enterprise Architecture methodology TOGAF® to identify the kinds of organization that will take part, and their objectives and concerns.

There will be a preview of this on October 22 at The Open Group event in London which will feature a workshop session on Open Public Sector Data. This workshop will look at how Open Data can help business, present a draft of the Business Scenario, and take input from participants to help develop its conclusions.

The developed Business Scenario will be presented at the SHARE-PSI workshop in Lisbon on December 3-4. The theme of this workshop is encouraging open data usage by commercial developers. It will bring a wide variety of stakeholders together to discuss and build the relationship between the public and private sectors. It will also address, through collaboration with the EU LAPSI project, the legal framework for use of open public sector data.

Benefit from Participation!

If you are thinking about publishing or using public-sector data, you can benefit from these workshops by gaining an insight into the way that the market is developing. In the long term, you can influence the common standards and guidelines that are being developed. In the short term, you can find out what is happening and network with others who are interested.

The social and commercial benefits of open public-sector data are not being realized today. They can be realized through a healthy market in products and services that process the data and make it useful to citizens. That market will emerge when public bodies and businesses clearly understand the roles that they can play. Now is the time to develop that understanding and begin to profit from it.

Register for The Open Group London 2014 event at http://www.opengroup.org/london2014/registration.

Find out how to participate in the Lisbon SHARE-PSI workshop at http://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/workshop/lisbon/#Participation

 

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

Comments Off

Filed under big data, Cloud, digital technologies, Enterprise Architecture, Open Platform 3.0, TOGAF®, Uncategorized

The Open Group London 2014: Open Platform 3.0™ Panel Preview with Capgemini’s Ron Tolido

By The Open Group

The third wave of platform technologies is poised to revolutionize how companies do business not only for the next few years but for years to come. At The Open Group London event in October, Open Group CTO Dave Lounsbury will be hosting a panel discussion on how The Open Group Open Platform 3.0™ will affect Enterprise Architectures. Panel speakers include IBM Vice President and CTO of U.S. Federal IMT Andras Szakal and Capgemini Senior Vice President and CTO for Application Services Ron Tolido.

We spoke with Tolido in advance of the event about the progress companies are making in implementing third platform technologies, the challenges facing the industry as Open Platform 3.0 evolves and the call to action he envisions for The Open Group as these technologies take hold in the marketplace.

Below is a transcript of that conversation.

From my perspective, we have to realize: What is the call to action that we should have for ourselves? If we look at the mission of Boundaryless Information Flow™ and the need for open standards to accommodate that, what exactly can The Open Group and any general open standards do to facilitate this next wave in IT? I think it’s nothing less than a revolution. The first platform was the mainframe, the second platform was the PC and now the third platform is anything beyond the PC, so all sorts of different devices, sensors and ways to access information, to deploy solutions and to connect. What does it mean in terms of Boundaryless Information Flow and what is the role of open standards to make that platform succeed and help companies to thrive in such a new world?

That’s the type of call to action I’m envisioning. And I believe there are very few Forums or Work Groups within The Open Group that are not affected by this notion of the third platform. Firstly, I believe an important part of the Open Platform 3.0 Forum’s mission will be to analyze, to understand, the impacts of the third platform, of all those different areas that we’re evolving currently in The Open Group, and, if you like, orchestrate them a bit or be a catalyst in all the working groups and forums.

In a blog you wrote this summer for Capgemini’s CTO Blog you cited third platform technologies as being responsible for a renewed interest in IT as an enabler of business growth. What is it about the Third Platform is driving that interest?

It’s the same type of revolution as we’ve seen with the PC, which was the second platform. A lot of people in business units—through the PC and client/server technologies and Windows and all of these different things—realized that they could create solutions of a whole new order. The second platform meant many more applications, many more uses, much more business value to be achieved and less direct dependence on the central IT department. I think we’re seeing a very similar evolution right now, but the essence of the move is not that it moves us even further away from central IT but it puts the power of technology right in the business. It’s much easier to create solutions. Nowadays, there are many more channels that are so close in business that it takes business people to understand them. This explains also why business people like the third platform so much—it’s the Cloud, it’s mobile, social, it’s big data, all of these are waves that bring technology closer to the business, and are easy to use with very apparent business value that haven’t seen before, certainly not in the PC era. So we’re seeing a next wave, almost a revolution in terms of how easy it is to create solutions and how widely spread these solutions can be. Because again, as with the PC, it’s many more applications yet again and many more potential uses that can be connected through these applications, so that’s the very nature of the revolution and that also explains why business people like the third platform so much. So what people say to me these days on the business side is ‘We love IT, it’s just these bloody IT people that are the problem.’

Due to the complexities of building the next wave of platform computing, do you think that we may hit a point of fatigue as companies begin to tackle everything that is involved in creating that platform and making it work together?

The way I see it, that’s still the work of the IT community and the Enterprise Architect and the platform designer. It’s the very nature of the platform is that it’s attractive to use it, not to build it. The very nature of the platform is to connect to it and launch from it, but building the platform is an entirely different story. I think it requires platform designers and Enterprise Architects, if you like, and people to do the plumbing and do the architecting and the design underneath. But the real nature of the platform is to use it and to build upon it rather than to create it. So the happy view is that the “business people” don’t have to construct this.

I do believe, by the way, that many of the people in The Open Group will be on the side of the builders. They’re supposed to like complexity and like reducing it, so if we do it right the users of the platform will not notice this effort. It’s the same with the Cloud—the problem with the Cloud nowadays is that many people are tempted to run their own clouds, their own technologies, and before they know it, they only have additional complexity on their agenda, rather than reduced, because of the Cloud. It’s the same with the third platform—it’s a foundation which is almost a no-brainer to do business upon, for the next generation of business models. But if we do it wrong, we only have additional complexity on our hands, and we give IT a bad name yet again. We don’t want to do that.

What are Capgemini customers struggling with the most in terms of adopting these new technologies and putting together an Open Platform 3.0?

What you currently see—and it’s not always good to look at history—but if you look at the emergence of the second platform, the PC, of course there were years in which central IT said ‘nobody needs a PC, we can do it all on the mainframe,’ and they just didn’t believe it and business people just started to do it themselves. And for years, we created a mess as a result of it, and we’re still picking up some of the pieces of that situation. The question for IT people, in particular, is to understand how to find this new rhythm, how to adopt the dynamics of this third platform while dealing with all the complexity of the legacy platform that’s already there. I think if we are able to accelerate creating such a platform—and I think The Open Group will be very critical there—what exactly should be in the third platform, what type of services should you be developing, how would these services interact, could we create some set of open standards that the industry could align to so that we don’t have to do too much work in integrating all that stuff. If we, as The Open Group, can create that industry momentum, that, at least, would narrow the gap between business and IT that we currently see. Right now IT’s very clearly not able to deliver on the promise because they have their hands full with surviving the existing IT landscape, so unless they do something about simplifying it on the one hand and bridging that old world with the new one, they might still be very unpopular in the forthcoming years. That’s not what you want as an IT person—you want to enable business and new business. But I don’t think we’ve been very effective with that for the past ten years as an industry in general, so that’s a big thing that we have to deal with, bridging the old world with the new world. But anything we can do to accelerate and simplify that job from The Open Group would be great, and I think that’s the very essence of where our actions would be.

What are some of the things that The Open Group, in particular, can do to help affect these changes?

To me it’s still in the evangelization phase. Sooner or later people have to buy it and say ‘We get it, we want it, give me access to the third platform.’ Then the question will be how to accelerate building such an actual platform. So the big question is: What does such a platform look like? What types of services would you find on such a platform? For example, mobility services, data services, integration services, management services, development services, all of that. What would that look like in a typical Platform 3.0? Maybe even define a catalog of services that you would find in the platform. Then, of course, if you could use such a catalog or shopping list, if you like, to reach out to the technology suppliers of this world and convince them to pick that up and gear around these definitions—that would facilitate such a platform. Also maybe the architectural roadmap—so what would an architecture look like and what would be the typical five ways of getting there? We have to start with your local situation, so probably also several design cases would be helpful, so there’s an architectural dimension here.

Also, in terms of competencies, what type of competencies will we need in the near future to be able to supply these types of services to the business? That’s, again, very new—in this case, IT Specialist Certification and Architect Certification. These groups also need to think about what are the new competencies inherent in the third platform and how does it affect things like certification criteria and competency profiles?

In other areas, if you look at TOGAF®, and Open Group standard, is it really still suitable in fast paced world of the third platform or do we need a third platform version of TOGAF? With Security, for example, there are so many users, so many connections, and the activities of the former Jericho Forum seem like child’s play compared to what you will see around the third platform, so there’s no Forum or Work Group that’s not affected by this Open Platform 3.0 emerging.

With Open Platform 3.0 touching pretty much every aspect of technology and The Open Group, how do you tackle that? Do you have just an umbrella group for everything or look at it through the lens of TOGAF or security or the IT Specialist? How do you attack something so large?

It’s exactly what you just said. It’s fundamentally my belief that we need to do both of these two things. First, we need a catalyst forum, which I would argue is the Open Platform 3.0 Forum, which would be the catalyst platform, the orchestration platform if you like, that would do the overall definitions, the call to action. They’ve already been doing the business scenarios—they set the scene. Then it would be up to this Forum to reach out to all the other Forums and Work Groups to discuss impact and make sure it stays aligned, so here we have an orchestration function of the Open Platform 3.0 Forum. Then, very obviously, all the other Work Groups and Forums need to pick it up and do their own stuff because you cannot aspire to do all of this with one and the same forum because it’s so wide, it’s so diverse. You need to do both.

The Open Platform 3.0 Forum has been working for a year and a half now. What are some of the things the Forum has accomplished thus far?

They’ve been particularly working on some of the key definitions and some of the business scenarios. I would say in order to create an awareness of Open Platform 3.0 in terms of the business value and the definitions, they’ve done a very good job. Next, there needs to be a call to action to get everybody mobilized and setting tangible steps toward the Platform 3.0. I think that’s currently where we are, so that’s good timing, I believe, in terms of what the forum has achieved so far.

Returning to the mission of The Open Group, given all of the awareness we have created, what does it all mean in terms of Boundaryless Information Flow and how does it affect the Forums and Work Groups in The Open Group? That’s what we need to do now.

What are some of the biggest challenges that you see facing adoption of Open Platform 3.0 and standards for that platform?

They are relatively immature technologies. For example, with the Cloud you see a lot of players, a lot of technology providers being quite reluctant to standardize. Some of them are very open about it and are like ‘Right now we are in a niche, and we’re having a lot of fun ourselves, so why open it up right now?’ The movement would be more pressure from the business side saying ‘We want to use your technology but only if you align with some of these emerging standards.’ That would do it or certainly help. This, of course, is what makes The Open Group as powerful as not only technology providers, but also businesses, the enterprises involved and end users of technology. If they work together and created something to mobilize technology providers, that would certainly be a breakthrough, but these are immature technologies and, as I said, with some of these technology providers, it seems more important to them to be a niche player for now and create their own market rather than standardizing on something that their competitors could be on as well.

So this is a sign of a relatively immature industry because every industry that starts to mature around certain topics begins to work around open standards. The more mature we grow in mastering the understanding of the Open Platform 3.0, the more you will see the need for standards arise. It’s all a matter of timing so it’s not so strange that in the past year and a half it’s been very difficult to even discuss standards in this area. But I think we’re entering that era really soon, so it seems to be good timing to discuss it. That’s one important limiting area; I think the providers are not necessarily waiting for it or committed to it.

Secondly, of course, this is a whole next generation of technologies. With all new generations of technologies there are always generation gaps and people in denial or who just don’t feel up to picking it up again or maybe they lack the energy to pick up a new wave of technology and they’re like ‘Why can’t I stay in what I’ve mastered?’ All very understandable. I would call that a very typical IT generation gap that occurs when we see the next generation of IT emerge—sooner or later you get a generation gap, as well. Which has nothing to do with physical age, by the way.

With all these technologies converging so quickly, that gap is going to have to close quickly this time around isn’t it?

Well, there are still mainframes around, so you could argue that there will be two or even three speeds of IT sooner or later. A very stable, robust and predictable legacy environment could even be the first platform that’s more mainframe-oriented, like you see today. A second wave would be that PC workstation, client/server, Internet-based IT landscape, and it has a certain base and certain dynamics. Then you have this third phase, which is the new platform, that is more dynamic and volatile and much more diverse. You could argue that there might be within an organization multiple speeds of IT, multiple speeds of architectures, multi-speed solutioning, and why not choose your own speed?

It probably takes a decade or more to really move forward for many enterprises.

It’s not going as quickly as the Gartners of this world typically thinks it is—in practice we all know it takes longer. So I don’t see any reason why certain people wouldn’t certainly choose deliberately to stay in second gear and don’t go to third gear simply because they think it’s challenging to be there, which is perfectly sound to me and it would bring a lot of work in many years to companies.

That’s an interesting concept because start-ups can easily begin on a new platform but if you’re a company that has been around for a long time and you have existing legacy systems from the mainframe or PC era, those are things that you have to maintain. How do you tackle that as well?

That’s a given in big enterprises. Not everybody can be a disruptive start up. Maybe we all think that we should be like that but it’s not the case in real life. In real life, we have to deal with enterprise systems and enterprise processes and all of them might be very vulnerable to this new wave of challenges. Certainly enterprises can be disruptive themselves if they do it right, but there are always different dynamics, and, as I said, we still have mainframes, as well, even though we declared their ending quite some time ago. The same will happen, of course, to PC-based IT landscapes. It will take a very long time and will take very skilled hands and minds to keep it going and to simplify.

Having said that, you could argue that some new players in the market obviously have the advantage of not having to deal with that and could possibly benefit from a first-mover advantage where existing enterprises have to juggle several balls at the same time. Maybe that’s more difficult, but of course enterprises are enterprises for a good reason—they are big and holistic and mighty, and they might be able to do things that start-ups simply can’t do. But it’s a very unpredictable world, as we all realize, and the third platform brings a lot of disruptiveness.

What’s your perspective on how the Internet of Things will affect all of this?

It’s part of the third platform of course, and it’s something Andras Szakal will be addressing as well. There’s much more coming, both at the input sites, everything is becoming a sensor essentially to where even your wallpaper or paint is a sensor, but on the other hand, in terms of devices that we use to communicate or get information—smart things that whisper in your ears or whatever we’ll have in the coming years—is clearly part of this Platform 3.0 wave that we’ll have as we move away from the PC and the workstation, and there’s a whole bunch of new technologies around to replace it. The Internet of Things is clearly part of it, and we’ll need open standards as well because there are so many different things and devices, and if you don’t create the right standards and platform services to deal with it, it will be a mess. It’s an integral part of the Platform 3.0 wave that we’re seeing.

What is the Open Platform 3.0 Forum going to be working on over the next few months?

Understanding what this Open Platform 3.0 actually means—I think the work we’ve seen so far in the Forum really sets the way in terms of what is it and definitions are growing. Andras will be adding his notion of the Internet of Things and looking at definitions of what is it exactly. Many people already intuitively have an image of it.

The second will be how we deliver value to the business—so the business scenarios are a crucial thing to consider to see how applicable they are, how relevant they are to enterprises. The next thing to do will pertain to work that still needs to be done in The Open Group, as well. What would a new Open Platform 3.0 architecture look like? What are the platform services? What are the ones we can start working on right now? What are the most important business scenarios and what are the platform services that they will require? So architectural impacts, skills impacts, security impacts—as I said, there are very few areas in IT that are not touched by it. Even the new IT4IT Forum that will be launched in October, which is all about methodologies and lifecycle, will need to consider Agile, DevOps-related methodologies because that’s the rhythm and the pace that we’ve got to expect in this third platform. So the rhythm of the working group—definitions, business scenarios and then you start to thinking about what does the platform consist of, what type of services do I need to create to support it and hopefully by then we’ll have some open standards to help accelerate that thinking to help enterprises set a course for themselves. That’s our mission as The Open Group to help facilitate that.

Tolido-RonRon Tolido is Senior Vice President and Chief Technology Officer of Application Services Continental Europe, Capgemini. He is also a Director on the board of The Open Group and blogger for Capgemini’s multiple award-winning CTO blog, as well as the lead author of Capgemini’s TechnoVision and the global Application Landscape Reports. As a noted Digital Transformation ambassador, Tolido speaks and writes about IT strategy, innovation, applications and architecture. Based in the Netherlands, Mr. Tolido currently takes interest in apps rationalization, Cloud, enterprise mobility, the power of open, Slow Tech, process technologies, the Internet of Things, Design Thinking and – above all – radical simplification.

 

 

Comments Off

Filed under architecture, Boundaryless Information Flow™, Certifications, Cloud, digital technologies, Enterprise Architecture, Future Technologies, Information security, Internet of Things, Open Platform 3.0, Security, Service Oriented Architecture, Standards, TOGAF®, Uncategorized

Now is the Time for Third Generation Enterprise Architecture Methods

By Erwin Oord, Principal Consultant Enterprise Architecture and Managing Partner at Netherlands-based ArchiXL Consultancy

Common methods for Enterprise Architecture used at present have been around for ages already. Although these methods have made a strong contribution to the development of the architecture discipline, they have reached the limits of their abilities. It is time to make a leap forward and for that we need a new generation of architecture methods. What characterizes architecture methods of this new generation?

Architects currently working with methods like TOGAF®, an Open Group standard, DYA or IAF might not realize it, but these methods stem from the early days of the architecture discipline. DYA originated in 2001 and the first version of TOGAF dates back to even 1995! Of course, these architecture methods are not dinosaurs that forgot to extinct. TOGAF produces new versions that are the result of lively discussion at The Open Group.

But an architecture method is like a car model. With annual facelifts you can adjust to the latest fashion, but you cannot hide the fact that the basic product reflects the spirit of the time in which it was developed. Car models, including those of the better car brands, reach their end after a decade or so. The automotive industry is used to this and knows that this cycle requires high investments, but also brings new opportunities. Enterprise Architecture is no different!

Let’s take a look back in history. The notion of Enterprise Architecture emerged in the mid-eighties. In that period, people like Zachman discovered that systems development models together create a coherent view on the enterprise. Thus arose the first architectural frameworks. This is the first generation of architecture methods, although a “method” was barely recognized.

The need for a repeatable process to develop and use architecture models emerged in the nineties. This is the time when the famous TOGAF Architecture Development Method came about, later followed by the concept of the strategic dialogue in DYA. This process-oriented approach to Enterprise Architecture was a great leap forward. We can therefore speak of a second generation of architecture methods.

A shocking discovery is that since then not much more has happened. Of course, methods have evolved with the addition of reference models and techniques for creating models. The underlying content frames have improved, now including architectural principles and implementation aspects. But all this is merely facelifting. We are still working with basic designs dating back more than a decade.

In order to make a leap forward again, we must escape the current process orientation. Instead of focusing on a fixed process to develop and use architecture, we must focus on the results of architecture. But that is only possible when we realize architecture is not a process in itself but an aspect of the overall change process in an organization. After all, governments and companies are constantly changing. An architecture method should therefore not be self-contained, but should be fully integrated in the change process.

A third generation architecture method has no fixed processes but focuses on essential architecture tasks, and integrates these tasks in the change methodology used by the organization. It provides a limited set of clearly defined architectural products that can be used directly in the change process. And it recognizes clearly defined roles that, depending on the situation, can be assigned to the right stakeholders. And that is certainly not always the Enterprise Architect. The key of a third generation Enterprise Architecture method is not the method itself but the way it is integrated into the organization.

OordErwin Oord, Principal Consultant Enterprise Architecture and Managing Partner at Netherlands based ArchiXL consultancy, has a rich experience in applying and customising Enterprise Architecture methods in both public sector and business organisations. Being co-author of a successful (Dutch) guide on selecting appropriate architecture methods, he is frequently asked for setting up an architecture practice or advancing architecture maturity stages in organisations. In his assignments, he focuses on effective integration of architecture with business and organisation change management.

7 Comments

Filed under Enterprise Architecture, Standards, TOGAF®, Uncategorized