Tag Archives: TOGAF

The Open Group and APMG Work Together to Promote TOGAF® and ArchiMate®

The APM Group (APMG) and The Open Group have announced a new partnership whereby APMG will support the accreditation services of The Open Group’s products. The arrangement will initially focus on TOGAF® and ArchiMate®, both standards of The Open Group.

APMG’s team of global assessors will be supporting The Open Group’s internal accreditation team in conducting their assessment activities. The scope of the assessments will focus on organizations, materials and training delivery.

“A significant value to The Open Group in this new venture is the ability to utilize APMG’s team of experienced multi-lingual assessors who are based throughout the world.  This will help The Open Group establish new markets and ensure quality support of existing markets, “ said James de Raeve, Vice President of Certification at The Open Group.

Richard Pharro, CEO of APMG said, “This agreement presents an excellent opportunity to APMG Accredited Training Organizations which are interested in training in The Open Group’s products, as their existing APMG accredited status will be recognized by The Open Group. We believe our global network will significantly enhance the awareness and take up of TOGAF and ArchiMate.”

About The Open Group

The Open Group is an international vendor- and technology-neutral consortium upon which organizations rely to lead the development of IT standards and certifications, and to provide them with access to key industry peers, suppliers and best practices. The Open Group provides guidance and an open environment in order to ensure interoperability and vendor neutrality. Further information on The Open Group can be found at http://opengroup.org.

About APM Group

The APM Group is one of the world’s largest certification bodies for knowledge based workers. As well as the certifications mentioned above, we offer competency-based assessments for specialist roles in the security and aerospace industries. We work with government agencies to help develop people who can achieve great things for the organizations they work for.

4 Comments

Filed under ArchiMate®, Certifications, Professional Development, Standards, TOGAF®

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

By The Open Group

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments Off

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

What I learnt at The Open Group Bangalore Conference last weekend

By Sreekanth Iyer, Executive IT Architect, IBM

It was quite a lot of learning on a Saturday attending The Open Group conference at Bangalore. Actually it was a two day program this year. I could not make it on Friday because of other work commitments. I heard from the people who attended that it was a great session on Friday. At least I knew about a fellow IBMer Jithesh Kozhipurath’s presentation on Friday. I’d the chance to look at that excellent material on applying TOGAF® practices for integrated IT Operations Enterprise Architecture which was his experience sharing of the lab infra optimization work that he was leading.

I started bit late on Saturday, thinking it was happening at the Leela Palace which was near to my home (Ah.. that was in 2008) Realized late that it was at the Philips Innovation Campus at Manyata. But managed to reach just on time before the start of the sessions.

The day started with an Architecture as a Service discussion. The presentation was short but there were lot of interesting questions and interactions post the session.  I was curious know more about the “self-service” aspect on that topic.

Then we had Jason Uppal of ClinicialMessage Inc. on stage (see picture below) , who gave a wonderful presentation on the human touch to the architecture and how to leverage EA to make disruptive changes without disrupting the working systems.

Jason bangaloreLots of take-aways from the session. Importantly the typical reasons why certain Architectures can fail… caused many a times we have a solution already in our mind and we are trying to fit that into the requirement. And most of these times if we look at the Requirements artifact we will be see that the problems are not rightly captured. Couldn’t agree more with the good practices that he discussed.

Starting with  “Identifying the Problem Right” – I thought that is definitely the first and important step in Architecture.  Then Jason talked about significance of communicating and engaging people and stakeholders in the architecture — point that he drove home with a good example from the health care industry. He talked about the criticality of communicating and engaging the stakeholders — engagement of course improves quality. Building the right levers in the architecture and solving the whole problem were some of the other key points that I noted down. More importantly the key message was as Architects, we have to go beyond drawing the lines and boxes to deliver the change, may be look to deliver things that can create an impact in 30 days balancing the short term and long term goals.

I got the stage for couple of minutes to update on the AEA Bangalore Chapter activities. My request to the attendees was to leverage the chapter for their own professional development – using that as a platform to share expertise, get answers to queries, connect with other professionals of similar interest and build the network. Hopefully will see more participation in the Bangalore chapter events this year.

On the security track, had multiple interesting sessions. Began with Jim Hietala of The Open Group discussing the Risk Management Framework. I’ve been attending a course on the subject. But this one provided a lot of insight on the taxonomy (O-RT) and the analysis part – more of taking a quantitative approach than a qualitative approach. Though the example was based on risks with regard to laptop thefts, there is no reason we can’t apply the principles to real issues like quantifying the threats for moving workloads to cloud. (that’s another to-do added to my list).

Then it was my session on the Best practices for moving workloads to cloud for Indian Banks. Talked about the progress so far with the whitepaper. The attendees were limited as there was Jason’s EA workshop happening in parallel. But those who attended were really interested in the subject. We did have a good discussion on the benefits, challenges and regulations with regard to the Indian Banking workloads and their movement to cloud.  We discussed few interesting case studies. There are areas that need more content and I’ve requested the people who attended the session to participate in the workgroup. We are looking at getting a first draft done in the next 30 days.

Finally, also sat in the presentation by Ajit A. Matthew on the security implementation at Intel. Everywhere the message is clear. You need to implement context based security and security intelligence to enable the new age innovation but at the same time protect your core assets.

It was a Saturday well spent. Added had some opportunities to connect with few new folks and understand their security challenges with cloud.  Looking to keep the dialog going and have an AEA Bangalore chapter event sometime during Q1. In that direction, I took the first step to write this up and share with my network.

Event Details:
The Open Group Bangalore, India
January 24-25, 2014

Sreekanth IyerSreekanth Iyer is an Executive IT Architect in IBM Security Systems CTO office and works on developing IBM’s Cloud Security Technical Strategy. He is an Open Group Certified Distinguished Architect and is a core member of the Bangalore Chapter of the Association of Enterprise Architects. He has over 18 years’ industry experience and has led several client solutions across multiple industries. His key areas of work include Information Security, Cloud Computing, SOA, Event Processing, and Business Process management. He has authored several technical articles, blogs and is a core contributor to multiple Open Group as well as IBM publications. He works out of the IBM India Software Lab Bangalore and you can follow him on Twitter @sreek.

Comments Off

Filed under Conference, Enterprise Architecture, Healthcare, TOGAF®

The Open Group London – Day Two Highlights

By Loren K. Baynes, Director, Global Marketing Communications

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

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

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

IMG_sudburyDr. Peter Sudbury

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments Off

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

The Open Group London 2013 – Day One Highlights

By Loren K. Baynes, Director, Global Marketing Communications

On Monday October 21st, The Open Group kicked off the first day of our Business Transformation conference in London!  Over 275 guests attended many engaging presentations by subject matter experts in finance, healthcare and government.  Attendees from around the globe represented 28 countries including those from as far away as Columbia, Philippines, Australia, Japan and South Africa.

Allen Brown, President and CEO of The Open Group, welcomed the prestigious group.  Allen announced that The Open Group has 67 new member organizations so far this year!

The plenary launched with “Just Exactly What is Going On in Business and Technology?” by Andy Mulholland, Former Global CTO of Capgemini, who was named one of the top 25 influential CTOs by InfoWorld.  Andy’s key topics regarding digital disruption included real drivers of change, some big and fundamental implications, business model innovation, TOGAF® and the Open Platform 3.0™ initiative.

Next up was Judith Jones, CEO, Architecting the Enterprise Ltd., with a presentation entitled “One World EA Framework for Governments – The Way Forward”.  Judith shared findings from the World Economic Forum, posing the question “what keeps 1000 global leaders awake at night”? Many stats were presented with over 50 global risks – economical, societal, environmental, geopolitical and technological.

Jim Hietala, VP, Security of The Open Group announced the launch of the Open FAIR Certification for People Program.  The new program brings a much-needed certification to the market which focuses on risk analysis. Key partners include CXOWARE, Architecting the Enterprise, SNA Technologies and The Unit bv.

Richard Shreeve, Consultancy Director, IPL and Angela Parratt, Head of Transformation and joint CIO, Bath and North East Somerset Council presented “Using EA to Inform Business Transformation”.  Their case study addressed the challenges of modeling complexity in diverse organizations and the EA-led approach to driving out cost and complexity while maintaining the quality of service delivery.

Allen Brown announced that the Jericho Forum® leaders together with The Open Group management have concluded that the Jericho Forum has achieved its original mission – to establish “de-perimeterization” that touches all areas of modern business.  In declaring this mission achieved, we are now in the happy position to celebrate a decade of success and move to ensuring that the legacy of the Jericho Forum is both maintained within The Open Group and continues to be built upon.  (See photo below.)

Following the plenary, the sessions were divided into tracks – Finance/Commerce, Healthcare and Tutorials/Workshops.

During the Healthcare track, one of the presenters, Larry Schmidt, Chief Technologist with HP, discussed “Challenges and Opportunities for Big Data in Healthcare”. Larry elaborated on the 4 Vs of Big Data – value, velocity, variety and voracity.

Among the many presenters in the Finance/Commerce track, Omkhar Arasaratnam, Chief Security Architect, TD Bank Group, Canada, featured “Enterprise Architecture – We Do That?: How (not) to do Enterprise Architecture at a Bank”.  Omkhar provided insight as to how he took traditional, top down, center-based architectural methodologies and applied it to a highly federated environment.

Tutorials/workshops consisted of EA Practice and Architecture Methods and Techniques.

You can view all of the plenary and many of the track presentations at livestream.com.  For those who attended, please stay tuned for the full conference proceedings.

The evening concluded with a networking reception at the beautiful and historic and Central Hall Westminster.  What an interesting, insightful, collaborative day it was!

IMG_1311

Comments Off

Filed under Business Architecture, Certifications, Cloud, Cloud/SOA, Conference, Cybersecurity, Information security, Open Platform 3.0, Professional Development, RISK Management, Security Architecture, Standards, TOGAF®

New Brunswick Leverages TOGAF®

The OCIO of GNB Announces an Ambitious EA Roadmap using TOGAF® and Capability-Based Thinking

On Wednesday September 25th, the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) for the Government of New Brunswick (GNB) held an Enterprise Architecture (EA) Symposium for the vendor community at the Delta Fredericton. This event drew well over a hundred plus attendees from the vendor community across the province, the Atlantic area and parts of Canada.

During this event, Christian Couturier, GNB CIO, announced an EA roadmap across the domains of Information, Application, Technology and Security; areas of mandate for the OCIO. He presented a vision for transformation at GNB that would make its departments more efficient and effective by standardizing their practice and services around TOGAF® and capability-based thinking. Christian also shed valuable insights into how the vendor community can engage with GNB and support the OCIO for their EA vision and roadmap.

TOGAF® and capability-based thinking were prominent themes throughout the symposium and were alluded to and shown throughout the presentation by Christian and his extended EA team. The OCIO has also created a strong governance structure that positions itself as an influential stakeholder in provisioning solutions across its domains. In the near term, vendors will need to show how their solutions not only meet functional requirements but demonstrate improvement in capability performance explicitly. This will help GNB to improve the definition and management of contracts with third party vendors.

Each Architecture Domain Chief presented the roadmap for their area in breakout sessions and answered questions from vendors. These sessions offered further insight into the EA roadmap and impact on particular areas within GNB such as current efforts being made in Service Oriented Architecture.

Here is a summary of the benefits Christian Couturier strived to achieve:

  • Improve transparency and accountability of investment in information technology across government departments
  • Rationalize portfolios of technologies and applications across GNB departments
  • Improve GNB’s ability to respond to citizen needs faster and more cost effectively
  • Develop internal resource competencies for achieving self-sufficiency

QRS has been working with the OCIO and GNB departments since March 2013 to enhance their TOGAF and capability-based thinking competencies. QRS will continue to work with the OCIO and GNB and look forward to their successes as both a corporate citizen and individual residents that benefit from its services.

Originally posted on the QRS blog. See http://www.qrs3e.com/gnb_ocio_togaf/

Christian CouturierChristian Couturier is Chief Information Officer of the Government of New Brunswick (GNB) which leads, enables and oversees the Information Management and Information Communication Technology (IM&ICT) investments for the enterprise.  Christian’s leadership has been recognized by several awards including Canada’s “Top 40 Under 40.” His research team’s success continues to be celebrated through many international, national and local awards including the 2007 Canadian Information Productivity Awards (CIPA) Gold Award of Excellence for innovation in the Health Care Sector.

LinkedIn Profile <http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/christian-couturier/46/b55/713/>

1 Comment

Filed under Enterprise Architecture, Service Oriented Architecture, Standards, TOGAF®

Redefining traceability in Enterprise Architecture and implementing the concept with TOGAF 9.1 and/or ArchiMate 2.0

By Serge Thorn, Architecting the Enterprise

One of the responsibilities of an Enterprise Architect is to provide complete traceability from requirements analysis and design artefacts, through to implementation and deployment.

Along the years, I have found out that the term traceability is not always really considered in the same way by different Enterprise Architects.

Let’s start with a definition of traceability. Traceable is an adjective; capable of being traced. Trying to find a definition even from a dictionary is a challenge and the most relevant one I found on Wikipedia which may be used as a reference could be “The formal definition of traceability is the ability to chronologically interrelate uniquely identifiable entities in a way that is verifiable.”

In Enterprise Architecture, traceability may mean different things to different people.

Some people refer to

  • Enterprise traceability which proves alignment to business goals
  • End-to-end traceability to business requirements and processes
  • A traceability matrix, the mapping of systems back to capabilities or of system functions back to operational activities
  • Requirements traceability which  assists  in quality  solutions that meets the business needs
  • Traceability between requirements and TOGAF artifacts
  • Traceability across artifacts
  • Traceability of services to business processes and architecture
  • Traceability from application to business function to data entity
  • Traceability between a technical component and a business goal
  • Traceability of security-related architecture decisions
  • Traceability of IT costs
  • Traceability to tests scripts
  • Traceability between  artifacts from business and IT strategy to solution development and delivery
  • Traceability from the initial design phase through to deployment
  • And probably more

The TOGAF 9.1 specification rarely refers to traceability and the only sections where the concept is used are in the various architecture domains where we should document a requirements traceability report or traceability from application to business function to data entity.

The most relevant section is probably where in the classes of architecture engagement it says:

“Using the traceability between IT and business inherent in enterprise architecture, it is possible to evaluate the IT portfolio against operational performance data and business needs (e.g., cost, functionality, availability, responsiveness) to determine areas where misalignment is occurring and change needs to take place.”

And how do we define and document Traceability from an end user or stakeholder perspective? The best approach would probably to use a tool which would render a view like in this diagram:

serge1In this diagram, we show the relationships between the components from the four architecture domains. Changing one of the components would allow doing an impact analysis.

Components may have different meanings as illustrated in the next diagram:

serge2Using the TOGAF 9.1 framework, we would use concepts of the Metamodel. The core metamodel entities show the purpose of each entity and the key relationships that support architectural traceability as stipulated in the section 34.2.1 Core Content Metamodel Concepts.

So now, how do we build that traceability? This is going to happen along the various ADM cycles that an enterprise will support. It is going to be quite a long process depending on the complexity, the size and the various locations where the business operates.

There may be five different ways to build that traceability:

  • Manually using an office product
  • With an enterprise architecture tool not linked to the TOGAF 9.1 framework
  • With an enterprise architecture tool using the TOGAF 9.1 artifacts
  • With an enterprise architecture tool using ArchiMate 2.0
  • Replicating the content of an Enterprise Repository such as a CMDB in an Architecture repository

1. Manually using an office product

You will probably document your architecture with the use of word processing, spread sheets and diagramming tools and store these documents in a file structure on a file server, ideally using some form of content management system.

Individually these tools are great but collectively they fall short in forming a cohesive picture of the requirements and constraints of a system or an enterprise. The links between these deliverables soon becomes non manageable and in the long term impact analysis of any change will become quite impossible. Information will be hard to find and to trace from requirements all the way back to the business goal that drives it. This is particularly difficult to achieve when requirements are stored in spread sheets and use cases and business goals are contained in separate documents. Other issues such as maintenance and consistency would have to be considered.

serge3

2. With an enterprise architecture tool not linked to the TOGAF 9.1 framework

Many enterprise architecture tools or suites provide different techniques to support traceability but do not really describe how things work and focus mainly on describing requirements traceability.  In the following example, we use a traceability matrix between user requirements and functional specifications, use cases, components, software artifacts, test cases, business processes, design specifications and more.

Mapping the requirements to use cases and other information can be very labor-intensive.

serge4

Some tools also allow for the creation of relationships between the various layers using grids or allowing the user to create the relationships by dragging lines between elements.

Below is an example of what traceability would look like in an enterprise architecture tool after some time.  That enterprise architecture ensures appropriate traceability from business architecture to the other allied architectures.

serge5

3. With an enterprise architecture tool using the TOGAF 9.1 artifacts

The TOGAF 9.1 core metamodel provides a minimum set of architectural content to support traceability across artifacts. Usually we use catalogs, matrices and diagrams to build traceability independently of dragging lines between elements (except possibly for the diagrams). Using catalogs and matrices are activities which may be assigned to various stakeholders in the organisation and theoretically can sometimes hide the complexity associated with an enterprise architecture tool.

serge6Using artifacts creates traceability. As an example coming from the specification; “A Business Footprint diagram provides a clear traceability between a technical component and the business goal that it satisfies, while also demonstrating ownership of the services identified”. There are other artifacts which also describe other traceability: Data Migration Diagram and Networked Computing/Hardware Diagram.

4. With an enterprise architecture tool using ArchiMate 2.0

Another possibility could be the use of the ArchiMate standard from The Open Group. Some of the that traceability could  also be achievable in some way using BPMN and UML for specific domains such as process details in Business Architecture or building the bridge between Enterprise Architecture and Software architecture.

With ArchiMate 2.0 we can define the end to end traceability and produce several viewpoints such as the Layered Viewpoint which shows several layers and aspects of an enterprise architecture in a single diagram. Elements are modelled in five different layers when displaying the enterprise architecture; these are then linked with each other using relationships. We differentiate between the following layers and extensions:

  • Business layer
  • Application layer
  • Technology layer
  • Motivation extension
  • Implementation and migration extension

The example from the specification below documents the various architecture layers.

serge7
As you will notice, this ArchiMate 2.0 viewpoint looks quite similar to the TOGAF 9.1 Business Footprint Diagram which provides a clear traceability between a technical component and the business goal that it satisfies, while also demonstrating ownership of the services identified.

Another example could be the description of the traceability among business goals, technical capabilities, business benefits and metrics.  The key point about the motivation extension is to work with the requirement object.

Using the motivation viewpoint from the specification as a reference (motivation extension), you could define business benefits / expectations within the business goal object, and then define sub-goals as KPIs to measure the benefits of the plan and list all of the identified requirements of the project / program.  Finally, you could link these requirements with either application or infrastructure service object representing software or technical capabilities. (Partial example below).

serge8
One of the common questions I have recently received from various enterprise architects is “Now that I know TOGAF and ArchiMate… how should I model my enterprise? Should I use the TOGAF 9.1 artifacts to create that traceability? Should I use ArchiMate 2.0? Should I use both? Should I forget the artifacts…”. These are good questions and I’m afraid that there is not a single answer.

What I know is that if I select an enterprise architecture tool supporting both TOGAF 9.1 and ArchiMate 2.0, I would like to be able to be able to have a full synchronization. If I model a few ArchiMate models I would like my TOGAF 9.1 artifacts to be created at the same time (catalogs and matrices) and if I create artifacts from the taxonomy, I would like my ArchiMate models also to be created.

Unfortunately I do not know the current level of tools maturity and whether tools vendors provide that synchronization. This would obviously require some investigation and should be one of the key criteria if you were currently looking for a product supporting both standards.

5. Replicating the content of an Enterprise Repository such as a CMDB in an Architecture repository

This other possibility requires that you have an up to date Configuration Management Database and that you developed an interface with your Architecture Repository, your enterprise architecture tool. If you are able to replicate the relationships between the infrastructure components and applications (CIs) into your enterprise architecture tool that would partially create your traceability.

If I summarise the various choices to build that enterprise architecture traceability, I potentially have three main possibilities:

serge9
Achieving traceability within an Enterprise Architecture is key because the architecture needs to be understood by all participants and not just by technical people.  It helps to incorporate the enterprise architecture efforts into the rest of the organization and it takes it to the board room (or at least the CIO’s office) where it belongs.

  • Describe your traceability from your Enterprise Architecture to the system development and project documentation.
  • Review that traceability periodically, making sure that it is up to date, and produce analytics out of it.

If a development team is looking for a tool that can help them document, and provide end to end traceability throughout the life cycle EA is the way to go, make sure you use the right standard and platform. Finally, communicate and present to your stakeholders the results of your effort.

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 is the Chairman of the itSMF (IT Service Management forum) Swiss chapter and is based in Geneva, Switzerland.

2 Comments

Filed under ArchiMate®, Enterprise Architecture, Standards, TOGAF, TOGAF®, Uncategorized