Category Archives: Business Architecture

Digital Transformation and Business Architecture (Part 1 of 3) – Presented by Dr. Giovanni Traverso, Huawei

At The Open Group Shanghai 2016 summit, we invited Dr. Giovanni Traverso, Chief Business Architect of HUAWEI Service Strategy and Architecture Practice, to give a keynote speech “New Open Business Architecture (O-BA) to Support the Construction of Digital Business and Smart Government”.

This is part one in a three-part series.

Part 1 – The Digital Transformation Challenges

Huawei was a Diamond Sponsor of this summit, is a Platinum Member of The Open Group and is participating in the creation of the O-BA standard, whose first part was launched in July 2016 as a Preliminary Standard.

Giovanni, who is leading this effort within Huawei, presented Huawei’s perspectives on Business Architecture coming from best practices.

The O-BA standard focuses on transformation as a discipline to support business decision-making and bridge business and ICT. It does so on one hand, by aligning all aspects and actors of a transformation with business vision and goals while, on the other hand, answering the business questions regarding structural investments, especially in ICT.

Giovanni’s speech introduced the O-BA standard and illustrated how it can serve governments and businesses striving to become “digital”.

First, we should characterize what is digital transformation is about. According to Huawei practice, digital business entails three constituents driving (left to right) and enabling (right to left) each other: experience, operations and (ICT) infrastructure. Each one of these involves its own challenges that have to be addressed holistically.

by-the-open-group

Experience is the ultimate front-end between a digital business and its users, customers, partners, employees. Digital businesses deliver experience to them through products, services and their combination, individually or as part of an ecosystem. In order to help focus, Huawei has encoded the key principles of experience as “ROADS” (Real-time, On-demand, All-online, DIY, Social).

by-the-open-group

For example, customers of digital service providers typically will learn about new services through their social network, will want to be empowered to subscribe and consume their services in real-time when they need it, typically through app or portal.

Operation had been revolutionized by digital disruptors in terms of agility, personalization, innovation speed. Thanks to digital technologies, operations are going to be automated, simplified, precisely informed, promptly reactive and even predictive. The new mode of operations is open and collaborative, goes by fast cycles delivering incremental functionality, which allows for adaptive “fail-fast” approach with limited risk.

by-the-open-group

For example, Amazon makes a production change every 11 seconds, Google deploys over 2 billion containers each week, Netflix launched simultaneously in 131 countries (source: state of DevOps report 2015).

ICT Infrastructure is consistently pushed to become open, resilient, self-healing, scalable.

by-the-open-group

Business Architecture coordinates all these evolutions, ensuring that investments will actually deliver the desired business outcome. Beyond decision-making, Business Architecture can also facilitate the actual execution of the new agile service delivery model. We will discuss this in the next post.

Members of The Open Group can download this presentation at http://www.opengroup.org/public/member/proceedings/Shanghai-2016-08/Presentations/Giovanni%20Traverso-Keynote4.pdf

The Open Group Shanghai 2016 event proceedings are available for members here.

@theopengroup

by-the-open-group

Giovanni Traverso
• 28 years in telecom business, Product Management, R&D Management, Business Unit GM and Transformation Management
• Now leading the Enterprise Architecture team at Huawei Global Services, Standard and Industry Development Dept.
• Certified Business Architect (CBA)
• Contributor to The Open Group Open Business Architecture (O-BA) Standard and the Business Architecture Body of Knowledge (BizBOK)

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Business Architecture, Huawei, O-BA Standard, Open Business Architecture, Standards, The Open Group, The Open Group China, Uncategorized

The Open Group Austin 2016 Event Highlights

By Loren K. Baynes, Director, Global Marketing Communications, The Open Group

During the week of July 18th, The Open Group hosted over 200  attendees from 12 countries at the Four Seasons hotel on the beautiful banks of Lady Bird Lake in Austin, Texas, USA.

On Monday, July 18, Steve Nunn, President and CEO of The Open Group, welcomed the audience and set the stage for all the great upcoming speakers and content.

Steve’s remarks included the recent release of the Open Business Architecture (O-BA) Preliminary Standard Part I to Support Business Transformation.  This is the first in a series of installments that will help Business Architects get to grips with transformation initiatives and manage the demands of key stakeholders within the organization. Steve also referenced William Ulrich, President, Business Architecture Guild, who consulted on the development of the standard.

The plenary began with Jeff Scott, President, Business Innovation Partners, with his presentation “The Future of Business Architecture, Challenges and Opportunities”.  Jeff stated some interesting facts, which included noting that Architects are among the best and brightest members of our organizations.  He also stated that Business Architects need support from a wide group of senior managers, not just the CEO. The ultimate goal of Business Architecture is not to model the organization but to unlock organizational capacity and move forward.

By Loren K. Baynes

Jeff Scott

The Business Architecture (BA) theme continued with Aaron Rorstrom, Principal Enterprise Architect, Capgemini.  Aaron further elaborated on The Open Business Architecture (O-BA) Standard.  The O-BA Standard provides guidance to companies for establishing BA practice and addresses three transformation challenges: consistent communication, alignment and governance, systemic nature.

The sessions were followed by Q&A moderated by Steve Nunn.

Up next was “ArchiMate® 3.0 – A New Standard for Architecture” with Marc Lankhorst, Managing Consultant and Service Line Manager, Enterprise Architect, BiZZdesign and Iver Band, Enterprise Architect, Cambia Health Solutions.

Marc and Iver discussed practical experiences and a Healthcare case study, which included a discussion on personal health and wellness websites.

ArchiMate®, an Open Group standard, provides a language with concepts to describe architectures; a framework to organize these concepts; a graphical notation for these concepts; a vision on visualizations for different stakeholders. ArchiMate 3.0 has recently been released due to: the increasing demand for relating Enterprise Architecture (EA) to business strategy; technology innovations that mix IT and physical world; usage in new domains (i.e. manufacturing, healthcare, retail); improved consistency and comprehensibility; improved alignment between Open Group standards, notably TOGAF®.

The final session of Monday’s plenary featured a panel on “Architecture Standards Development” with Marc Lankhorst, Iver Band, Mike Lambert (Fellow of The Open Group) and Harry Hendrickx (Business Architect, Hewlett Packard Enterprise).  Moderated by Chris Forde, GM, Asia Pacific and VP, Enterprise Architecture, The Open Group, the panel represented a diverse group of the population contributing to the development of open standards.

In the afternoon, sessions were divided into tracks – Security, ArchiMate, Open Business Architecture.

Don Bartusiak, Chief Engineer, Process Control, ExxonMobil Research & Engineering presented “Security in Industrial Controls – Bringing Open Standards to Process Control Systems”.  Don went into detail on the Breakthrough R&D project which is designed to make step-change improvement to reduce cost to replace and to increase value generation via control system.  ExxonMobil is working with The Open Group and others to start-up a consortium of end user companies, system integrators, suppliers, and standards organizations for sustained success of the architecture.

Also featured was “Applying Open FAIR in Industrial Control System Risk Scenarios” by Jim Hietala, VP, Business Development and Security, The Open Group.  The focus of ICS systems is reliability and safety.  Jim also shared some scenarios of recent real life cyberattacks.

The evening concluded with guests enjoying a lively networking reception at the Four Seasons.

Day two on Tuesday, July 19 kicked off the Open Source/Open Standards day with a discussion between Steve Nunn and Andras Szakal, VP & CTO, IBM U.S. Federal. Steve and Andras shared their views on Executable Standards: convergence of creation of open source and innovation standards; the difference between Executable Standards and traditional standards (i.e. paper standards); emergence of open source; ensuring interoperability and standardization becomes more effective of time. They further explored open technology as driving the software defined enterprise with SOA, social, Open Cloud architecture, e-Business, mobile, big data & analytics, and dynamic cloud.

A panel session continued the conversation on Open Standards and Open Source.  The panel was moderated by Dave Lounsbury, CTO and VP, Services for The Open Group.  Panelists were Phil Beauvoir, Archi Product Manager, Consultant; John Stough, Senior Software Architect, JHNA, Inc.; Karl Schopmeyer, Independent Consultant and representing Executable Standards activity in The Open Group.  Topics included describing Archi, Future Airborne Capability Environment (FACE™, a consortium of The Open Group) and OpenPegasus™, an open-source implementation of the DMTF, CIM and WBEM standards.

The Open Group solves business problems with the development and use of open standards.  Interoperability is key.  Generally, no big barriers exist, but there are some limitations and those must be realized and understood.

Steve presented Karl with a plaque in recognition of his outstanding leadership for over 20 years of The Open Group Enterprise Management Forum and OpenPegasus Project.

Rick Solis, IT Business Architect, ExxonMobil Global Services Co. presented “Driving IT Strategic Planning at IT4IT™ with ExxonMobil”.  Business is looking for IT to be more efficient and add value. ExxonMobil has been successfully leveraging IT4IT concepts and value chain. The IT4IT™ vision is a vendor-neutral Reference Architecture for managing the business of IT.  Rich emphasized people need to think about the value streams in the organization that add up to the business value.  Furthermore, it is key to think seamlessly across the organization.

Joanne Woytek, Program Manager for the NASA SEWP Program, NASA spoke about “Enabling Trust in the Supply Chain”.  SEWP (Solutions for Enterprise-Wide Procurement) is the second biggest IT contract in the US government.  Joanne gave a brief history of their use of standards, experience with identifying risks and goal to improve acquisition process for government and industry.

Andras Szakal again took the stage to discuss mitigating maliciously tainted and counterfeit products with standards and accreditation programs.  The Open Trusted Technology Provider™ Standard (O-TTPS) is an open standard to enhance the security of the global supply chain and the integrity of Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) Information and Communication Technology (ICT). It has been approved as an ISO/IEC international standard.

Afternoon tracks consisted of Healthcare, IT4IT™, Open Platform 3.0™ and Professional Development.  Speakers came from organizations such as IBM, Salesforce, Huawei, HPE and Conexiam.

The evening culminated with an authentic Texas BBQ and live band at Laguna Gloria, a historic lakefront landmark with strong ties to Texas culture.

By Loren K. Baynes

The Open Group Austin 2016 at Laguna Gloria

Wednesday, July 20 was another very full day.  Tracks featured Academia Partnering, Enterprise Architecture, Open Platform 3.0 (Internet of Things, Cloud, Big Data, Smart Cities), ArchiMate®.  Other companies represented include San Jose State University, Quest Diagnostics, Boeing, Nationwide and Asurion.

The presentations are freely available only to members of The Open Group and event attendees.  For the full agenda, please click here.

In parallel with the Wednesday tracks, The Open Group hosted the third TOGAF® User Group Meeting.  The meeting is a lively, interactive, engaging discussion about TOGAF, an Open Group standard.  Steve Nunn welcomed the group and announced there are almost 58,000 people certified in TOGAF.  It is a very large community with global demand and interest.  The key motivation for offering the meeting is to hear from people who aren’t necessarily ‘living and breathing’ TOGAF. The goal is to share what has worked, hasn’t worked and meet other folks who have learned a lot from TOGAF.

Terry Blevins, Fellow of The Open Group, was the emcee.  The format was an “Oxford Style” debate with Paul Homan, Enterprise Architect, IBM and Chris Armstrong, President, Armstrong Processing Group (APG).  The Proposition Declaration: Business Architecture and Business Architects should be within the business side of an organization. Chris took the ‘pro’ position and Paul was ‘con’.

Chris believes there is no misalignment with Business and IT; business got exactly what they wanted.  Paul queried where do the Business Architectures live within the organization? BA is a business-wide asset.  There is a need to do all that in one place.

Following the debate, there was an open floor with audience questions and challenges. Questions and answers covered strategy in Architecture and role of the Architect.

The meeting also featured an ‘Ask the Experts’ panel with Chris Forde; Jason Uppal, Chief Architect, QRS; Bill Estrem, TOGAF Trainer, Metaplexity Associates; Len Fehskens, Chief Editor, Journal of Enterprise Architecture, along with Chris Armstrong and Paul.

Organizations in attendance included BMC Software, City of Austin, Texas Dept. of Transportation, General Motors, Texas Mutual Insurance, HPE, IBM.

A more detailed blog of the TOGAF User Group meeting will be forthcoming.

A special ‘thank you’ to all of our sponsors and exhibitors:  avolution, BiZZdesign, Good e-Learning, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, AEA, Orbus Software, Van Haren Publishing

@the opengroup #ogAUS

Hope to see you at The Open Group Paris 2016! #ogPARIS

By Loren K. BaynesLoren K. Baynes, Director, Global Marketing Communications, joined The Open Group in 2013 and spearheads corporate marketing initiatives, primarily the website, blog, media relations and social media. Loren has over 20 years experience in brand marketing and public relations and, prior to The Open Group, was with The Walt Disney Company for over 10 years. Loren holds a Bachelor of Business Administration from Texas A&M University. She is based in the US.

 

 

Comments Off on The Open Group Austin 2016 Event Highlights

Filed under Accreditations, ArchiMate, ArchiMate®, Association of Enterprise Architects, Business Architecture, Business Transformation, Certifications, Cloud, COTS, Cybersecurity, digital technologies, Digital Transformation, EA, enterprise architecture, Internet of Things, Interoperability, Jeff Kyle, O-TTPS, Open FAIR, Open Platform 3.0, Professional Development, Security, Standards, Steve Nunn, The Open Group Austin 2016, TOGAF®, TOGAF®

The Open Group Launches the Open Business Architecture (O-BA) Preliminary Standard Part I to Support Business Transformation

The first release of a three part standard designed to improve alignment, governance and integration between the different aspects of business transformation projects

The Open Group, the vendor-neutral IT consortium, has today launched the Open Business Architecture (O-BA) Preliminary Standard Part I, an Open Group standard. The standard focuses on transformations to the enterprise or organization, defining an approach that ensures a clear understanding of the business vision by all stakeholders throughout the enterprise transformation lifecycle. Working in accordance with the standard enhances alignment, governance, and integration between all aspects of business transformation projects.

O-BA Part I describes the practice through a Business Architecture framework called the five-ways framework, the structural challenges it tries to resolve, and how these are resolved by applying the standard. Part I is focused on decision-making and direction-setting.

Developed by The Open Group Governing Board Business Architecture Work Group, this is the first installment of a three-part standard. Combined, the three parts of the standard will explicitly address all aspects of a business architecture practice. Not only will it examine the holistic approach in modeling required, but also the way of working and thinking, as well organizing and supporting.

The standard clearly defines the systemic nature of transformations, the varying interests and goals of stakeholders, and prepares for consistent communication of business priorities and needs throughout the transformation lifecycle. It addresses a real need to solve structural challenges in enterprise and organizational transformations.

O-BA Part I is being published initially as a Preliminary Standard since it addresses an emerging area of best practice. It is therefore subject to change before being published as a full Open Group Standard in due course.

“The Open Business Architecture Standard Part I is the first in a series of installments that will help Business Architects get to grips with transformation initiatives and manage the demands of key stakeholders within the organization,” commented Steve Nunn, President and CEO, The Open Group. “Organizations must now take advantage of open standards like O-BA, to support infrastructures that can enable the kind of Boundaryless Information Flow™ today’s digital enterprises need.”

William Ulrich, President, Business Architecture Guild, who has consulted on the development of the standard, added, “Business architecture continues to expand globally, across multiple industries. This is exemplified by the expansion of the discipline at the grassroots level and across standards organizations. Business architecture has reached a stage where business executives are not only taking notice, but taking action.”

“This standard is an answer to the increasing need for a modern practice, as we observe in many communication service providers transforming to digital service providers: focused on business value, centered on customer experience and open to the digital industry ecosystem”, said Giovanni Traverso, Principal Enterprise Architect at Huawei Technologies, Global Technical Services, who are a Platinum member of The Open Group.

Open Business Architecture (O-BA) – Part I, is available to download as a pdf from The Open Group website, and was presented to attendees at The Open Group Austin Event on July 18th.

Global Business Communications

@theopengroup #ogAUS

1 Comment

Filed under Boundaryless Information Flow™, Business Architecture, Business Transformation, Enterprise Architecture, Standards, The Open Group Austin 2016, Uncategorized

The Open Group Austin Event to Take Place July 18-21, 2016

The Open Group, the vendor-neutral IT consortium, is hosting its latest event in Austin, TX, USA July 18—21, 2016. The event, taking place at Austin’s Four Seasons Hotel, will focus on open standards, open source and how to enable Boundaryless Information Flow™.

Industry experts will explain how organizations can use openness as an advantage and how the use of both open standards and open source can help enterprises support their digital business strategies. Sessions will look at the opportunities, advantages, risks and challenges of openness within organizations.

The event features key industry speakers including:

  • Steve Nunn,  President & CEO, The Open Group
  • Dr. Ben Calloni, Fellow, Cybersecurity, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
  • Rick Solis, IT Business Architect, ExxonMobil Global Services Co
  • Zahid Hossain, Director, IT Architecture, Nationwide
  • William Wimsatt, Oracle Business Architect, Oracle

Full details on the agenda and speakers can be found here.

The Open Business Architecture Standard (O-BA) and ArchiMate® 3.0, a new standard for Architecture, will be the focus of Monday’s keynote sessions. There will also be a significant emphasis on IT4IT™, with the Tuesday plenary and tracks looking at using and implementing the IT4IT™ Reference Architecture Version 2.0 standard.

Further topics to be covered at the event include:

  • Open Platform 3.0™ – driving Lean Digital Architecture and large scale enterprise managed cloud integration
  • ArchiMate® – New features and practical use cases

Member meetings will take place throughout the course of the three-day event as well as the next TOGAF® User Group meeting taking place on July 20.

Registration for The Open Group Austin event is open now, is available to members and non-members, and can be found here.

By The Open Group

@theopengroup #ogAUS

For media queries, please contact:

Holly Hunter
Hotwire PR
+44 207 608 4638
UKOpengroup@hotwirepr.com

Comments Off on The Open Group Austin Event to Take Place July 18-21, 2016

Filed under ArchiMate, Boundaryless Information Flow™, Business Architecture, Certifications, Digital Transformation, EA, Enterprise Architecture, Internet of Things, IT4IT, Steve Nunn, The Open Group, The Open Group Austin 2016, TOGAF®, TOGAF®, Uncategorized

Why We Like ArchiMate®

What Are Your Thoughts?

By Allen Brown, President & CEO of The Open Group

This year marks the 30th anniversary of my class graduation from the London Business School MBA program. It was 3 years of working full-time for Unilever and studying every minute possible, and tackling what seemed to be impossible case studies on every subject that you would have to deal with when managing a business.

One of the many core subjects was “Operations Management”: organizing people, materials and technology into an efficient unit. The first thing we were taught was that there are no rules, only pressures and opportunities. The next thing was that there are no boundaries to what can have an impact on the subject: from macro issues of structure and infrastructure to micro issues of marketing, capabilities, location, motivation and much more. It required a lot of analysis and a lot of thinking around realistic solutions of how to change the “now” state.

To support this, one of the techniques we were taught was modeling. There was one case study that I recall was about a small company of less than 150 personnel engaged in the manufacture and development of fast sea-based transport. As part of the analysis I modeled the physical flow system which covered all aspects of the operation from sales to customer feedback and from design to shipment – all in pencil and all on one page. An extract is shown here.

By Allen Brown, President & CEO, The Open Group

I don’t know if it’s just me but that looks very similar to some ArchiMate® models I have seen. OK there is not a specific box or symbol for the actors and their roles or for identifying processes but it is clear, who is responsible what, the function or process that they perform and the information or instructions they pass to or receive from their colleagues.

So it should not be surprising that I would like ArchiMate®, even before it became a standard of The Open Group and by the same token many people holding senior positions in organizations today, have also been through MBA programs in the past, or some form of executive training and as such would be familiar with the modeling that I and my classmates were taught and would therefore easily understand ArchiMate models.

Since graduating, I have used modeling on many occasions to assist with understanding of complex processes and to identify where problems, bottlenecks, delays and unnecessary costs arise. Almost everyone, wherever they are in the organization has not only understood them but also been able to improve them, with the possible exception of software developers, who still needed UML and BPMN.

An ArchiMate Focus Group

A few months ago I got together with some users of ArchiMate to try to understand its appeal to others. Some were in large financial services businesses, others were in healthcare and others were in consulting and training organizations.

The first challenge, of course, is that different people, in different situations, with different roles in different organizations in different countries and continents will always see things differently. In The Open Group there are more than 300,000 people from over 230 different countries; nearly one third of those people identify themselves as “architects”; and of those “architects” there are more than 3,400 job titles that contain the word architect. There are also more than 3,500 people who identify themselves as CEO, nearly 5,500 CIO’s etc.

So one size definitely will not fit all and neither will a single statement produced by a small number of people sat in a room for a day.

So what we did was to focus mostly on a senior executive in a major financial services company in the United States whose team is responsible for maintaining the business capability map for the company. After that we tested the results with others in the financial services industry, a representative from the healthcare industry and with an experienced consultant and trainer.

Ground Rules for Feedback

Now, what I would like to get feedback on is your views, which is the reason for writing this blog. As always there are some ground rules for feedback:

  • Please focus on the constructive
  • Please identify the target audience for the messages as closely as you can: e.g. job title / type; industry; geographic location etc

With those thoughts in mind, let me now share what we have so far.

The Value of ArchiMate

For the person that we initially focused on, he felt that The Open Group ArchiMate® Standard is the standard visual language for communicating and managing the impact of change. The reasons behind this are that it bridges between strategy, solutions and execution and it enables explicit communication.

The value of bridging between strategy, solutions and execution is recognized because it:

  • Accelerates value delivery
  • Integrates between disciplines
  • Describes strategic capabilities, milestones and outcomes

Enabling explicit communication is realized because it:

  • Improves understanding at all levels of the organization
  • Enables a short time to benefit
  • Is supported by leading tool vendors

A supporting comment from him was that ArchiMate enables different delivery approaches (e.g. waterfall, agile). From a modeling point of view the diagrams are still the same, but the iteration cycles and utilization of them become very different in the agile method. Interesting thought.

This is obviously different from why I like ArchiMate but also has some similarities (e.g. easily understood by anyone) and it is a perfect example of why we need to recognize the differences and similarities when communicating with different people.

So when we asked others in the financial services whether they agreed or not and to tell us why they like ArchiMate, they all provided great feedback and suggested improvements. They identified two groups

  • The CEO, CIO, Business Analyst and Business Architect; and
  • Areas of business support and IT and Solution Architects and System Analysts.

All agreed that The Open Group ArchiMate® Standard is the standard visual language. Where they varied was in the next line. For the CEO, CIO, Business Analyst and Business Architect target audience the value of ArchiMate, was realized because:

  • It is for modeling the enterprise and managing its change
  • It can support strategic alignment and support impact analysis

Instead of “enabling explicit communication” others preferred the simpler, “clarifies complex systems” but the sub-bullets remained the same. One supporting statement was, “I can show a diagram that most people can understand even without technical knowledge”. Another statement, this time in support of the bridging capability was, “It helps me in unifying the languages of business and IT”.

The value of strategic alignment support was realized through ArchiMate because it:

  • Allows an integrated view
  • Depicts links between drivers and the specific requirements that address them
  • Links between motivation and business models

Its support of impact analysis and decision taking recognizes the bridging capability:

  • Integrates between disciplines: links between cause and effect
  • Describes and allows to identify, strategic capabilities
  • Bridges between strategy, solutions and execution

When the target audience changed to areas of business support and IT or to Solution Architects and System Analysts, the next line became:

  • It is for communicating and managing change that leverages TOGAF® standard usage
  • It can support the development of conceptual representations for the applications and IT platforms and their alignment with business goals

For these audiences the value was still in the ability to clarify complex systems and to bridge between strategy, solutions and execution but the sub-bullets changed significantly:

  • Clarifies complex systems
    • Improves understanding at all levels of the organization
    • Allows integration between domains
    • Provides a standard way to represent inputs and outputs between domains
    • Supports having a standard model repository to create views
  • Bridges between strategy, solutions and execution
    • Allows views segmentation efficiently
    • Allow a consolidated organizational landscape definition business aligned
    • Supports solutions design definition

Unlike my business school models, ArchiMate models are also understandable to software developers.

The feedback from the healthcare organization was strikingly similar. To give an example format for feedback, I will represent it in a way that would be very helpful if you could use for your comments.

Country: USA

Industry: Healthcare

Target Audience: VP of IT

Positioning statement:

The Open Group ArchiMate® Standard is the standard visual language for communicating and managing change and making the enterprise architecture practice more effective.

It achieves this because it:

  • Clarifies complex systems
    • Improves understanding at all levels of the organization
    • Short time to benefit
    • Supported by leading tool vendors
    • Supports a more effective EA delivery
  • Bridges between strategy, solutions and execution
    • Accelerates value delivery
    • Integrates between disciplines
    • Describes strategic capabilities, milestones and outcomes

Feedback from an experienced consultant and trainer was:

Country / Region: Latin America

Industry:

Target Audience: Director of Business Architecture, Chief EA, Application Architects

Positioning statement:

The Open Group ArchiMate® Standard is the standard visual language for modeling the organization, leveraging communication with stakeholders and managing change

It achieves this because it:

  • Clarifies complex systems and leverage change
    • Improves understanding at all levels of the organization
    • Supported by leading tool vendors
    • Support change impact analysis into the organization and it is a helping tool portfolio management and analysis
    • Supports complex system structures presentation to different stakeholders using a simplified notation
  • Bridges between strategy, solutions and execution
    • Accelerates value delivery
    • Integrates between disciplines
    • Describes strategic capabilities, milestones and outcomes
    • Allow a consolidated organizational landscape definition

Your Feedback

All of this gives us some insight into why a few of us like ArchiMate. I would like to know what you like about ArchiMate or how you talk about it to your colleagues and acquaintances.

So please do not hesitate to let me know. Do you agree with the statements that have been made so far? What improvements would you suggest? How do they resonate in your country, your industry, your organization? What different audiences should be addressed and what messages should we use for them?

Please email your feedback to ArchiMateFeedback@opengroup.org.

By The Open GroupAllen Brown is President and CEO of The Open Group – a global consortium that enables the achievement of business objectives through IT standards.  He is also President of the Association of Enterprise Architects (AEA).

Allen was appointed President & CEO in 1998.  Prior to joining The Open Group, he held a range of senior financial and general management roles both within his own consulting firm, which he founded in 1987, and other multi-national organizations.

Allen is TOGAF® 9 certified, an MBA alumnus of the London Business School and a Fellow of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants.

1 Comment

Filed under Allen Brown, ArchiMate®, Business Architecture, Enterprise Transformation, The Open Group

The Open Group San Diego Panel Explores Synergy Among Major Frameworks in Enterprise Architecture

Following is a transcript of part of the proceedings from The Open Group San Diego event in February – a panel discussion on The Synergy of Enterprise Architecture frameworks.

The following panel, which examines the synergy among the major Enterprise Architecture frameworks, consists of moderator Allen Brown, President and Chief Executive Officer, The Open Group; Iver Bank, an Enterprise Architect at Cambia Health Solutions; Dr. Beryl Bellman, Academic Director, FEAC Institute; John Zachman, Chairman and CEO of Zachman International, and originator of the Zachman Framework; and Chris Forde, General Manager, Asia and Pacific Region and Vice President, Enterprise Architecture, The Open Group.

Here are some excerpts:

By The Open GroupIver Band: As an Enterprise Architect at Cambia Health Solutions, I have been working with the ArchiMate® Language for over four years now, both working with and on it in the ArchiMate® Forum. As soon as I discovered it in late 2010, I could immediately see, as an Enterprise Architect, how it filled an important gap.

It’s very interesting to see the perspective of John Zachman. I will briefly present how the ArchiMate Language allows you to fully support enterprise architecture using The Zachman Framework. So I am going to very briefly talk about enterprise architecture with the ArchiMate Language and The Zachman Framework.

What is the ArchiMate Language? Well, it’s a language we use for building understanding across disciplines in an organization and communicating and managing change.  It’s a graphical notation with formal semantics. It’s a language.

It’s a framework that describes and relates the business, application, and technology layers of an enterprise, and it has extensions for modelling motivation, which includes business strategy, external factors affecting the organization, requirements for putting them altogether and for showing them from different stakeholder perspectives.

You can show conflicting stakeholder perspectives, and even politics. I’ve used it to model organizational politics that were preventing a project from going forward.

It has a rich set of techniques in its viewpoint mechanism for visualizing and analyzing what’s going on in your enterprise. Those viewpoints are tailored to different stakeholders.  And, of course, ArchiMate®, like TOGAF®, is an open standard managed by The Open Group.

Taste of Archimate

This is just a taste of ArchiMate for people who haven’t seen it before. This is actually excerpted from the presentation my colleague Chris McCurdy and I are doing at this conference on Guiding Agile Solution Delivery with the ArchiMate Language.

What this shows is the Business and Application Layers of ArchiMate. It shows a business process at the top. Each process is represented by a symbol. It shows a data model of business objects, then, at the next layer, in yellow.

Below that, it shows a data model actually realized by the application, the actual data that’s being processed.

Below that, it shows an application collaboration, a set of applications working together, that reads and writes that data and realizes the business data model that our business processes use.

All in all, it presents a vision of an integrated project management toolset for a particular SDLC that uses the phases that you see across the top.

We are going to dissect this model, how you would build it, and how you would develop it in an agile environment in our presentation tomorrow.

I have done some analysis of The Zachman Framework, comparing it to the ArchiMate Language. What’s really clear is that ArchiMate supports enterprise architecture with The Zachman Framework. You see a rendering of The Zachman Framework and then you see a rendering of the components of the ArchiMate Language. You see the Business Layer, the Application Layer, the Technology Layer, its ability to express information, behavior, and structure, and then the Motivation and Implementation and Migration extensions.

So how does it support it? Well, there are two key things here. The first is that ArchiMate models answer the questions that are posed by The Zachman Framework columns.

For what: for Inventory. We are basically talking about what is in the organization. There are Business and Data Objects, Products, Contracts, Value, and Meaning.

For how: for process. We can model Business Processes and Functions. We can model Flow and Triggering Relationships between them.

Where: for the Distribution of our assets. We can model Locations, we can model Devices, and we can model Networks, depending on how you define Location within a network or within a geography.

For who: We can model Responsibility, with Business Actors, Collaborations, and Roles.

When: for Timing. We have Business Events, Plateaus of System Evolution, relatively stable systems states, and we have Triggering Relationships.

Why: We have a rich Motivation extension, Stakeholders, Drivers, Assessments, Principles, Goals, Requirements, etc., and we show how those different components influence and realize each other.

Zachman perspectives

Finally, ArchiMate models express The Zachman Row Perspectives. For the contextual or boundary perspective, where Scope Lists are required, we can make catalogs of ArchiMate Concepts. ArchiMate has broad tool support, and in a repository-based tool, while ArchiMate is a graphical language, you can very easily take list of concepts, as I do regularly, and put them in catalog or metrics form. So it’s easy to come up with those Scope Lists.

Secondly, for the Conceptual area, the Business Model, we have a rich set of Business Layer Viewpoints. Like the top of the — that focus on the top of the diagram that I showed you; Business Processes, Actors, Collaborations, Interfaces, Business Services that are brought to market.

Then at the Logical Layer we have System. We have a rich set of Application Layer Viewpoints and Viewpoints that show how Applications use Infrastructure.

For Physical, we have an Infrastructure Layer, which can be used to model any type of Infrastructure: Hosting, Network, Storage, Virtualization, Distribution, and Failover. All those types of things can be modeled.

And for Configuration and Instantiation, the Application and Technology Layer Viewpoints are available, particularly more detailed ones, but are also important is the Mappings to standard design languages such as BPMN, UML and ERD. Those are straightforward for experienced modelers. We also have a white paper on using the ArchiMate language with UML. Thank you.

By The Open GroupDr. Beryl Bellman: I have been doing enterprise architecture for quite a long time, for what you call pre-enterprise architecture work, probably about 30 years, and I first met John Zachman well over 20 years ago.

In addition to being an enterprise architect I am also a University Professor at California State University, Los Angeles. My focus there is on Organizational Communications. While being a professor, I always have been involved in doing contract consulting for companies like Digital Equipment Corporation, ASK, AT&T, NCR, then Ptech.

About 15 years ago, a colleague of mine and I founded the FEAC Institute. The initial name for that was the Federal Enterprise Architecture Certification Institute, and then we changed it to Federated. It actually goes by both names.

The business driver of that was the Clinger–Cohen Bill in 1996 when it was mandated by government that all federal agencies must have an enterprise architecture.

And then around 2000, they began to enforce that regulation. My business partner at that time, Felix Rausch, and I felt that we need some certification in how to go about doing and meeting those requirements, both for the federal agencies and the Department of Defense. And so that’s when we created the FEAC Institute.

Beginning of FEAC

In our first course, we had the Executive Office of the President, US Department of Fed, which I believe was the first Department of the Federal Government that was hit by OMB which held up their budget for not having an enterprise architecture on file. So they were pretty desperate, and that began the first of the beginning of the FEAC.

Since that time, a lot of people have come in from the commercial world and from international areas. And the idea of FEAC was that you start off with learning how to do enterprise architecture. In a lot of programs, including TOGAF, you sort of have to already know a little bit about enterprise architecture, the hermeneutical circle. You have to know what it is to know.

In FEAC we had a position that you want to provide training and educating in how to do enterprise architecture that will get you from a beginning state to be able to take full responsibility for work doing enterprise architecture in a matter of three months. It’s associated with the California State University System, and you can get, if you so desire, 12 graduate academic units in Engineering Management that can be applied toward a degree or you can get continuing education units.

So that’s how we began that. Then, a couple of years ago, my business partner decided he wanted to retire, and fortunately there was this guy named John Zachman, who will never retire. He’s a lot younger than all of us in this room, right? So he purchased the FEAC Institute.

I still maintain a relationship with it as Academic Director, in which primarily my responsibilities are as a liaison to the universities. My colleague, Cort Coghill, is sort of the Academic Coordinator of the FEAC Institute.

FEAC is an organization that also incorporates a lot of the training and education programs of Zachman International, which includes managing the FEAC TOGAF courses, as well as the Zachman certified courses, which we will tell you more about.

‘m just a little bit surprised by this idea, the panel, the way we are constructed here, because I didn’t have a presentation. I’m doing it off the top, as you can see. I was told we are supposed to have a panel discussion about the synergies of enterprise architecture. So I prepared in my mind the synergies between the different enterprise architectures that are out there.

For that, I just wanted to make a strong point. I wanted to talk about synergy like a bifurcation between on the one hand, “TOGAF and Zachman” as being standing on one side, whereas the statement has been made earlier this morning and throughout the meeting is “TOGAF and.”

Likewise, we have Zachman, and it’s not “Zachman or, but it’s ‘Zachman and.” Zachman provides that ontology, as John talks about it in his periodic table of basic elements of primitives through which we can constitute any enterprise architecture. To attempt to build an architecture out of composites and then venting composites and just modeling  you’re just getting a snapshot in time and you’re really not having an enterprise architecture that is able to adapt and change. You might be able to have a picture of it, but that’s all you really have.

That’s the power of The Zachman Framework. Hopefully, most of you will attend our demonstration this afternoon and a workshop where we are actually going to have people work with building primitives and looking at the relationship of primitives, the composites with a case study.

Getting lost

On the other side of that, Schekkerman wrote something about the forest of architectural frameworks and getting lost in that. There are a lot of enterprise architectural frameworks out there.

I’m not counting TOGAF, because TOGAF has its own architectural content metamodel, with its own artifacts, but those does not require one to use the artifacts in the architectural content metamodel. They suggest that you can use DoDAF. You can use MODAF. You can use commercial ones like NCR’s GITP. You can use any one.

Those are basically the competing models. Some of them are commercial-based, where organizations have their own proprietary stamps and the names of the artifacts, and the wrong names for it, and others want to give it its own take.

I’m more familiar nowadays with the governmental sectors. For example, FEAF, Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework Version 2. Are you familiar with that? Just go on the Internet, type in FEAF v2. Since Scott Bernard has been the head, he is the Chief Architect for the US Government at the OMB, he has developed a model of enterprise architecture, what he calls the Architecture Cube Model, which is an iteration off of John’s, but he is pursuing a cube form rather than a triangle form.

Also, for him the FEAF-II, as enterprise architecture, fits into his FEAF-II, because at the top level he has the strategic plans of an organization.

It goes down to different layers, but then, at one point, it drops off and becomes not only a solution, but it gets into the manufacturing of the solution. He has these whole series of artifacts that pertain to these different layers, but at the lower levels, you have a computer wiring closet diagram model, which is a little bit more detailed than what we would consider to be at a level of enterprise architecture.

Then you have the MODAF, the DoDAF, and all of these other ones, where a lot of those compete with each other more on the basis of political choices.

With the MODAF, the British obviously don’t want to use DoDAF, they have their own, but they are very similar to each other. One view, the acquisition view, differs from the project view, but they do the same things. You can define them in terms of each other.

Then there is the Canadian, NAF, and all that, and they are very similar. Now, we’re trying to develop the unified MODAF, DoDAF, and NAF architecture, UPDM, which is still in its planning stages. So we are moving toward a more integrated system.

BrownAllen Brown: Let’s move on to some of the questions that folks are interested in. Moving away from what the frameworks are, there is a question here. How does enterprise architecture take advantage of the impact of new emerging technologies like social, mobile, analytics, cloud, and so on?

Bidirectional change

John A Zachman: The change can take place in the enterprise either from the top, where we change the context of the enterprise, or from the bottom, where we change the technologies.

So technology is expressed in the context of the enterprise, what I would call Rule 4, and that’s the physical domain. And it’s the same way in any other — the building architecture, the airplane architecture, or anything. You can implement the logic, the as-designed logic, in different technologies.

Whatever the technology is, I made an observation that you want to engineer for flexibility. You separate the independent variables. So you separate the logic at Rule 3 from the physics of Rule 4, and then you can change Rule 4 without changing Rule 3. Basically that’s the idea, so you can accommodate whatever the emerging technologies are.

Bellman: I would just continue with that. I agree with John. Thinking about the synergy between the different architectures, basically every enterprise architecture contains, or should contain, considerations of those primitives. Then, it’s a matter of which a customer wants, which a customer feels comfortable with? Basically as long as you have those primitives defined, then you essentially can use any architecture. That constitute the synergy between the architectures.

Band: I agree with what’s been said. It’s also true that I think that one of the jobs of an enterprise architect is to establish a view of the organization that can be used to promote understanding and communicate and manage change. With cloud-based systems, they are generally based on metadata, and the major platforms, like Salesforce.com as an example. They publish their data models and their APIs.

So I think that there’s going to be a new generation of systems that provide a continuously synchronized, real-time view of what’s going on in the enterprise. So the architectural model will model this in the future, where things need to go, and they will do analyses, but we will be using cloud, big data, and even sensor technologies to understand the state of the enterprise.

Bellman: In the DoDaF 2.0, when that initially came out, I think it was six years ago or so, they have services architecture, a services view, and a systems view. And one of the points they make within the context, not as a footnote, is that they expect the systems view to sort of disappear and there will be a cloud view that will take its place. So I think you are right on that.

Chris Forde: The way I interpreted the question was, how does EA or architecture approach the things help you manage disruptive things? And if you accept the idea that enterprise architecture actually is a management discipline, it’s going to help you ask the right questions to understand what you are dealing with, where it should be positioned, what the risks and value proposition is around those particular things, whether that’s the Internet of Things, cloud computing, or all of these types of activities.

So going back to the core of what Terry’s presentation was about is a decision making framework with informed questions to help you understand what you should be doing to either mitigate the risk, take advantage of the innovation, and deploy the particular thing in a way that’s useful to your business. That’s the way I read the question.

Impact of sensors

Band: Just to reinforce what Chris says, as an enterprise architect in healthcare, one of the things that I am looking at very closely is the evaluation of the impact of health sensor technology. Gartner Group says that by 2020, the average lifespan in a developed country will be increased by six months due to mobile health monitoring.

And so there are vast changes in the whole healthcare delivery system, of which my company is at the center as a major healthcare payer and investor in all sorts of healthcare companies. I use enterprise architecture techniques to begin to understand the impact of that and show the opportunities to our health insurance business.

Brown: If you think about social and mobile and you look at the entire enterprise architecture, now you are starting to expand that beyond the limits of the organization, aren’t you? You’re starting to look at, not just the organization and the ecosystem, your business partners, but you are also looking at the impact of bringing mobile devices into the organization, of managers doing things on their own with cloud that wasn’t part of the architecture. You have got the relationship with consumers out there that are using social and mobile. How do you capture all of that in enterprise architecture?

Forde: Allen, if I had the answer to that question I would form my own business and I would go sell it.

Back in the day, when I was working in large organizations, we were talking about the extended enterprise, that kind of ecosystem view of things. And at that time the issue was more problematic. We knew we were in an extended ecosystem, but we didn’t really have the technologies that effectively supported it.

The types of technologies that are available today, the ones that The Open Group has white papers about — cloud computing, the Internet of Things, this sort of stuff — architectures can help you classify those things. And the technologies that are being deployed can help you track them, and they can help you track them not as documents of the instance, but of the thing in real time that is talking to you about what its state is, and what its future state will be, and then you have to manage that information in vast quantities.

So an architecture can help you within your enterprise understand those things and it can help you connect to other enterprises or other information sources to allow you to make sense of all those things. But again, it’s a question of scoping, filtering, making sense, and abstracting — that key phrase that John pointed out earlier, of abstracting this stuff up to a level that is comprehensible and not overwhelming.

Brown: So Iver, at Cambia Health, you must have this kind of problem now, mustn’t you?

Provide value

Band: That’s exactly what I am doing. I am figuring out what will be the impact of certain technologies and how our businesses can use them to differentiate and provide value.

In fact, I was just on a call this morning with JeffSTAT, because the whole ecosystem is changing, and we know that healthcare is really changing. The current model is not financially sustainable, and there is also tremendous amount of waste in our healthcare system today. The executives of our company say that about a third of the $2.7 trillion and rising spent on healthcare in the US doesn’t do anyone any good.

There’s a tremendous amount of IT investment in that, and that requires architecture to tie it altogether. It has to do with all the things ranging from the logic with which we edit claims, to the follow-up we provide people with particularly dangerous and consequently expensive diseases. So there is just a tremendous amount going through an enterprise architecture. It’s necessary to have a coherent narrative of what the organization needs to do.

Bellman: One thing we all need to keep in mind is even more dynamic than that, if you believe even a little bit of Kurzweil’s possibilities is that — are people familiar with Ray Kurzweil’s ‘The Singularity Is Near’ — 2037 will be around the singularly between computers and human beings.

So I think that the wrap where he argues that the amount of change is not linear but exponential, and so in a sense you will never catch up, but you need an architecture to manage that.

By The Open GroupZachman: The way we deal with complexity is through classification. I suggest that there is more than one way to classify things. One is one-dimensional classification, taxonomy, or hierarchy, in effect, decompositions, one-dimensional classification, and that’s really helpful for manufacturing. From an engineering standpoint of a two-dimensional classification, where we have classified things so that they are normalized, one effect in one place.

Then if you have the problems identified, you can postulate several technology changes or several changes and simulate the various implications of it.

The whole reason why I do architecture has to do with change. You deal with extreme complexity and then you have to accommodate extreme change. There is no other way to deal with it. Humanity, for thousands of years, has not been able to figure out a better way to deal with complexity and change other than architecture.

Forde: Maybe we shouldn’t apply architecture to some things.

For example, maybe the technologies or the opportunity is so new, we need to have the decision-making framework that says, you know what, let’s not try and figure out all this, just to self-control their stuff in advance, okay? Let’s let it run and see what happens, and then when it’s at the appropriate point for architecture, let’s apply it, this is a more organic view of the way nature and life works than the enterprise view of it.

So what I am saying is that architecture is not irrelevant in that context. It’s actually there is a part of the decision-making framework to not architect something at this point in time because it’s inappropriate to do so.

Funding and budgeting

Band: Yeah, I agree that wholeheartedly. If it can’t be health solutions, we are a completely agile shop. All the technology development is on the same sprint cycle, and we have three-week sprints, but we also have certain things that are still annual and wonderful like funding and budgeting.

We live in a tension. People say, well, what are you going to do, what budget do you need, but at the same time, I haven’t figured everything out. So I am constantly living in that gap of what do I need to meet a certain milestone to get my project funded, and what do I need to do to go forward? Obviously, in a fully agile organization, all those things would be fluid. But then there’s financial reporting, and we would also have to be fluid too. So there are barriers to that.

For instance, the Scaled Agile Framework, which I think is a fascinating thing, has a very clear place for enterprise architecture. As Chris said, you don’t want to do too much of it in advance.  I am constantly getting the gap between how can I visualize what’s going to happen a year out and how can I give the development teams what they need for the sprint. So I am always living in that paradox.

Bellman: The Gartner Group, not too long ago, came up with the concept of emerging enterprise architecture and what we are dealing with. Enterprises don’t exist like buildings. A building is an object, but an enterprise is a group of human beings communicating with one another.

As a very famous organizational psychologist Karl Weick once pointed out, “The effective organization is garrulous, clumsy, superstitious, hypocritical, mostrous, octopoid, wandering, and grouchy.” Why? Because an organization is continually adapting, continually changing, and continually adapting to the changing business and technological landscape.

To expect anything other than that is not having a realistic view of the enterprise. It is emerging and it is a continually emerging phenomena. So in a sense, having an architecture concept I would not contest, but architecting is always worthwhile. It’s like it’s an organic phenomena, and that in order to deal with that what we can also understand and have an architecture for organic phenomena that change and rapidly adapt.

Brown: Chris, where you were going follows the lines of what great companies do, right?

There is a great book published about 30 years ago called ‘In Search of Excellence.’ If you haven’t read it, I suggest that people do. Written by Peters and Waterman, and Tom Peters has tried for ever since to try and recreate something with that magic, but one of the lessons learned was what great companies do, is something that goes simultaneous loose-tight properties. So you let somethings be very tightly controlled, and other things as are suggesting, let them flourish and see where they go before I actually box them in. So that’s a good thought.

So what do we think, as a panel, about evolving TOGAF to become an engineering methodology as well as a manufacturing methodology?

Zachman: I really think it’s a good idea.

Brown: Chris, do you have any thoughts on that?

Interesting proposal

Forde: I think it’s an interesting proposal and I think we need to look at it fairly seriously. The Open Group approach to things is, don’t lock people into a specific way of thinking, but we also advocate disciplined approach to doing things. So I would susspect that we are going to be exploring John’s proposal pretty seriously.

Brown: You mentioned in your talk that decision-making process is a precondition, the decision-making process to govern IT investments, and the question that comes in is how about other types of investments including facilities, inventory and acquisitions?

By The Open GroupForde: The wording of the presentation was very specific. Most organizations have a process or decision-making framework on an annual basis or quarterly whatever the cycles are for allocation of funding to do X, Y or Z. So the implication wasn’t that IT was the only space that it would be applied.

However, the question is how effective is that decision-making framework? In many organizations, or in a lot of organizations, the IT function is essentially an enterprise-wide activity that’s supporting the financial activities, the plant activities, these sorts of things. So you have the P&Ls from those things flowing in some way into the funding that comes to the IT organization.

The question is, when there are multiple complexities in an organization, multiple departments with independent P&Ls, they are funding IT activities in a way that may not be optimized, may or may not be optimized. For the architects, in my view, one of the avenues for success is in inserting yourself into that planning cycle and influencing,  because normally the architecture team does not have direct control over the spend, but influencing how that spend goes.

Over time gradually improving the enterprise’s ability to optimize and make effective the funding it applies for IT to support the rest of the business.

Zachman: Yeah, I was just wondering, you’ve got to make observation.

Band: I agree, I think that the battle to control shadow IT has been permanently lost. We are in a technology obsessed society. Every department wants to control some technology and even develop it to their needs. There are some controls that you do have, and we do have some, but we have core health insurance businesses that are nearly a 100 years old.

Cambia is constantly investing and acquiring new companies that are transforming healthcare. Cambia has over a 100 million customers all across the country even though our original business was a set of regional health plans.

Build relationships

You can’t possibly rationalize all of everything I want you to pay for on that thing. It is incumbent upon the architects, especially the senior ones, to build relationships with the people in these organizations and make sure everything is synergetic.

Many years ago, there was a senior architect. I asked him what he did, and he said, “Well, I’m just the glue. I go to a lot of meetings.” There are deliverables and deadlines too, but there is a part of consistently building the relationships and noticing things, so that when there is time to make a decision or someone needs something, it gets done right.

Zachman: I was in London when Bank of America got bought by NationsBank, and it was touted as the biggest banking merger in the history of the banking industry.

Actually it wasn’t a merger, it was an acquisition NationsBank acquired Bank of America and then changed the name to Bank of America. There was a London paper that was  observing that the headline you always see is, “The biggest merger in the history of the industry.” The headline you never see is, “This merger didn’t work.”

The cost of integrating the two enterprises exceeded the value of the acquisition. Therefore, we’re going to have to break this thing up in pieces and sell off the pieces as surreptitiously as possible, so nobody will notice that we buried any accounting notes someplace or other. You never see that article. You’ll only see the one about the biggest merger.

If I was the CEO and my strategy was to grow by acquisition, I would get really interested in enterprise architecture. Because you have to be able to anticipate the integration of the cost, if you want to merge two enterprises. In fact, you’re changing the scope of the enterprise. I have talked a little bit about the role on models, but you are changing the scope. As soon as you change a scope, you’re now going to be faced with an integration issue.

Therefore you have to make a choice, scrap and rework. There is no way, after the fact, to integrate parts that don’t fit together. So you’re gong to be faced a decision whether you want to scrap and rework or not. I would get really interested in enterprise architecture, because that’s what you really want to know before you make the expenditure. You acquire and obviously you’ve already blown out all the money. So now you’ve got a problem.

Once again, if I was the CEO and I want to grow by acquisition or merger acquisition, I would get really interested in enterprise architecture.

Cultural issues

Beryl Bellman: One of the big problems we are addressing here is also the cultural and political problems of organizations or enterprises. You could have the best design type of system, and if people and politics don’t agree, there are going to be these kind of conflicts.

I was involved in my favorite projects at consulting. I was involved in consulting with NCR, who was dealing with Hyundai and Samsung and trying to get them together at a conjoint project. They kept fighting with each other in terms of knowledge management, technology transfer, and knowledge transfer. My role of it was to do an architecture of that whole process.

It was called RIAC Research Institute in Computer Technology. On one side of the table, you had Hyundai and Samsung. On the other side of the table, you had NCR. They were throwing PowerPoint slides back and forth at each other. I brought up that the software we used at that time was METIS, and METIS modeled all the processes, everything that was involved.

Samsung said you just hit it with a 2×4. I used to be demonstrating it, rather than tossing out slides, here are the relationships, and be able to show that it really works. To me that was a real demonstration that I can even overcome some of the politics and cultural differences within enterprises.

Brown: I want to give one more question. I think this is more of a concern that we have raised in some people’s minds today, which is, we are talking about all these different frameworks and ontologies, and so there is a first question.

The second one is probably the key one that we are looking at, but it asks what does each of the frameworks lack, what are the key elements that are missing, because that leads on to the second question that says, isn’t needing to understand old enterprise architecture frameworks is not a complex exercise for a practitioner?

Band: My job is not about understanding frameworks. I have been doing enterprises solution architecture in HP at a standard and diversified financial services company and now at health insurance and health solutions company out for quite a while, and it’s really about communicating and understanding in a way that’s useful to your stakeholders.

The frameworks about creating shared understanding of what we have and where are we going to go, and the frameworks are just a set of tools that you have in your toolbox that most people don’t understand.

So the idea is not to understand everything but to get a set of tools, just like a mechanic would, that you carry around that you use all the time. For instance, there are certain types of ArchiMate views that I use when I am in a group. I will draw an ArchiMate business process view with application service use of the same. What are the business processes you need to be and what are the exposed application behaviors that they need to consume?

I had that discussion with people on the business who are in IT, and we drove those diagrams. That’s a useful tool, it works for me, it works for the people around me, it works in my culture, but there is no understanding over frameworks unless that’s your field of study. They are all missing the exact thing you need for a particular interaction, but most likely there is something in there that you can base the next critical interaction on.

Six questions

Zachman: I spent most of my life thinking about my frameworks. There are six questions you have to answer to have a complete description of whatever it is, what I will describe, what, how, where, who, and why. So that’s complete.

The philosophers have established six transformations interestingly enough, the transfer of idea into an instantiation, so that’s a complete set, and I did not invent either one of these, so the six interrogatives. They have the six stages of transformation and that framework has to, by definition, accommodate any factor that’s relevant to the existence of the object of the enterprise.  Therefore any fact has to be classifiable in that structure.

My framework is complete in that regard. For many years, I would have been reluctant to make a categorical statement, but we exercised this, and there is no anomaly. I can’t find an anomaly. Therefore I have a high level of confidence that you can classify any fact in that context.

There is one periodic table. There are n different compound manufacturing processes. You can manufacture anything out of the periodic table. That metaphor is really helpful. There’s one enterprise architecture framework ontology. I happened to stumble across, by accident, the ontology for classifying all of the facts relevant to an enterprise.

I wish I could tell you that I was so smart and understood all of these things at the beginning, but I knew nothing about this, I just happened to stumble across it. The framework fell on my desk one day and I saw the pattern. All I did was I put enterprise names on the same pattern for descriptive representation of anything. You’ve heard me tell quite a bit of the story this afternoon. In terms of completeness I think my framework is complete. I can find no anomalies and you can classify anything relative to that framework.

And I agree with Iver, that there are n different tools you might want to use. You don’t have to know everything about every framework. One thing is, whatever the tool is that you need to deal with and out of the context of the periodic table metaphor, the ontological construct of The Zachman Framework, you can accommodate whatever artifacts the tool creates.

You don’t have to analyze every tool, whatever tool is necessary, if you want to do with business architecture, you can create whatever the business architecture manifestation is. If you want to know what DoDAF is, you can create the DoDAF artifacts. You can create any composite, and you can create any compound from the periodic table. It’s the same idea.

I wouldn’t spend my life trying to understand all these frameworks. You have to operate the enterprise, you have to manage the enterprise and whatever the tool is, it’s required to do whatever it is that you need to do and there is something good about everything and nothing necessarily does everything.

So use the tool that’s appropriate and then you can create whatever the composite constructs are required by that tool out of the primitive components of the framework. I wouldn’t try to understand all the frameworks.

What’s missing

Forde: On a daily basis there is a line of people at these conferences coming to tell me what’s missing from TOGAF. Recently we conducted a survey through the Association of Enterprise Architects about what people needed to see. Basically the stuff came back pretty much, please give us more guidance that’s specific to my situation, a recipe for how to solve world hunger, or something like that. We are not in the role of providing that level of prescriptive detail.

The value side of the equation is the flexibility of the framework to a certain degree to allow many different industries and many different practitioners drive value for their business out of using that particular tool.

So some people will find value in the content metamodel in the TOGAF Framework and the other components of it, but if you are not happy with that, if it doesn’t meet your need, flip over to The Zachman Framework or vice versa.

John made it very clear earlier that the value in the framework that he has built throughout his career and has been used repeatedly around the world is its rigor, it’s comprehensiveness, but he made very clear, it’s not a method. There is nothing in there to tell you how to go do it.

So you could criticize The Zachman Framework for a lack of method or you could spend your time talking about the value of it as a very useful tool to get X, Y, and Z done.

From a practitioner’s standpoint, what one practitioner does is interesting in a value, but if you have a practice between 200 and 400 architects, you don’t want everybody running around like a loose cannon doing it their way, in my opinion. As a practice manager or leader you need something that makes those resources very, very effective. And when you are in a practice of that size, you probably have a handful of people trying to figure out how the frameworks come together, but most of the practitioners are tasked with taking what the organization says is their best practice and executing on it.

We are looking at improving the level of guidance provided by the TOGAF material, the standard and guidance about how to do specific scenarios.

For example, how to jumpstart an architecture practice, how to build a secure architecture, how to do business architecture well? Those are the kinds of things that we have had feedback on and we are working on around that particular specification.

Brown: So if you are employed by the US Department of Defense you would be required to use DoDAF, if you are an enterprise architect, because of the views it provides. But people like Terri Blevins that did work in the DoD many years, used TOGAF to populate DoDAF. It’s a method, and the method is the great strength.

If you want to have more information on that, there are a number of white papers on our website about using TOGAF with DoDAF, TOGAF with COBIT, TOGAF with Zachman, TOGAF with everything else.

Forde: TOGAF with frameworks, TOGAF with buy in, the thing to look at is the ecosystem of information around these frameworks is where the value proposition really is. If you are trying to bootstrap your standards practice inside, the framework is of interest, but applied use, driving to the value proposition for your business function is the critical area to focus on.

The panel, which examined the synergy among the major EA frameworks, consists of moderator Allen Brown, President and Chief Executive Officer, The Open Group; Iver Bank, an Enterprise Architect, Cambia Health Solutions; Dr. Beryl Bellman, Academic Director, FEAC Institute; John Zachman, Chairman and CEO of Zachman International, and originator of the Zachman Framework; and Chris Forde, General Manager, Asia and Pacific Region and Vice President, Enterprise Architecture, The Open Group.

Transcript available here.

Join the conversation @theopengroup #ogchat

You may also be interested in:

 

2 Comments

Filed under ArchiMate®, big data, Business Architecture, Cloud, Data management, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Transformation, Standards, TOGAF®, Uncategorized

“Lean” Enterprise Architecture powered by TOGAF® 9.1

By Krish Ayyar, Managing Principal, Martin-McDougall Technologies

Enterprise Architecture is there to solve Enterprise level problems. A typical problem scenario could be something like “A large Mining and Resources company uses many sensors to collect and feed engineering data back to the central control room for monitoring their assets. These sensors are from multiple vendors and they use proprietary networking technologies and also data formats. There are interoperability issues. The company would like to improve the manageability and availability of these systems by exploring solutions around the emerging Internet Of Things (IoT) technology”.

There are many ways to solve Enterprise level problems. A typical approach might be to purchase a packaged software or develop bespoke solutions and sponsor an IT project to implement it.

So, what is special about Enterprise Architecture? EA is the only approach that puts you in the driver seat when it comes to orderly evolution of your enterprise’s business and information systems landscape.

How do we go about doing this?

The best way is to develop Enterprise Architecture in a short engagement cycle of say 4 to 6 weeks through the use of TOGAF® 9.1 method. If you think about it, the TOGAF® ADM basically covers 4 “Meta” phases. They are namely: Preparing and Setting the Architecture Vision, Blueprinting the Target State, Solutioning & Road Mapping, Governance and Change Management. The key to a short engagement cycle is in not doing those activities which are already done elsewhere in the organisation but linking with them. This includes Business Strategy, IT Strategy, Detailed Implementation Planning and Governance. This might mean “Piggy Backing” on PMO processes and extending them to include Enterprise Architecture.

As part of “Preparing and Setting the Architecture Vision”, we identify the Business Goals, Objectives and Drivers related to this problem scenario. For instance in this case, let us say we ran business scenario workshops and documented the CFO’s statement that the overall cost of remotely monitoring and supporting Engineering Systems must come down. We now elicit the concerns and requirements related to business and information systems from the stakeholders. In this case, the CEO has felt that the company needs new capabilities for monitoring devices anytime, anywhere.

As part of the “Governance and Change Management”, we look at emerging Business and Technology trends. Internet of Things or “IoT” is trending as the technology which has the ability to connect sensors to the internet for effective control. At this juncture, we should do some research and collect information about the Product and Technology Solutions that could deliver the new or enhanced capabilities. Major vendors such as SAP, Cisco and Microsoft have IoT Solutions in their offerings. These solutions are capable of enabling remote support using mobile devices streaming data in the cloud, network infrastructure for transporting the data using open standards, Cloud Computing, sensor connectivity to Wifi / Internet etc.,

Next, as part of “Blueprinting the Target State””, we model the Current and Target state Business Capabilities and Information System Services and Functionalities. We can do this very quickly by selecting the relevant TOGAF® 9.1 Artifacts to address the concerns and requirements. These are grouped by Architecture Domains within the TOGAF® 9.1 document. We then identify the Gaps. In our example, these could be new support capabilities using IoT.

Now as part of “Solutioning and Road Mapping”, we roadmap the gaps in a practical way to deliver business value. We could effectively use the TOGAF® 9.1 “Business Value Assessment” technique to achieve this. This will help us to realise the business goals and objectives as per business priorities delivered by the solution components. For example, reducing the cost of remotely monitoring and supporting engineering systems could be realised by solutions that enable remote monitoring and support using mobile devices streaming data in the cloud.

Of course, architecture work is not complete until the solution is architected from a design perspective to manage the product and technology complexities during implementation. There is also the need for Architecture Governance to ensure that it does not go pear-shaped during implementation and operation.

This does not seem to be a lot of effort, does it? In fact, some sort of conceptualisation happens in all major projects prior to the business case leading up to funding approval. When it is done by people who do not have the right mix of strategy, project management, solutioning and consulting skills, it becomes a mere “tick in the box” exercise. Why not adopt this structured approach of Enterprise Architecture powered by TOGAF® 9.1 and reap the rewards?

By Krish Ayyar, Martin-McDougall TechnologiesKrish Ayyar is an accomplished Enterprise Architecture Practitioner with well over 10 years consulting and teaching Enterprise Architecture internationally. He is a sought after Trainer of TOGAF® 9.1 Level 2 and Archimate® 2.1 Level 2 Certification Courses with teaching experience for over 5 years in Australia, New Zealand, China, Japan, India, USA and Canada.  His experience includes a background in management consulting with Strategy and Business Transformation consulting, Enterprise Architecture consulting and Enterprise Architect functional roles in Australia, Singapore, Malaysia and USA for over 15 years. Krish is an active contributor to The Open Group Architecture Forum activities through membership of his own consulting company based in Sydney, Australia.  Krish has been a presenter in Open Group conferences at Boston, Washington D.C and Sydney. He is currently Vice Chair of the Certification Standing Committee of the Architecture Forum.

 

 

Comments Off on “Lean” Enterprise Architecture powered by TOGAF® 9.1

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