• rtolido: @tetradian just show me the non-IT people that invented #entarch and / or #bizarch
• tetradian: @rtolido we’re in a circular-definition here: what you call #entarch or #bizarch is whatever was ‘invented’ by IT-people… //  crucial problem is that IT-people labelled as ‘enterprise architecture’ to something that wasn’t ‘architecture of the enterprise’ // likewise with IT version of ‘business-architecture’, which _isn’t_ ‘architecture of the business’ // once we sort out that mess, it becomes obvious IT-people did not invent it – but until then, we have those circular-definitions… // non-IT-people: Deming, Boyd, Beer, Alexander, even Taylor, for heavens’ sake…
• rtolido: @tetradian All true! Just pointing to the actual roots of both #entarch and #bizarch . Not saying it’s a good thing per se.
• tetradian: what you’re doing at present is propping up _fundamental_ mistake: mislabelling of ‘IT-view of business’ as ‘business-architecture’ // ‘Open Group Cert in IT-view of Business’ is fine – just don’t call it ‘business-architecture’, because it isn’t! // Data Architecture 101: don’t assign names to things that don’t mean the same as what those things actually are!

And that last point is actually a good idea: apply a bit of bog-standard data-architecture practice to this problem. Let’s look at this whole mess from the perspective of Data Architecture 101:

– Step 1: A core principle: all entities shall be assigned meaningful names or terms – i.e. that the assigned name shall correspond to the ‘natural meaning’ of the entity.

– Step 2a: If a term that is currently assigned to an entity does not match the ‘natural meaning’ of the entity but is not in common use, the updated name for the term shall be promulgated, and action taken to dissuade use of the former misleading-term.

– Step 2b: If a term in common use is currently assigned to an entity but does not match the ‘natural meaning’ of that entity, an architectural ‘waiver‘ or ‘dispensation‘ shall be issued, acknowledging the current usage of that term.

– Step 3: If a waiver is issued, the waiver does not mean that the misleading usage is acceptable, but rather that although the fait-accompli is accepted in the present, all efforts must be made to prevent the misleading-term from becoming further entrenched, and every opportunity taken to promulgate a replacement ‘natural-meaning’ term.

This is basic stuff, the kind of routine data-architecture work I was doing twenty years ago and more. Software-coders do it every day; web-designers do it; database-administrators do it. But not, apparently, the people who purport to maintain the formal standards for this kind of work. To use a certain famous phrase, “this does not compute…”

Let’s look at this in a bit more detail.

First, that principle from Step 1, the notion of a ‘natural meaning’. A term or entity can of course be assigned any name at all: sometimes projects and the like are intentionally assigned misleading names, for security purposes or because they’re being used only as ‘working title’ or suchlike. Sometimes such names do stick, misleading or not: ‘tank’ is a classic example. But in general – especially in a data-architecture or in any part of an enterprise-architecture – an entity should be assigned a name that aligns with its use and function: for architectural purposes it doesn’t help anyone if we decide to use the label ‘Glue Pot’ for a delivery-truck, for example, or ‘Salmonella Breeding Station’ as the label for the cafeteria business-unit. In general, it’s a lot more helpful if we call a spade a spade, and so on.

[We can take this a bit further, perhaps - hence the old adage that "An Englishman calls a spade a spade, but an Australian calls it a bl**dy shovel"... ]

Hence the notion of ‘natural meaning’, that in order to minimise the potential for confusion, things should be named according to what they are or what they do.

And a simple test for ‘natural meaning’ is inversion of the term: if the inversion gives the same meaning as the assigned term, it’s more probable that, overall, the term won’t cause confusion. (There’s a proper grammatical-term for this inversion, but I’ve forgotten it: someone remind me, perhaps?) Take ‘data architecture’, for example: the inversion is ‘the architecture of data’, which in both cases is what actually happens in the practice of data-architecture – so we can be reasonably comfortable that we have something close to ‘natural-meaning’ there. In practice, ‘data-architecture’ is a term we can trust to make sense.

Likewise ‘security-architecture’, as the architecture of security; or ‘brand-architecture’, as the architecture of the relationships and the like between business brands;  or ‘IT-infrastructure architecture’, as the architecture of the infrastructures of IT-systems. These all make clear sense, whichever way round we put it; and keep the same meaning, whichever round we put it.

But when we try this inversion with the supposedly-’official’ usages of ‘enterprise-architecture’ or ‘business-architecture’, it just doesn’t work:

– enterprise-architecture:

• natural-meaning (from inversion): the architecture of the enterprise (i.e. organisation as a whole, plus extensions into the value-network and overall ecosystem within which it operates)
• common-usage in TOGAF, FEAF etc: the architecture of the IT-systems in use within the organisation, with some reference to the usage of those systems within the organisation’s business

– business-architecture:

• natural-meaning (from inversion): the architecture of the business (or, more specifically, ‘the business of the business’)
• common-usage in TOGAF, FEAF etc: anything not-IT that might impact upon IT, organised and described solely in terms of its actual or potential impact on IT

In both cases the IT-oriented common-usage is a very long way from the natural-meaning of the term – which guarantees confusion as soon as we move outside of the narrow confines of an IT-oriented view. And in both cases that common-usage meaning describes only a very small subset of the scope of the natural-meaning – in other words, wherever the IT-oriented common-usage is dominant, it represents a serious term-hijack that blocks visibility of the remainder of the natural-meaning scope.

Which, in any competent data-architecture, would clearly indicate that have a couple of seriously-invalid term-usages here. Which means we need to do something about it. Which brings us to Step 2.

It’s clear that Step 2a can’t apply here, because both of these invalid terms are very much ‘out there’.

Which means that we move to Step 2b: we issue a waiver.

But we do not forget what a waiver actually means here, and what responsibilities it places on all of us, collectively, in terms of action we must take in future to correct the architectural risk. In particular, it does not mean that we simply throw up our hands in the air and say “oh well, it doesn’t matter” – because clearly it does matter, because equally-clearly that usage of the term will not make sense to anyone outside of the ‘in-group’ cabal. Instead, the waiver says that we must take action to correct the fault – exactly as with any other type of architectural fault.

Which brings us to Step 3. What we actually need in this case is the metaphoric equivalent of a full ‘Cease & Desist’ order, to demand that people not only stop all use of this misleading usage of the terms, but take action to correct all materials in which either of those two misleading usages occur. For example, TOGAF would need to be rewritten from scratch: given the natural-meaning, it wouldn’t be allowed to use the term ‘enterprise-architecture’ just about anywhere in the whole document, and ‘Phase B: Business Architecture’ would either cease to exist, or be reconstructed as a proper multi-domain structure, within which ‘the architecture of the business of the business’ is merely one amongst many other domains that can impact upon IT.

Let’s not beat about the bush here: that is what needs to happen. Anything less represents not only only an architectural risk on a major scale, but an ongoing risk whose impacts increase exponentially with every passing day.

Sadly, Reality Department indicates we’re very unlikely to get this – not least because it would require Open Group, CapGemini, Federal Enterprise Architecture, Gartner, Zachman and all the rest to recall every scrap of their past publications on ‘enterprise’-architecture, and rewrite the whole darn lot. But we need to say, and continue to insist, that this is what needs to happen in future. We do not simply allow them to continue promulgating these (and many other) fundamentally-wrong term-usages in the enterprise-architecture space.

That’s Data Architecture 101, as applied in a perfectly straightforward way to current ‘enterprise’-architecture – what the Americans call ‘eating our own dogfood’.

And if we aren’t willing to do it to our own work, why on earth should anyone else trust us to do it to theirs?

Pretty simple, really.

So, whatcha gonna do about it, folks?

—

One separate but related and very important addendum: I am not knocking TOGAF in itself here, nor anything or anyone else in the IT-architecture space. IT-architecture is extremely important, and Open Group and others have been doing sterling work in that space for many years. To my mind, no-one should doubt this, and I’m very happy to sing their praises on that part of the work, and invite and encourage others to do likewise.

All that I’m saying is that what TOGAF etc call ‘enterprise-architecture’ should not be called ‘enterprise-architecture’, for the simple reason that it is not ‘the architecture of the enterprise’.

Likewise the somewhat jumbled collection of bits-and-pieces that TOGAF and its ilk call ‘business-architecture’ should not be called ‘business-architecture’, for the simple reason that it is not ‘the architecture of the business’.

[The latter point should be obvious when we consider that TOGAF's 'business-architecture' assumes that the entirety of the non- IT executive - in other words, the CEO, CFO, COO, CMO, CHO and any non-IT CTO, and all of their respective domains - can all meaningfully be lumped together as 'the business', with only IT needing aany differentiation from the rest. Anyone who's had any dealings at executive-level will know that it's, uh, not quite as simple as that? :wry-grin: ]

Best leave it there for now, I guess. Over to you?

• rtolido: interesting stuff coming soon around a global Business Architect certification standard by The Open Group #ogsfo

Important to say here that I have enormous respect for Ron: quite apart from his senior role at CapGemini, he’s also an amazing innovator in IT-architecture and enterprise-architecture, with ideas such as Slow IT, the importance of a demolition strategy, and the SCOOTER metaphor. Yet I must admit I was absolutely horrified at that comment above, and said so:

• tetradian: @rtolido IT-centrism in TOGAF etc has crippled #entarch for half a decade: please don’t let OG do the same to #bizarch as well…

The point is that, given their track-record so far on business-architecture,  I can hardly think of any organisation that’s less qualified than Open Group to create such a standard. For Pete’s sake, even the Piddletrenthide Parish Parent-Teacher Panel would probably do a better job of it…

And no, I’m not being nasty here – I’m serious about this. The utter shambles that is TOGAF’s ‘Phase B: Business Architecture’ should sound clangorous alarm-bells about any such suggestion: it’s just a random collection of ‘anything not-IT that might affect IT’, with no structure, no symmetry and no sense. If you want to see how so much of so-called ‘enterprise’-architecture actively increases the infamous ‘business/IT-divide’, you need only to take a careful look at the TOGAF specification for its ADM Phase B. And these people seriously consider themselves competent to define a global certification for business-architecture? No way! – please…?

Anyway, my Tweet-response above triggered a reply from Ron:

• rtolido: @tetradian it’s an IT thing to criticize IT-centrism but after all: #entarch is an IT people invention. Let’s try to do better with #bizarch

To which my first response was ‘What the…?‘, which came out in more polite form on Twitter as this:

• tetradian: @rtolido “it’s an IT thing… entarch is IT-invention” – disagree on both counts, but yes, please let’s do better with bizarch…

Let’s tackle Ron’s points in reverse order…

At least there’s an acknowledgement that we could do better with business-architecture than has been done with those current attempts at ‘enterprise’-architecture. That’s something. Good.

On “#entarch is an IT-people invention”, it isn’t. That’s a convenient myth that IT-people want to believe – though no doubt a fair few of them will want to throw various historical quotes at me to ‘prove’ their provenance. Sure, the term ‘architecture’ has long since been linked to IT – almost half a century, by now. And somewhen around a couple of decades back, some bright spark extended that idea to distinguish between a context-specific IT-architecture versus an IT-architecture at organisation-wide or enterprise-wide scope, as ‘enterprise-wide IT-architecture’ – at which point some idiot conflated that nominally-valid term to a no-doubt ‘simpler’ shorthand term as ‘enterprise-architecture’, without any awareness of just how misleading that would be, or how much damage that term-hijack would cause. Yet reality is that there are many long-established business disciplines such as systems-thinking and design-thinking as applied to the enterprise that have a much better natural fit with the term ‘enterprise-architecture’; the original meaning of ‘business-analysis’ was also probably very close, too. In short, ‘enterprise IT-architecture’ is arguably “an IT-people invention”; but enterprise-architecture most definitely is not.

On “it’s a IT thing to criticise IT-centrism”, I’m not quite sure what Ron means there – whether only ‘IT-people’ have the right to do so, or else that anyone criticising IT-centrism is inherently self-identifying as an ‘IT-person’. If it’s the former, then the fact that I’ve had perhaps 30 years experience in and around IT might qualify me to criticise? But more to the point, my background is as an explicit cross-discipline generalist – I’m one of the few people formally qualified as such, with an MA in General Studies from London’s Royal College of Art. And it’s in that sense, as a long-experienced practitioner of ‘design-thinking’ within a very wide variety of business contexts, that I see IT-centrism as such a problem. (And, for that matter, business-centrism – which I’ll come back to in a moment.) In terms focus of attention, the single most important fact in enterprise-architecture, or business-architecture, or any other architecture, is this:

Within any architecture, everywhere and nowhere is ‘the centre’, all at the same time.

What happens in any form of ‘-centrism’ is that we keep on being dragged back to some specific area that claims to be ‘The Centre’ of the architecture. Rather than an ‘outside-in’ view – an awareness of the whole – we’re constrained to an ‘inside-out’ view, where everything in the architecture is seen only in relation to and in terms of that single ‘The Centre’. If there is no direct connection to that ‘The Centre’, or no direct impact, whatever-it-is is usually dismissed as ‘out of scope’, and often deemed not even to exist. Hence, in TOGAF’s inherently ‘inside-out’ view – in which IT-infrastructure is its actual ‘The Centre’ – we have no means to describe anything that is not-IT and that does not in some way impact directly on IT.

[To illustrate the point, try using TOGAF or its linked Archimate-notation to describe the physical activity of a production-line, the trucks and conveyor belts and other machines of physical logistics, the human activity of paper-based record-keeping, or the physical infrastructure - cooling, power-supplies and suchlike - of an IT data-centre: if you can do it all, you'll have to use some horrible kludges and fudged reframings of the supposed standards in order to do it... And yet all of these things would be essential in an enterprise-architecture for the respective industry.]

I need to reiterate that it isn’t only IT-centrism that creates this kind of problem: it’s any-centrism. What I’ve also been seeing recently is a lot more ‘business-centrism’ in enterprise-architectures, where ‘the business of the business’ is taken to be ‘The Centre’ of the enterprise-architecture. We see this, for example, in the insistence that financial metrics are the only metrics that count, and that return-on-investment (ROI) and the like can only be measured in financial terms – which might be valid within certain subsets of business-architecture, but are way too constrained to be valid in the far broader scope of enterprise-architecture. In some ways this trend worries me even more than IT-centrism, because by the nature of business it will tend to have even more of the wrong kind of credibility, making that much harder to counterbalance and correct within the architecture.

Anyway, Peter Bakker dropped in a useful comment at this point, pointing to a classic early essay by Christopher Alexander, famed author of A Pattern Language:

• pbmobi: @rtolido @tetradian #entarch & #bizarch just see the trees, we need architects who see the semi-lattices http://www.chrisgagern.de/Media/A_City_is_not_a_tree.pdf #ogsfo

• taotwit: @tetradian @rtolido erm.. Tom I think you’re mixing up what EA is with what should be!
• tetradian: @taotwit @rtolido if someone’s defining a new standard, surely it should be about what should be, not about preserving current mistakes?
• taotwit: @tetradian @rtolido good point – I hope they listen to the likes of Alec Sharp and Patrick Hoverstadt

Agreed with Nigel there: a business-architecture certification scheme would need input from people like Alec or Patrick, or likewise from other key figures in business-architecture or business-innovation such as Alex Osterwalder or Steve Blank. But, like me, none of them are members of Open Group – which means that not only do we not have a voice, but what we say will be ignored anyway. In other words, Open Group expressly locks out many of the people who are doing real innovation in business-architecture, and then wonders why there are real doubts about the usefulness or validity of what it then produces as its ‘standard’.

Which brings us to the disaster-area of certification. In principle it’s a good idea, even a very necessary idea: every profession needs some way to identify and validate core knowledge and the like. But when the certification for a discipline is managed by a group that evidently do not understand what that core-knowledge actually needs to be, then we have a problem… and that’s exactly what we have with Open Group and business-architecture.

Open Group are an IT-standards body: and they’re very, very good at what they do in IT. But they’re not a general business-standards body – and that fact is becoming extremely important here. In the days when TOGAF was solely about IT-architecture – as it was up until version 7 – then it made sense for the ‘enterprise IT-architecture’ standard to be maintained by the Open Group. But the problem with any enterprise-scope architecture is that, by definition, you have to take everything in the enterprise into account: hence an expansion out into data- and applications-architectures in TOGAF 8, and then, in TOGAF 8.1 ‘Enterprise Edition’, the addition of a loosely-defined ‘anything not-IT that might affect IT’. Unfortunately they made two fundamental errors at that point: because that random bundle represented IT’s view of what it called ‘the business’, they labelled it ‘Business Architecture’; and they then described the whole IT-specific structure as ‘Enterprise Architecture’ – both of which sort-of made sense from their own inside-out perspective, but made no sense to anyone else, especially when looking outside-in. Oops…

Anyway, back to certification. So first, there is a real value in having a common language for specific types of architecture. In that sense, the TOGAF 9 ‘Foundation’ certification is genuinely useful, because it tests knowledge of that common language.

Likewise the practitioner-certifications such as ITAC, which assess someone’s practical skills and competence. Unfortunately it’s no use to me, though, as it still assumes that the only possible path to enterprise-architecture is via detail-level IT-infrastructure architecture, which I don’t do and never have. (I’ve done a lot of mainstream data-architecture in my time, but that doesn’t towards ITAC certification either.)

But to my mind – and in my experience, too – the mid-level certification, ‘TOGAF Certified’, is actually worse than useless: to be blunt, it’s almost a measure of how much someone is not competent to do enterprise-architecture. Yikes… there are some serious problems there…

That perhaps sounds a bit harsh: it’s not. There are two interlinked reasons why this is so.

The first is that ‘TOGAF Certified’ is a content-based exam. All it tests is how well people know the TOGAF specification – not architecture-practice. And to be blunt, the TOGAF specification is a long way from what’s needed to do enterprise-architecture – especially in any industry other than ‘the usual suspects’ of banking, finance, insurance, tax. (Why those industries? Because their business-models are built almost entirely around large volumes of simple structured information with automatable business-processes – in other words, strongly IT-oriented. Which doesn’t apply to most other industries.) I almost failed my TOGAF 8.1 exam because I answered several questions in terms of what I knew worked in practice, rather than what’s written in the book. And the ‘correct’ answer in the book was just plain wrong: I knew from real-world practice that it was exactly what not to do. Needless to say, I wasn’t impressed when I was penalised in the exam for doing it right…

The second reason is that TOGAF is not a standard. This isn’t some arbitrarily-unkind assertion that I’m making: it’s not only common knowledge, but I’ve even heard several senior Open Group figures say so in public. (Exact quote: “Of course no-one uses TOGAF out of the box! – we always have to customise it one way or another”.) The best way to describe TOGAF is that it’s a somewhat-better-than-random cookbook of ideas and practices vaguely held together by a almost equally-vague structure of the Architecture Development Method [ADM] – and that’s it. There’s not much guidance in TOGAF itself on how to customise TOGAF: you get that from experience, with a bit of help from some of the better training-providers.

So what we have at present in the ‘TOGAF Certified’ exam is a way-too-simplistic multiple-choice test on the supposed content of a ‘standard’ that actually isn’t a standard and often doesn’t match up at all well with real-world practice anyway. So just how much use do you think that’s going to be? To anyone? Honestly? Hmm…

And given that, how much credence would you place on a certification-scheme by the same people on a domain which they demonstrably don’t understand much if at all, judging by the current content of TOGAF’s ‘Phase B: Business Architecture’? Oops…

Hence why I’m extremely wary of letting this current attempt by Open Group go unchallenged: they really are almost the least-appropriate group to do the job.

No question at all that we do need some very good work to happen on business-architecture, and urgently so. But please, not from Open Group? – at the very least, not until they’ve tidied up the utter shambles of ‘Business Architecture’ in the current TOGAF, and can demonstrate that that they can keep their reflex IT-centrism under better control than at present?

Sigh… Oh well… back to the grindstone, I guess…

Over to you for comment or whatever, anyway.

Once again, many thanks indeed to all those who Tweeted, to help us all get a better picture of the current Open Group view of enterprise-architectures.

Same minor edits as in the previous posts:, I’ve stripped out most of the ‘#ogSFO’ hashtags in the text, and added occasional comments of my own in italics, but otherwise the following is as Tweeted by the respective participants.

I’ve also added a few wrap-up remarks of my own at the end.

As usual, somewhat less volume again on this day of the conference, but still several pages’-worth, so continue after the break.

—

Jason Bloomberg:

• theopengroup: Kicking off day three with @Zapthink President, Jason Bloomberg, on Architecting the #Cloudhttp://t.co/kOjRl41x
• systemsflow: Cant drop an app into the cloud & expect cloud advantages; adjust the app to take advantage elasticity/high avail (Bloomberg) #cloud
• systemsflow: Bloomberg identifying real #cloud issues: inconsistent data, state tolerance, application readiness.
• TerryBlevins: Finally someone talking about transaction integrity! Great talk from Jason Bloomberg!
• ArtBourbon: Important talk by Jason Bloomberg of @Zapthink on REST as architecture not tech and why (and when) it’s right for #Cloud.
• theopengroup: “You need to start with your business problem when architecting the #cloud. Then you know what’s right for you.” @TheEbizWizard

Henry Franken:

• theopengroup:: But can’t miss Henry Franken from @BIZZdesign discuss #ArchiMate http://t.co/wEI4nfCt
• brendabizz: BiZZdesign CEO Henry Franken presenting #ogSFO re: ArchiMate 2.0 ,  an effective way to communicate w stakeholders

William Sheleg:

• nadsmat2diworld: A capability is the ability to reliably and consistently deliver a specified outcome – William Sheleg -Deloitte #entarch

Bob Weisman:

• systemsflow: Weisman talking about being parachuted into troubled areas to assist #EntArch // Note to self: ask for parachute next time.
• systemsflow: “As-Is” architecture views can be powerful tool to communicate how bad thngs really are.  (Weisman) // “As-Was” sells #EntArch value.
• systemsflow: A large project executing without an overarching architecture context defines its own context. (Weisman) #EntArch // Tail wags dog.
• EricStephens: doesn’t have to be called #entarch to be #entarch (Weismann)
• EricStephens: essential to have cross domain #entarch board (Weisman)
• nadsmat2diworld: EA is a planning and investment methodology not IT/IM. -Robert Weissman – Build The Vision #entarch

Dario Vargas:

• brendabizz: BiZZdesign partner Dario Vargas of Unycorp from Mexico about to present on #Archimate at #ogSFO
• theopengroup: Listening to Dario Vargas of Unycorp, Mexico on #ArchiMate. http://t.co/kuM5iScq

David Gilmour:

• theopengroup: David Gilmour giving his presentation “Architecting for Information Security in a Cloud Environment”
• systemsflow: When targeting the #cloud, Make sure you design your system and your system’s security to be testable (Gilmore)
• ArtBourbon: David Gilmour on a smart way of classifying data by nature and use for #Cloud #Security

Chris Lockhart:

• chrisonea: I’m on after a guy talking about “cloud distance” and “continuing fractions.” How do I top that?
• EricStephens: Not a case study, a story @chrisonea
• chrisonea: Don’t let your #CIO and #CTO go off by themselves to devise a business transformation plan. Don’t other CxO’s have input? #entarch
• EricStephens: Clouds often imply there is a storm coming.
• chrisonea: RT @EricStephens: Not a case study, a story @chrisonea < It’s not a party it’s an intimate get-together! #phineasandferb
• chrisonea: Innovation: The creation and use of better or MORE EFFECTIVE products, processes, services. Not necessarily brand new ideas
• chrisonea: I figured if no one was going to RT bits from my preso, I’d do it myself as I speak. I’m tweeting with my MIND! #entarch #cio
• chrisonea: Biz Transformation doesn’t mean we have to throw everything out and start again. We have skills, we have talent. Let’s leverage that
• chrisonea: If at your Org “Let’s build a technology enabled service platform!” really means “Let’s go buy a tool!” you might have a problem
• chrisonea: Yes I’m tweeting as I speak to this packed room. No hands! Hey you in the blue shirt at that back table! Pay attention!
• chrisonea: If you don’t set expectations with the business, don’t be surprised when they turn on your entire IT org because you “didn’t deliver”
• chrisonea: You are NOT your frameworks! #unarchitecture #entarch >yes! – well put, Chris! (frameworks are useful, though… )
• chrisonea: The Greatest IT Problem is People. People with expectations. #entarch #itarch >…and the Greatest Entarch Problem is ‘IT-People’ with fixed assumptions…
• chrisonea: Always be asking “What business problem are we trying to solve here?” Sort of like “Always be closing” but different #entarch #itarch
• chrisonea: If you don’t understand your cost of goods sold, how will you ever know you’re going to make money with project xyz? #entarch
• theopengroup: “Leave architectural purity in the ivory tower.” @chrisonea #entarch
• chrisonea: People and their expectations: Co-Opt them! Make them think your idea was really their own! Works every time. #entarch
• Laura_J_M_L: @chrisonea you topped the previous guy very well. Liked your presentation!
• chrisonea: To do UnArchitecture, recognize the limitations! Be practical! Reuse where it makes sense! Also remember, it’s about people! #entarch
• NadhanAtHP: @chrisonea: Different people — IT or Not — have different expectations — especially in the Cloud http://bit.ly/pqE4Jq #HP
• EricStephens: @ChrisOnEA thinks, therefore he tweets
• chrisonea: Yes I am wearing a T Shirt with the autobot logo on it. Hey, I classed it up with a sportcoat! Cmon!
• EricStephens: @chrisonea such a hipster

Some assorted miscellanea:

• TerryBlevins: #ogSFO: G8 conference! Dealing with the real hard problems that if addressed will advance the integrity of the IT industry as a whole!
• nadsmat2diworld: Made my first purchase using Square today. App lets you use #iPhone or #iPad as a merchant terminal. Very cool. #entarch
• NadhanAtHP: If u r #ogsfo, visit the Winchester House to see how not to architect your enterprise. // If u r at the Winchester House, go to #ogsfo to see how to architect your enterprise http://t.co/kINCQBdA @NadhanAtHP #HP @theopengroup
• theopengroup: .@NadhanAtHP @chrisonea just referenced the Winchester Mystery House when talking about #entarch #ogSFO
• LaurensGunneweg: TIL about the haunted Winchester mystery castle, where construction proceeded, without interruption, from 1884 until 1922
• nadsmat2diworld: @theopengroup Great conference but proliferation of EA acceptance requires getting more CEOs & execs in room not just IT/architects >yep…
• NadhanAtHP: @theopengroup Top 5 tenets of EA that impact App Development #HP @NadhanAtHP http://bit.ly/oKnAhi

Jeff Scott:

• nickmalik: Jeff Scott discussing alignment – excellent #entarch #bizarch
• nickmalik: Brian Cameron points out that Business strategy rarely addresses things that are difficult to change like architecture #entarch
• chrisonea: When in doubt, always turn to #Gartner.   #entarch #cio
• nickmalik: Jeff Scott: Business architecture insight – focuses on what rather than how, but we must start with WHY #bizarch #entarch
• nickmalik: Too Early to standardize on business arch because we are immature.  We don’t have all the pieces yet, says Jeff Scott #Bizarch
• DaveBBradshaw: “If your #entarch doesn’t resonate with the business folks it’s wrong” (Scott)
• chrisonea: RT @chrisonea: When in doubt, always turn to #Gartner.   #entarch #cio < This was mostly a joke. Tone, twitter, TONE!
• DaveBBradshaw: Jeff Scott is talking about using value mapping to focus IT on what the business is focused on
• DaveBBradshaw: Use capability mapping to drive IT investment in the projects.  #entarch

Stephen Bennett:

• EricStephens: Now listening to @stephengbennett speak about a pragmatic approach to #cloud computing
• EricStephens: Iteration is important with any #cloud approach @stephengbennett
• jfbauer: @EricStephens Iteration is important with any #cloud approach<JB:good for all major new tech deployment not just #cloud
• EricStephens: #cloud: are you (or your clients) Dilbert ($$) or Neo (agility, competitive)? @stephengbennett
• chrisonea: RT @EricStephens: Clouds often imply there is a storm coming. < Or a train. Coming round the bend.
• EricStephens: Nice structured approach to driving a #cloud strategy using a variety of analysis tools @stephengbennett

E.G. Nadhan:

• NadhanAtHP: @NadhanAtHP says Enterprise Architects must drive Innovation @theopengroup #HP http://bit.ly/vRxQgv
• NadhanAtHP: @NadhanAtHP says IaaS standards take time to evolve — SOCCI is a welcome exception @theopengroup #HP #HPCloudCA #CloudComputing

Pradipa Karbhari:

• theopengroup: Getting insight from Sogeti on using #TOGAF in Enterprise Architecture for the Energy Services industry
• theopengroup: #TOGAF gives you a pathway for developing a total architecture by Sogeti’s Pradipa Karbhari
• theopengroup: #TOGAF doesn’t limit what you do as an architect says Sogeti’s Pradipa Karbhari >uh… yes, it does – unless you use TOGAF quite a long way from the TOGAF spec…

Dan Hughes:

• systemsflow: @systemsflow’s own Dan Hughes is presenting Investigative Architecture: Understanding Systems in a Business Context @theopengroup.

Penelope Gordon:

• mskilton: Selecting  business performance metrics for Cloud OEMs by Penelope Gordon #cloud
• mskilton: Selecting cloud metrics need to support your cloud monetization strategy @capgeminiUK #cloud
• mskilton: There are 3 key types of cloud monetization strategies, Ops, growth, Ts&Cs, say P Gordon #cloud @capgeminiUK
• mskilton: Cloud Monetization strategies need to drive your Value Proposition, Say P Gordon, #cloud @capgeminiUK
• mskilton: Selecting the right metrics that match your cloud monetization strategy is critical , say P Gordon, #cloud @capgeminiUK
• mskilton: Investor expectations affect margin and risk profile that your cloud value proposition must align and achieve , say P Gordon #cloud
• mskilton: Open Group CBA Project P Gorden and @mskilton in Cloud Work Grp are developing  Cloud Business Metrics guidance #cloud @capgeminiUK
• mskilton: salesforce.com SaaS casestudy illustrates cheaper faster cloud value propositions, say P Gordon #cloud
• mskilton: salesforce.com PaaS casestudy illustrates better faster cloud value propositions, say P Gordon #cloud
• mskilton: monetization strategy value proposition is basis for enduring value , say P Gordon #cloud @capgeminiUK
• theopengroup: RT @mskilton: cautionary tale metrics can change over time for IaaS + managed business apps  not amortizing costs, – P Gordon  #cloud @capgeminiUK

Panel on cloud-interoperability:

• theopengroup: @mskilton @capgeminiUK looking forward to your talk on #Cloud Interoperability this afternoon at #ogSFO
• theopengroup: Listening to a dynamic trio from #Capgemini, #Cisco,and @HP on #Cloud portability and #interoperability http://t.co/GqIBGaH3
• mskilton: Cloud Interoperability Panel at starting at #ogsfo  #cloud @capgeminiUK
• mskilton: pre condition for cloud growth is to reuse cloud components – cloud IOP Panel #cloud
• mskilton: alot of cloud IOP is focus on virtual to virtual IOP not between cloud and traditional IT – cloud panel #cloud
• mskilton: need to keep in mind traditional legacy standards as well a new standards -  cloud panel #cloud
• mskilton: need to look at real problems in cloud IOP – cloud panel #cloud
• mskilton: most challenging missing piece in cloud ioP is semantics ontology and consistent naming standards – cloud panel #cloud
• mskilton: cloud has the hight barrier and over expectation on what cloud can deliver- my be a barrier to its success #cloud
• theopengroup: Is the hype around #Cloud Computing creating a barrier to its success? #cloud panel
• mskilton: need for standards for service discovery and standard SLA  terms – cloud panel #cloud @capgeminiUK
• mskilton: There are some issues around ID security is just one part of the picture, ID, Access , Use  all need to be joined- cloud panel #cloud
• mskilton: top down Cloud IOP solutions re too difficult to implement, bottom up is a better way to go – cloud panel  #cloud
• NadhanAtHP: @theopengroup #cloud panel – Forces and counter forces to #CloudComputing adoption and success http://t.co/LovysX23 #HPCloudCA
• Marc_Carno: “@mskilton: challenging missing piece in cloud ioP is semantics ontology&consistent naming standards – #cloud” mouthful but good
• mskilton: need to consider different workload types have different behaviors that IOP needs to recognize – cloud panel #cloud @capgeminiUK
• mskilton: keep it simple -complexity os a big barrier in IOP #cloud @capgeminiUK
• mskilton: We are going toward kinds of brokers in the future of cloud – cloud panel #cloud @CapgeminiUK
• mskilton: I may not see IOP in my lifetime but I sure hope it happens #cloud @CapgeminiUK
• mskilton: IOP needs to solve the business needs now . Needs to be requirement driven – cloud panel #cloud @CapgeminiUK
• NadhanAtHP: SOA principles evolved to define the Cloud paradigm – hence SOCCI.  #cloudcomputing #HPCloudCA @theopengroup http://t.co/c8oxxdC4

Roberto Severo:

• ArtBourbon: “Every company has an accidental EA – even if they don’t realize it” @rsevero at #ogSFO

A few more miscellanea:

• EricStephens: Recent talk I gave at @theopengroup conference in San Francisco on EA Governance @OTNArchBeat  http://t.co/Fih1n91h
• ArtBourbon: Nice to meet up with @rsevero and @chrisonea at #ogSFO – new people to learn from
• chrisonea: OK. I’ve had enough #cloud speak. Time to drink.
• EricStephens: Pleasure seeing so many folks at #ogsfo including tweeps @mikejwalker, @selse and @chrisonea. Safe travels to all.

A handful of notes on the free (in both senses) section of the conference, the ‘TOGAF Camp’:

• stevenunn: Interest in building blocks and ArchiMate at TOGAF(R) Camp #entarch
• stevenunn: TOGAF(R) Camp favorite topic is “Applying TOGAF in an immature IT environment, and forcing its rapid adoption” #entarch
• togaf_r: TOGAF Camp: Good interactions on ArchiMate, TOGAF implementation and certification
• togaf_r: For those attending TOGAF Camp. The white papers referenced were Y121, W102 and W103 at http://t.co/Ef5qYiOK

And a couple of wrap-up items:

• a_josey: Day 3 completed with TOGAF Camp and Cloud Camp (@ The Open Group Conference San Francisco #ogsfo) http://t.co/PrWAPjmQ
• theopengroup:: Thank you to all the engaging participants in the conference for another wonderful year! http://t.co/oN2RYA34

—

Okay, now it’s my turn.

For the first time in almost year, this is one Open Group conference where I’m disappointed that I wasn’t able to go. (Okay, part of that was that there are lot of other people in the San Francisco region that I need to meet up with, but the conference would have been a great excuse to do so. )

Despite the usual IT-obsessions – such as the huge hype over cloud-computing at present – there do seem to be some genuine of signs of movement away from the IT-centrism of the past. Quite a few presentations clearly indicated a need to think much wider than just IT, and some even acknowledged the need to explore beyond the organisation itself – which is a definite improvement on past years. (Yes, I’m well aware that Open Group is an IT-standards body, and therefore would tend to have a natural bias towards IT: but if it’s going to insist on working in enterprise-architecture, it does need to take the whole enterprise into account…)

The new version 2.0 of Archimate had its expected mix of satisfaction and disappointment:

– The satisfying part is that a couple of very important gaps in its coverage have now been filled, with the addition of Location and the broader-reach Motivation extension (though how anyone could describe motivation as an ‘extension’ when it should be the core of any architecture-notation is another matter entirely…). The Migration extension will be very useful indeed, not least as a workaround for the fact that so few existing EA toolsets have any usable means to cope with architecture-change.

– The disappointment is that there are still no entities to describe the physical-world – physical-infrastructure, machines, vehicles or anything of that kind – so it’s still all but impossible to use Archimate to model anything much beyond IT. For example, we can’t model the relationship between physical logistics and the accompanying information; we can’t even model the whole architecture of a data-centre, because we have no way to describe power-supplies or cooling-systems and the like. And although it’s obviously unlikely to change by now, the fundamentally-wrong IT-centric layering of Archimate (‘Business’, ‘Application’ and ‘[IT] Infrastructure’) still scrambles everything whenever we try to do a proper service-oriented architecture that does not assume that everything not-IT is ‘business’. Oh well: next time, perhaps?

Anyway, clearly a good conference – and I hope these collated Tweets have been of use to you? Let me know, perhaps?

Once again, many thanks indeed to all those who Tweeted, to help us all get a better picture of the current Open Group view of enterprise-architectures.

As before, I’ve stripped out most of the ‘#ogSFO’ hashtags in the text, and added occasional comments of my own in italics, but otherwise the following is as Tweeted by the respective participants.

Not quite so much as the previous day, but still a lot, so continue after the break.

—

A few miscellaneous items before the start:

• a_josey: Day 2 coming up, starts with announcement of ArchiMate 2.0  release (@ The Open Group Conference San Francisco) http://4sq.com/y2kgb6
• Dana_Gardner: Mark Mills and Julio Ottino: The Coming Tech-led Boom – http://WSJ.com http://on.wsj.com/xCgUrO
• Dana_Gardner: Amazon S3 Reports Staggering Growth in 2011 – ReadWriteCloud http://rww.to/zglQJT DG<No data in the cloud?
• theopengroup: T-10 minutes before Allen Brown @theopengroup addresses attendees for another invigorating day at #ogSFO! http://t.co/qtFBcvRM

Launch of Archimate version 2.0:

• ArchiMate_r: New for ArchiMate 2: The Open Group launches ArchiMate certification program http://t.co/76McCnro
• ArchiMate_r: The ArchiMate 2.0 Specification is now available to download http://t.co/jIAZXtRd
• ArchiMate_r: New White Paper: An Introduction to ArchiMate 2.0 now available for free download http://t.co/jFYoF0p3
• Dana_Gardner: Allen Brown, President and CEO of The Open Group, announced arrival of ArchiMate 2.0. More here: http://t.co/fYiJiFsq #entarch
• EricStephens: ArchiMate 2.0 -> Intro: http://t.co/S3Am6vMc / Spec: http://t.co/LL9OTDfY / Launch: http://t.co/RKUnAfY5 #entarch
• brendabizz: Allen Brown CEO OpenGroup announces ArchiMate 2.0, an intuitive language that empowers architects to communicate well w stakeholders
• brendabizz: BiZZdesign 1 of the sponsors to assist in creating the exams & certification program for ArchiMate 2.0. 4 info b.cowie@bizzdesign.com
• ArchiMate_r: Slide deck: An introduction to ArchiMate 2.0 People Certification now available (pdf) http://ow.ly/8MAVN
• ArchiMate_r: ArchiMate 2.0 Resources: Download the ArchiSurance Case Study http://ow.ly/8Myty
• ArchiMate_r: ArchiMate 2.0 Resources: Download the Spec, Reference Cards, White paper and more http://ow.ly/8Myfm
• ArchiMate_r: Slide deck: An Introduction to ArchiMate 2.0 now available (pdf)  http://ow.ly/8HtRd
• ArchiMate_r: ArchiMate 2.0 Resource:  Visio Stencils Set available http://ow.ly/8N5GV
• ArchiMate_r: Read ArchiMate 2.0 online at http://ow.ly/8NtE8

Another technical standard from Open Group:

• NadhanAtHP: First Technical Standard for Cloud Computing released – Service Oriented Cloud Computing Infrastructure http://bit.ly/y0CGlz

General report (‘State of the Union’, perhaps? ) from Open Group’s Allen Brown:

• EricStephens: Allen Brown: we’re all involved in transformation in one form or another
• systemsflow: Enterprise transformation is a journey, not an event.  #entarch
• EricStephens: EAs starting to work with many more roles within the enterprise, not just IT
• chrisonea: RT @EricStephens: EAs starting to work with many more roles within the enterprise, not just IT < thank goodness! >yes!
• EricStephens: Certification on the rise for @opengroup related topics (TOGAF, ArchiMate).
• Dana_Gardner: TOGAF 9 certification rates growing rapidly worldwide, says Open Group’s Brown #entarch
• togaf_r: Allen Brown: TOGAF certification a foundation, a common language. Over 11,000 certified individuals
• IverPDX: Everyone is involved in enterprise transformation in some way; there are no magic moments — Open Group CEO Allen Brown #entarch
• mcrugo: A. Brown of TOG. Case study suggests Architecture must address the whole of a business problem, not just part of it. >yes! – about time! – but can TOG actually support this? – possibly not…
• theopengroup: Open Group FACE Consortium looking to transform the #avionics industry with open standards
• Technodad: Allen Brown discusses role of FACE in Defense transformation at #ogsfo [pic]: http://t.co/Ib3sas08
• EricStephens: Allen Brown: (my interpretation) EA and EAs need to look at entire (wicked?) problem, not just the IT parts >yes!
• EricStephens: Allen Brown: Org Design helpful in addressing enterprise change
• Dana_Gardner: Allen Brown detailing compelling case studies of large global enterprises that have leveraged enterprise architecture well #entarch
• theopengroup: Day 2 is underway! http://twitter.com/theopengroup/status/164397354705891328/photo/1
• EricStephens: Brown: Enterprises need vision linked to desired capabilities, but not necessarily a complete one.
• systemsflow: Theme of @theopengroup #EntArch case studies is to focus on business, not just technology!
• theopengroup: #EntArch doesn’t transform a business, it’s part of the solution >oops… wicked-problems such as EA don’t have ‘solutions’, it’s a continuing ‘re-solution’
• Dana_Gardner: More than 400 corporations are now members of The Open Group over past 12 years, says Brown #entarch

Keynote from William ‘Bill’ Rouse:

• theopengroup: The first speaker this morning is Georgia Tech’s William Rouse. Listening to his POV on #Enterprise Transformation…
• Dana_Gardner: Bill Rouse, executive director, Tennenbaum Institute at Georgia Tech, now up at The Open Group conference #entarch
• Dana_Gardner: Rouse: In 25 years, 1000 companies left Fortune 500 — showing enterprise transformation has high failure rate http://bit.ly/wAHhkg
• theopengroup: Roughly 200% of Fortune 500 Companies have turned over in the past 20 years Bill Rouse
• Dana_Gardner: Big hurdle for enterprises is deciding they need to change, they wait too long, says Rouse #entarch
• systemsflow: Value is created by work.  If you are not creating value, you are doing the wrong work or doing it poorly. (W. Rouse) #EntArch
• LaurensGunneweg: William B. Rouse: 1000 organizations have left the fortune 500 in the past 25 years, involuntary. Enterprise transformation is tough.
• EricStephens: Rouse: social networks often the bigger barrier to change rather than technology >yep: hence must be in EA scope!
• Dana_Gardner: A few rare companies can transform the market, rather than transform themselves, like Apple or Walmart, says Rouse #entarch
• theopengroup: Georgia Tech’s Bill Rouse says “you can be the innovator or the transformer” #EntArch
• systemsflow: W. Rouse: Organizations often delay transformation until it is obvious they need to. (aka, Too Late)  #entarch
• nadsmat2diworld: Enterprise Transformation is driven by experienced and/or anticipated value deficiencies…W. Rouse #entarch
• nadsmat2diworld: Wal-Mart didn’t transform. It was the innovator. Sears and K-Mart had to transform. Innovation can be risky. W. Rouse #entarch
• Dana_Gardner: Need to look at full ecosystem a business operates in to effectively transform, says Rouse #entarch >yep: hence must cover scope beyond IT alone!
• EricStephens: ? Enterprise transformation is the what, #entarch is how we get it done?
• EricStephens: Enterprise transformation ~= #designthinking? (term doesn’t matter, but the outcome does)
• systemsflow: W.Rouse presents interesting analysis of health care #EntArch.  Closes with “now let’s talk about IT.” #itsallbusiness
• EricStephens: Rouse: visualization important to exploring and gaining consensus on new ideas
• Dana_Gardner: Architecture-oriented thinking can be transformative in itself, says Rouse #entarch
• EricStephens: Decisions informed by data is profound for many organizations
• jfbauer: @EricStephens Decisions informed by data is profound for many organizations<JB:sad but very true
• Dana_Gardner: Business ecosystems are co-creatig high-value services, expanding transformation across supply chains, says Rouse #entarch
• mcrugo: Bill Rouse suggests data driven decision making is transformative in and of itself.
• Dana_Gardner: Using analytics better to support evidence-based decision making is transformative, says Rouse #entarch
• systemsflow: Without evidence based decision making and a defined decision making process, decisions are based on personal preference.  #EntArch
• systemsflow: W. Rouse: Without analytics AND visualizations, management buy-in not likely. (In-your-face, evidence-based data) #entarch
• mikejwalker: W. Rouse: published competencies for Enterprise Transformation #entarch #cio
• KrishnaswamyS: a. Business Vision and b. Strategy, critical for Enterprise Transformation – BillRouse #entarch

Keynote from Tim Barnes:

• Dana_Gardner: Next up at Open Group conference, Tim Barnes, Chief Architect, Devon Energy #entarch
• theopengroup:: Devon Energy offers a viewpoint on #EntArch, presented by Tim Barnes http://ow.ly/8LoJr
• Dana_Gardner: Devon had 26 M&As, so had huge IT rationalization project, ended up savings $21 million in IT costs, says Barnes #entarch
• EricStephens: Barnes “org” chart emphasizes…capabilities of the #entarch practice. Very nice.
• Dana_Gardner: Devon using TOGAF to improve its architecture methodology, says Barnes #entarch
• systemsflow: T.Barnes: Devon Energy using architecture as a continuous process that continually improves upon itself. #entarch
• Dana_Gardner: EA has become formal part of the corporate annual strategy planning at Devon, says Barnes #entarch
• EricStephens: Barnes: Sign of adoption success – execs have the architecture models on their walls w/o #entarch in the room
• systemsflow: Social Networking approach to idea submission at Devon Energy builds an environment of innovation in #entarch.
• EricStephens: Barnes: Devon leveraging crowdsourcing & innovation with #entarch to drive outcomes
• Dana_Gardner: Having attained an architectural-level capability, Devon now innovating on common data, mobile device access, says Barnes #entarch
• Dana_Gardner: EA is not easy, but it’s not rocket science either, and produces big positive results, says Barnes #entarch
• Dana_Gardner: Getting as many people as possible to contribute to EA gets them involved in big picture, improves results, says Barnes #entarch
• EricStephens: Barnes: Cross-org collaboration a high-value, soft benefit of their #entarch efforts
• systemsflow: T. Barnes: Getting business and IT to work together makes EA more effective. #entarch
• nadsmat2diworld: The work (“EA”) is not easy but it’s not rocket science. Plan the work and work the plan – Tim Barnes CA- Devon Energy #entarch

Keynote from Joseph Menn:

• Dana_Gardner: Joe Menn, cyber security correspondent for Financial Times, now on stage at Open Group conference http://zd.net/yn32N7
• theopengroup: .@josephmenn delivering his presentation “What You’re Up Against: Mobsters, Nation-States and Blurry Lines” http://bit.ly/wB81na
• EricStephens: @josephmeen indicates foreign cyber-threats are a big deal. #understatement
• Dana_Gardner: Anonymous is among most interesting things in cyber security landscape, says Menn #entarch
• systemsflow: Unique take away from Joseph Menn’s security talk.  If you get invited to go boar hunting in Russia at night… don’t!
• EricStephens: @systemsflow truth stranger than fiction…
• EricStephens: Two kinds of companies – those who have been hacked and those who don’t know it yet @josephmeen
• theopengroup: Cyber security Threat: Organized crime under government protection due to strategic interest @josephmenn
• Dana_Gardner: More taxpayer money will be needed for effective defenses against cyber attacks, says Menn #entarch
• Dana_Gardner: “It’s in no one’s interest to tell us how bad it really is” when it comes to cyber crime and security, says Menn #entarch
• theopengroup: Sitting tight for keynote by renown #cyber security journalist @JosephMenn. What are we up against? http://ow.ly/8LoMZ
• Dana_Gardner: Counter attacks may be a strong defense when it comes to cyber risks, and US government may “turn blind eye”, says Menn #entarch
• Dana_Gardner: We may even see cyber crime bounty hunters that corporations hire on the QT to go after those that attack them, says Menn #entarch
• EricStephens: Link to @josephmenn book “Fatal System Error” http://amzn.to/zeyOyK
• Dana_Gardner: Stuxnet http://bit.ly/xz5Jw2 is huge as a harbinger of things to come, says Menn #entarch
• Dana_Gardner: Knowing what you have helps you know when something has been taken, so improve tracking of assets, says Menn #entarch
• Dana_Gardner: Keep your most critical data offline, and protect your IP by burying it in fake data, says Menn #entarch
• whitehatsec: We very much agree RT @Dana_Gardner ‘Knowing what you have helps you know something is taken, improve tracking of assets #entarch’
• mcrugo: @josephmenn delivered a very entertaining  and insightful presentation on the state of cyber security. Nicely done!

Hans Schoebach:

• systemsflow: Hans Schoebach: SOA performed properly (with artifacts) allows for easy reuse of solutions. #entarch #soa
• systemsflow: Hans Schoebach: (Paraphrased) “Reduce risk. Implement in Layers.” Should be a T-Shirt! #entarch #soa

A report on the Open Group’s Security Survey:

• a_josey: Jim Hietala: Security Survey population ~40 respondents

Dr Liu:

• systemsflow: Dr. Liu: Limitation of current info gathering systems for disaster: they don’t leverage private data.  Taxicabs as sensors!

Peter Haviland:

• theopengroup: Exploring the Business Architecture profession and case studies with Peter Haviland @Ernst_and_Young http://ow.ly/8LoQd
• mikejwalker: In Peter Haviland Business Architecture session.
• mcrugo: Peter haviland is discussing business architecture.  His “big picture” analogy, hilarious!
• nickmalik: Peter haviland defines #bizarch value as strategy rigor, alignment, transformation ownership, gov’n enterprise process improve’t
• nickmalik: #bizarch differs from OD and TQM: enterprise level, uses frameworks, uses engineering rigor, says P. Haviland of E&Y
• nickmalik: success factors for #bizarch – leadership invested, success demonstrated, change metrics to support bizarch, delivery engagement
• nickmalik: #bizarch should start with high level capabilities, even though #togaf does not use the term! Says P. Haviland

Someone presenting from BP:

• systemsflow: Reuse what you have and buy what you don’t.  Build from scratch is the last option for BP in filling IT gaps.  http://sfi.cc/bvb
• mikejwalker: BP Business Architecture Session Recap http://bit.ly/wFdqFE #entarch

Heather Kreger:

• theopengroup: IBM’s Heather Kreger offering tips on assessing #SOA maturity with #OSIMM http://ow.ly/8LoVL
• systemsflow: Heather Kreger: OSIMM helps provide a checklist for SOA adoption (who of us doesn’t love a good checklist?)  #soa

Steve Whitlock:

• IverPDX: ConcentratedWealth + UnbalancedRisks + MaliciousActors + ChangeResistance + InsecureInternet = Perfect #Security Storm Steve Whitlock #entarch

Desai:

• systemsflow: Agile EA: Be business driven, forward thinking, quick to deliver value, & identify/repeat best practices. (Desai) #entarch #agile
• systemsflow: Be inclusive with architecture stakeholders.  If they are on your team, they will root for your team! #entarch http://t.co/uK9jiMw8
• EricStephens: Maharshi Desai (Oracle) just completed talk on his EA approach for architecting a Health Information Exchange (HIE/HIX)
• systemsflow: Desai closes with 4 classic images including “Be prepared for the challenge of a biz driven approach.” http://t.co/8z1cSU7x #entarch

A handful of untraced items:

• DaveBBradshaw: In “Using TOGAF to define & govern service oriented architectures”
• DaveBBradshaw: In the “Workshop – The Realization of SOA’s using the SOA Reference Architecture” session
• systemsflow: Whats in #SOA for me? It’s independent, holistic, scalable. Can compare, adapt and evolve. #entarch

Nick Malik:

• systemsflow: “Business agility” means moving faster than your competition. (Malik) #EntArch
• systemsflow: Business agility suffers with reuse.  Solution? Consistency at the core + agility at the edge. (Malik) #EntArch #BizArch
• nadsmat2diworld: “Integrate what we must, not what we can” Nick Malik- Microsoft  on Minimum Sufficient Business Integration (MSBI)  #entarch
• systemsflow: EA Change: Implement in segment.  Bring value.  Socialize and extend.  Repeat. (Malik on EA shampoo) #entarch #bizarch
• systemsflow: Make sound solution choices using a #SOA Reference Architecture. Know your capabilities, constraints and options. #entarch
• systemsflow: Some capabilities create differentiation in the marketplace.  These are the ones that require agility. (Malik) #EntArch #BizArch
• systemsflow: Using terms familiar to your stakeholders helps “land” the model during socialization. (Malik) #entarch #bizarch
• systemsflow: Architects want wall charts. CxO’s want 8.5″x11″ (Malik) #entarch  Target the handout for scope, then print big. http://t.co/RGo5Bn8p
• nickmalik: [post]  “Developing a Core Diagram” using Minimum Sufficient Business Integration method  #bmgen #entarch  http://t.co/dEnpIQIP

Kumar and Arsanjani:

• systemsflow: What elements to include in your #SOA RefArch depends on your SOA maturity level. (Kumar & Arsanjani)  #OSIMM #entarch

Maczuba:

• systemsflow: Lesson #1 of establishing #SOA Governance: Know your org, its vision, its skills, its governance process. (Maczuba) #EntArch
• systemsflow: “The best executed #SOA is when the stakeholders don’t realize they are doing it: Make it seamless.” (Maczuba) #entarch
• systemsflow: Take time to communicate your #SOA Governance framework to your stakeholders. Be transparent. Involve all parties. (Maczuba) #entarch

Laverdure and Conn:

• systemsflow: The business landscape is pervasive, unrelenting, disruptive change, also known as “opportunity.” (Laverdure, Conn) #entarch
• systemsflow: Sustainability is the “live long and prosper” of system qualities.  (Laverdure, Conn) #entarch #startrek
• systemsflow: Laverdure/Conn: Yet another @theopengroup presentation reference to stakeholder inclusion as critical to #EntArch success. #theme

Eric Stephens:

• systemsflow: Stephens: “Neither the importance nor the tedium of EA governance can be overstated”
• systemsflow: Increasing Biz, IT demands. Who can save the day? The Enterprise Architect! Has the competencies and the tools. #superhero #entarch
• systemsflow: 1.2ZB (1.2*10^21 bytes) of data was created in 2010.  Big data migration to the cloud means governance is critical. #entarch
• systemsflow: IT is moving from “expense” to “biz partner” and, eventually, to “no IT” – fully part of business. (Stephens) #entarch #bizborg
• systemsflow: Shadow IT != spiteful/sinister. Biz users bypass IT to “get the job done” as IT becomes more accessible  #saas  #entarch #governance

Mike Walker:

• mikejwalker: My presentation starts in 20 minutes. Come by to see Why EAs Must Drive Cloud Strategy #entarch #cio
• nickmalik: #entarch Mike Walker uses Cranfield Benefits Dependency Network to illustrate business value of #cloud — cool
• nickmalik: Mike Walker using Risk Assessment Framework to identify opportunities to use the #cloud to address enterprise risk #entarch #cio
• mrevoir: @mikejwalker’s presentation at #ogsfo was one of the best. presentation on the #entarch leading the cloud but could be universally leveraged

Mary-Ann Davidson and Don Davidson:

• joshuabrickman: Mary Ann Davidson Oracle Two of the biggest risks are counterfeiting and tainting..the Open Group Trusted Technology Forum addressing
• joshuabrickman: “A  9mm won’t help against a Grizzly Bear”–Mary Ann Davidson talking about Fit for Purpose…there are general limitations of COTS
• joshuabrickman: “Please tell me that ‘Just start coding’ is not your development practice”–Mary Ann Davidson referring to Trusted Technology Forum
• joshuabrickman: “Loss of confidence alone can lead to stakeholder actions that disrupt critical business activities” Don Davidson DOD-CIO  CNCI pres
• joshuabrickman: “Any electronic product that you purchase has a 10% chance that it includes a counterfeit component” Don Davidson DOD-CIO

A few miscellaneous items to finish:

• joshuabrickman: “@ARSzakal: Two days working the Trusted Technology Forum – getting close to a spec.” –But its not easy
• arway_anders: Great statement RT“@mikejwalker: Maybe we need to replace the term of EA with Capability #entarch Jeanne Ross”
• chrisonea: Great meeting @EricStephens for a smoke an a drink tonight. We solved ALL architecture problems.
• EricStephens: “@chrisonea: Great meeting @EricStephens for a smoke an a drink tonight. We solved ALL architecture problems.” | Political problems 2
• NadhanAtHP: 5 tips to make sure your enterprise architecture doesn’t end up looking like the Winchester Mystery House: http://bit.ly/Aj0yOn #HPCI
• Dana_Gardner: Enterprise architects play key role in transformation, say Open Group speakers http://t.co/Zu76seAJ#entarch

—

That’s it for now: more tomorrow (the last day of the conference). Hope it’s been useful, anyway.

Many thanks indeed to all those who Tweeted, to help us all get a better picture of the current Open Group view of enterprise-architectures.

I’ve stripped out most of the ‘#ogSFO’ hashtags in the text, and added occasional comments of my own in italics, but otherwise the following is as Tweeted by the respective participants.

There’s a lot of it, so best place a brief break here.

Miscellaneous before the start:

• nickmalik: @theopengroup attending #ogsfo advanced TOGAF.  Fairly E-IT-A focused.  Good advice for EA pgms inside IT
• Dana_Gardner: Heading over to The Open Group conference in San Francisco. Some great keynote speeches coming this am, we’ll be tweeting on them.
• a_josey: New Open Group blog: FACE Consortium Publishes First Standard for Defense Avionics Systems http://t.co/4vqr4eYY
• marclankhorst: RT @ArchiMate_r: @bizzdesign Please note the date change. The ArchiMate 2.0 launch is on Tuesday Jan 31
• theopengroup: Allen Brown, CEO @theopengroup is taking the stage #ogSFO is officially kicking off! http://t.co/Sl6gD0fy
• Dana_Gardner: CEO Allen Brown kicking off The Open Group conference, FACE and Archimate 2.0 news to come

Keynote by Jeanne Ross:

• Dana_Gardner: MIT’s Jeanne Ross up first http://t.co/wLBREoBs, speaking to a full house at Open Group conference
• Dana_Gardner: Stakes are high for enterprise architecture, needs to show success in the new digital economy, says Ross
• togaf_r: Jeanne Ross: We have to make sure enterprise architecture delivers
• nickmalik: Jeanne Ross keynote – role of the #entarch – To avoid application silos, we need to think in terms of capabilities
• Dana_Gardner: Coming from the siloed past in IT, now moving to business service views on resources, says Ross; now need to juice use of services
• Dana_Gardner: Enterprise architects also now need to help their organizations use services, instill a “value cycle”, says Ross
• systemsflow: “Most companies grossly underuse their capabilities” (Jeane Ross) #entarch
• Dana_Gardner: Enterprise architects need to evangelize use of improved systems after they build them, and show recurring value ASAP, says Ross
• mcrugo: Jeanne Ross from mit explains the move from value chains to value cycles in EA
• systemsflow: Enabling enterprise capabilities only helps if you enable capabilities that the organization will actually use! #entarch
• nickmalik: – J. Ross – Simply “build” the capabilities – not enough – #entarch  start with helping the business exploit current capabilities.
• theopengroup: Listening to MIT’s Jeanne Ross talk Enterprise Transformation at #ogSFO! http://t.co/Sl6gD0fy
• nadsmat2diworld: Listening to @wharton alumna Jeanne Ross at Open Group Conference in San Francisco. “Architecting Business Success” @wharton_women
• stevenunn: Standing room only for Jeanne Ross of MIT Center for Information Systems Research.
• Dana_Gardner: Enterprise architects need to provide “single source of truth” to all business stakeholders, make the information flow well, say Ross
• mcrugo: the different between success and failure in a digital economy is not ate technology, but the people.  Jeanne Ross MIT
• Dana_Gardner: Quality of data, speed of data refresh as top priorities will help enterprise architects rise in performance appreciation, says Ross
• theopengroup: “We live in a digital economy. In order to succeed, organizations need to excel in #entarch” – Jeanne Ross
• Dana_Gardner: “Single source of truth” is at heart of making enterprise architecture valuable going forward, says Ross
• Dana_Gardner: #USAA, as example, created enterprise strategy group aside IT, to organize transformation better (and IT loved it), says Ross
• nickmalik: J. Ross provides a number of stories of companies that provided key value through #entarch – USAA built value by moving EA out of IT
• theopengroup: .@USAA has an Enterprise Strategy & Planning group – partners with IT and sits on the business side working with senior executives
• mcrugo: shorts version of first session: if you build it they will come only works in the movies.
• stevenunn: Jeanne Ross: 5 great case study summaries of corporate EA success – Aetna, Protection 1, USAA, PepsiAmericas & Commonwealth Bank.
• Dana_Gardner: “Customer data is the most important kind of data,” Commonwealth Bank found, relays MIT’s Ross. Works for me. #Scribe
• brendabizz: Listening to Jeanne Ross at #ogSFO  lots of interesting insights, eg: USAA  created value by moving EA out of IT
• nickmalik: Commonwealth Bank saw value in #entarch by focusing on master data mgmt and clean consistent interfaces, from J. Ross
• stevenunn: Jeanne Ross: Commonwealth Bank started by improving access to its data, fixing data issues along the way, rather than in isolation
• Dana_Gardner: Even most successful companies are just learning to do analytics well, and strong operations came first, says Ross.
• stevenunn: Jeanne Ross: Enterprise architects role includes identifying capabilities to be exploited, and building capabilities incrementally
• theopengroup: #Entarch role in business value: Help senior execs clarify biz goals; identify architectural capability that can be readily exploited // Present options and their implications for business goals; build capabilities incrementally #entarch #jeanneross
• systemsflow: Ross:  Trend in 5 case studies.  Companies leverage #entarch to focus first on building great operations then analytic capabilities
• Dana_Gardner: Enterprise architect role: help clarify biz goals, ID what can be done readily, present more options, build incrementally, says Ross
• stevenunn: Jeanne Ross: in response to where do u find gr8 architects? “Mostly by growing them: taking smart people & giving them opportunities”
• nickmalik: J. Ross – good #entarch is grown not made – we need to take smart people and give them opportunities to grow + good education
• brendabizz: At #ogSFO Ross says u must grow talented people:training smart, passionate people,train them and use talented vendor resources
• EAatTRM: Jeanne Ross talk emphasized enterprise architects must help their organizations to exploit what is already there.
• theopengroup: “Some day CIOs will report to the architect – that’s the way it ought to be” #entarch
• mikejwalker: One day the CIO will report to Enteprise Architecture Jeanne Ross #entarch
• nickmalik: J. Ross – best PR for #entarch is a great CIO but EA needs to build good comm skills and focus on business value of capabilities
• mcrugo: talent for EA projects will need to be grown with people with passion, smarts, and drive.  Jeanne Ross MIT q&a
• AvolutionAbacus: Jeanne Ross presenting on one of our client’s journey @Commbank at #ogSFO
• mikejwalker: Maybe we need to replace the term of EA with Capability #entarch Jeanne Ross >sure – as long it’s more than just IT!
• stevenunn: Jeanne Ross: A great CIO is the best PR agency for enterprise architects. BUT, one day the CIO will report to the Chief Architect!
• Dana_Gardner: “Someday CIOs will report to the enterprise architect, because that’s the way it should be,” says MIT’s Ross, to applause
• mcrugo: capabilities cannot be delivered without a clear owner of the end to end process.
• systemsflow: Perception is reality.  If #entarch adds value, but nobody hears it, did the tree fall?
• nickmalik: J. Ross – #entarch must fight for lining up key aspects of ownership and governance to insure adoption of improved capabilities
• stevenunn: Allen Brown, The Open Group CEO: “Enterprise Architects must not only deliver value, but BE SEEN to deliver value”.
• IverPDX: Jeanne Ross of MIT advises enterprise architects to focus first on exploiting existing capabilities before adding new ones #entarch
• pelujan: RT @mikejwalker: One day the CIO will report to Enteprise Architecture #ogsfo Jeanne Ross #entarch | Not a chance. #C’monNowReally
• stevenunn: Jeanne Ross: Avoid strategic divergence by keeping an ongoing dialog with senior management. #entarch #AEA
• stevenunn: Jeanne Ross: “Don’t worry about the tipping point between capability building and exploitation. You’ll know if ur delivering value”
• ArtBourbon: Architects will do more work to identify which capabilities need to be created #entarch Jeanne Ross
• Dana_Gardner: “If you have a lot of money, don’t worry about enterprise architecture,” says MIT’s Ross. #Entarch
• nickmalik: companies with “too much money” have terrible #entarch and business process arch – J. Ross
• theopengroup: “Investment banking is an example of the worst #entarch. Cannot impose discipline if your org has too much money.” #JeanneRoss
• stevenunn: Jeanne Ross: Small organizations still need to focus on their capabilities and how to exploit them
• mikejwalker: Traditional #entarch methods of Plan, Build, Operate are broken. Value Cycles are needed NOT Value Chains #JeanneRoss
• industryleaders: RT @IverPDX: Jeanne Ross of MIT:  EAs add business value by coaching business executives on defining strategy #entarch

Miscellaneous, between keynotes:

• industryleaders: Colombia Mexico Costa Rica in Open Group San Francisco Conference AEA & Dux Diligens
• togaf_r: TOGAF 9 Top 10 certifications by country: 1896 UK|1449 US|1434 NL|900 AUS|678 IN|561 ZA|526 CA|437 FI|381 FR|281 SE
• theopengroup: Where do you find, how do you grow, and how do you keep good EAs? #entarch
• togaf_r: The TOGAF 9.1 document set is now available in the Kindle Store at Amazon
• a_josey: @nadsmat2diworld Presentations will be available in the online proceedings, posted on the wednesday after the conference

Someone else commenting on the persistent IT-centrism in enterprise-architecture:

• Dave_van_Gelder: Why is EA constantly related to IT and CIO’s? >my point exactly, Dave…
• industryleaders: @Dave_van_Gelder It is not only about IT its about a holistic approach its about business strategyand execution >would that that were true for TOGAF…
• Dave_van_Gelder: @industryleaders  I don’t see a holistic approach. Jeanne talked about what IT had to deliver and now it is about an IT transform.
• industryleaders: @Dave_van_Gelder Yes we are agree i am sharing that we must have a satellite vision instead a helicopter one ; )

Keynote by Celso Guiotoko:

• stevenunn: Celso Guiotoko, Corporate VP & CIO, Nissan Motor Co talking on how EA is helping Nissan IT transformation
• industryleaders: Listening Celso Guiotoko, Corporate VP & CIO, Nissan Motor Co talking on how EA is helping Nissan IT transformation
• Dana_Gardner: Business value at top of IT principles for Nissan, information as asset comes next, then reduce complexity, says Guiotoko #entarch
• lmelsted: Nissan’s IT based on BEST: Biz Alignment, Ent Arch, Selective Sourcing, Tech Simplification
• Dana_Gardner: For Guiotoko here’s what works BEST=Business alignment, Enterprise architecture, Selective sourcing, Technology simplification
• nadsmat2diworld: B.E.S.T. Business alignment, Enterprise Architecture, Selective Sourcing, Technological Simplification. Nissan. #entarch
• Dana_Gardner: BEST did this for Nissan: Cost per user went from 1.09 to 0.63 on their metrics scale. Wow. #entarch
• mikejwalker: Using #entarch Nissan reduced cost per user from 1.09 to .63, 230k return, with 404 applications reduced
• systemsflow: Nissan invested $1B in IT Transformation.  Can you think of anything you could fix in your shop with $1B? We’re happy to help.
• stevenunn: Celso Guiotoko, Nissan CIO: Approach to alliance with Renault was to look at each org separately, and then take a view across both
• systemsflow: At #ogsfo hearing many case studies of visionary executives investing in #entarch to great success… and its only hour 2!
• stevenunn: Celso Guiotoko, Nissan CIO: Important to identify relationship between the business and data architectures
• stevenunn: Celso Guiotoko, Nissan CIO: Vitesse program now underway in Nissan: Value Innovation Technology,  Simplification, Service Excellence
• IverPDX: Nissan Motors CIO: Big IS improvements thru BEST program: Bus. alignment, EA, Selective sourcing, Tech simplification #entarch
• stevenunn: Celso Guiotoko, Nissan CIO: IT organization now reports to corporate planning. Very helpful!
• mikejwalker: Nissan’s EA team reports at the executive level within Corporate and Product Managment #entarch
• mcrugo: Nissan and Renault accept the differences in corporate culture as permanent, but it does not stop IT from finding ways to integrate
• stevenunn: Celso Guiotoko, Nissan CIO: important to converge the language if IT dept to that of the business. Using TOGAF(R) helps.

More miscellaneous items:

• Dana_Gardner: The Open Group releases SOA and cloud computing standards, updates OSIMM http://t.co/x4SBjmg2 Recent news #entarch
• nadsmat2diworld: Why is Intercontinental hotel vibrating? #ogSFO #entarch

Keynote by Andy Mulholland:

• theopengroup:: Listening to Capgemini’s Andy Mulholland talk Enterprise Transformation at #ogSFO! http://t.co/Sl6gD0fy
• Dana_Gardner: Up next at Open Group conference: Andy Mulholland, Global Chief Technology Officer & Corporate Vice President at #Capgemini #entarch
• stevenunn: Andy Mulholland, Global CTO, Capgemini starts his talk on “The Transformed Enterprise” #entarch
• Dana_Gardner: Capgemini’s Mulholland http://t.co/TNY6t0ct begins preso on “the transformed enterprise” and look at #cloud trends. #entarch
• Dana_Gardner: Corporations are purely metrics driven, and IT must advance to that reality, says Mulholland #entarch >sorry, but that’s just plain stupid, even if it is true…
• lmelsted: Capgemini’s CTO Andy Mulholland now talking about enterprise transformation at #ogsfo
• Dana_Gardner: Behaviors of workers and customers are causing huge change in markets, with 40M tablets and 70M smartphones, says Mulholland #entarch
• stevenunn: Andy Mulholland, Global CTO, Capgemini: Enterprise IT transformation has been driven by people as workers and as customers
• Dana_Gardner: Bring Your Own Device #BYOD also forcing change; Gartner says 35% of IT budgets going “outside” IT, says Mulholland #entarch
• systemsflow: Home IT is becoming pervasive and challenging the enterprise IT model.
• stevenunn: Andy Mulholland, Global CTO, Capgemini: Gartner predicts that up to 35% of IT expenditure will not be controlled by corporate IT
• Dana_Gardner: Two IT environs developing now inside enterprises: “Inside” IT and “outside” IT, i.e. #cloud, says Mulholland #entarch
• Dana_Gardner: Going “outside” IT not necessarily bad if it’s managed properly, says Mulholland #entarc
• stevenunn: Andy Mulholland, Global CTO, Capgemini: A transformed enterprise uses an external business model. Not a bad thing, if it’s controlled
• Cybersal: Saw Andy Mulholland’s Transformed Enterprise talk at British Computer Society 2 weeks ago – very thought-provoking #entarch
• systemsflow: The transformed enterprise will have two cooperating IT models – back office/traditional and front office/loosely coupled web.
• lmelsted: Back office revolutions drive enterprise change–ignore at your own peril says Capgemini’s Andy Mulholland >yep…
• Dana_Gardner: Business model innovation is new game because these are changing more rapidly, more dramatically, says Mulholland #entarch
• IverPDX: Cap Gemini CTO Mulholland: A transformed organization uses an external business model #entarch #bmgen
• nickmalik: Recommendation – “Seizing the Whitespace” by Johnson – for business model innovation #entarch #bmgen
• stevenunn: Andy Mulholland, Global CTO, Capgemini: There’s a huge revolution occurring in enterprise IT. We must heed the lessons of the 80s/PCs
• Dana_Gardner: To innovate on business models, also need to change how you communicate and use information (Conway’s Law), says Mulholland #entarch
• IverPDX: Three ways to innovate: product, service or cost #entarch >only three???
• theopengroup: Conway’s Law – Enterprises cannot change beyond the constraints of their communications #entarch #andymulholland
• Dana_Gardner: Social networks work better in fast environs to share knowledge efficiently than email, as example, says Mulholland #entarch
• Dana_Gardner: #Cloud-based business processes uniquely allow for real-time adjustments and optimization, which is huge, says Mulholland #entarch
• Dana_Gardner: #Cloud plus #Mobile plus #BigData plus #social is the elixir to business transformation, says Mulholland #entarch
• stevenunn: Andy Mulholland, Capgemini: Interesting cloud example: servicing aircraft – changed where & how we use technology #cloud #entarch
• theopengroup: #cloud, #mobility and #bigdata – 3 core technology clusters and standards, but no business process standards #andymulholland
• mikejwalker: IT is Inside Out focused, looking at the problems within the company only wheras the business looks at problems Outside In. #entarch >yep… that’s the core problem with most current ‘enterprise’-architecture…
• mikejwalker: @Dana_Gardner: #Cloud + #Mobile + #BigData + #social elixir to business transformation #entarch <- Looks like the Gartner Nexus Model
• systemsflow: Enable real time flexibility in front office operations using cloud services, device mobility, and “big data.”  Mulholland.
• stevenunn: Andy Mulholland, Global CTO, Capgemini: it’s not just a revolution in technology, but in working practices too
• Dana_Gardner: #Cloud is really the 4th generation of the Web, says Mulholland #entarch
• IverPDX: Cap Gemini CTO Mulholland:  Services platforms broker in real time the services enabled by back-office IT #entarch
• Dana_Gardner: Transformed enterprise focuses on productivity of people and innovative business models; spells big change for IT, says Mulholland
• Dana_Gardner: IT faces “huge re-integration project” to bring together the inside and outside services in a rational way, says Mulholland #entarch
• stevenunn: Andy Mulholland, Global CTO, Capgemini: the business wants something radically different – don’t try to stop them! #entarch #AEA
• mikejwalker: TOGAF EA Methods has to accept anew model  of traditional Inside Out to a TOGAF complemented by a Outside In model #entarch #TOGAF >yes yes YES!!!
• Dana_Gardner: Governance models are the key to re-integration required of inside and outside services, says Mulholland #entarch
• lmelsted: Transformed enterprises must be integrated and practice controlled change acc to Andy Mullholland of Capgemini

And a few more miscellaneous items:

• mikejwalker: Open Group Conference San Francisco Day 1 Keynotes – Pt1:  http://t.co/HD4F3fOQ #entarch
• mikejwalker: Open Group Conference San Francisco Day 1 Keynotes – Full coverage http://bit.ly/yeuuZo #entarch
• nadsmat2diworld: Way too cold in this room but only ~10 percent of participants female so likelihood of getting A/C temp turned up is low #entarch

Keynote by Lauren States:

• Dana_Gardner: Up next at The Open Group conference: Lauren States, VP and CTO for Cloud Growth Initiatives at #IBM #entarch #cloud
• lmelsted: Lauren States, VP & CTO, Cloud and Growth Initiatives from IBM at #ogsfo
• Dana_Gardner: A new reality is roiling business around customers, employees, partners and competitors, says IBM’s States #entarch #cloud
• stevenunn: Lauren States, IBM VP & CTO Cloud Computing & Growth Initiatives speaking on making business drive IT transformation through EA
• Dana_Gardner: You have to move fast to succeed in the new environment, says IBM’s States #entarch #cloud
• WGoedvriend: Interesting talks on enterprise architecture amd evolving business the struggle within companies worldwide
• nadsmat2diworld: CIOs and CMOs are aligned that analytics, insight, client intimacy – critically important -Lauren States #entarch
• Dana_Gardner: Requirements mean a huge emphasis on analytics; and so need to integrate IT and analytics better, says IBM’s States #entarch #cloud
• theopengroup: “CMOs are overwhelming underprepared for the data explosion and recognize need to invest in and integrate technology and analytics”
• lmelsted: CMOs are underprepared for data explosion and need to invest in tech and analytics to help control branding says IBM’s States
• stevenunn: Lauren States, IBM: CMOs are underprepared for data explosion & recognize need to invest in & integrate technology & analytics
• mikejwalker: #IBM highlighting their C-Suite Study – Highlights the CIO survey http://www-935.ibm.com/services/c-suite/cio/study.html #entarch
• Dana_Gardner: Business process excellence, values-based culture, IT-enablement form core of IBM’s transformation credo, says States #entarch #cloud
• stevenunn: Lauren States, IBM: IBM’s transformation focus areas are enabling growth, productivity, and culture change #entarch
• lmelsted: Culture, biz process excellence and IT enablement drive approach to transformation using #entarch at IBM says States
• systemsflow: @lauren_states: Need to evolve IT beyond traditional business models to enable a new, social business model; echos Capgemini msg
• theopengroup: IBM look at enterprise transformation and IT as one critical function reporting to the CEO – @Lauren_States >good to see that.
• Dana_Gardner: Of course, #IBM has been transforming itself since 1994, and quite successfully #entarch #cloud
• stevenunn: Lauren States, IBM: Transformation of IBM through EA has cut operating costs by about $1.5bn ! #entarch
• RealLouw: Great to “sit in” on IBM thought leadership presentation in #ogsfo, while at the same time having a braai in South Africa – WebEx Rules
• systemsflow: @lauren_states reports that IBM reduced from 128 CIO’s to one.  There’s a “how many CIO’s” joke in there somewhere…
• stevenunn: Lauren States: IBM’s cloud strategy is committed to open standards #opengroup #cloud
• mikejwalker: IBM reduces their application portfolio by 2/3 with cloud transformation #entarch
• industryleaders: Listening IBM i just remember togaf tutorial Latin American Enterprise Transformation with TOGAF today 2pm
• Dana_Gardner: #IBM using cloud extensively internally, with lots of big metrics on savings and benefits, says IBM’s States #entarch #cloud
• systemsflow: @lauren_states: “Email-less man” at IBM loses 30lbs using social networking as a communication medium
• Dana_Gardner: Cloud sweet-spot in near-term is exploiting it for marketing, sales and customer service, says IBM’s States #entarch #cloud
• industryleaders: IBM is talking about lessons learned hey reduce their application portfolio by 2/3 with cloud transformation
• lmelsted: Analytics a crucial theme during each morning keynote at The Open Group San Francisco Conference #entarch
• systemsflow: @lauren_states: Email-less IBMer loses 30lb using social netw; apparently social netw is healthy for more than the enterprise!

Presentation by Madhav Naidu:

• theopengroup:: Coffee break has ended. Listening to Madhav Naidu with @Ciena talk #Enterprise Transformation at #ogSFO! http://ow.ly/8Lo6P
• systemsflow: Naidu reviewing how Ciena built out #entarch team from scratch in response to organizational change.

Presentation by Brian Cameron:

• stevenunn: Brian Cameron, Center for EA, Penn State University presenting on ROI, value measurement & best practices for the enterprise #entarch
• stevenunn: Brian Cameron, Center for EA, Penn State: 4 focus areas of EA Initiative – undergrad, masters, professional development & research
• mikejwalker: Open Group certifies graduates from Penn State based on skills not competences. NOT TOGAF but framework agnostic. #entarch
• mikejwalker: Penn State wants to create “Pre-Med” school for Enterprise Architects it doesn’t make you an EA, must go through residency #entarch
• mikejwalker: Penn State launching Professional Masters in EA degree program in the Fall. Expansion Center for EA #entarch
• mikejwalker: Penn State keeps it course “evergreen” through many members from public and private sector #entarch >same principle as in art-colleges
• theopengroup: Penn State researching the application of #entarch to areas outside of IT >hooray! it’s about time someone did…
• systemsflow: Brian Cameron, Penn State Center for #entarch doing research on an EA maturity framework that is not IT centric.  Publishing soon.
• mikejwalker: Penn State research surfaces that Value Management is low. Stats – 41 do, 54 don’t measure, 5% don’t know #entarch
• theopengroup: In Penn State study, ROI was the most popular financial metric used by EAs #entarch #EAvaluemeasurement
• mikejwalker: Penn State research says ROI is most popular value measure BUT is the worst one to use. #entarch >yep…
• systemsflow: Half the orgs surveyed in Penn State Center for #entarch study have no EA measurement practice in place.
• mikejwalker: Penn State started independant Federation of Enterprise Architect Professional Organizations http://www.feapo.org #entarch

Presentation by Mario Tokoro:

• Technodad: Mario Tokoro, CEO Sony Computer Science Labs: growing complexity of netwk systems, new regulations need new approach to dependability
• Technodad: Tokoro at #ogsfo: must treat dependability as open system problem. Needs iterative processes, dependability cases. http://post.ly/52I1w
• Technodad: Tokoro’s challenge: Can dependable engineering processes needed for dynamic open systems be mapped to TOGAF?

Miscellaneous again:

• Technodad: Yutaka Matsuno presents D-case methodology – dependability cases for complex open systems http://post.ly/52IdM
• Technodad: The Open Group publishes Future Air Capability Environment standard for open composeable defense avionics: http://bit.ly/xRySUU

Presentation by Marc Walker:

• togaf_r: Marc Walker: Using ontologies in business is still in its infancy
• EricStephens: Marc walker : it’s about the meaning between #entarch elements

And more miscellaneous:

• JWDijkstra: RT @stevenunn: Allen Brown, The Open Group CEO: “Enterprise Architects must not only deliver value, but BE SEEN to deliver value”.
• theopengroup:: Now before lunch, listening to @theopengroup CTO Mike Lambert brief #TOGAF 9 http://ow.ly/8Loeu

Presentation presumably by someone from HP:

• systemsflow: HP developed a Self-Service Architecture Resource Center to codify architecture basics and help junior architects build skills.
• mikejwalker: HP built lightweight EA Process (LEAP) to help aspiring / junior architects. When more rigor needed a EA Fwk. used #entarch
• systemsflow: #EntArch must provide good info UP to guide investment decision and strategic planning and DOWN to guide solution implementations.
• systemsflow: A consistent set of methods and a common language is critical to bridge the enterprise/solution architecture gap.

And yet more miscellaneous:

• togaf_r: The Open Group Architecture Forum TOGAF Next Working Group meets this afternoon http://t.co/16EnVV8g >will this version finally break free of IT-centrism? – we have to hope…
• AvolutionAbacus: Painfully obvious that some of the competition are on their last legs by the whole tone and body language of their presenters at #ogSFO. >what competition? – this doesn’t make sense…
• joshuabrickman: High level weaseling seems to be a new standards development method

Presentation by Russ Gibfried:

• systemsflow: Critical 1st steps in launching EA: a charter, principles, and a comm plan.  @rgibfried “Gaining/Retaining an Arch Practice.”
• systemsflow: Starting EA is easy – who doesn’t like motherhood and apple pie?  Sustaining is where the rubber hits the road. @rgibfried
• theopengroup: What are two ways to improve EA message? Have a clear line of sight linking business objectives to expected outcomes // Demonstrate balance between short-term value and long-term visioning #entarch @rgibfried
• systemsflow: @rgibfried: ill-defined roles,too IT focused,poor communication,ivory tower,governance police,forgotten stakeholders = #EntArch #FAIL
• systemsflow: Getting your EA charter signed by your CxO stakeholder gets you a seat at “the rest of the organization.” @rgibfried #entarch
• theopengroup: “#Entarch is not a spectator sport” @rgibfried
• systemsflow: @rgibfried losing me on sports analogy.  Wish he stuck with Star Wars. I think “in the zone” means the force is with me.

Presentation by Frank Chen:

• EricStephens: Frank Chen emphasizing the vocabulary disconnect among #entarch folks. Important to define terms. >to agree on usage of defined terms – defining alone is not enough…
• systemsflow: Build your #entarch  Capabilities as a core competency first then execute.  Frank Chen speaks to a common theme here at #ogsfo.

Presentation by Alan Hakimi:

• mikejwalker: Watching the Alan Hakimi talk about EA and Zen #entarch
• stevenunn: Listening to Alan Hakimi, Senior EA, Enterprise Strategy Services, Microsoft on “Zen & The Art of Modern EA – Rethinking the Mess”
• stevenunn: Alan Hakimi, Microsoft: ‘Stafford Beer was one of the first Enterprise Architects. How did we lose all that knowledge?” #entarch >hooray, someone acknowledges Beer!
• Cybersal: @tetradian re @stevenunn: #ogsfo mention of Stafford Beer…the knowledge lives on here  http://is.gd/52xpPX #scio  #entarch
• stevenunn: Alan Hakimi, Microsoft recommending Peter Senge’s book “The Fifth Discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization”
• mikejwalker: Alan Hakimi -Don’t build your own meta-models use Archimate #entarch >would be fine if it wasn’t so incomplete…
• stevenunn: Alan Hakimi, Microsoft: Using ArchiMate(R) meta-model can avoid having to worry about all the proprietary meta-models. #entarch
• stevenunn: Alan Hakimi, Microsoft: Example of airport lounges in Dubai: Imposing governance in a way that the end user doesn’t realize! #entarch
• stevenunn: Alan Hakimi,, Microsoft talking of using systems dynamics to evolve EA #entarch
• mrevoir: Alan Hakimi at #ogsfo appreciate the beauty of gray

Presentation by Henry Franken:

• brendabizz: Henry Franken CEOBiZZdesign speaking at #ogSFO Successfully Implementing EA w TOGAF & ArchiMate good eg’s showing transition architectures
• ArchiMate_r: Henry Franken: ArchiMate:Adding value to TOGAF: ArchiSurance case study to be made available w/ ArchiMate 2.0 tomorrow
• ArchiMate_r: Franken: ArchiMate closes the gap between free-format strategy models and detailed solutions architecture models
• ArchiMate_r: Franken: ArchiMate : Easy to use, step by step to move to advanced use. Designed specifically for EA

Presentation by Stuart Boardman:

• systemsflow: Stuart Boardman: “#entarch is more effective if it is outside of IT.” >yes yes yes! (b/c IT is only one part of EA)

Presentation by Nicholas Hill and Musharaf Mughal:

• stevenunn: Nicholas Hill, Infosys & Musharaf Mughal, Manulife Financial begin their talk on the virtual EA team (VEAT)
• stevenunn: Musharaf Mughal, Manulife Financial: We engaged consultants (Infosys) to get a lot of our EA work done #entarch
• stevenunn: Musharaf Mughal, Manulife: The virtual EA team comprises industry-credentialed individuals – in TOGAF(R) & other certifications
• stevenunn: Musharaf Mughal, Manulife Financial: Cultural challenges have been mostly intra-company, not inter-company #entarch
• stevenunn: Musharaf Mughal, Manulife Financial: We are not “outsourcing architecture”, we are “outsourcing some of the mechanics of the EA work”
• stevenunn: Nicholas Hill, Infosys: Manulife Financial have adopted the TOGAF (R) framework
• stevenunn: Musharaf Mughal, Manulife Financial: I have added 2 “trained business architects”, but I’m not certain what that means #entarch
• stevenunn: Nicholas Hill, Infosys: As required, Manulife adds specialized architects to the Infosys architect pool #entarch
• stevenunn: Musharaf Mughal, Manulife Financial: We are portraying the EA team as the guys who help you get what you need #entarch #aea
• stevenunn: Hill: VEAT value prop: Improve quality, enhance development cycle, systematically manage risk, drive standardization & reduce TCO
• stevenunn: Musharaf Mughal, Manulife: We are already reaping the rewards of using EA standards and re-useable building blocks per TOGAF(R)
• stevenunn: Mughal: CSFs – ease of doing business, broad acceptance & adoption by line of business, near-term success, & keeping up with demand
• stevenunn: Musharaf Mughal, Manulife: The EA thought-leadership is still in-house – we out-sourced some of the “getting stuff done” #entarch

And finally, a few more assorted items that I can’t connect to anything else:

• EricStephens: Rise of the (business) machines by Mans Bhuller. Are IT depts doomed?
• industryleaders: i get lost  i feel suddenly in a SUN Prepackaged HW Sales Bundle : (
• industryleaders: people from audience also told do not forget governance, risks , business readiness before an IT proposal

—

That’s it for now: more tomorrow. Hope it’s been of some use to someone, anyways.

• transarchitect: The priority shift we make is from efficiency to effectiveness to co-creativity. #complexity

Of course. Yes. That’s obvious, the moment I look at it.

Except that I’d completely missed before now.

Oops…

I’ve long since drawn a distinction between efficiency and effectiveness. Or rather, that efficiency – ‘doing more with less’, ‘doing things right’ – is only one dimension of effectiveness – ‘doing the right things right’.

[The set of five dimensions that I've used to summarise effectiveness, if you're interested, is efficient, reliable, elegant, appropriate, integrated - see  the slidedeck 'What is effectiveness?' or my book SEMPER & SCORE: enhancing enterprise effectiveness.]

Yet that type of ‘effectiveness’ assumes that there’s some kind of pre-ordained plan – ‘effective in terms of the plan’. What if there isn’t a plan? What if we don’t know what the plan is? What if we’ll only know what the plan was – or sort-of ‘was’ – once we’ve completed it? (‘Retrospective causality’, as a certain person would put it.)

That’s where co-creativity comes into the picture. Co-creating a ‘plan that is no-plan‘, together.

And that’s what I’d missed.

[I can see why I'd missed it: to be blunt, I'm, uh, not good at anything that involves being social, and the whole point and focus of co-creativity is that it's social. But it still doesn't excuse the fact that I shouldn't have missed it. Sigh.]

Yet I’m not the only one who’s missed it: there’s a whole societal shift implied here – a completely different way of working. One that doesn’t assume that there’s ‘The Plan’. One that doesn’t assume that there’s The Person In Control, or The Person Who Knows What’s Going On. Or even that there’s anyone who knows what’s going on. Instead, there’s a trust that co-creation will take us where we want to go: an effectiveness that’s an emergent property of the collective, without any ‘plan’ or pre-certainty at all.

I don’t see this as an ‘either/or’ – either effectiveness-relative-to-a-plan, or co-creation-with-no-plan. It’s more a ‘both/and’ – it seems more an effectiveness that arises from a sort-of plan-that-is-no-plan, one that covers the entirety of the SCAN decision-making space:

The classic ‘efficiency’-based approach is mostly about the left-hand side: assertions about ‘the true metrics’ and so on leads to The Plan which leads to control of actions and decisions at real-time – the Belief ‘domain’. It’s very mechanical – often literally so.

Looking at it now, the approach I’d taken to effectiveness did incorporate a lot more of the right-hand side, with a strong acceptance of various aspects of uncertainty – particularly in the human space, the ‘elegant’-dimension of effectiveness. But it still presumes a plan, an Assertion – and hence that’s where it naturally tends to return.

Co-creativity would seem to focus more on the ‘Use’-domain – literally, “What’s the Use?”. I believe that to work well – to avoid a collapse into a dysfunctional-chaotic free-for-all, a ‘co-non-creation’ – it’d still need some kind of guiding-light or anchor or direction, a shared “What’s the purpose here?”. Yet even that would likely be co-created too – a nice recursion there.

Hmm… A lot to think about. Or, preferably, co-create? Thanks anyway, Bert!

[Sometimes these reviews can be a bit too predictable in their over-focus on prediction? As Forrester enterprise-architect Brian Hopkins put it in a nicely ironic Tweet this morning, "I predict that the volume, velocity and variety of tech predictions will require #MapReduce to analyze by Dec 2012."... Hence, uh, no predictions as such here: apologies if that disappoints you... ]

For me, though, it’s been an interesting exercise to explore cycles within cycles, and the often urgent need to avoid the ‘gumption trap‘ of what Johnnie Moore terms ‘the Tyranny of Excellence‘:

We flounder when we over-react or repress failure. … [O]rganisations flounder if they set up procedures and practices that appear to be about excellence but are more about being in denial of our variability and complexity as human beings. Efforts to make meetings a guaranteed success quite often just lead to the repression of doubt or criticism. …

The risk is that we set impossible standards for ourselves and then get demoralised by not reaching them. The demand for perfection makes us hypercritical and we fail to appreciate what we are actually achieving. When we lose that sense of reality, ironically, we’re more likely to fail or perhaps to give up altogether.

(‘Flounder‘ seems a painfully-accurate metaphor there: a flatfish whose eyes have both migrated to the same side of the head, able to see only one side of the story… But I digress… – return to the story.)

That gumption-trap of floundering can be particularly destructive for those of us who have distinct peaks and troughs in our work-patterns. For example, looking back, I did quite a lot last year: amongst other things, I presented at three very different enterprise-architecture conferences, edited two books, and wrote coming on for two hundred blog-posts on enterprise-architecture and related themes – often three to four thousand words or more each, adding up to the equivalent of several entire books. And I spent a fair bit of time travelling for work, too: a longish stay in Australia, a shorter one in Brazil, and a couple other brief trips as well.

Yet there were distinct patterns in all of that. All of the conferences happened in the first half of the year, as did all of book-editing and most of the travelling; by contrast, most of the blog-posts were in the second half of the year, with a lot of intense work on themes such as metamodels, service-architectures, management-structures and ‘really-big-picture’ enterprise-architecture, and, currently, on tools-ideas and SCAN for sensemaking. Every now and then there would be a definite slump, a kind of ‘mini-burnout’ – I’m in one now, as it happens, where I’m struggling to get much of anything done at all, and on previous experience may well go on for another few days yet.

Within each day, there are definite cycles too. For me, my peak creative-time is usually in the mornings: best time for writing, anyway. The less- creative time in the afternoons tends to get used for editing, for doing diagrams, for – oh joy… – all the administrivia that our ‘sensible’ business-world currently requires. Sometimes in the evening I find myself back in the creative space; sometimes not.

If I try to force myself to do creative work in the off-cycle, I risk ending up doing no work at all, because the all-too-predictable feeling of failure can trigger that gumption-trap of floundering. Just to make things worse, as Paul Graham warns in his classic 2009 essay ‘Maker’s schedule, manager’s schedule‘, one interruption during that creative-time – or even just the threat of an interruption – can destroy creative productivity for the entire day: which again reinforces that sense of failure.

[The mindsets of 'makers' and 'managers' really don't mix - a fact I've been discovering to my cost whilst living in the same household as an elderly person who needs every day's activity to be regimented hour by hour on a rigid timetable, and who now literally cannot cope with any significant change of plan... Not fun, I can tell you: and seriously damaging to creativity, too... ]

And everyone has their own cycles, all of them somewhat different; and often those cycles will change over a lifetime, too, as the lethargic teenagers who can’t get out of bed before midday will change their habits when they become the parents awoken by a crying child at three in the morning. Daily cycles, yearly cycles, the cycle of a lifetime: cycles within cycles.

Yet what happens within most organisations? That’s right: we design systems that assume that people are machines, that they always work exactly the same all the time, in a measured, certain, predictable way. Or that they’re creative geniuses, every possible moment of every possible day.

And we then wonder why it doesn’t work.

Duh…

And then punish people for failing to work to our expectations. (Or teach them to punish themselves for ‘failing to meet expectations’, which comes to much the same thing.)

Oops…

So perhaps it might be a bit more wise to create organisational architectures that actually respect the fact that people are people? That they do each have their own cycles within cycles within patterns within flows within feelings, each subtly or strongly different? That some people indeed do not and cannot give their best work on a ‘manager’s schedule’? That that so-popular Taylorist attitude that regards people as second-class machines is perhaps a guaranteed path to mediocrity and poor performance?

Perhaps it might be more wise to respect people for who they are?

Strange idea for many managers, I know. But perhaps it’s the one that works?

And perhaps a reason why we really need to remind those managers that sometimes the best service they can provide to the whole organisation is to keep out of everyone’s way – such that the people who do actually make things can get their work done on their own natural schedules, rather than the ‘manager’s schedules’ of unusable, fragmented, discombobulated time?

Hmm…

Just reflecting on the passing year, the passing day, the passing time, that’s all.

[Update: as is so often the case, a perfect Tweet came up between writing this and checking Twitter - this time from Michelle James:

• CreatvEmergence: We need workplaces where people can engage and express more of their whole creative selves, not a reduced fraction of themselves

Expresses the point just as well as all of the above, really, and a lot shorter, too. Oh well. ]

• davegray: “Strategy is design.” Agree or disagree? Why?

What followed was, for me, one of the best back-and-forth Twitter-conversations in recent weeks:

• nickmalik: @davegray design is a method.  Strategy is a result.  Fair to say good strategy may result from design, or luck, or intuition
• tetradian: @nickmalik @davegray would say that strategy tends to (or should?) come before design – or that they interweave with each other
• oscarberg: Strategy (what & why) primarily requires knowledge, tactics (how, when) primarily requires skill.
• davegray: @tetradian @nickmalik IMO a strategy is not a result. Profits, growth, revenue, etc. are results. A strategy is an approach. // hard for me to see how good strategy can be the result of luck. To me, it can’t be a strategy if it’s not intentional.
• mikerollings: @davegray @nickmalik @tetradian strategy must influence and be influenced by execution – you must be open to learning from happy accidents
• tetradian: @mikerollings @davegray @nickmalik “strategy must influence / be influenced by exec”n – open to learn from happy accidents” >strong agree
• davegray: @mikerollings 100% agree. @nickmalik @tetradian
• nickmalik: @davegray each step in a process produces a result.  The strategic dev step produces strategy as a result.  That step may use design, or not
• davegray: @nickmalik sure, strategy is a result of a strategic dev process, like a plan is the result of a planning process. cc @tetradian
• davegray: @tetradian @nickmalik it seems to me that design and strategy are both methods or approaches, ie, means to an end, with significant overlap.
• davegray: @tetradian @mikerollings @nickmalik 140-character limit constraining. Will write a post & try to make my point more coherently
• tetradian: @davegray @nickmalik in my exp., strategy sets out the intent, design is more about realising the intent (but also feeds back into strategy)
• ruthmalan: @tetradian @davegray @nickmalik Agreed Tom — you’ve better phrased my (playful) reply to Dave yesterday. Also consider: emergence vs intent
• davegray: @ruthmalan @tetradian @nickmalik I think this may be one of those times when words get in the way of meaning
• ruthmalan: @davegray [ @tetradian @nickmalik ]    or the lack of words? Can strategy, like meaning, be emergent? Or is it strictly intentional?
• davegray: @ruthmalan @tetradian @nickmalik strategy can intentionally create opportunities 4 emergence. Also unintentionally, but that’s not strategy // IMO a good strategy in uncertain environment preserves optionality & is ready to pivot quickly
• nickmalik: @tetradian two places where “design thinking” is used: developing strategy and implementing it. Which are we discussing?
• tetradian: @nickmalik design-thinking is used in both strategy and implementation; most of design-doing happens only in execution
• johnt: @davegray @tetradian From strategic planning to purpose and resilience http://bit.ly/vfJxaj >strong agree #entarch
• ArtBourbon: @davegray  @ruthmalan @tetradian @nickmalik looks like I missed a good discussion (strategy, intent, emergence etc)
• davegray: @mikerollings @tetradian I forget who said this: luck is when opportunity meets preparedness
• tetradian: @davegray @mikerollings “who said: luck is when opportunity meets preparedness” – Pasteur: see ch.3 and appdx in ‘The Art of Scientific Investigation’ http://bit.ly/7U1vgy
• mikerollings: @davegray @tetradian #nickmalik “Luck, Serendipity, and the Contextual Strategist” #entarch http://bit.ly/utJWnT >strong agree
• davegray: @mikerollings @tetradian I think context is part of it. Also important is a set of values/principles that guide decisions within the context
• tetradian: RT @davegray: @mikerollings “Also important is a set of values/principles that guide decisions within the context” >v.strong agree #entarch
• ruthmalan: @tetradian – thanks for ptr to The Art of Scientific Investigation – glad you shared it with Dave/Mike and we who follow y’all
• tetradian: @ruthmalan – glad you liked ‘Art of Scientific Investigation’ – one of my all-time favorite books! (eg. see end-summary chap. on Reason)
• ruthmalan: @tetradian There I was enjoying the Serendipity of the chapter on Chance Indeed, that end-chp summary on Reason is wonderful! Thx again!
• mikerollings: @davegray @tetradian values & principles are part of context, and there is no notion of the context setters & the consumer. We all do it.
• davegray: @mikerollings now you have lost me. Is there anything that isn’t part of the context? @tetradian
• mikerollings: @davegray Context=shared undrstndng within which we co-create. So there is context & doing. Some doing creates context w/ others @tetradian
• davegray: @mikerollings so our decisions & actions should be guided by shared understanding. Am I missing something important? @tetradian

As can be seen from the links above, the conversation triggered at least two excellent additional posts:

• John Tropea, ‘From strategic planning to purpose and resilience’ (mostly a long quote from Dave Pollard, but also a long list of pointers to other related articles)
• Mike Rollings, ‘Luck, Serendipity and the Contextual Strategist‘

My own view? I’d say they’re somewhat different: closely related, but somewhat orthogonal to each other. Strategy ‘is’ design in the sense of design-as-intent, but not in the more common sense of design-for-implementation. In that latter sense, strategy is an input into the design-process. Yet in a way strategy can also be in part an output from the design-process – especially when eliciting strategy for detail-layer changes. So yeah, it’s kinda complicated…

A great example of this is described in a BBC article (pointed to by LinkedIn), ‘Man sued for keeping company Twitter followers‘ (27-dec-2011).

The story revolves around social-media figure Noah Kravitz. During his time at tech-news aggregator Phonedog, he accumulated some 17,000 ‘followers’ to his Twitter-account there (@Phonedog_Noah). When he left Phonedog, he changed his username, and the followers either moved with the account, or moved to the new account (dependent on whether he changed the name itself, or moved to a new account – the BBC article doesn’t say). Phonedog regarded the followers as ‘company-property’ – as a ‘customer-list’, to be precise – which Kravitz had taken with him, and were suing him to get it back as their ‘rightful possession’.

There are so many fundamental concept-errors in Phonedog’s actions here that it’s difficult to know where to start… Yet they’re also very common mistakes in the broader business context: hence it’s worth exploring this from an enterprise-architecture / business-architecture perspective.

What we’re actually dealing with here is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of non-tangible assets, coupled with a fundamental misunderstanding about the inherent limitations of an economic model that relies on exchange of ‘rights’ of exclusive-possession over assets.

Let’s start by identifying four fundamentally different asset-dimensions:

• physical: a ‘thing’ – tangible, autonomous, exchangeable and alienable (“if I give it to you, I no longer have it”)
• virtual: information, ideas – non-tangible, semi-autonomous, exchangeable but non-alienable (“if I give it to you, I still have it”)
• relational: person-to-person connection – non-tangible, non-autonomous (exists between two entities), non-exchangeable and non-alienable
• aspirational: person-to-abstract connection – non-tangible, non-autonomous (exists from person to abstract), non-exchangeable and non-alienable

Assets may express multiple dimensions: for example, a printed book is both a physical-asset (the book itself) and a virtual-asset (the information or ideas in the book), and may also act as an anchor for aspirational-assets (people’s sense of connection to the book and/or to the ideas in the book). This linking of multiple asset-dimensions is often described as ‘bundling’.

The current economic-model relies on exchanges of ‘rights’ of ‘exclusive-possession’. It’s a concept that only makes sense with exchangeable and alienable assets – in other words, physical-assets. ‘Exclusive-possession’ does not and cannot make sense with any other asset-dimension. Yet since bundling of asset-types means that the rules for all asset-dimensions in the bundle will apply, the flawed assumptions of the economic model will seem to sort-of make sense as long as there’s some element of physicality in the bundle. But when that element of physicality is dropped? – well, that’s when things get, uh, interesting…

Hence the breakdown of the old media-industry business-models over the past few years. What they actually sell is information, but their old model were based on bundling – printed-books, physical disks, seats in cinemas – hence, with a bit of legal arm-twisting, it could be made to look like a physical ‘exclusive-possession’. But physical things are expensive, with all the concomitant costs and complications of managing them as physical assets: inventory, storage, shipping, building-maintenance, retail-stores and so on. Much cheaper to go all-digital. Which, however, then becomes an unbundled virtual-asset – which can only be exchanged by creating copies, which can then also be exchanged by creating further copies, and so on, all without any exclusive-’alienability’. Oops…

Hence the media-industries first tried an old tactic, which was to use the law of ‘copyright’ (which was and still is focussed only on the ‘possession-rights’ of publishers, not authors) to assert ‘possession’ over those virtual-assets. But the nature of information is that it ‘wants to be free’ – not necessarily in a monetary sense, but in that it’s only usable/accessible by creating copies, and copies of copies, and copies of copies of copies, which at some point will slip outside of any attempts at ‘control’.

Law alone didn’t work, so the next tactic was to try to control some crucial point in the physical ‘pipe’ for information: hence demands that the computer-industry should redesign all processor- or interface-chips to include ‘digital rights management’ that would be controllable only by Hollywood and their ilk. Not surprisingly, that didn’t go down very well with content-creators themselves – or the computer-industry, who happened to have their own lawyers and lobbyists too. Result: expensive stalemate – and still no ‘control’ of those naturally-volatile virtual-assets.

That’s been followed by one attempt after another to ‘control’ information, mostly by threats of legal action and the like. What the media-corporations are still not doing is facing up to the fact that not only is it inherently futile to try to control virtual-assets as if they’re physical, but doing so calls into question the theoretical and ethical basis of the entire possession-economy – physical-assets included. Definitely ‘oops’…

Which brings us back to the Kravitz/Phonedog case.

In that schema above, Twitter-follows are, in effect, a bundling of relational-asset (the perceived person-to-person link between the ‘follower’ and Kravitz) and virtual-asset (the information within Twitter that denotes the link) plus a certain element of aspirational-asset (because with some 17,000 ‘followers’, most of those will be more a link to the idea of Kravitz rather than a true relational-asset person-to-person link). What there isn’t anywhere in there is any physical-asset component – and hence nothing on which a notion of literally-exclusive ‘company property’ can make any sense.

I presume that somewhere there will be some utility that can extract a follower-list from Twitter – in other words, create a sort-of transferrable virtual-asset that Kravitz can give to Phonedog. Yet in practice even that makes little to no sense. First, the followers are not ‘customers’ in a transactional sense, either of Phonedog or of Kravitz: they’re just people who have a passing interest in what Kravitz might happen to say, an interest that may or may not relate to Phonedog as such, even in Kravitz’s (literal!) persona as ‘Phonedog_Noah’. It’s a trust-relationship, not ‘customer’-relationship. And second, transferring the list does not transfer the relationship: in fact it’s more likely to kill any potential relationship with the company, because it implicitly treats the ‘followers’ as if they themselves are nothing more than exchangeable ‘possessions’ – which many (most?) people would take as a fairly extreme insult. Certainly not conducive to creating trust, anyway.

In short, Phonedog’s attempts to ‘possess’ the relationships have all but guaranteed making it impossible for Kravitz to transfer them. The relationships are not under his control: relational-assets are real assets in a business sense, yet they exist only whilst they’re maintained by both parties to that relationship. The only direct option he has within Twitter is to destroy the link, by blocking: he can’t create a new ‘follower’ link, or transfer the link to someone else. (The equivalent is true with direct person-to-person links, of course.) Suing him for damages, about something that by definition isn’t in his control anyway, is both absurd and unfair.

There is (or, by now, probably only was) another option: emphasise the aspirational-asset element (person-to-idea rather than person-with-person), create a strong crosslink between the idea of Kravitz-as-employee-of-Phonedog and the idea of Phonedog-the-company, and use that crosslink to gently persuade Kravitz’s followers to also ‘follow’ Phonedog. (Note that a ‘follow’ to a company has a much higher aspirational-asset component than relational-asset component – something I probably need to explain in another post?) But all of that depends on fairly complex multi-way trust-relationships: for example, the followers need to trust Kravitz’s recommendation, and Kravitz also needs to trust that Phonedog will treat ‘his’ followers with similar respect. And again, there’s not much of those trust-interactions that’s under Kravitz’s personal control – hence again it makes little sense to try to assign him the sole legal responsibility for them.

In practice, Phonedog has done just about everything that they could do to destroy all of those trust-relationships – and then, having done so, tried to blame and even punish everyone else for their ‘loss’.

Not exactly wise, we might say?

Yet also not exactly uncommon, either. Quite the opposite, in fact…

The moral of this sad story, from an enterprise-architecture perspective, is be clear which asset-dimensions you’re dealing with in every context, and ensure that those assets are managed accordingly. Because if you aren’t clear about it, and fail to handle each asset-dimension appropriately, your organisation will inevitably find itself in this kind of mess. And the only people who ‘win’ from this kind of mess are the predators, parasites and scavengers in the legal-profession and elsewhere. Oh joys…

Over to you, perhaps?

I’ve given it a temporary home on my Sidewise server:

• http://ea.sidewise.biz

No doubt it should have a proper domain of its own, but that’ll do for now to get us started.

[By the way, this is another follow-up to my post 'Helping others make sense of my work' - the need for a wiki was a suggestion that came up several times in the comments there.]

It’s a fairly straightforward wiki, based on the WikkaWiki framework – probably the cleanest and simplest wiki-framework I’ve come across. (I’ve struggled with many such frameworks over the years, of which Wikipedia is almost the worst…) Like all wikis, though, it does have its own quirks, hence some quick comments:

– Anyone can read, write or comment. (That’s the default: there’s actually a full access-control system for read, write and comment, all the way down to individual page-level, but that’d take too long to explain here.)

– However, to write, comment or edit, you’ll need to register a user-account. (There’s no charge for this, of course, and should be no privacy-implications: it’s just to stop spam-bots using the site.) There’s a quick summary on how to do this on the wiki home-page.

– One minor ‘gotcha’ is that user-names need to be in wiki-format – what’s known as ‘CamelCase’, beginning with a capital-letter and with at least one additional capital-letter after the start. For example, my user-name is ‘TomG’; you might make yours ‘FredBloggs’ or VikusVdM’.

– Editing is straightforward: click the ‘Edit’ link on the left side of the page-footer, or double-click on the page itself. The ‘Store’ (save) and ‘Preview’ buttons are at the lower-left when you’re editing.

– Formatting is a lot simpler than most wikis: in many cases it’s two repeated-characters. See the ‘Wiki formatting guide’ that’s linked from the home-page. Links are straightforward: ‘[[', then the page wikiname (internal link) or URL (external link), then a space as separator, the link-text, and ']]’.

– Usefully, a page can include a FreeMind-format mindmap: paste the FreeMind XML into the edit-space as the page-content. Read-only, unfortunately, but it’s an easy way to share mindmaps.

– Upload of images and other files is a bit more difficult, and at present only administrators can do it. I’ll hack the code as soon as I can, to allow a broader range of users to upload, but in the meantime, if you want to upload a file, send it to me and I’ll upload it for you.

I’ve put up some initial content to get started – a few dozen definitions, a couple of articles, and a whole load of links to other posts elsewhere – and I’ll continue putting more material up there over the next few days and weeks. But the rest is up to you, really: it’s everyone’s site, not just mine.

Anyway, it’s there, and usable: over to you?