Various breaks added to split the overall Twitter-stream into (I hope) more meaningful clusters; I’ve also added comments in various places in italics preceded by a ‘>’ marker, >like this.

There’s quite a lot of it, so take a wander after the ‘Read more…’ break.

• theopengroup: The program for today’s conference is available at http://ow.ly/5EWd8 and on the mobile site at http://ow.ly/5EWfK

• systemsflow: All about business architecture day 1 at #ogaus
• systemsflow: Business Architecture: can’t every business be boiled down to one use case name: Make Money? Drill down from there >no, it can’t: this is exactly what not to do for #entarch / #bizarch…
• systemsflow: RT @systemsflow Can’t every business be boiled down to one use case: Make Money? Drill down from there // forgot govmn’t: Win Mission >’make money’ / ‘win mission’ etc are subsidiary #entarch aims for specific stakeholders: understand whole-enterprise first!
• tetradian: @systemsflow we develop #entarch for an organisation, but about whole-enterprise – are not the same! http://slidesha.re/8wWNSq
• tetradian: systemsflow: “theme for today is ‘benefit bottom line w/EA = succeed’” – hmm. indicates limited model of how enterprise works…?
• JWGaus: @tetradian @systemsflow #entarch there are too many nuances of ‘make money’, the next level of detail is needed.  Too generic to be useful. // define vision and principles for how to ‘make money’ and define enterprise structure to that. // summarize higher than your vision and principles and you’ve lost your enterprise.
• tetradian: RT @JWGaus: define vision / principles for how to ‘make money’ , define enterprise structure to that. >wrong way round? http://bit.ly/9zU9J
• Cybersal: @tetradian @systemsflow The negative consequences of focusing on bottom line ahead of everything else http://bit.ly/oYCEiE #entarch #bizarch
• iansthomas: RT @systemsflow BizArch can’t every biz be boiled down to 1 use case: Make Money? <custs or emps r more attracted to purpose >exactly!
• JWGaus: @tetradian #entarch Yes, #sustainability is a key thing I was referring to in “nuances of making money”. Making money must include it // #sustainability includes care of enterprise ecosystem, people, and yes, the planet. Oh, and shareholders

• theopengroup: David Baker, PriceWaterhouseCoopers: How do you manage the complexity of running a business while trying to transform it?
• larrycincy: David Baker showing how to have business plan become the foundation of connecting solutions to business intent <- interesting goal
• theopengroup: Baker cites Disney: moving from from physical assets to intellectual prop. Investors are valuing those moving to an IP landlord space
• industryleaders: business capability maps current and future critical for impact analysis and EA Live from Austin Open Group
• theopengroup: Baker: Strategic planning requires architects from both business and technology competencies, a true multidisciplinary team

• theopengroup: Next up: “The Devon Energy #EA Story” Tim Barnes, Chief Architect, Devon Energy
• theopengroup: “Devon Energy’s Enterprise Architecture Journey” presented by Tim Barnes, chief architect at Devon presenting an #EA case study
• theopengroup: Devon utilized an urban planning-like vision to reduce complexity of Devon’s info systems and technologies (the result of 26 mergers)
• theopengroup: Barnes agrees with Baker: successful #EA requires multidisciplined team that includes non-architects and various kinds of architects
• larrycincy: Devon Energy got matrixed team with executive sponsorship to ensure EA function success
• theopengroup: It’s been 2 years since #EA effort began at Devon; $16 million in hard-dollar savings recognized, 227 apps/technologies retired
• theopengroup: Other successes at devon: Common languages created, permanent business owners for every system across divisions, repeatable processes
• productmarketer: “227 applications retired. $16m in hard savings” Tim Barnes, Chief Architect at Devon’s Energy presenting #entarch case study at #ogaus
• systemsflow: Important point in @devonenergy talk at #ogaus: what’s the right mix of consultants & employees for a large organization’s EA practice?
• theopengroup: Tim Barnes sharing three key successes and seven lessons learned during the course of Devon Energy’s successful implementation of #EA
• systemsflow: Japanese manufacturing mantra: if you can’t measure it you can’t improve it. True for EA work too
• practicingEA: Nice observation from Chief Arch of energy company. Everyone defines application differently. W/o common Defn, how can u measure? // Corollary from last tweet…if u can’t define EA how can you measure it’s results? #entarch
• systemsflow: Devon Energy’s Tim Barnes this morning: Critical to have the business – not IT – deliver EA-related communications.

• theopengroup: Last plenary speaker today: Mike Walker, Microsoft: “The New World of #EA, from IT Architecture to Enterprise Architecture”
• theopengroup: Mike Walker, Microsoft speaking: Where is #EA going? What are TOGAF’s complementing methods, models, tools? How does Micrsoft do it?
• theopengroup: Walker: IT is the business. The two are the same. There needs to be partnership, not just alignment between IT and the business #ogaus >??? – might be true at Microsoft, but in most places IT is part of the business, not ‘is’ the business
• systemsflow: Microsoft’s Mike Walker: Forget about IT “aligning with” the business; IT is *part of* the business. >(okay, Mike got it right, OG misquoted)
• theopengroup: Walker: 71% of execs say that IT must be tightly integrated with biz strategy; only 27% say this actually happens (McKinsey)
• stevenunn: Mike Walker of Microsoft: “Must ensure there’s a balance between IT Architecture and Enterprise Architecture.” >and Mike is one who does understand there’s a difference…
• stevenunn: Mike Walker: Also need balance between IQ and EQ (soft/emotional skills). Only the combining the 2 will get EA a “seat at the table”
• theopengroup: Walker: IQ’s technical know-how must be balanced by EQ, which is motivational/empathetic to customer/stakeholders
• systemsflow: Good point from Microsoft’s Mike Walker: IQ gets an enterprise architect noticed, EQ (emotional intelligence) gets you further
• stevenunn: Mike Walker: “EA connects strategy & implementation” // Mike Walker of Microsoft: “We believe in The Open Group’s tagline [mission] of Boundaryless Information Flow.”
• systemsflow: Interesting quandary for a technology product company (e.g. @microsoft) who also sells EA services: can it “eat its own dogfood”?
• stevenunn: Mike Walker of Microsoft “3 things to remember for EA: mindset, methods, & make it happen”
• theopengroup: Walker: Microsoft’s framework leverages many other frameworks, including TOGAF; Most important is common vocabulary
• henryfranken: Nice quote today in Austin (#ogaus) by Mike Walker: ‘Microsoft is actively using ArchiMate in our engagements with end customers’

• theopengroup: Heading into tracks! World Class #EA Workshop; Professionalizing the Discipline of EA; Strategic View of Secure Computing in 2030

• systemsflow: Peter Haviland in “World Class EA” talk at #ogaus – US regulatory regime provides “happy hunting ground” for EAs. Don’t we know it…
• systemsflow: Rolf Siegers from Raytheon: Big difference between trained architects and certified architects. >but what’s the difference? – oh well, I guess that’s why we go to conferences…
• systemsflow: How do architects get extracted from SWAT project-level problem-solving? First: be paid not by a project but by operations
• systemsflow: Greg Akers: EA documentation into the wrong hands is a huge threat to an organization
• systemsflow: Architectural significance: useful concept/litmus test for what IT projects need an EAs attention
• systemsflow: Is there a reason the “Architecture at the Project Level” block in @theopengroup EA capabilities map is red??

• Technodad: Whitlock at #ogaus: We moved the world economy to the Internet – without a backup plan. >v.good point… #entarch #economics

• jamestaulbut: RT @theopengroup: RT @systemsflow:  <so who carries the can for tech delivery excellence? Also ops with give them the service issues. // also architects need to take responsibilty for their architectures and not sit in ivory towers

• systemsflow: Brian Hopkins from @Forrester makes good point about Big Data projects – business use them to flip requirements/solution sequence
• systemsflow: Cute concept from Brian Hopkins @Forrester – “Dirty ODS”. 360 customer view solutions are largely unicorns. Mash it up instead?
• larrycincy: Brian Hopkins @Forrester – “No data is discarded anymore” at one company

• mikejwalker: #entarch can learn from Benjamin Franklin “Vision without implementation is hallucination”. EA connects strategy to implementation >strong agree

• systemsflow: Job descriptions are independent of roles, but often cause confusion among project participants. (Hint: Use a RACI matrix.)

• systemsflow: James Stikeleather makes an observation regarding the “life safety” issues we face due to the tie between cyber and physical worlds. >yup – which is why calling #itarch ‘#entarch’ is so darn dangerous…

• systemsflow: Forde & Haviland reviewed EA capabilities map: http://sfi.cc/og1. @systemsflow EA capabilities target: http://sfi.cc/mentoring

systemsflow: Raveesh Dewan:  Enterprise Architects at CareFirst are centrally funded (not project funded.)  Project partners not project members.

• aogeacolombia: ea is about people, enterprise and it capabilities transformation thanks to a clear strategy lets align strategy and execution

• systemsflow: Refaat Shulaiba now speaking: Rapid Business Transformations in Health Care: A Systems Approach

• systemsflow: @BalajiPrasad_ speaking soon.  Enterprise Architect – more than a technologist // One of the most interesting side-benefit of #ogaus is learning about the different business lines our EA colleagues work in
• systemsflow: The one thing that is common to all our approaches is that there is nothing in common. @BalajiPrasad_
• systemsflow: Getting “shot at & wounded” is part of the experience required to become a strong EA @BalajiPrasad_ >sadly true…

• systemsflow: Repeated meme in the #ogaus security track: Pervasive Simplicity. Great example – gmail, send, manage, find email w/minimal effort

• systemsflow: Business “capabilities” a common theme today at #ogaus. The challenge: Ensuring all stakeholders agree on what the term means. >yep: that’s a big challenge…

• theopengroup: Final tracks of the day: EA and Biz Strategy; Data and Information Management; Strategic View of Secure Computing in 2030

• theopengroup: Ramírez: giving insightful, practical advice on how companies in Latin America are relating their #EA to their mission statements
• theopengroup: Ramírez: Social environment and responsibility part of Latin America #EA philosophy >yes! – real #entarch

• theopengroup: Now Dave Hornford, Conexiam, speaking on “Accelerating Value: Align Focus to Desired Outcomes & Investment”
• theopengroup: Hornford: If you want to chase value as an enterprise architect, you need to ask: What problem are we trying to solve? // When orgs shut down EA practice then start up again they’re looking for a solution to a problem. Engage and solve that prob #EA
• theopengroup: Hornford: Successful EA teams are closely aligned to strategy, clear objectives, deliver up and execute = that is delivering value!

• systemsflow: #entarch Info sharing shift: From “Need to know” to “Responsibility to share” >strong agree #km #collab
• systemsflow: Heat mapping of systems getting a lot of mentions as a means of targeting IT investments.
• systemsflow: Siegers: Establishing certification process can take years but helps ensure everyone is executing architecture process consistently.
• systemsflow: Mei Selvage of IBM: 1 current challenge: “No information architecture, or architectures don’t land into projects”. What’s worse?
• systemsflow: “Tacit Knowledge” – aka the ultimate info management anti-pattern: “Don’t write it down”. Make it explicit #entarch >nice idea, but contradicts most #km experience – e.g. Snowden “people know more than they can say, and say more than they can write down”
• systemsflow: Siegers: Requiring architecture review board members to be certified enhances their credibility in evaluating others’ work.

• systemsflow: Deloitte’s William Sheleg spoke earlier on EA and Business Transformation: How to Architect for the Future.
• systemsflow: Sheleg: Future architectures require understanding the aspirations, strategic priorities and capabilities req’d for…
• systemsflow: Sheleg: Evaluate target capabilities in terms of business value, risk, and affordability to identify path(s) to the future.

• systemsflow: Eugene Imbaba of IBM: “I don’t want 3g/4g/etc – I want phone service” – solution architecture models shld avoid lingo
• systemsflow: Mei Selvage of IBM’s response to “what about ‘good enough’ data quality?” – depends on business – core/non-core? Sliding scale

• systemsflow: Open Group Austin day 1 roundup blog post: http:/sfi.cc/sfi3js #entarch

—

• lynnesquer: Beginning Day Two at the conference (@ The Open Group Conference, Austin #ogaus w/ @a_josey @grahambb) http://4sq.com/n9tkLF
• theopengroup: The program for today’s conference is available at http://ow.ly/5EVgh and on the mobile site at http://ow.ly/5EVhk

• theopengroup: Starting the morning with Open Group CEO Allen Brown and Dr. Peter Alterman, NIST, setting the stage for #security & #Cloud plenary
• mikejwalker: Peter Alterman – “I don’t call it cloud, I call it fog” #entarch
• theopengroup: Peter Alterman, NSTIC: “Industry knows a whole lot more about you and me than government does”
• mikejwalker: Alterman – Don’t worry about the government knowing too much about you,the private sector has much more information on you #entarch
• theopengroup: NSTIC goal by 2016: ability to choose among various identity providers and electronic identity credentials for secure transactions
• systemsflow: Dr. Peter Alterman now speaking on the Digital Identity Challenge. // Alterman: We as users/consumers are all responsible for what privacy standards and expectations look like. // Alterman on NSTIC: We think we can have security and privacy without losing our civil liberties.
• mikejwalker: NSTIC wants to avoid a George Orwell 1984 scenario to protect privacy and civil liberties
• systemsflow: Dr Peter Alterman of NSTIC is quite a comedian. Who knew trusted identity was so fun! #entarch
• theopengroup: Alterman: “I think we can have privacy without losing fundamental civil liberties”
• theopengroup: Alterman: there is interest in NSTIC initiatives by social network providers… but not all, notably a “major player”
• systemsflow: Alterman: There is no single solution to identity problem.
• JWGaus: @mikejwalker re:Alterman #entarch Yeah I was surprised Google+ didn’t fill out my profile for me.
• theopengroup: Alterman: Smart credential-based ID cards are already being used but won’t be whole solution; no need to stifle innovation

• mikejwalker: Learned that Armadillo’s contain leprosy but humans originally gave it to them! So don’t eat them or it’s payback…

• systemsflow: Brandon Dunlap of BrightFly up now talking about cloud computing lessons learned.
• mikejwalker: ISACA Risk/Reward Barometer US Edition says that 41% of its survey participants feel that the risk outweighs the reward of #cloud
• theopengroup: Brandon Dunlap, Brightfly, now speaking on “What I’ve Learned in 10 Years of Cloud Computing” // Brandon Dunlap, Brightfly: Are we as security blocking the adoption of a technology that would be hugely beneficial to biz – Cloud?
• mikejwalker: Brandon Dunlap – #cloud limits our visibility in #security controls. I disagree. Often times they are more secure than on-prem
• JWGaus: @mikejwalker #cloud being more secure and having less visibility are not mutually exclusive.
• theopengroup: Dunlap: Workers with a credit card are the new IT department; they are going out and procuring services that you are unable to vet // Dunlap: The weakest link in Cloud security is not technology, it’s the people, mostly those procuring low-cost services = Rogue IT
• systemsflow: Dunlap: Business users with a corporate credit card buying cloud-based services are the new “rogue IT” // Dunlap: Individuals are still the weakest link in security, and especially when using #cloud services / SaaS.
• mikejwalker: Dunlap providing great tips to get in front of cloud security and operational risks
• dave_mcnally: Brandon Dunlap at #ogaus “in many cases they (cloud providers) can do IT better than us”
• mikejwalker: AMR: NA companies are estimated to spend $29.9B on reg compliance and will spend $8.8B this year on technology solutions #entarch
• systemsflow: Big message from BrightFly’s Brandon Dunlap: cloud providers (Dropbox, Google, 37 signals, etc.) need to publish security controls // @bdunlap 1st response to “InfoSec too expensive” argument – save $$ by ditching half your security app portfolio as redundant
• theopengroup: Dunlap: You need to understand the business that your organization is in so you can protect it. Talk to people find their pain points >yes – my point exactly – #entarch is about people first, tech second
• mikejwalker: Ben Franklin – “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
• systemsflow: Fantastic, practical, and fun presentation by Brendan Dunlap of Brightfly on how to get a handle on #cloud security risks.

• theopengroup: Now listing to Andras Szakal speak about The Open Group Trusted Technology Forum (OTTF)’s accreditation program
• theopengroup: Heading into morning parallel tracks: Architectural View of Security for the Cloud; Business Architecture; Data Quality & SI

• systemsflow: Tony Carrato makes the point of the importance of the process to make and record architecture decisions. // Carrato: Record architecture decisions and solve a problem only once.
• systemsflow: UDEF = framework to build a metadata-based data architecture for your biz that stands a chance of interoperating w/others
• systemsflow: UDEF IDs like Dewey decimal #s for objects & their attributes #entatch
• systemsflow: Surprising that UDEF has only 2 adopters & 1 is @theopengroup. Interoperability needs numbers
• systemsflow: Interactive architecture decision session led by Carrato and @omkhar.  Skills building at #ogaus // UDEF mapping exercise forces a deliberate, repeatable normalization of data models
• systemsflow: UDEF success use case: multinational merger, convert Chinese HR system to US easy if both already UDEF-mapped #entarch

• theopengroup: Sitting in on #BizArch track: Kevin Daley of IBM discussing Business Architecture Building Blocks //Big audience today for the Business Architecture track.. a discipline whose time has come, perhaps? Forum has formalized a definition
• practicingEA: RT @theopengroup: Big audience today for the Business Architecture track.. an idea whose time has come #forrester agrees
• systemsflow: IBM’s Kevin Daley: A well-defined biz arch covers strategy, technology, & operations domains + governs their intersection. >oops… this looks suspiciously like an (incomplete) #entarch definition, not a #bizarch one…
• systemsflow: Kevin Daley: You [inadvertently?] change your biz strategy every time you budget by choosing where you spend.
• visualmodeling: Daley: “Organizations will have a cultural affinity to a specific biz arch perspective.” // Yes!  Use the capabilities you have!!
• theopengroup: Daley’s BizArch track: Now capturing audience observations and reactions about the #bizarch building blocks
• systemsflow: Daley: Biz architecture evolves holistically – no one stops doing business for a year to develop their biz architecture.
• LarsHouge: Could it be a good idea to include an information architect in the work related to the Business Architecture Method Framework? >sounds wise… and maybe even some business-architects too?
• systemsflow: Nice reminder during Q&A: Importance of accepting and not debating feedback when seeking feedback.
• LarsHouge: The BA definition was good, but it seems like the Method Framework is less mature, ex. a clear link to the BMM stuff. #entarch
• systemsflow: Interesting #bizarch Q&A comment: Biz arch is as much about connections between orgs as about the orgs themselves. #stillparsing >this is news…?!?
• systemsflow: Another comment in the #bizarch track. Let’s avoid EA landgrabbing and competing with MBA-type biz strategy field. >yep – for biz-strategy, EA is decision-support, not decision-making
• krismeukens: RT @systemsflow avoid #entarch landgrabbing & competing w MBA-type #biz strategy #bizarch < circular rather than linear causality
• systemsflow: Interesting #bizarch debate during Q&A.  Does #EA = #bizarch + #techarch?  Or does #bizarch include technology as well? >oh not, not again… this is positioning bizarch as entarch – which it isn’t!

• theopengroup: More post-lunch tracks: Security Architecture, Business Architecture, TOGAF/SOA

• systemsflow: Sitting in with Gail Wright and Peter Haviland on getting started with business architecture. #bizarch
• systemsflow: Wright/Haviland: The #bizarch focus is at the intersection of Strategy, Operations and Technology. >oops… that’s not a good start… implies business-centric ‘EA’ rather than a proper separation of bizarch and #entarch
• systemsflow: For #bizarch approach, as in all things except elastic waist pants, one size does not fit all!
• systemsflow: Q: What do biz leaders expect from #bizarch? A: Nothing, because they don’t know what it is. (Because we can’t tell them!) >yes, that’s painfully obvious. and OpenGroup and the big consultancies have consistently screwed things up by presenting bizarch as ‘something to do with IT’, when in reality it barely touches IT at all… ::sigh::
• systemsflow: Governance unwrapped: Whoever controls the purse, in truth makes the architecture decisions. #bizarch >that may be ‘business-reality’, but it’s really, really dumb: what happens if ‘whoever controls the purse’ doesn’t understand the context?
• systemsflow: Haviland: “Sitting around white boarding is not architecture.” #bizarch  // Yes! Don’t confuse motion with progress. >having proper conversations around a whiteboard with real implementors is architecture, ‘motion’ without agreed direction is not…
• systemsflow: Make sure what you architect is implementable and implemented. #bizarch >yep – that’s what those whiteboard conversations are for…

• systemsflow: Iver Band: Modeling needs of RBAC met using the strengths of #SABSA, #TOGAF, and #ArchiMate.  Use of multiple tools shown at #ogaus.
• systemsflow: Trulove from Sailpoint: #Cloud allows biz the opportunity to “go rogue” and avoid IT. Future audit woes brewing? >yup…

• theopengroup: Rounding out the day with more tracks: Digital Identity, Business Architecture and #SOA

• systemsflow: Sitting in with Mieke Mahakena & Erik Proper to discuss the role of the business architect. #bizarch
• systemsflow: Mahakena/Proper: biz architects focus on broad view of operations; biz analysts focus on solution-specific reqs. What do you think? >agree – as long as analysts are not solely assumed to be ‘part of IT’
• systemsflow: Great insight from Len Fehskens: For any architect, it’s less about what you know and more about what you know how to do. #bizarch >…and who you know who can (help you to) do what you don’t know how to do

• LarsHouge: Influencers-ends-bus capabilities-means-tech capabilities-ABB’s-SBB’s. Certified, but still a little bit frustrated… Need beers.
• CH_FEDARCH: @LarsHouge Might “lessen” – add? – frustration: Capabilities should be treated ABBs, for they’re not “Detail”, but rather ‘Gestalt’ // Additionally, usefulness of those concepts depend on “planning mode”: “Strategy4Direction” or “Strategy4Implementation”

• togaf_r: Official ArchiMate resource:online spec – mobile edition at http://ow.ly/5IS1G #entarch #itarch #archimate
• togaf_r: Read the smartphone/tablet friendly edition of TOGAF on our mobile site http://ow.ly/5ISv4 #entarch #itarch #togaf

—-

• theopengroup: Welcome to Day 3 of The Open Group Conf/Austin. No plenary; going into tracks #Cloud Roadmap/Strategy; ArchiMate, Aligning IT and Biz // The program for today’s conference is available at http://ow.ly/5EVl5 and on the mobile site at http://ow.ly/5EVmK

• systemsflow: Mark McCormick kicking off Business Alignment Track talking about IT Transformation. #bizalign
• systemsflow: Defined business strategy is a prerequisite to IT Transformation.  Can’t hit the target if you can’t see it! #bizalign
• systemsflow: Mark McCormick shows that the Starbucks value map drives sbux arch decisions.  Mark is speaking @systemsflow language! #bizalign
• systemsflow: McCormick: “making pictures to show the business” a critical part of the IT #bizalign process. // We are grokking!
• systemsflow: McCormick: Discussing the importance of a IT charge-back model, or at the very least, IT cost visibility to the business. #bizalign

• systemsflow: Bill Cason beginning his talk on #bizalign at #ogaus
• systemsflow: Bill Cason: Biz arch benefits – improve IT portfolio/execution as well as biz performance/model #bizalign
• systemsflow: Cason: Use a “capability lens” on your application portfolio to have a fact-based discussion with the biz. #bizalign
• systemsflow: Cason’s capability map clearly shows if IT investments align with biz needs #bizalign
• systemsflow: Assets are the lang of IT; capabilities the lang of biz.  #bizalign must provide Rosetta stone for IT to talk to biz.

• systemsflow: John Dohm: We need to move away from IT being a silo to IT being an integral part of the business. #cloud // Yes! But why haven’t we?
• systemsflow: Dohm: IT consumers will drive adoption of cloud services; IT will be left cleaning up after them. #cloud // Get agile or move aside!

• systemsflow: Gloria Killen of Intel: Biz strategy drives EA principles. EA principles drive IT building codes
• systemsflow: Bill Brierley of TRM Technologies:  “Whenever you put an EA program in place it is a fundamental shift.” Culture shock poses problems
• systemsflow: Ken Street: #KM and #EA are at similar levels of maturity [acceptance?] within orgs – struggling for full value equation buy-in.
• systemsflow: Brierley: EA is about recognizing the collective wisdom of your org. It requires a key set of soft skills that not everyone has.
• systemsflow: Your #entarch repository is like a garden that requires constant cultivation. Street: Reuse, Reduce, Recycle

• theopengroup: Going into afternoon tracks: #Cloud #EA & Deployment; Agile Business Architecture; #TOGAF 9 Case studies. Impressive speaker lineups

• theopengroup: Sitting in on Stephan Amsbary’s interesting presentation on the US power grid and an associated #TOGAF case study
• theopengroup: Amsbary: evolving to a smart grid, pervasive computing that includes billions of devices, monitoring by tens of 1000s of applications

• theopengroup: Now sitting in on TOGAF 9 Case Study: eGovernmental Services and Public Investments in Norway by Lars Christian Houge
• theopengroup: Houge: Norway decided on TOGAF to help it a change concept with the highest possible economic returns and best use of public funds
• togaf_r: Houge: TOGAF and the ADM gave us a “kick-start”, common vocabulary, common understanding, roles and responsibilities

• theopengroup: Final tracks of the day coming up: Holistic #EA; Paths to Creating Successful #Cloud Computing Solutions. OR: #TOGAF Camp!

• BalajiPrasad_: “takes an org to deliver on EA.  An Architect’s role is no more important than an analyst, manager, etc.” – Tim Barnes #ogaus #EA
• BalajiPrasad_: “#EA is not well understood outside of #architecture teams” – Chris Forde.  So he prefers “strategy”, “planning” etc. with others.

And a handful of follow-up summaries and pointers to presentations:

• davidcbaker: Thanks #ogaus for a great conf. My talk on biz driven arch is also available on Slideshare http://slidesha.re/nufyne #entarch #bizarch
• mikejwalker: OpenGroup Austin: on keynotes Day 1 http://bit.ly/r5eC14 Day 2 http://bit.ly/oG50nr #entarch #bizarch
• mikejwalker: The New World of Enterprise Architecture–From IT Arch to EA Presentation  http://bit.ly/p5TDIs #entarch #bizarch

He was from a conference-group somewhere in middle-Europe (I won’t say the country or the company). He’d seen me on LinkedIn and on Twitter, and knew that I had a different approach from the standard IT-oriented emphasis to EA. He was thinking about setting up an enterprise-architecture conference, but wanted advice on where the industry was going. (He did at least know that it’s changing rapidly at present.) What emphasis should he give this conference? Of two cities that he suggested, which one would be better to hold the conference?

The call lasted about an hour, I would guess. I certainly gave him a lot of information about industry trends, about the way that the standard IT-centric approaches are now better-understood to be a dysfunctional dead-end (as in Gartner’s description some time back that EA had sunk into ‘the Trough of Disillusion’ and so on), and how even the more business-centric approaches have their dangers too. He took a lot of notes (I could hear him doing so). He did say “Thank you”, at the end, which is something, I guess. And “We’ll keep in touch”.

At least the second part was true. I had another phone-call yesterday, again out of the blue, from someone else in the same company. His marketing-department, to be precise. She didn’t know who I was, but she’d been given my details from one of her colleagues. Told me they were organising this great new EA conference later this year, she said. Based on a new approach to enterprise-architecture. In the city I’d recommended, as it happens. Representatives from a lot of important companies would be presenting there, she said: she listed a few, at least one of which I had actually heard of, and knew as reasonably solid if perhaps not exactly innovative in their EA. She described the overall emphasis and focus of the conference: it was clear that it was pretty much word-for-word from that previous conversation with her colleague.

Was this going to be an invitation to present, as per that previous conversation? Keynote speaker?

Briefly flattered, I was, for a moment. And then flattened…

No. It wasn’t the promised invitation to present. It was an ‘offer’ to be a sponsor for the conference. In effect, to pay the conference-company a very large sum for the privilege of supporting them to hijack my work and present it as theirs. I pointed out, politely, that my vast, influential, famous-worldwide company happens to consist of just one person, namely me. That’s it. I don’t have a huge budget for other people’s conferences: I struggle to be able to go to as many as I do, to be honest. (In effect, like most of the independent consultants I know, my main marketing budget consists of my books, my weblog and – more than anything else – my colleagues and clients.) She tried various hard-sell tactics – how I would be missing out if I didn’t go for this great once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and so on – but eventually she understood the one thing that mattered to her: I really did mean it when I said that didn’t have the money to do it.

Oh. Well, perhaps I would like to be a delegate instead? She could pass me on to the sales department, she said. They could offer a special rate, she said, because of my previous conversations with the company: just for me. Special. And she then quoted an eye-watering sum, well over twice the rate of any other EA conference I’ve seen. I again politely pointed out that I usually expect to be paid to go to conferences, or at least have the fees waived as a presenter. This seemed to be a new concept to her: she continued to push quite hard to sell me this ‘special’ delegate-package. Eventually I did get her to understand that the answer was ‘No’, and was going to stay ‘No’, and the call came to an end.

Unsurprisingly, right now I am feeling seriously ripped-off. I’m very happy to help anyone in enterprise-architecture and the like, and I think most people in ‘the trade’ will know this. But it leaves a very sour taste in the mouth to find that in this case not only has that help been turned into a blatant theft, but is now being used to not far off steal from others. And worse, if they’re as questionably-honest as this, it’s all too likely they will scramble the portrayal of my work into unusability, causing me further damage down the line when I have to repair the subsequent mess. Not good.

As Queen Victoria famously put it, “we are not amused”. Sigh…

(There’s supposed to be a YouTube embed above this line: if it doesn’t display, try the direct YouTube link instead.)

I’d actually forgotten I’d done the interview, and failed to notice when it was put up on AERio’s YouTube account – hence many thanks to Kevin Smith, Alberto Manuel, Pat Ferdinandi and Isabela Abreu, among others, who spotted it and were kind enough to remind me from various different directions!

Hope it’s useful, anyway, and perhaps let me know what other enterprise-architecture topics  you’d like me to cover on YouTube videos?

The highlight, though, was a stream of great conversations on enterprise-architecture.

The first of these was with Nick Gall and Bard Papegaaij from Gartner, and independent-consultant Richard Veryard. As usual, I failed to take notes… apologies. But probably the key theme throughout was the shift away from IT-centrism: Nick with his concept of the panarchy double-cycle applied to architecture, as ‘panarchitecture‘; Bard with a strong emphasis on architecture in government, and on emotional-intelligence and human factors (the latter with some strong parallels to my own themes around ‘enterprise as story‘ and ‘enterprise as language‘); and Richard on expanding out to a broader concept of ‘organisational intelligence‘. There was also quite a bit of discussion on whether the panarchy-cycle of creation, exploitation, collapse and rebuild, could be applied to Gartner’s own ‘hype-cycle‘: Nick was adamant that it couldn’t and shouldn’t, but Richard and I both felt that perhaps it could – particularly if we see the hype-cycle as two iterations of a panarchy-cycle, with the hype-cycle’s collapse into the ‘trough of disillusionment’ representing the second half (‘destruction’) of the first of those panarchy-cycles. A discussion for another time, perhaps?

We followed through on the next day with a stream of what ended up as mostly one-on-one discussions: Richard was presenting at the Open Group conference and could only drop by for a few minutes, whilst Nick and Bard had speaking-slots at Gartner that were almost back-to-back.

With Bard, the conversation started around the work by his late wife Michal, linking the native-American model or metaphor of the Medicine Wheel, and how those concepts can be applied in a business context.  In some ways this parallels my own architectural use of the traditional Five Elements model, and also some Jungian-style concepts that I’ve used for many a year, though Michal’s ideas seem to go into even further depth. (We’d planned to meet up at their home in Brisbane earlier this year, and had all been greatly looking forward to it; but we’d had to postpone at the last minute, because she became very ill, and sadly that meeting never took place. A huge loss not just to Bard but – from what I’ve seen so far – a huge loss also to all of us in enterprise-architecture, I suspect. Oh well.)  Very interesting, anyway, and I hope at least some of it will surface as a Gartner Note or the like from Bard in the relatively near future.

Another key part of the discussion with Bard was the relationship between agility and stability, somewhat as described in my previous post ‘Agility needs a backbone‘. The hypothetical example that we explored – based on real-world contexts which we’ve both worked – was the classic clash between bureaucrats and politicians in a government department. The blunt fact is that few politicians can see beyond the short-term: they need to deliver quick results of some kind to convince the electorate that they’re doing something of value. That means that they demand agility, to change everything ‘now!’ – which soon leads to a horribly fragmented architecture, with all manner of half-completed projects pulling in all manner of different directions. By contrast, the bureaucrats crave certainty, stability – and they often do hold a true long-term view, albeit often an over-cautious one. Caught between these two opposing forces are the project-managers and process- and IT-system developers, who somehow have to sort out the resultant mess. The way out seems to be an architecture based on some variant of the backbone – which keeps the bureaucrats happy – providing consistency and support for a myriad of smaller agile projects out on the edge – agile enough to keep the politicians happy. The two types of implementations need different emphases: the agile side typically thrown together as ‘shadow IT’, whilst the core follows a more ‘traditional’ waterfall-style cautious-change model with much tighter governance. New services feed outward from the core, enabling new agile-style ‘mashups’ – the many GIS-linked ‘citizen services’ being a good example of this. And some of those quick-win services will also slowly migrate into the core. But in terms of dependencies, it’s a kind of spoke-and-hub relationship: in general, services from the core should never be allowed to break anything – especially not without warning – whereas there would often be no guarantees at all for relationships between agile-services out on the edge. This approach would give us a unified form of governance across the whole agile/waterfall spectrum – and a lot more certainty for the developers who’ve too often been caught up as pig-in-the-middle.

Then to the follow-up meeting with Nick Gall. Much of this was a review of what Bard and I had discussed earlier, but there were also two key points that arose from a brief review of my ‘Enterprise Canvas‘ model-type (from my book Mapping the enterprise). One point was a link-up between my understanding of the tension between ‘vision’ and the real-world, that drives the architecture, compared to one of Nick’s own models of architecture as a kind of wasp-waisted ‘double-funnel’ between near-infinite possibilities and near-infinite implementations, with architecture as the ‘waist’ where constraints for key choices are identified and applied. To me, everything in the enterprise is like a cone, extending downward from the single point represented by the vision. But as Nick pointed out, architecture describes a structure that could in principle be used for a very wide range of different purposes – in other words, similar structures that can support different enterprise-visions. The ‘cone’ represented by a layered Enterprise Canvas would thus be one instance of the range of possibilities of purpose represented by the upper-half of Nick’s double-funnel, selected out by that specific vision; a different vision could well lead to an almost identical-seeming implementation below the ‘waist’ of the double-funnel. Hence why reference-architectures and commoditised-services and suchlike do actually work in practice – even though they’re linked to different enterprise-visions.

The other point was an easy way to resolve the age-old argument about architecture versus design. They’re actually part of the same spectrum from vision to realisation, from ‘why’ to ‘how’ and so on. The only difference between them is which way they face: architecture tends to face ‘upward’, towards the big-picture,  the vision, or ‘why’, whilst design tends to face ‘downward’, towards the detail, the real-world realisation, the how and who and where and when and with-what. So in practice, almost no-one is ever solely and architect or designer: everyone will do at least some of both. What makes it confusing at times is that the ‘architect’ orientation at a detail-layer – a solution-architect or application-architect, for example – will usually have a narrower scope than someone nominally working in higher-layer business-design or process-design. Once we realise it’s the same spectrum, it makes things a lot easier to explain: the difference between architect and designer is one of orientation – ‘up’, or ‘down’ – on that spectrum, more than one of position in terms of Zachman-style layers. Architects mostly architect, and designers mostly design; yet the two roles will always meet somewhere within each person on that spectrum.

Next was a meetup with a director of the vendor of a mid-range enterprise-architecture toolset. I won’t say which vendor it was, for confidentiality reasons, but to me this was important: perhaps the first toolset-vendor to really ‘get’ the nature of whole-of-enterprise architecture, and the support that it needs from the the architecture-toolset. Like almost all of the vendors, they’ve come up from an IT-oriented base, and that’s still the core of their toolset; but they do understand about how all of that links upward into strategy and vision, and horizontally across the non-IT aspects of the enterprise – people and machines and non-IT assets and the like. Nothing else to report just yet, but definitely a Watch This Space, I think?

Leaving the Gartner conference-venue, a very brief meeting with two of the new generation of whole-enterprise architects, Gerold Kathan and Ondrej Galik. I had to run to catch a train at that point, so only enough time to talk whilst crossing Westminster Bridge, but good to know that the future of the field in Europe seems already to be in capable hands.

And likewise in Latin America. The last of this stream of meetings this week was with Roberto Severo, lead for the Brazil chapter of AOGEA (Association of Open Group Enterprise Architects). We met first at the Open Group conference-venue – I didn’t go to the conference itself, for reasons I’ve explained earlier. A long, rambling walk-and-talk through central London, covering a very wide rantge of enterprise-architecture topics – in particular, how to expand and embed whole-enterprise architecture ideas and techniques in the Latin market. One of the best ways to do this will be through a stronger emphasis on values, which aligns better with Latin culture than it does to, say, British or (especially) US business-culture, where – as I’ve discovered to my cost – it’s often very hard to get business-folks to understand any concept of value beyond money or the near-mythical ‘shareholder-value’. There’s still a constant struggle to combat the baleful influence of IT-centrism in enterprise-architecture (and I’ll have to be blunt here and say that for the most part the Open Group and most of the big consultancies are really not helping us in this… ), but it’s probably somewhat easier to resolve this in Latin America than in mainstream ‘Western’ cultures. We’ll see: but it certainly looks like an interesting year ahead.

Interesting times, anyone?

Share and enjoy?

First, a brief follow-up discussion about the previous day’s presentation by Savi Sharma of Nike:

• aleksb6: @MartijnVeldkamp @bmichelson Nike is operating within the assumption that #entarch must be a local FTE to be effective. Validity? #ogbos
• tetradian: @aleksb6 re “#entarch must be local FTE” – yes for long-term ops/maintenance; setup/practice-refresh can (should?) be ext-consultant #ogbos
• aleksb6: @tetradian why is it better in long-term? i’m questioning the validity of this assumption, since assumptions must be questioned #entarch
• tetradian: @aleksb6 in AusPost etc we found that #entarch depends very much on know-who as much as know-how – needed long-term connections across org.. // ..we consultants had better knowledge of process, for setup etc, but didn’t have ‘insider’ knowledge needed for long-term maintenance

The first session in the morning track on ‘EA and Business Strategy’, Jack Calhoun from Accelare on “EA and Business Alignment: The Progress You Make, Depends on Where You Start’:

• rsevero: Wednesday first session at #ogbos : EA and Business Alignment: The Progress You Make, Depends on Where You Start – Jack Calhoun Accelare CEO
• aleksb6: Jack Calhoun: using value maps as a way to force executive team to make the important choices rather than chase after everything
• aleksb6: Jack Calhoun at #ogbos on a Sample Enterprise Capability Model – lots of text, but multiple levels of capabilities. The rabbit hole is deep!
• aleksb6: Jack Calhoun at #ogbos – build a multi-year financial model to hedge against annual budgeting short-term thinking challenges
• rsevero: Mr. Calhoun on EA: Culture eats strategy for breakfast every day!
• neilwd: RT @rsevero: Calhoun on EA: Culture eats strategy for breakfast every day! <Businesses aren’t machines, architecture can’t make em so
• rsevero: @aleksb6 One of the best culture-aware strategy is to have the CEO supporting the EA initiative with a good communication plan.
• aleksb6: Thanks to Jack Calhoun for giving me a deck of #capability poker cards (#agile and #capabilities together) for a good question at #ogbos

An assortment of tweets from the morning track on Cloud:

• srog: Cloud initiative founded in a customer service perspective   – San Diego office of educ  #cloud
• innovationerik: At Open Group event in Boston. First two cloud presentations today were sadly very lightweight. Hoping things will improve soon!
• rtolido: watching “Building ROI from cloud computing” at Open Group conference Boston
• rtolido: three new Cloud white papers available in The Open Group bookstore
• rtolido: three steps described for buying cloud services: determine fit, establish business case, negotiate
• lmelsted: 1Plug’s Penelope Gordon discusses framework for orgs to identify whether the cloud is right for them
• rtolido: ah yes, cloud and RISK… I always tend to see reduction of risk as a reason to move to cloud…
• stevenunn: @rtolido absolutely! That view was supported in our first Open Group run CloudCamp. Reduced risk was one of the top reasons for Cloud <kind of wondering if someone’s being either cynical or strangely naive here – I’ve always regarded Cloud as having huge unaddressed / unacknowledged risks, especially re transport-layer responsibilities, data-escrow, data-ownership, international-jurisdiction issues etc…
• Technodad: Panel discussion on “Taking the Decision to use Cloud Computing at #ogbos http://post.ly/oC8e
• rtolido: Business case skills for cloud? Better use them to justify non-cloud strategies, as cloud very soon will be the market benchmark

The second session on ‘EA and Business Strategy’, this one by Paul Johnson of Pragmatica Innovations, on “EA for Decision Support: Connecting Data To Decisions”:

• rsevero: Next session: Connecting Data to Decisions – CEO – Pragmatica
• rsevero: Enterprise architects are the bridge between business and IT, and are expected to speak both languages.So lets do that!Talk is cheap!
• aleksb6: @rsevero not sure that’s true in all organizational contexts. sometimes, a stealth #entarch approach is more culturally aware
• rsevero: Yeap @aleksb6, the stealth has to be done with a good communication plan I’ve said. #entarch can be what you say to the teams to do

On the ‘Business Architecture’ track, Tony Mungham of Canadian Border Services Agency on “Using Business Architecture to Understand the End-to-End Value Proposition in a Public Sector Organization”:

• aleksb6: listening to Tony Mungham from Canada Border Services Agency at #ogbos on using #bizarch to understand the end-to-end value proposition
• aleksb6: Hooray for Tony Mungham of CBSA!  First focus on linkage between #entarch and #pfmo at #ogbos today in #bizarch track

Followed by Aleks Buterman’s workshop on “Capability Based Architecture”:

• aleksb6: next up… oh wait, I have to speak?! this should be interesting…
• bmichelson: hey @aleksb6 how’d your #ogbos Capability Based Business Architecture session go?
• aleksb6: @bmichelson using my metric for success (the higher the number of hard questions during/after preso, the better) it was great!
• aleksb6: thanks to the #TOG for having me on the #bizarch menu at #ogbos. lots of talk about #capabilities, value, #entarch during the track

Some tweets about the Archimate track:

• aleksb6: sitting in on the #archimate track at #ogbos ; not as abfab as #bizarch but it is a key standards-based component of #TIMM
• rsevero: Archimate – A language for describing architectures covering business, app. and tech. Free stencils for Visio, SA, +others
• rsevero: Archimate – better than UML, because have not only IT perspective, but also Business.
• aleksb6: as with all, there is appropriate use for #archimate -> technology representations, as #uml is for req’s and #bpmn for processes

I don’t know which session this relates to, but it certainly hammers home the reason why cross-system integration with enterprise-architecture is so important:

• rsevero: great session opening: I’ve discovered what EA really is, when my father was diagnosed with pancreas cancer. Wow! Direct to the point.

A couple of notes on Henry Peyret’s presentation on “How Much of Your Future Will Be In The Cloud? Strategies For Embracing Cloud Computing Services”:

• lmelsted: Forrester’s Henry Peyret says smart computing is the next big thing, not cloud
• bmichelson: RT @lmelsted: Forrester’s Henry Peyret says smart computing is the next big thing, not cloud <– I prefer smart-enough computing

The lead-in to the popular CloudCamp, another ‘unconference’ that’s become a staple part of the Open Group conferences:

• rsevero: Tonight we’ll have #CloudCamp with Dave Nielsen… Looking forward…
• rtolido: giving a brief introduction to The Open Group at #cloudcamp about to start here in Boston in collaboration with #ogbos
• rsevero: People registering for #cloudcamp Boston at #ogbos  http://tweetphoto.com/34076771
• rsevero: PizzaCamp before the cloud! #ogbos  http://tweetphoto.com/34078270
• rsevero: Shrimp pizza? Only in #cloudcamp at  #ogbos . Great taste!  http://tweetphoto.com/34080800
• rsevero: Mr. Dave “cloud” Nielsen is giving some explanation on cloud camp at #ogbos
• rsevero: Lightning Speech! 5 minutes for the guys who pay the bill, flight tickets, shrimp pizza and everything else at #ogbos Thanks you!
• smattoon: @johnsheehan explains @twilio: “Turns a phone into web browser” #cloudcamp
• rsevero: Let’s go to the unpanel thing! Anyone can ask anything on cloud computing! I think those questions will become the breakdown session

And finally, a few miscellaneous items that didn’t fit anywhere else:

• lmelsted: #ogbos: The Open Group Launches FACE Consortium to Develop Open Standards for U.S. Army, Navy and Avionics Industry – http://bit.ly/bTv5qW
• rsevero: AOGEA presentation – Birgit Hartje – AOGEA. AOGEA stands for Association of Open Group Enterprise Architects.
• rsevero: Great opportunity to become a #AOGEA Chapter Chair in Brazil. Birgit is already considering that… I think it would be great!
• bmichelson: 6+1 Secrets of Successful SOA http://bit.ly/9kwLNG <– my deck from #ogbos now available on slideshare
• aleksb6: leaving #ogbos behind and heading for home. follow @rsevero for further updates; meanwhile come on #united, get those planes flying on time!
• rsevero: @aleksb6 thanks for your great tweets… Have a nice trip back! <will echo “thanks for the great tweets” – much appreciated by this ‘outsider’
• oltranscendence: RT @Dana_Gardner: Enterprise architecture goes agile? http://bit.ly/da4IyD << Summing up EA chats at #ogbos, thx @ppossej for noting

Hope this has been useful, anyway – best wishes, and thanks to all!

I’ve split this into sections, mainly around the current speaker. I’ve also added occasional comments of my own at the end of some tweets, shown in italics.

Many thanks especially to Dana Gardner (@Dana_Gardner), Brenda Michelson (@bmichelson), Aleks Buterman (@aleksb6), Lisa Melsted (@lmelsted) and @rsevero (apologies, I don’t know the proper name), who provided the bulk of the Tweets here.

First segment was on security, which I admit is not my field:

• lmelsted: Internet Security Alliance’s Larry Clinton says 90% of security breaches could be prevented by following known best practices
• Technodad: Larry Clinton of ISA: Cyber targets shifted to individual employees; need to shift focus from security tech to business risk analysis
• lmelsted: IBMers Peter Coldicott &amp; Tony Carrato advise architects to consider security  when the physical and digital worlds collide
• cebess: Cybersecurity blog post on http://www.hp.com/go/tnbt #yam

Next up was the TOGAF Camp ‘unconference’, which seems to have been based on a somewhat more controlled version of the Open Space process. I’m very sad to have missed that – it looks like it would have been very good indeed:

• theopengroup: Don’t just send the kids to camp!! There is a Free TOGAF Camp, #ogbos, this eve!
• rsevero: The first TOGAF camp of the known universe. Wow, making history!   http://tweetphoto.com/33733067
• rsevero: Creating the unpanel (sic) for the unconference! Great anarchical process! Fantastic!  http://tweetphoto.com/33733513
• Technodad: Session planning at the inaugural TOGAFcamp at #ogbos http://post.ly/ntu3
• rsevero: Audience voting the themes on the unpanel. Winning subjects go for the unconferences   http://tweetphoto.com/33734751
• Technodad: Planning the breakouts at TOGCamp http://post.ly/ntvw
• rsevero: TOGAF Pizza during the unconference process! Fed architects think better!   http://tweetphoto.com/33735209
• rsevero: Yeaaah!!! This is TOGAF! Drinks before the unconference! Good event picture to send to the boss!   http://tweetphoto.com/33735757
• rsevero: End of the voting process. Who proposed the subject will start each unconference!   http://tweetphoto.com/33736039
• rsevero: The first unconference I’ll attend!   http://tweetphoto.com/33737341
• rsevero: Unconference:a high quality conversation, high level specialists in a non formal model. Simply great   http://tweetphoto.com/33740814
• stevenunn: 1st ever TOGAF(TM) Camp in progress at #ogbos. 6 break-out topics, over 2 hours. Good participation. Content to be continued on the wiki

On Day 2 (Tuesday 20 July), the evident highlight was the keynote on ‘Evolving EA from IT to Business’, by Jeanne Ross, co-author of ‘Enterprise Architecture As Strategy’:

• bmichelson: Jeanne Ross’ talk is taking EA to the Business; Why architecture matters? “The quest for Agility”
• Dana_Gardner: Ross: architecture is about business agility; essential for the digital enterprise; the best way to react to market changes.
• bmichelson: Agility – use of existing business & IT capabilities to rapidly generate new business value while limiting costs & risks -Jeanne Ross
• Dana_Gardner: Many businesses never get to promoting agility, they are too busy putting out risk and costs fires, says Ross.
• bmichelson: With architecture, we are designing organizations, not just IT capabilities – Jeanne Ross
• Dana_Gardner: Key question: How does IT get attention of business to get architecture to where it can work the agility problem, says Ross
• aleksb6: Jeanne Ross:  key question – how can #entarch sitting in #IT get everyone in biz on board? #bizarch #cio #cfo #ceo
• bmichelson: In addition to being architects, we need to marketers and educators — Jeanne Ross, citing research findings <– +100 on marketers
• Dana_Gardner: Ross: IT needs to “market” architecture across the firm, and take both short- and long-term goals; this is an “art”
• aleksb6: Jeanne Ross at #ogbos – architecture journey involves a biz transformation #entarch #bizarch
• Dana_Gardner: The architecture journey is really business transformation, “a really big deal,” says Ross.
• bmichelson: The architecture journey, is itself a business transformation . Embracing architecture (correctly) is a really big deal – Jeanne Ross
• trouxsoftware: “The art of architecture is reconciling long term view with current business imperatives”.Jeanne Ross
• chrisdpotts: RT @aleksb6: Jeanne Ross at #ogbos – architecture journey involves a biz transformation #entarch #bizarch | me:  so true!
• chrisdpotts: @tetradian Concerned by the idea of ‘taking #entarch to the business’, as it’s already there.  EAs role is to discover, join in & enhance.
• tetradian: @chrisdpotts re ‘concerned by the idea of ‘taking #entarch to the business”‘ – strongly agree with you
• darachennis: RT @bmichelson: The architecture journey, is itself a business transformation . Embracing architecture (correctly) is a really big deal – Jeanne Ross
• tetradian: Jeanne Ross at re #entarch as business transform – music to my ears, this is exactly what we were doing at Australia Post 6 years ago
• chrisdpotts: @tetradian Hmm.  Are you inferring something about the currency of MIT’s research?
• tetradian: @chrisdpotts no, ‘cos ‘EA as Strategy’ was researched around that time too – but most ‘#entarch’ is still way behind, as you know
• chrisdpotts: @tetradian There are a number of schools of #entarch.  Doesn’t necessarily mean that some are ‘behind’ others.
• tetradian: @chrisdpotts in terms of deliberately restricting scope to IT-centrism and pretending that that ‘is’ #entarch, I would say they’re ‘behind’
• chrisdpotts: @tetradian What may make them ‘behind’ is knowing what all the latest #entarch possibilities are.
• tetradian: @chrisdpotts yup – except quote “there are none so blind as those who choose not to see” etc…
• chrisdpotts: What would #entarch focus on if it were (temporarily) banned from mentioning technology?
• tetradian: @chrisdpotts if #entarch ‘banned’ from mentioning tech, it might at last look at the whole-enterprise – whole-system integration etc
• iaflash: #iaflash With architecture, we are designing organizations, not just IT capabilities – Jeanne Ross http://bit.ly/d7PAJ4
• iaflash: #iaflash Jeanne Ross.  Architecture is about business agility. http://bit.ly/c4yTdx
• bmichelson: Jeanne Ross is talking about 4 stages of business: business silos, standardized tech, optimized core & business modularity
• aleksb6: question: “Strategic Business Value of Architecture Maturity” curve, has anyone quantified the value of each maturity level? #entarch
• allenbrownopen: Jeanne Ross says we have to be marketers. Market the impact of architecture to the enterprise.
• bmichelson: everyday, we take the next step on the business and therefore #entarch journey. Not race to stage 4 – Jeanne Ross
• Dana_Gardner: Ross; Businesses now in a deep learning phase, of going from using IT for projects to using IT and architecture to make them agile.
• rsevero: Great speech: “Evolving EA from IT to Business”. Jeanne Ross (MIT) speaking. She wrote “EA As Strategy…” http://amzn.to/bOraDy
• Technodad: Ross at: Great arch companies make 4 commitments: Strategic choices, actionable assessment, distinctive digitization, working smarter
• bmichelson: Scope of IT — does it include digitized products, or not? BMW says yes, b/c need to be integrated – Jeanne Ross
• Dana_Gardner: EA forces companies to define core from context, make strategic choices for role of IT, define their value, says Ross.
• aleksb6: if #entarch is to be effective in marketing itself to biz, it’d help to have hard #’s on the value of moving along the maturity curve
• bmichelson: @chrisdpotts it’s the business journey, from startup and experimentation to structured to optimized. EA need increases by stage
• Dana_Gardner: No one in EA plenary believes if you build a platform users will use it. Platforms are not road to success, it’s people, says Ross.
• stevenunn: Full room for Jeanne Ross at. Just because you build a platform, doesn’t mean people will use it. How true!
• bmichelson: Every #entarch who is serious about business contribution should read Jeanne Ross and hear her speak
• Dana_Gardner: Successful companies over next 10 years will figure out platforms don’t make IT work … architecture, people, process, says Ross.
• Technodad: Ross at: Great IT co’s commit company-wide & long-term  to working digitally using tech platform – changing work habits is hard.
• stevenunn: Jeanne Ross predicts that those companies who really use their digital platform will differentiate themselves in next decade.
• bmichelson: data, data, data, metrics, metrics, metrics, smart decision-making, now! – 7-Eleven Japan Success Story via platform – Jeanne Ross
• aleksb6: did Jeanne Ross just throw a gauntlet to “IT is a commodity” school of thinking at? #entarch #bizarch #ceo #cio #cfo #coo
• stevenunn: Jeanne Ross at talks of 7-Eleven Japan being divested from US parent, then becoming so successful that it bought it’s former parent!
• bmichelson: re “IT as commodity” (or not) @aleksb6 think Jeanne Ross is saying there is a commodity-contribution line at the (bus) platform layer
• gdaniels: Wish I was at #oscon, but digging tweets from both there and #ogbos.  Thanks all for sharing perceptions + insights.
• aleksb6: @chrisdpotts not #entarch, but the #ceo should care: firms that have digitized platform will gain higher strategic business value
• stevenunn: Jeanne Ross talks of Toyota Europe’s information-centric platform being built on shared inventory, not shared CRM.
• aleksb6: @bmichelson right, and that contribution line is dependent on organizational maturity at using IT
• lmelsted: MIT’s Jeanne Ross says that evolving architecture to business is a four step journey
• bmichelson: If Campbell’s soup can do it (digital transformation) anyone can! – Jeanne Ross — #entarch is mmm mmm good
• srog: How will we help organizations understand as go from brick & mortar to digital companies that they will have to transform?  J Ross
• stevenunn: Jeanne Ross stresses the need to move towards long-term goals, while addressing short-term needs.
• aleksb6: @chrisdpotts but investments themselves cannot be classified as commodity, can they? not just about optimization, it’s about value!
• aleksb6: RT @srog: How will we help organizations understand as go from brick & mortar to digital companies that they will have to transform?  J Ross
• lmelsted: Steps for the evolution include: realizing EA is a journey, making a commitment, taking a long term view and major biz transformation
• Dana_Gardner: New corporate piracy: ID the companies that DON’T do EA, buy a competitor and transform it fast, or start-up; take the whole market.
• bmichelson: Campbell embraced a “total delivered cost” metric. Delivery of can of soup should never go up. Org rallied on keeping metric down -
• bmichelson: “business architecture is not separate from tech or data arch, it’s the overarching logic” – Jeanne Ross
• aleksb6: @Dana_Gardner to extend that thought, every corporate raider must have #entarch as core competency?
• trouxsoftware: Jeanne Ross “Always focus on business outcomes of architecture efforts.”
• Dana_Gardner: Business architecture is the over-arching logic of running a business, says Ross.
• bmichelson: #entarch is everyone’s responsibility – architects might have to help people see and do it  – Jeanne Ross
• bmichelson: if there are no business metrics, there is no business architecture.  stop the train.  – Jeanne Ross
• aleksb6: Jeanne Ross at :  “if there are no biz metrics, there is no #bizarch. Stop the train!” #ceo #coo #cfo #cio #entarch
• erikproper: @bmichelson That sounds like “BA is the B motivation for T and D arch” … that ain’t the Arch of the Businss IMHO …
• Dana_Gardner: EA is a grass-roots effort inside companies, architects need to be the evangelists. Reap what you sow?
• bmichelson: “architecture is at the heart of success in a digital economy”  – Jeanne Ross
• Dana_Gardner: How will EAs “market” the role of architecture? Metrics and logic, not spin; talk in their language, says Ross.
• bmichelson: Jeanne Ross – Don’t use the “A” word in marketing Enterprise Architecture <yup – very good point – v.important
• bmichelson: “Architecture is not the only thing that matters, but it can have a huge impact”  – Jeanne Ross
• Dana_Gardner: ID pain points in terms of cost and time, and focus there to demonstrate agility benefits, says Ross of EA efforts.
• Dana_Gardner: Cowboy agility not as good as repeatable, core agility based on refined process, not loose cannons on a tear, says Ross.
• stevenunn: Jeanne Ross “1st 2 lessons for architects: Bus Arch is not separate from technology or data architecture; focus on business outcomes”
• Technodad: Ross at: Business agility needs to come from re-use of IT & organizational capabilities, not heroics by IT staff.
• stevenunn: Jeanne Ross: lessons 3&4: EA is everyone’s responsibility; there is no business architecture without business metrics
• bmichelson: CIO at stage 2 (standardization) should be great at IT, CIO at stage 3 (optimized) could be from business -  – Jeanne Ross
• erikproper: @bmichelson Maybe Jeanne Ross can twitter an answer to BA versus BM for “Technologies A” question.
• Dana_Gardner: CIOs with no IT background? Works only when the IT maturity has progressed, but can help bind biz and IT goals and means, says Ross.
• aleksb6: question on whether a biz person w/o #IT background makes a good #CIO <- me: how about person w/o accounting background to be #CFO?
• CIOLeader: RT @bmichelson: “always focus on business outcomes of architecture efforts” – Jeanne Ross – This is not practiced enough! #entarch
• aleksb6: interesting thought: #cloud allows a firm to START their #capability investments with Stage 4, rather than mature there over time
• bmichelson: Enterprise Architects aren’t always able to convert frameworks (TOGAF, DODAF, etc) into value -  – Jeanne Ross
• chrisonea: Why handicap ur company like that? RT @aleksb6: question on whether a biz person w/o #IT background makes a good #CIO
• chrisonea: KEY >RT @productmarketer: RT @trouxsoftware: Jeanne Ross “Always focus on business outcomes of architecture efforts.” #entarch
• bmichelson: business processes and information must be addressed (i say attacked) together – need better processes & good data -  – Jeanne Ross
• aleksb6: Jeanne Ross  at : there is a cemetery dedicated to #failed data governance initiatives #MDM #entarch
• ebenhewitt: RT @Dana_Gardner: Worldwide TOGAF Adoption Accelerates http://bit.ly/bxJh8M DG< China is particularly hot
• nigelcameron: The key to all success, surely: via @stevenunn: Jeanne Ross  – need to move towards long-term goals, while addressing s/term needs.
• stevenunn: Dave Hornford, Chair of Open Group Architecture Forum says forum has more than 220 members from 22 countries & 12 vertical industries <220 members!!! no wonder they rarely succeed in getting anything done…
• breadedcod: Would have liked to have heard the Jeanne Ross keynote at. Will have to wait until folks post updates > 140chars to catch up

Next up, Hamidou Dia of Oracle, on ‘Building Sustainable Architectures for Business Success’:

• bmichelson: Hamidou Dia of Oracle’s Enterprise Architecture practice is up. Promises to not talk about Products.
• lmelsted: Oracle’s Hamidou Dia discusses sustainable architecture – meet today’s needs without compromising the future
• lmelsted: EA principles can be leveraged to build sustainability – Hamidou Dia,
• aleksb6: next up, Hamadou Dia from #oracle #entarch practice, on painting EA red
• stevenunn: 4 top business goals for EA: grow/ M&A, adapt, innovate, reduce costs, says Hamidou Dia at
• bmichelson: oh, i get it. no product names. just category mentions. EA brings Abstraction to Oracle Marketing <nicely cynical! (“oh ye of little faith and much experience…” )
• bmichelson: well @tetradian i am an #entarch by trade. cynicism-as-a-service
• tetradian: @bmichelson ‘cynicism-as-a-service’: beautifully put, ma’am, beautifully put!
• aleksb6: hamadou dia at : current state documentation almost killed #entarch as a discipline <yup – you do current-state when you need it (e.g. for gap-analysis), but not before – documenting current-state for its own sake is not entarch, it’s low-level administration
• aleksb6: @bmichelson perhaps they took Jeanne’s advice of becoming expert #entarch marketers seriously?
• rsevero: Mr. Hamidu Dia (Sr. Director – EA in Oracle) – EA mission: “Meet today’s needs without compromising the Future”
• stevenunn: “It is possible not to spend ages documenting current architecture”, says Hamidou Dia at. “Just enough, just in time” is fine
• chrisonea: RT @stevenunn: don’t spend ages documenting current arch says Hamidou Dia at. “Just enough, just in time” is fine < Agree u need SOME
• trouxsoftware: Hamadou Dia of Oracle.  Every Oracle EA will be TOGAF certified.
• stevenunn: Hamidou Dia at stresses the value of using architecture principles, and a strategic roadmap. Take the time to do these properly!
• tetradian: would be great if any of this supposed ‘enterprise’-architecture was actually about the architecture of the enterprise…
• stevenunn: EA governance model has to include an engagement model which enables local businesses to contribute value, says Hamidou Dia at
• erikproper: Wonders what the colour of Enterprise is …. can’t be a techno colour …
• aleksb6: Hamadou Dia at : #oracle chose the Unified #bom – possible wen there’s a single stakeholder at the top?
• aleksb6: Hamadou Dia at – the real value of #entarch transformation is in keeping G&A expenses low despite 45 acquisitions in last 4 years

A few ‘party political broadcasts’ from Andrew Josey on the Open Group’s support for the much-hyped ‘cloud-computing’:

• a_josey: Strengthening your Business Case for Using Cloud:A White Paper by The Open Group Cloud Computing Work Group http://ow.ly/2dUlM <huh? sounds like ‘sales-pitch as business-case’ if you’re trying to ‘sell’ cloud to others in business
• a_josey: Cloud Buyers’ Decision Tree: A White Paper by The Open Group Cloud Computing Work Group http://ow.ly/2dUgT <more sales-pitch for cloud… oh dear…
• a_josey: Cloud Buyers’ Requirements Questionnaire, Version 1.0: A White Paper by The Open Group Cloud Computing Work Group http://ow.ly/2dUpn

Continuing (sort-of) the ‘EA beyond IT’ theme, Mary Tolbert on ‘TOGAF 9 and the US Department of Defense Architecture Framework 2.0 (DoDAF 2.0)’:

• bmichelson: Mary Tolbert of Mitre is up, talking abt Togaf & Dodaf together
• bmichelson: DoDAF Viewpoints and Models – Capability Viewpoint http://bit.ly/9Lg5SP <– hmm, new capability viewpoint
• lmelsted: Practical tutorial with MITRE’s Mary Tolber on using DoDAF 2.0 with TOGAF 9 -
• bmichelson: In DODAF business architecture is captured (mostly) in the Operational Viewpoint http://bit.ly/95aAmb – Mary Tolbert
• bmichelson: The crux of Mary Tolbert’s TOGAF and DoDAF work is using TOGAF ADM as navigation to deliver the DoDAF Viewpoints.
• bmichelson: side note: no #entarch success will come talking to our business & IT constituents in same manner as we talk to each other
• Technodad: Mary Tolbert of MITRE covers using #TOGAF methodology to produce #DoDAF architectures at – mapping is at http://bit.ly/a3OEqS
• a_josey: WP: TOGAF 9 and DoDAF 2.0, By Terry Blevins, Dr. Fatma Dandashi, and Mary Tolbert of MITRE Corporation http://ow.ly/2e1Li

A brief flurry on the brief ‘Spotlight’ presentation by the Open Group’s Archimate Forum:

• bmichelson: Hey, #entarch types can do marketing! ArchiMate pitch right now.   – http://www.archimate.org/
• bmichelson: Archimate supports Phases B, C & D of TOGAF ADM
• aleksb6: RT bmichelson #entarch types can do marketing! ArchiMate http://bit.ly/auvAF2 pitch right now. <- all we need is an oranje hat
• bmichelson: Archimate is being extended to provide full TOGAF ADM coverage <but is TOGAF being extended to provide full Archimate coverage?
• bmichelson: @MartijnVeldkamp The ArchiMate Forum that is part of the open group. Henry [Franken?] the forum leader did the pitching
• MartijnVeldkamp: @bmichelson I think what I am really saying is that I should have been attending the …
• ariscommunity: Interesting post  by @adrianrcampbell on combining VPEC-T and ArchiMate http://bit.ly/ch0MJo

In the afternoon, the conference split into four tracks: SOA, security (for which there don’t seem to have been any tweets), ‘professionalising the discipline of EA’, and ‘ecosystem of architects and architectures in the enterprise’. The latter is one that’s of particular interest to me, starting with a presentation by Len Fehskens on ‘Why the “Architecture” in “Enterprise Architecture” must be about essentials’:

• aleksb6: splitting up from @bmichelson for a bit and sitting in on the #entarch ecology track at
• aleksb6: up first, a primer on how #entarch can break out of the confines of #IT. and look, #ieee 1471 reference! I won’t be the only one!
• rsevero: Back to the Conference – “Architecture is 80% about the future.. About the vision of Architecture”
• rsevero: OpenGroup VP-Mr.Len Fehskens-”Architecture glues Mission with solutions using a specific environment and considering its properties”
• rsevero: Another great statement from Mr.Len:”Nonessential elements are not part of an architecture” rsevero: identify your binaries decisions
• rsevero: Mr. Len: more pragmatic, impossible! Great speech, direct to the point…

Still on the ‘ecosystem’ track, Bill Sheleg from Deloitte, on ‘Transforming EA into a Business Discipline’:

• rsevero: OpenGroup Conference: Mr. William Sheleg: Starting now speaking about  “Transforming EA into a Business Dicipline”
• rsevero: Mr. William Sheleg – Deloitte: “Today, one of the most important objectives of EA is to improve performance of IT as a function” <but not only IT – please!!!
• aleksb6: oh boy… the guy from Deloitte made a crack about hiring expensive consultants as to why most companies can’t make strategy work
• rsevero: “Making strategy work is harder than making strategy”. He pointed 4 pre-reqs to make strategy and a dozen to make it work!

And a few tweets on Walter Stahlecker’s ‘Architecture of the Enterprise: an Holistic View’:

• rsevero: Here we go: Architecture of the Enterprise,a holistic view-Executives & architects will benefit from architecture with alignment
• rsevero: Definitively, the theory is different in a practical landscape
• rsevero: Architecture should NOT have political wars with other areas, otherwise the EA or even the IT Architecture initiatives will FAIL!

Over on the ‘Professionalising EA’ track, Brenda Michelson tweeted Savi Sharma ‘Approach to Design EA Practice to Support Architects throughout the Job Lifecycle’:

• bmichelson: Savi Sharma, Enterprise Architect, Nike on approach to designing EA Practice that supports architects throughout job lifecycle
• bmichelson: so this is cool, Nike Inc has program from architect on-boarding through Nike career, includes mentoring, coaching, community etc
• bmichelson: a nice part of the Nike Inc program is growing architect skills of not just existing architects, but also “architect interested”
• bmichelson: “architect has to be visionary, designer at heart, and be able to tell story” — architect hiring @ Nike – Savi Sharma
• bmichelson: this [Nike] is great, Designing an Architect Program, vs. Designing an Architecture Framework Program <– talent mgt FTW
• bmichelson: We don’t want standard IT managers to manage architects. Grow architects to be architecture managers – Savi Sharma <– +1

Finally, Brenda Michelson delivered her own presentation on ‘6+1 Secrets of Successful SOA’, tweeted by Aleks Buterman:

• aleksb6: from @bmichelson – 6+1 secrets of successful #soa -> +1 means that we hear 6 secrets, and then some!
• aleksb6: made the switch from the #entarch ecology track to @bmichelson ‘s Secrets of #SOA track at
• aleksb6: truism from @bmichelson : anything w an “A” in it (e.g. SOA, EA, EDA, BA…) will have a marketing challenge!
• aleksb6: #SOA Governance def from @toddbiske “reused” by @bmichelson sounds a lot like our #SOA Governance capability definition!
• toddbiske: thanks to @bmichelson (and @aleksb6 for making me aware of it* for the mention related to SOA Governance at.
• aleksb6: now, time for the #SOA panel lead by @bmichelson – real world experience with #SOA, experience gained, lessons learned

That’s it for now: may post another set from the Wednesday sessions – but it seems they’re mostly on cloud-computing, which is not my bag at all. Hope these have been useful, anyway?

There’s also a lot of it – at least a couple of hundred tweets – so it’s best to put in a ‘Read more…’ link at this point:

For simplicity, I’ve left out my own name on tweets that I posted (which seem to have been the majority for this conference – a slight disappointment, because it meant that there wasn’t that much of a backchannel). All posts other than my own are preceded with the respective person’s Twitter-ID in italics.

I’ve sorted the posts into the correct chronological order, and under headings for the respective conference-presentations. The ‘Other sessions’ headings relate to presentations that I didn’t manage to get to.

Intro/miscellaneous

• stevenunn The Open Group Rome conference #ogrome kicks off to a full house, despite recent volcanic activity. Well done to everyone for getting here.
• jdevoo: Follow The Open Group Conference Rome 2010 under #ogrome
• a_josey New free EA WP from The Open Group released: World-Class Enterprise Architecture (reg’n requ’d) http://bit.ly/ahjc56 #ogrome
• a_josey 2nd free WP from The Open Group: World-Class EA: Framework Guidance & TOGAF 9 Example (regn req’d) http://bit.ly/cLRozq #ogrome
• a_josey TOGAF 9 Template Artifacts and Deliverables, Set 2 now available from The Open Group, http://bit.ly/9TGMQp #ogrome
• a_josey The Open Group TOGAF White Papers repository has been updated today. Includes two new papers on EA adoption. http://bit.ly/PD5c6
• a_josey Second White Paper on adoption of world-class EA published at provides guidance on how to implement TOGAF 9 http://bit.ly/cLRozq …
• chrisdpotts: Will TOGAF be extended to include all the technologies a business uses, not just IT?

Terry Blevins (MITRE Corp): Air Force Architecting Concept of Operations – using architecture to support decision making

• stevenunn Terry Blevins, of Mitre Corp, stresses the importance of having architects communicate with business at #ogrome.
• Technodad Terry Blevins covers US Air Force Concept of Operation for architecture at #ogrome. About supporting decision making for mission/business.
• stevenunn Terry Blevins tells #ogrome how the US Air Force uses architecture to support decision-making.
• industryleaders Attending Air Force Architecting Concept Operations. EA Capabilities in action now live!!
• stevenunn Critical capabilities for US Aur Force include effective decision-support, functioning governance, and optimal build capability.
• Terry Blevins: USAF: architecture starts from values (not from IT or jargon!)
• Terry Blevins USAF: no solution sits by itself – the really important part is the connections between architectures
• Terry Blevins: architecture supports synthesis – and no, it’s not as simple as pushing a button! – governance is the key
• Terry Blevins: the test of architecture-quality is whether it’s *usable* in practice – not just whether it’s in a standard form
• theopengroup Terry Blevins concludes his presentation at #ogrome by urging the sharing of best practices in architecture through The Open Group.
• Technodad Allen Brown and Terry Blevins discuss the role of the architect in supporting the warfighter. http://post.ly/dETe
• Terry Blevins: anything you prescribe top-down for an architecture (e.g. segments) is likely to be wrong… must be emergent
• trouxsoftware Great key to EA success. Blevins: “clear scope and purpose”

Leonardo Ramirez: EA Evolution from IT to Executive Board Conversation

• Ramirez “Technology starts with really good business thinking” (i.e. not technology-first!) #entarch #soa
• Ramirez: “SOA should not be a solution looking for an answer” #entarch #soa
• Ramirez: “EA should properly be used to mean the architecture of an entire enterprise, not just its IT assets” #entarch
• Ramirez: ‘IT’ projects are actually managed by business (as ‘owner’) rather than by IT
• Ramirez: Obtain trust (via emotive speech): Think about what you want the technology to do for each audience and then validate it.
• Ramirez: Audience did not care about (e.g.) use of process of agile development, as much as the result it could bring.
• Ramirez: EA acts as mediator / translator between many different business groups (including IT)
• Ramirez: EA provides end-to-end view, which includes IT metrics, business metrics, all people in the organisation
• Ramirez: top-level business-results – from 1 country to 5, 1 business-unit to 8, roll-outs drive consistency across whole org
• industryleaders Download the latest pdf presentation for EA evolution from IT to Execuitve board conversation from http://tinyurl.com/33lsxqf
• industryleaders A pic from the Plenary made this morning http://leonardoramirez-zfwhc.posterous.com/

Jack Fujieda (RegIS Inc/Open Group Japan): 10 Commandments of Enterprise Architecture – For Whom the Bell Tolls? Value of EA to the CxO

• Technodad Jack Fujieda presents Architecture 10 Commandments at. http://post.ly/dFcz
• Fujieda: engineering happens *after* we understand the what and why of the context
• mgl795: Some pictures of Fufieda-san’s session http://bit.ly/90u0cE

Chris Forde (Open Group): Enterprise Architecture – Getting Buy-in From the Business Line

• Forde: if they don’t get it, they don’t get it – and if the decision is theirs, not yours, don’t annoy them by repeating yourself!
• Forde: is what you’re doing sustainable? e.g. what happens when someone moves on? what happens when the org changes?
• Forde: I try to leave the IT slant out of this: we talk about scale in terms of (different) people), not (identical) servers
• Forde: who’s actually using what you do? no, who *really* uses it? if it’s not being used *now*, don’t spend big effort creating it
• Forde: typical business view of time-to-success is 3-6 months (not classic-EA 2-3 years, but also not less)
• Forde: remember that as an EA you *are* bringing to the (business) table a valuable body of knowledge – *you* need to value it too
• Forde: everything you do in an IT context should always be traceable to a real, identifiable business outcome – no ivory tower!
• Forde: every department in business is dysfunctional in some way – IT is no different (but probably no worse) than others in that..
• Forde: there’s a lot of info in the TOGAF spec about soft-skills if you look around in there without IT-specific assumptions

Len Fehskens / Tom Graves / Walter Stahlecker: ‘Extending EA to the Enterprise’ joint session

• Len Fehskens: (asking if we’ve read certain EA classics) “you’re all woefully ignorant, historically – not that that matters”
• presentation ‘Architecture on purpose’ for TOGAF Rome #entarch went well, will clean-up and post on Slideshare tomorrow
• ‘Enterprise-architecture on purpose’ – my slides from TOGAF Rome are now up on Slideshare http://bit.ly/9A0Uvd #entarch #bizarch
• Stahlecker: “enterprise architeture is the union of all architectures in an enterprise”
• Stahlecker: “EA has no a priori architectural hierarchy, alignments are what create and maintain an architectural hierarchy”
• Stahlecker: for TOGAF: “needed: alignment among concerns via ‘boundaryless architecture-information flow’”
• Stahlecker: business-architecture is the ‘chemistry’ – how the intended value, defined by stakeholders, are derived from the assets

Other sessions

• trouxsoftware Lambert: Capability planning is about business outcomes.
• harmenberg meeting on TOGAF tool certification at
• harmenberg useful meeting on TOGAF tool certification at; interesting point: should it be primarily specification based or use case based?

Richard Sawhney (Forrester): ‘Evolving Traditional [IT] Architecture to Business-Centric Architecture’

• sebastian_zeeb Richard Sawhney (Forrester) talks about next gerenration EA @ Opengroup Conferenc in Rome
• Sawhney: emphasis on convrsations, agility, value-driven (inc. non-monetary), arch. as coaching, metrics on metrics not compliance
• Sawhney: “it’s great that we’ve got this new thing called business-architecture” – this is new???
• harmenberg @tetradian if you live in the IT-world, business might seem new to you
• Sahwney: barely a third of orgs have implemented any real level of business-architecture (only 2% ‘nearly all we need’) #bizarch
• Sawhney: “‘business capability map’ model of capabilities with IT associated with them” – where do we capture non-IT?!?
• Sawhney: billed as moving beyond IT-centrism, but ‘business-architecture’ is same old ‘everything not-IT that might impact on IT’..?
• Sawhney: capabilities provide a ‘Rosetta stone’ for business-IT communication – is best level of granularity
• Sawhney: (‘business capability map’ is similar to what others would describe as a Functional Business Model – i.e tiered services)
• sebastian_zeeb According to Forrester Capability maps are a good way to align business needs to existing IT capabiliies #eacom
• trouxsoftware Richard Sawhney of Forrester: EA 2.0 is about business outcomes.
• Sawhney: (interesting to see this viewed as ‘new’ – all of this we we did in live practice at AusPost 6+ years ago…)
• industryleaders Great presentation from forrester at Open Group Rome Conference : Create and Validate Business View First
• Sawhney: “architecture is more about listening than talking” – agree (though I admit I’m not good enough at it yet… )
• Sawhney: ‘business skills’ are essential – being able to talk in the language of business – communication skills – avoid jargon
• Sawhney: (IT-)EA needs to develop collaboration-guidelines to assist business to make best/wisest use of cloud
• thobitz Another analyst who thinks that processes are just about fine-granular process steps, and therefore we need – “capabilities”
• Sawhney / Allen: EA needs to be presented as a business-level strategic capability, not an IT-capability
• thobitz Apparently he is also not sure whether it should be “capability” or “function” – uses the terms interchangably in the discussion
• sailesh_panchal Richard Sawhney of Forrester: EA 2.0 is about business outcomes. /via @trouxsoftware Well duh!

Erik Proper (CapGemini Academy): Architectures for Service Innovation

• Erik Proper: Architectures for Service Innovation – calling for case-studies in this area
• Proper: from product to service; monolithic orgs to networked enterprise; new business initiatives times down from months to days
• Proper: value web – not a simple value chain, is difficult now to determine direction; value-transforms often indirect/non-linear
• Proper: business-services / business-service innovation not yet gain much attention, yet business drives needs for software services
• Proper: architecture as a means to steer innovation (for business and/or IT etc) – service innovation is/cause enterprise-transforms
• Proper: #entarch provides a more concrete description of what strategy needs for implementation (hence EA as governance)
• Proper: (some nice crosslinks between EA-as-governance, de Leeuw on governance, and Stafford Beer on viable-systems)
• Proper: service innovation is about the whole enterprise, not just IT
• (re Proper) RT @SAlhir: RT @GrahamHill: RT @adfig: Last issue of ‘Service Science’ just out. http://bit.ly/cGIJv0 #servicedesign
• gollwitzera Erik provided interesting cross link to research activity – see http://service-science.info/
• Proper: recommends S2IP (sustainable services), TOGAF ADM (but *not* fixed IT-centric scope), VPEC-T (see @taotwit, @5Di), TRIZ
• Proper: use design-science (create something, trial it, evaluate, iterate) as a way to enhance TOGAF in live practice
• Proper: looking for #entarch case-studies for research @erikproper
• Proper: difference b/w ‘service’ and ‘capability’: capability implies ability to *execute* a service
• jdevoo @erikproper @tetradian What is the role of business schools in educating on EA? E.g. http://bit.ly/aVV2pg

Mike Rollings (Burton Group): Changing the Conversation – Becoming Business Relevant by Redefining Your Focus

• Rollings: quotes Gary Hamel and Shoshana Zuboff on drivers for overall rethink of management – making EA relevant in that shift
• Rollings: Hamel: “removing the pathology of the management hierarchy” – becoming social-systems architects, human-centric
• Rollings: Zuboff “There is no detailed map of the territory ahead – you are the mapmaker” – design-thinking, again human-centric
• harmenberg Mike Rollings at: it’s good to see someone with presentation capabilities…
• Rollings: th term ‘enterprise architecture’ does’t describe complexity behind it – we need to describe in business language not EA’s
• Rollings: ‘enterprise architects’ are not the only ones doing EA-type work – our role is not to teach EA but help others *apply* it
• CH_FEDARCH Burton Group Speaker says, architects need to change not only their language but their behavior to be more relevant to their org
• Rollings: EA’s application should increase the awareness of dependencies, implications and constraints for decision-making
• Rollings: most people do not care what ‘EA’ is, what they care about is the value gained from applying it
• erikproper @tetradian Meanwhile, EA is still positioned subordinate to the CIO …
• Rollings: integration not about EA (for its own sake) it’s about how well we connect with the other disciplines – watch for friction
• Rollings: what are others’ roadblocks / blindspots to making better decisions – EA should illuminate range of perspectives context
• Rollings: relevance: “examine everything from the context of another individual” – what is the problem that they’re experiencing?
• Rollings: collaboration “develop a shared context from a fabric of ideas” – start from the intended outcomes, dynamic, opportunity
• Rollings: “change the focus from the institution to the individual” – orgs are made up of unique people with unique views/needs
• Rollings: change EA behaviour: individual > initiate, collaboration > engage, relevance > empathize, perspective > visualise
• overall, a very useful / expressive / *relevant* presentation from Mike Rollings – recommended
• Rollings: need to make the elements of EA more approachable, change the discussion to serve and to become more business-relevant
• Rollings: a coming split between IT people who are running things vs those who focus on helping business improve/extend capabilities
• Rollings: “the point is that ya gotta learn the business!” – strongly agree
• mikerollings RT @tetradian: Rollings: “the point is that ya gotta learn the business!” – strongly agree #burtongroup #gartnerea
• trouxsoftware Rollins: BPM teams separate from EA. Do not think that they are doing EA. Similar to how many others pursue SOA. #entarch
• process2go RT @tetradian Rollings: most people don’t care what ‘EA’ is, they care about the value gained from applying it similar for #BPM
• harmenberg Mike Rollings at: ‘language and communication are at the heart of many problems.’ A case for ArchiMate I would say!
• bergmart @harmenberg I disagree with you. ArchiMate is for enterprise IT architecture not for enterprise business architecture.
• harmenberg @bergmart yes, we do disagree. There is more in BA than in ArchiMate, but ArchiMate is more than enterprise IT architecture
• erikproper @harmenberg Indeed. ArchiMate is more than EntWide IT architecture, but we are missing relevant aspects. Let’s clarify what we mis!
• marcostong17 Proper: mentioned 3 levels of capabilities for service innovation. And service innovation is or cause enterprise transformation.#ogrome

Len Fehskens (Open Group): Business Architecture – Just Another IT-Centric Idea?

• Len Fehskens session: Is ‘business-architecture’ just another IT-centric idea?
• ARSzakal The practice of Business Architecture is a discipline of EA. Architects who practice BA, EA and EITA apply all of these disciplines.
• ARSzakal Ok so we don’t really have a defacto industry agreement on what it means to be a business architect.
• ARSzakal Show me someone who suggests they only practice EA and not EITA or BA and not EA and I’ll introduce you to the unemployed.
• ARSzakal You almost never see a real productive archtiect only focus on one architectural discipline.
• omkhar RT @ARSzakal: Would you create a business architecture and never create the supporting IT architecture? I think not. // agreed
• Fehskens: IT centric defn of ‘business-architecture’ is probly OK is we’re honest about it, though it’s only useful to the IT domain
• Fehskens: it would be helpful to remember to stop partitioning the world into ‘the IT’ vs ‘the business’
• mikerollings Len Fehskens the separation of IT and the Business causes bias and is an outdated idea – I couldn’t agree more
• industryleaders The main conclusion is that EA must be business relevant
• Fehskens: ‘the business’ really deserves a more thoughtful characterisation than ‘whatever isn’t IT’
• Fehskens: the ‘siren song’ of “if the business had an architecture it would be easier for the IT architecture to align with it”…
• sebastian_zeeb Business meets Architecture – Mind the Gap. The Lever for Integration of Processes and IT. http://bit.ly/abc90a #eacom
• Fehskens: IT-centric version of ‘business architecture’ hijacks the term for another needed concept of ‘architecture of business’
• Fehskens: “IT is a function; ‘the business’ is not” – very important distinction
• ARSzakal Would you create a business architecture and never create the supporting IT architecture? I think not.
• Fehskens: ‘naming-inflation’ – “naming something this way does not “automagically” realize our aspirations”
• trouxsoftware Fehskens: Today, “enterprise architecture” is routinely used to mean “enterprise IT architecture” #entarch
• Fehskens: names set expectations – we need to be more rigorous about naming (he presents some *very* useful rigour/syntax etc)
• ARSzakal Discord between business and IT results from our separation of the management of the business function and IT operations.
• Fehskens: IT-centric term ‘business architecture’ is convergence of several bad habits of enterprise IT-architects: need to fix this
• mikerollings Allen Brown “if I use the word ‘enterprise’ outside the Open Group crowd, they think I am talking about Star Trek”
• ARSzakal Business Architecture is the business strategy, mission and planning – this evolves in realtime and informs the EITA.
• mikerollings EA as a profession: too broad of a designation. Current certification of someone as an ‘EA’ demands the question “what kind?”
• mikerollings EA as a profession also misses that many outside IT do planning, optimization, and design without calling it ‘EA’ #gartnerea
• BurtonGroupIT Great conversations happening at Open Group Conference Rome and Burton Group’s @mikerollings #burtongroup #gartnerea

David Potter (Quantum Lifecycle Management spotlight)

• Quantum Lifecycle Management: open, trusted whole-of-life lifecycle mgmt for trillions of objects in ‘internet of things’
• omkhar QLM – Quantum Lifecycle Management is the next leap beyond Product Lifecycle Management
• Technodad David Potter introduces Quantum Lifecycle Management group @ – sharing lifecycle info for “Internet of things” http://post.ly/dWez
• industryleaders At Quantum Lifecycle Management Meeting going beyond PLM
• Technodad Jacopo Cassina at #QLM meeting at : how to replicate the “village cobbler” experience across design, supply and service chains

Sebastian Zeeb (Detecon International GmbH): The Business Value of Information – Information Architecture Case Study Telecommunication

• Zeeb: “what’s the use of a common language if nobody wants to talk?”
• Zeeb: “Information need from today’s business require a holistic approach to architecture” – strongly agree
• Zeeb: (exactly what it says – is a detailed case-study for Enterprise Information Management – very useful if you need case-studies)
• 5Di RT @tetradian: Zeeb: “what’s the use of a common language if nobody wants to talk?” > why ‘Values’ and ‘Trust’ are important #vpect
• StevenvtVeld @sebastian_zeeb “holistic approach to architecture” Do you agree this approach is outside IT? Ought to define need. @tetradian
• StevenvtVeld @sebastian_zeeb In practice we see big differences between information and IT professionals. Like demand versus supply. @tetradian
• StevenvtVeld @sebastian_zeeb Ah, you’re talking supplyside Information Architecture. Then what do you mean by holistic?
• StevenvtVeld @sebastian_zeeb Only reason for demand for IT is information. Conceptually this demand must be holistic. Good to see holistic supply

Robin Meehan (Smart421): Producing Metrics to Measure Strategy-Execution Alignment During ADM Phase E / F

• Meehan: “how do we know how well this project portfolio moves us towards the business vision?” – hence need for metrics
• Meehan: “Is the target to have 100% alignment? Not necessarily … stop once you’ve got value from the process” – pragmatics
• Meehan: emphasis on alignment to intended *execution* – alignment to strategy should have been dealt with in previous ADM phases
• Meehan: “if there is no traceable ‘business value’ [in a project or its execution], then why are we doing it?” – stop ‘pet-projects’
• Meehan: (runs a demonstration inside Sparx Enterprise Architect) – good illustration shows where an objective has no IT support etc
• Meehan: if a strategy has no change-project to implement it, it ain’t going to happen…
• Meehan: “[metrics will show that] some projects have no discernable relationship to strategy” – often points to tricky politics
• Meehan: provides a means to test whether strategy is deliverable (or that anyone is actually delivering it) – enforces SMART checks
• Meehan: a lot of the issues are from the strategy side (e.g. implicit, too woolly, ‘pet project’) rather than on the project-side
• Meehan: important to have an ‘innovation-strategy’ item to provide traceability for innovation-projects, don’t hide as ‘pet project’
• Meehan: “not all traceability relationships are equal, not all projects are considered equal” – e.g. 1-5 scale for opportunity-cost
• gfriend Important reminder! RT @tetradian: Meehan: if a strategy has no change-project to implement it, it ain’t going to happen…

Mamdouh Ibrahim / Kevin Daley (IBM) session: Actionable Business Architecture

• Mamdouh Ibrahim / Kevin Daley
• Daley: “is it ‘IT/business alignment’, or ‘IT/business convergence’?” – explicitly places ‘business-architecture’ as part of IT…
• Daley/IBM: (personally I *really* strongly disagree with his very IT-oriented base-assumptions here, but that’s just my opinion…)
• Daley: “split the business conceptually into ‘Strategy & Transformation’ and ‘Operations’” – because they have different worldviews
• Ibrahim (IBM): “addressing #bizarch only as a piece of traditional ([IT-centric) #entarch can be problematic"
• Ibrahim: if bizarch is seen only as IT, business-stakeholders won't/don't participate - also who owns the bizarch?
• Ibrahim: use-cases are the best mechanism to capture *systems* reqmts, but may not be suitable to capture *enterprise* reqmts
• Ibrahim: incorporating bizarch as a critical and business-relevant component of entarch requires a new perspective
• Ibrahim: actionable business architecture may be used/usable for understanding of business on its own [e.g. without assuming IT]
• Daley: “information technology has become almost inseparable from the business itself” – [oh no, not again... rampant IT-centrism]
• Daley: [okay, this is IBM selling tools, but this is exactly what *not* to do with business-architectures... e.g. IT-driven BPR/BPM]
• Daley: [what is 'actionable business architecture'? seems to be 'whatever bizarch can be implemented by IBM automated tools'???]
• Daley/Ibrahim: [an odd presentation - half extreme IT-centrism, half real awareness of bizarch beyond IT]

Salah Musa (Object Computing International): ‘The “Business” in Enterprise Architecture – The Business Value’

• Musa: entarch *must* deliver *demonstrable* business-value – keyword here is ‘demonstrable’ (and “perception is reality”)
• Musa: “is the reason why we need ‘IT/business alignment’ because IT is more broken than any other function within the business?”
• Musa: if IT focus only on cutting costs, can only save a few million; but if focus on creating value, can return far far more
• Musa: [EA defined as a subset of IT - again... how many more years before the discipline can finally break free of this mistake??]
• Musa: “reality, awareness and perceptions are completely different from each other” – yes, that’s important, esp. for #entarch
• Musa: “bizarch building blocks are data, people, function and rules organised by location and timing” [yes, *people*, not just IT]
• Musa: “facilitate change [with] more complete and accurate info for line managers etc to make decisions” [yes, decision-support]
• Musa: “give custodianship of EA to the corporate enterprise! but are they interested, and how?” – good questions

Other sessions

• harta75 Interesting SOA discussion about services and the importance of keeping the service contract stable @#ogrome
• industryleaders Attending to emergence of industry reference architectures in financial markets
• omkhar Very interesting presentation on Cloud Computing ROI by Mark Skilton
• chrisjharding @omkhar We will build on this in the meeting on Business Architecture for Cloud Services at 9:00 tomorrow
• rmeehan Just posted Open Group Rome 2010 day 1 blog – http://smart421.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/open-group-conference-rome-2010-day-1-blog/
• omkhar At a very interesting Realtime / embedded systems group talk.
• harmenberg ArchiMate Forum meeting at: discussing steps to take and futher releases of ArchiMate

Bob Weisman: ‘Using TOGAF 9 in Conjunction with Other Frameworks on Emergency Management Systems’

• Weisman: Web 2.0 is collaboration, it’s not about technology
• Weisman: need a unified architecture in the collaboration environment [architecture is *more* important in agile response, not less]
• Weisman: a key problem is culture: creating willngness to share, then technology (capability to share), policy (rules for sharing)
• Weisman: managing expectations – don’t promise what you can’t deliver – interoperability is much trickier than it looks
• Weisman: pre-planning on governance and resources provides an architecture for the architecture – test in e.g. live simulation
• Weisman: a lot of architectures fail because of implementation issues around acquisition – if you can’t get it you can’t build it!
• Weisman: “pick the content metamodel” – too many to choose from? (MODAF/OMG UPDM etc etc) but all implementable, all maintained
• Weisman: [my own opinion: this is _much_ more real-world than the finance/insurance etc models we usually see for TOGAF etc]
• Weisman: for interoperability, re-use and extend existing models (incl. arch. models), don’t create new ones w/o v.good reason
• CH_FEDARCH @tetradian I agree, government cases are *real world* and are insightful – especially for other gvmt guys…
• Weisman: (provides a crossmap between TOGAF phases, DODAF deliverables, UML etc models to ‘get everyone on same page’)
• Weisman: people talk about interoperability, but as soon as they have to *do* it, they tend to back away…
• Weisman: capability: ability of a person, process or organisation to provide business value
• Weisman: models for interoperability for emergency-response will be available publicly in the fairly near future

Sanda Morar (Cognizant): ‘Integrating TOGAF Architecture Development Method with Other Enterprise-wide Processes’

• Morar: TOGAF spec says that “in all cases” adaptation will be required – ie. the ‘standard’ is not an out-of-the-box standard
• Morar: a lot of talk about mapping (between TOGAF and other frameworks), but info was not that much actual help in integrating them
• Morar: (appears to be a crossmapping of TOGAF phases with Zachman layers – row-1 to row-5? struggling with proprietary IP again..)
• Morar: diagram suggests that TOGAF metamodel needs entities for lifecycle, technical constraint – good point
• Morar: (focus of their MLR model is requirements rather than architecture as such, but there is a useful crossmap between them)
• Morar: [my opinion: this is again showing the fundamental problem with TOGAF's fixed IT-specific B/C/D scope - ADM needs open scope]
• Morar: crossmap to TOGAF metamodel provides a very valuable crosscheck – gaps in their own model “jump out” from the comparison

Other sessions

• omkhar My Security in the Cloud presentation begins at 4pm local
• jim_hietala Listening to @omkhar and Stuart Boardman describe great progress on a cloud security reference architecture at
• harmenberg Useful meeting of ArchiMate Forum at, with a number of concrete steps to take the coming month(s).
• harmenberg Alexander den Hartog (Boskalis) presents on the use of ArchiMate at Boskalis.
• harta75 Had a lot of questions about use of Archimate in Boskalis at. Always good to have discussions after a presentation.
• rmeehan Blog from Open Group Rome 2010 day 2 posted http://smart421.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/open-group-conference-rome-2010-day-2-blog/
• rmeehan Good event – well done to Open Group organisers. Any event with wine at lunch time every day has got to be good )

Perhaps it’s just spring or something (which it isn’t here, of course – ‘here’ being cold, damp, grey England), but there’s a real sense of change in the TOGAF air. This time, amazingly, there’s barely a Cloud in the sky: instead, at last, almost all of it is enterprise-architecture. Real enterprise-architecture.

As Enterprise Architecture matures there are many challenges which face the fledgling profession, but perhaps the most troublesome is how to find a way to communicate effectively with the business.

EA is fast becoming a business activity and is leaving behind the safe haven of IT. Language and communication now stand front and center as the current and most critical element of EA but how do we go about overcoming what, for many enterprise architects, is arguably our greatest challenge?

This event provides an ideal opportunity for EA professionals to better understand the overriding need to more closely align the practice of EA with the requirements of business decision-making at ‘board room’ level. It will better prepare all EA professionals to make real and significant contributions to the development of business strategy.

“Communicate with the business”, we might note – not “to the business”, which has been the arrogant attitude of IT for so many years. And being explicit that we need to be “leaving behind the safe haven of IT” is a very important step indeed.

But wait: it gets better:

Evolving EA from IT to Business
Plenary theme (Monday)

We all know that EA is evolving and that gives enterprise architects a problem, because it implies that we have to evolve too.

We also know that we need to get closer to business, to make IT-business alignment a thing of the past. It simply isn’t enough for there to be IT-business alignment, there should only be business with IT being as much a part of the business as finance, sales, marketing or operations.

At this conference we will seek to open up the discussions that we, as enterprise architects need to develop to move forward and embrace the future of EA. Attendees can learn about our key challenges in this field, the different approaches to success and can be guided by those who have overcome the challenge of successfully crossing the divide.

And as a key enabler of this change in focus, EA Professionals need to change the language of EA, from “techie speak” to a much more business-oriented language that relates directly to the organization’s key business functions. The conference will explore a future in which enterprise architects engage in meaningful conversation in the Board Room as a matter of course, and in which the enterprise architecture itself constitutes a key enabler of corporate decision-making.

In other words, that crucial shift from ‘strategic planning’ to ‘strategic conversation‘. At last.

But wait: it gets better still, in business-architecture terms at least:

Extending EA to the Enterprise
Plenary theme (Tuesday)

The Business Architecture is a key component of any Enterprise Architecture, proving the direct linkage between other, IT-related components of the EA and the key strategic drivers and imperatives of the business. It is the key enabler by which Enterprise Architecture can truly extend its reach to the heart of the enterprise.

Those working in the field of Business Architecture are uniquely positioned to establish tomorrow’s best practices. In this session thought-leaders and leading practitioners in Business Architecture will present the critical success factors for today’s Business Architect.

TOGAF is an industry consensus framework and method for enterprise architecture that is used by organizations around the world. TOGAF is a live framework, continually evolving to accommodate best practices. At this conference we will show how TOGAF can be used today to present Business Architecture in a meaningful way to the business.

In other words, for the first time, business-architecture is described by Open Group as a distinct discipline in its own right, separate from but interrelated with IT-architecture. That’s a huge shift: in the TOGAF 9 specification, released barely a year ago, business-architecture was still in effect described as a jumbled-up grab-bag of “everything not-IT that might impact on IT”.

The only point I’m wary of here is that, in escaping from IT-centrism, this version of EA still risks falling straight into the next trap, that of business-centrism or organisation-centrism. No doubt business-folks might prefer us to do that, but in the long run it’s actually as dangerous as IT-centrism. It’s true that business-architecture should be centred round the needs of the business itself – but just like IT-architecture, that’s not enterprise-architecture either.

An organisation is bounded by agreed rules, or, in the case of a business, by legal obligations; but an enterprise is bounded by feelings and values – which is not the same at all. Without a grounded awareness of its extended-enterprise – the surrounding ecosystem within which it operates – business-architecture risks becoming self-centred, literally narcissistic, and guaranteed to fail in the longer term. An architecture that has a broader scope than the business itself becomes essential to guide the architecture of the business – and that’s what a true ‘architecture of the enterprise as enterprise’ will provide.

Even so, the description of this upcoming conference is very good news: a real sign that we’re at last getting closer to a true enterprise-architecture. At last. At last.

Like every TOGAF conference there were some of the same ‘usual suspects’ (including me, of course! ) with their current version of the same developing themes for enterprise-architecture – such cloud-computing, security, TOGAF itself, and (in my case) expanding out beyond IT. But what made this conference special for me was the unique Chinese perspective on what has historically been a somewhat Anglo and technology-driven construct.

This difference in perspective was highlighted especially in presentations that came from three contrasting aspects of Chinese business: a large software-development and training house, a major university, and the Chinese arm of a large US-based multinational.

(Another long post, so continues after the ‘More’ link…)

Kingdee International
The first was in a plenary session, “Enterprise Architecture supporting the Chinese Management Model”, by Robert Xu, chairman and chief-architect for Kingdee International. This was noteworthy for two reasons:

• an almost complete absence of any reference to IT – instead almost all about management and business-architecture
• balancing Western-style best-practice (Drucker, Deming, AQPC, EA etc) against long-standing national principles

Xu described what he called the ‘Chinese Management Model’, a central core at the intersection of:

• Chinese Management Philosophy
• Modern Management Science
• Successful Management Practice

The ‘Chinese Management Philosophy’ in turn drew from four distinct traditions, which Xu described as:

• Confucius emphasises the moral strength
• Taoism emphasises the forces of Nature [balance and complementarity]
• Buddhism emphasises the power of Consciousness [big-picture, respect, and self-responsibility]
• ‘Eight Glory, Eight Disgrace’ [present-day aphorisms proposed by President Hu Jintao - summary and somewhat ironic commentary here]

In Cynefin terms, the ‘Chinese Management Philosophy’ would provide good anchors in the ‘Simple’ (rule-based) domain, and – assuming appropriate experience to make use of those principles – also good anchors in the ‘Chaotic’ (principle-based) domain. The ‘Modern Management Science’ and ‘Successful Management Practice’, much of it drawn from Western theorists and practitioners – would provide good anchors in the ‘Complicated’ (analytic) domain. What seems to be missing, though, is anything to work with the ‘Complex’ (heuristic) domain, such as in the near-turbulent business environment that’s all too common now. Principles seem to be offered as a substitute for true systems-thinking in that domain, which is probably an improvement on misapplied analytics, but it still doesn’t work well: principles too easily become empty ‘wisdoms’ unless there is already a solid grounding in everyday practice. From the discussions at the conference and elsewhere, there did seem to be a fair bit of evidence of that kind of failing in Chinese business: a specifically Chinese version of the classic Western disconnect between IT and ‘the business’. Interesting, but odd – a real opportunity for whole-of-enterprise architecture, perhaps?

Beijing University
Next was “Introduction of CIO Program in Peking University” by Professor Yao Le (see BDRIT.org). Professor Yao seems to be at the forefront of academic programmes for CIOs in China, with very high-level support from government. Some interesting statistics, though:

• percentage of CIOs who had already known of some form of EA prior to the course: <40%
• percentage of CIOs who had already implemented some form of EA: 0%
• percentage of CIOs who intended to implement EA soon after the course: >45%
• percentage of CIOs who think EA should be the CIO’s core capability: >80%

Key concerns for CIOs were most often about management-type issues:

• “level of management”: 41%
• “awareness of executives”: 38%
• “capability of employees”: 36%
• “organizational system problem”: 34%

The classic technical concerns so typical of Western ‘enterprise’-architecture were much further down in priority for these CIOs:

• “integration of applications”: 30%
• “data chaos”: 20%
• “products and technology”: 6%

But again there was this same strong contrast drawn between the putative views of West and East:

• ‘Western Learning’ (represented by TOGAF crop-circles) vs ‘Sinology’ (represented by Yin/Yang symbol)
• ‘Knowledge’ vs ‘Wisdom’
• ‘Sense’ vs ‘Sensibility’ (i.e. ‘feeling’?)

Professor Yao described these only briefly before turning to a fairly straightforward view of how TOGAF would be used in BPM, SOA and ‘the usual suspects’ of IT-oriented architectures. ‘Sinology’ was not really explained as a term: probably the main theme that came out of the conversation was a need for overall balance, and for a longer-term view. Likewise another largely-unexplained term in this presentation, ‘informatization’ – as a counterpart to ‘industrialization’ – which seems to mean a much stronger engagement of information and measurement in industrial processes, on the same general lines as Six Sigma and the like.

Overall, there seems to be a lot happening on the academic front here: Allen Brown of Open Group and Jason Uppal of Canadian EA consultancy/trainer QRS are among those who’ve been involved with this over the past few years. An interesting case of Watch This Space for enterprise-architects, I guess?

HP China
I’d been hoping to see some usage of other classic Chinese frameworks such as Wu Xing (Five Elements), which I’ve used in some of my own high-level enterprise-architectures. No-one discussed Five Elements directly – apparently they’re viewed as somewhat archaic and outmoded, which I think is an unfortunate mistake – but the presentation “Enterprise-Architecture Enabled Business Lifecycle Management”, by Yong Gong, from HP China’s Best Shore Application Services unit, did come close with a five-stage model of the business-lifecycle. His stages, cross-mapped to the Wu Xing and the Tuckman Group Dynamics project-lifecycle, are as follows:

• Start-up  (Wu Xing ‘Wood’; Tuckman ‘Forming’)
• Emerging (‘Fire’; ‘Storming’)
• Established (‘Earth’; ‘Norming’)
• Expanding (‘Metal’; ‘Performing’)
• Exit (‘Water’; ‘Adjourning’ / ‘Mourning’)

Yong Gong did a brilliant job of explaining the different emphases for a TOGAF-style enterprise-architecture in each of those for the business-lifecycle. For example, in the ‘Established’ stage (which in effect is where most organisations start using TOGAF), the emphasis is on efficiency, on removing “information islands” and integrating multiple IT platforms; whereas in the next stage, ‘Expanding’, there would be much more emphasis on governance and on ensuring alignment with and support for the ongoing changes in business-strategy.

Mapping this more closely to the traditional Five Elements also brings up some other themes that weren’t so evident in the presentation. One is that the second stage, ‘Emerging’, is also one in which there needs to be much more emphasis on the human side of systems – because if we don’t tackle that in our architecture, what we risk later is a fiery out-of-control version of Tuckman’s ‘Storming’ phase. Another is that in the final ‘Exit’ stage of the lifecycle, the cross-linkages in a good whole-of-enterprise architecture model can help to identify re-usable or recoverable assets – particularly non-physical assets such as information or business-relations, which may not be listed in conventional asset-registers.

From my perspective it was also good that Yong Gong stressed the importance of looking beyond just IT for the architecture, and using EA to ‘glue’ with the business in a pragmatic, principled way. The TOGAF ADM remains probably the best available method for architecture, but the way we use it needs to change not only with the maturity of architecture within the enterprise, but with the lifecycle-stage of the enterprise as well.

Summary
Although this was only a single set of snapshots from a single conference, it does give an interesting perspective on how culture can change the way we view and do architecture. Would be well worth exploring in more depth, and with yet other cultures, to see what can be learnt and re-used from each.