Category: Enterprise Architecture

  • Openize Now! (later)

    Continued

    Don’t miss Charles Nesson’s comments:

    Key is its definition of openness to include “defensive suspension”. This is the term to pick apart in order to deeply understand. This is where the rubber meets the road for one in possession of power in the form of legal right considering whether to contribute it to a community of trust. Hesitant holders of intellectual property claim need of Defensive Suspension to assure them that they won’t get fucked.

    I strongly recommend sitting in on Charles’ lecture from the roadmap launch. He has some good comments about the boundary between open and closed; he says that a completely open space is like a desert, while a completely closed is like a prison. The challenge is the movement towards a balanced space.

    I’m not a lawyer, but to me the principle of defensive suspension is not an unreasonable requirement. But as it says in IETF RFC3669 (Guidelines for Working Groups on Intellectual Property Issues):

    Words such as “reasonable”, “fair”, and “non-discriminatory” have no objective legal or financial definition. The actual licensing terms can vary tremendously. Also, IPR claimants have occasionally asserted that there were already sufficient licenses for a particular technology to meet “reasonable” multisource and competitiveness requirements and, hence, that refusing to grant any licenses to new applicants was both fair and non-discriminatory. The best way to find out what an IPR claimant really means by those terms is to ask, explicitly.

    Ask. Explicitly. OK.

    So I ask IBM and Microsoft: What’s that with WS-Security implementation issues? Wouldn’t it be better if WS-Security was an OASIS GOLD standard? (is it?) Enlighten us!

    More blog commentary on the roadmap: Harold Jarche, TeleRead.
    French: Data News: Vers le standard ouvert

  • Openize Now!

    I wish I’d been in Washington today, to attend the lauch of our new
    Roadmap for Open ICT Ecosystems. I’m proud having been involved in creating this second roadmap aimed at government leaders and others about government use of IT. This new roadmap introduces the wonderful term openization, and is all about open IT ecosystems, open standards, open source, and open government.

    As a member of the Open ePolicy Group, I’d like to thank Jeff Kaplan and staff at The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, IBM Corporation and Oracle for supporting this important work.

    New York Times reports about the roadmap: “Plan by 13 Nations Urges Open Technology Standards” (via Bob Sutor and other IBMers). Also International Herald Tribune, Computerworld, Public CIO, Infoworld, Red Herring, and more reports. And yes, it was also Slashdotted.

    Danish ComputerWorld reports this as a “a global Danish outcry for open standards”.

    For the Danish context, I need to make one thing clear, and that is that the Roadmap is not an official Danish outcry. The report clearly states that “All members of the Open ePolicy Group participated in their individual capacity. The ROADMAP FOR OPEN ICT ECOSYSTEMS does not necessarily represent the official views of any government, corporation or institution with which members might be associated.” Hence, I participate in the Open ePolicy Group as myself, not as a Danish government official. And since I’m soon no longer a Danish government official, I can’t speak for the Danish government.

    Personally, I agree to everything the roadmap says. Again, the central keyword is openization, a concept I think we invented at the workshop in Redwood City. Openness is not a matter of either-or, 0 or 1, yes or no. It’s a process, where ecosystems, technologies and standards become more and more open.

    Update: The launch event at the World Bank, Evolving to Open ICT Ecosystems, is now available online. See the video.

    More references:
    Earth Times: Adopt open-information technologies, international experts tell nations
    Corante: 13-Nation Army for Open Standards
    Consortiuminfo.org Standards Blog: Standards Numerology:The Magic Number is 13

  • EAJ is here

    I just got the shiny first issue of The Journal of Enterprise Architecture. I’m on the Editorial Board, but all credit for this excellent inaugral issue goes to Chief Editor, Scott Bernard, president of a|EA, The Association of Enterprise Architects, that also publishes the journal.

    The August 2005 (Volume 1, Number 1) issue features a conversation with John Zachman, and contains the following articles:

    • The Profession of Enterprise Architect, by Carolyn Strano and Qamar Rhemani
    • Interfaces for Enterprise solutions, by Greg Deller
    • Simplify the creation of enterprise architecture with special expert teams, by Alex Pavlak
    • EA: II’S NOT JUST FOR IT ANYMORE, by David Mayo and Michael Tiemann
    • Towards Executable Enterprise Models: Ontology amd Semantic Web Meet Enterprise Architecture, by Irene Polikoff and Robert Coyne.
    • Case study: The District of Columbia’s City-Wide Enterprise Architecture, by Thomas Mowbray.

    Scholars and practitioners: Submit your articles!

  • Standardimetrics

    David Berlind writes about the current public discourse over the definition of “open” in “open standards”. Contributions: Bob Sutor, Tom Glover, Bobby Woolf, Stephen O’Grady, James Governor, and Neil Ward-Dutton. Lots of good thoughts.

    The standards part of “open standards” got another injection: Via eGov monitor: Standards contribute £2.5 billion per annum to the UK economy according to a new study – The Empirical Economics of Standards – published today by the UK Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and the British Standards Institution (BSI).

    The study mentioned is the final report from a research programme investigating the role and impact of standardisation on economic performance. The report is heavy stuff; a must-read for those seriously interested in standardisation.

    Advanced econometric time series techniques are used in analysing technology dissemination at the whole economy level, to establish the parameters of dissemination through standards. The findings are interesting, but the methodological exercises are perhaps more interesting.

    The report identifies standards as contributing to business in three specific ways:

    • 1. Encouraging innovation
      Standards stimulate innovation and provide support for businesses from concept to market. They have the power to shape the way sectors work by sharing knowledge and creating effective synergies that accelerate the speed to market for products and services.
    • 2. Foundation for growth

      Standards increase profitability by improving business efficiency and reducing costs, increasing consumer confidence and providing a foundation for growth.

    • 3. Promoting market access
      Standards provide better access to markets and facilitate trade. They promote competition in the market place by helping industries capture knowledge, share insight and with it reduce risk.

    Besides the report, check here, here, here, and here.

    Now, is anyone working on econometrics for open standards (in IT)? Combining it with chasm crossing thinking, perhaps?? I’ll be digging into this over the summer.

  • John’s EA University

    I love teaching, supervising and coaching. Especially when the students are good and motivated. My masters thesis students Signe and Flemming/Rasmus have now handed in their theses. Well done, guys! Signe worked with EA and serviceorientation in government, and Rasmus and Flemming worked with SOA and XML in the Parliament. Signe’s already got a job, but I think Rasmus and Flemming are still available.

    My Enterprise Architecture Masters Course at the IT-University of Copenhagen is now open for enrollment for the Autumn, also as an Open University offering for practitioners.

    It’ll be the fourth time, I am offering this course. I keep changing things, and this time around, I will offer the course as a late afternoon/evening class. That should make it more attractive to practitioners. To make it more attractive to all students, the usual “heavy” mini-project has been replaced by a few assignments during the course.

    And, it’ll be the third course text book I try. As I mentioned earlier, I have found what I think is a perfect course text book.

    Students at the MSc in Business Administration and Computer Science at Copenhagen Business School (CBS) might also get a chance to read this book under my guidance. We’ll know in a few days.

  • Boiling oceans, tornados, and fault lines

    In FCW’s OMB will measure EA use, Dick Burk, OMB’s chief architect, says: “You can’t boil the ocean.”

    In the same article, Con Kenney, Federal Aviation Administration chief architect says: “The most likely model for enterprise architecture adoption is along Geoffrey Moore’s crossing-the-chasm method”.

    Let’s look at that. The Crossing the Chasm model that Geoffrey Moore describes in his famous 1991-book by that name is inspired by Everett Rogers’ classic diffusion of innovations theory, but applied to technology markets. Looking at adoption of high-tech innovation, both Rogers’ and Moore’s focus is on adopter categories, where they identify these categories:

    • innovators (technology enthusiasts)
    • early adopters (visionaries)
    • early majority (pragmatists)
    • late majority (conservatives)
    • laggards. (skeptics)

    Moore’s proposition is that the most difficult step is making the transition between visionaries (early adopters) and pragmatists (early majority). This is the chasm. Hence. the Technology Adoption Life Cycle looks like this:
    Crossing the chasm illustration
    Source: Moore (drawing from Wikipedia)

    Moore’s idea is that the market/diffusion strategy should focus on one group of customers/users at a time, using each group as a base for marketing and diffusion to the next group. Moore’s key insight is that the groups adopt for different reasons. Early adopters are perhaps project managers looking for a radical shift, where the early majority wants a “productivity improvement”. The latter group wants a whole product, where the former group only needs the core product, and has the technical competence, and financial resources to make the rest themselves. The challenge is to create a bandwagon effect in which the momentum builds and the product/technology becomes a de facto standard.

    In his Inside the Tornado book, Moore dives into a corresponding market development model, where he subdivides early adoption into two types: The Bowling Alley and The Tornado.
    tornado-bowling.png
    Source: Moore

    Early Market: a time of great excitement when customers are technology enthusiasts and visionaries looking to be first to get on board with the new paradigm.
    Chasm: a time of great despair, when the early-market’s interest wanes but the mainstream market is still not comfortable with the immaturity of the solutions available.
    Bowling Alley: a period of niche-based adoption in advance of the general marketplace, driven by compelling customer needs and the willingness of vendors to craft niche-specific whole products.
    Tornado: a period of mass-market adoption, when the general marketplace switches over to the new infrastructure paradigm.
    Main Street: a period of after-market development, when the base infrastructure has been deployed and the goal becomes to flesh out its potential.
    Assimilation: the technology loses its discrete identity, moves into decline and is supplanted by a new technology paradigm.

    In Living on the Fault Line, Moore looks at the full market development life cycle, and also looks at when technologies dies (reach the fault line). The most recent publication by Moore I’ve found is his Darwin and the Demon: Innovating Within Established Enterprises cover story in Harvard Business Review, Jul/Aug2004.

    A good example of this dissusion and adoption dynamics is Linux:

    “For web servers, database servers, rendering farms, point-of-sale systems and a variety of other niche categories, Linux has been bowling strikes for several years now. Now we’re moving inside the tornado, big time.” (Searls, 2003)

    I have to ask Doc Searls, who comes to town soon, where he sees Linux today. Is it Main Street yet? Or is it a lasting tornado? One thing is for certain, and that is that a lot is happening in the Linux world, just see here, here, here, and here for a few examples.

    Moore himself actually examines Linux and other open source initiatives in his Open Source Has Crossed the Chasm … Now What? presentation from the recent Open Source Business Conference 2005.

    In his presentation, Moore points out that the greatest advantage of open systems is that they allow organisations to focus on core rather than context. And that resources get tied up in mission-critical context. He talks about five levers for managing mission-critical context (centralize, standardize, modularize, automate and outsource) and how they apply to open source.

    Moore
    Source: Moore (image from SAP)

    Another way, though very similar, to “explain” the diffusion and adoption of technologies is Gartner Group’s Hype Cycles, the graphic representations of the “visibility” – maturity, adoption and business application – of specific technologies. For an example, see Gartner’s Linux Hype Cycle (more recent one in here). Gartner talks about the following phases of development:

    1. “Technology Trigger” : The breakthrough, product launch or other event that generates significant press and interest.

    2. “Peak of Inflated Expectations”: A frenzy of publicity typically generates over-enthusiasm and unrealistic expectations. Some successful applications, but typically more failures.

    3. “Trough of Disillusionment”: Technologies fail to meet expectations and quickly become unfashionable.

    4. “Slope of Enlightenment”: Some businesses experiment to understand the benefits and practical application of the technology.

    5. “Plateau of Productivity”: The benefits of the technology become widely demonstrated and accepted. The technology becomes increasingly stable and evolves in second and third generations.

    It’s no surprise that Moore was a keynote speaker at a recent Gartner conference. Perhaps their hype cycle model has reached its’ fault line?

  • The Journal

    Journal of Enterprise Architecture (JEA) is a peer-reviewed journal that serves scholars and practitioners who are interested in the advancement of the field of Enterprise Architecture. I’ve been invited to serve as an Associate Editor of JEA, and look forward to help making it THE EA-journal.

    JEA is the principle publication of The Association of Enterprise Architects (a|EA), an international forum for enterprise architects.

    The association chair and journal editor Scott Bernard is looking for good articles on any aspect of Enterprise Architecture. I have promised Scott to help getting articles from Europe, so for those Eurofolks out there: start writing and do let us know. The manuscript deadline for the November 2005 issue is August 1, and the February 2006 issue deadline is November 1st.

  • EA teaching

    As the students in my EA class are working hard on their mini-projects which are due next week, I am planning next semester’s class.

    I will use Dr Scott A. Bernard‘s excellent An Introduction to Enterprise Architecture as the main textbook.

    Dr Bernard - book cover

    Written as an EA textbook intended for university courses, Dr Bernard’s book is a perfect match for my course.

    The book also fits extremely well with our National EA White Paper, which I of course also use. Dr Bernard has been and is heavily involved with the US government’s EA work, and although the book is general in its approach, it is clearly also written with students in e-government in mind.

    My fellow practitioners should also get the book. The Enterprise Architecture Cube (EA3) is a good, pragmatic approach to EA.

    Buy Scott’s book from my Amazons: Choose the
    US-store
    or the UK-store.

  • EA + SOA = SOEA ?

    The two concepts Enterprise Architecture and Service-Oriented Architecture are merging. I’m tagging more and more links to both the EA and the SOA categories in my GotzeTagged.

    In DMReview’s Enterprise Architecture and Service-Oriented Architecture Fad or Foundation? Part 1, Rex Brooks and Russell Ruggiero writes:

    … to truly see the outlines and parameters of what is called EA, and from that perspective begin to understand how a SOA enables an EA, we need to get up to suborbital or low orbit viewpoint at least, and it could be argued that we need to get all the way out to the viewpoint of our moon to see the entire environment within which these concepts work. The fact is that the word enterprise is by no means restricted to a business, or even an industry, nor does it refer to a particular time in the life of an organization. The enterprise encompasses the entire life cycle of an organization or an organism.

    Brooks and Ruggiero talk about the perspective of the economic or ecological lifecycle, and finds that in EA today, we need to be explicit and put in place the kinds of mechanisms that can conduct constant review and institute quality assurance as a matter of course and, in effect, institutionalize the cycle of build, use, learn, assess, build (adjust/rebuild), use, learn, etc., ad infinitum.

    I look forward to Part 2 of this story.

    In the same direction, CBDi Journal’s March issue offers Enterprise Framework for SOA by David Sprott and Lawrence Wilkes, who present a generic approach to integrating the SOA framework requirements with existing frameworks (including Zachman).

    SOA is the enabler for contextualising the enterprise in various domains, including what Sprott and Wilkes calls federated ecosystems.

    No EA without a focus on standardisation, and here SOA offers some real challenges. But SOA is also promising a lot, being standards-based in its nature.

    In Where Open Standards Fit into the Application Integration Puzzle, Linthicum et al suggest a categorization of open standards:

    • Service standards (WS-* ?)
    • Format standards (e.g., “EDI, XML and SOAP”)
    • Orchestration standards (e.g., BPEL)

    The information-oriented application integration approach of today emphasises format standards, Linthicum et al notes, and suggest that tomorrow’s approach must be an orchestration-oriented application integration, which they describe as follows:

    However, as we’re getting better at real time information exchange between systems, the trend has been to view application integration at a higher level of abstraction, or through business processes or services. This approach allows those exchanging information between various applications to view the information flow in the context of a business model, or business processes that define business logic, sequence, sub-processes, hierarchies of processes, etc. In other words, the ability to control application integration through abstract business process automation abstractions that also accounts for lower level mechanisms such as transformation and intelligent routing.

    Hmmmmm. I am not sure these abstract abstrations are the best explanation, I’ve heard, but I do agree that we need to move towards a new approach.

    In many ways, I support the ideas behind orchestration-orientation, but I also think that there is a need to focus on service-orientation and the service standards, and indeed also to talk about format standards.

    So, all the standards are in play, is what I am suggesting. Nothing’s sacred. But, as Tim Bray reminds us (via Dave Winer):

    You have to shoot the engineers and ship at some point, right?

    The argument is that a standard shouldn’t change all the time. XML is just XML 1.0 and it’s good that XML was frozen (XML1.1 never worked), because now we have a core, common format standard, on which we can build both service standards and orchestration standards.

  • Enabling Transformation

    The hottest contemporary concept in the eGovernment Architecture Terminology is Transformation, especially as in Transformation Enablement.

    For some time, Canada’s e-government mission has been Enabling Government Transformation. I envy their EA program, called the Business Transformation Enablement Program, BTEP. It seems that the ‘enterprise architecture = transformation enablement’ idea is spreading now.

    In the US, FEA PMO has just released their 2005-2006 FEA PMO Action Plan: Enabling Citizen-Centered Electronic Government which presents the ‘FEA Roadmap to Government Transformation’. Technorati Tags: .

    And as David Fletcher notes, Minnesota’s governor has just announced a Transformation Roadmap for an enterprise model of government. Technorati Tags: .

    In the UK a survey from Kable shows it’s also a phenomenon there, and notes that spending on business transformation service will continue to rise over the next three years, and rise from £1.8bn in 2005-06 to £2.3bn in 2007-08. Also Socitm has learned to say transformation. Technorati Tags: .

    And here’s an example of a transformation happening in the e-gov community: Until recently, the UK-based eGovMonitor was available only as a subscription service. After a transformation process, they now offer an open service, and is now running daily eGov news, announcements and features. The focus is on eGovernment from a management, business-led perspective. So far mainly from a UK perspective, but some international stuff is coming soon, I can safely say (look out for an upcoming contribution from yours truly). They hide it well, but there is a RSS feed. Subscribed.