How IT4IT Helps Turn IT into a Transformational Service for Digital Business Innovation

Transcript of a discussion on the business benefits of transforming IT organizations into agents of change for businesses.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes. Get the mobile app. Download the transcript. Sponsor: The Open Group.

Dana Gardner: Hello, and welcome to a special BriefingsDirect thought leadership panel discussion coming to you in conjunction with The Open Group 2016 San Francisco event in January. We'll now delve into the business benefits of transforming IT organizations into agents of change for businesses.

Gardner

The Open Group IT4IT initiative, a new reference architecture for managing IT as a business, grew out of a need at some of the world's biggest organizations to make their IT departments more responsive, more agile. We’ll learn now how those IT departments within an enterprise and the vendors that support them have reshaped themselves, and how others can follow their lead.

And so to learn more about how IT4IT fosters change, we're joined by Michael Fulton, Principal Architect at CC&C Solutions; Philippe Geneste, a Partner at Accenture; Sue Desiderio, a Director at PriceWaterhouseCoopers; Dwight David, Enterprise Architect at Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE); and Rob Akershoek, Solution Architect IT4IT at Shell IT International.

So let me start with our panel and just go down the line. Philippe, tell me where you think the most progress has been made in terms of making IT4IT a mature reference architecture.

Philippe Geneste: The two innovations that we have in the IT4IT Reference Architecture -- the Service Backbone and the Request to Fulfill (R2F) value stream -- are the two greatest novelties of the reference architecture.

Are they mature? They're mature enough, and they'll probably evolve in their level of maturity. There are a number of areas that are maturing, and some that we have in design. The IT Financial Management, for instance, is one that I'm working on, and the service costing within that, which I think we'll get a chance to get ready by version 2.1. The idea is to have it as guidance in version 2.1.

The value streams by themselves are also mature and almost complete. There are a number of improvements we can make to all of them, but I think overall the reference architecture is usable today as an architecture to start with. It's not quite for vendor certification, although that’s upcoming, but there are a number of good things and a number of implementations that would benefit from using the current IT4IT Reference Architecture 2.0.

Gardner: Sue, where do you see the most traction and growth, and what would you like to see improved?

Desiderio

Sue Desiderio: I agree with Philippe’s statements. Also picking up on what Lars said earlier, it's an easy entry point to start with Detect to Correct, which is often where we see it, because it’s one of the value streams that’s a little bit more known and understood. So that’s an easier point of entry for the whole IT4IT Value Chain, compared to some of the other value streams.

The service model, as we've stated all along, is definitely the backbone to the whole IT value chain. Although it's well-formed and in a good, mature state, there's still plenty of work to do to make that consumable to the IT organizations to understand all the different phases of the life cycle and all the different data objects that make up the Service Backbone. That's something that we're currently working on for the 2.1 version, so that we have better examples. We can show how it applies in a real IT organization, and it’s not just what’s in the documentation today.

More detail

Rob Akershoek: I don’t think it’s about positive and negative in this case, but more about areas that we need to work on in more detail, like defining the service-broker role that you see in the new IT organization [and] how you interface with your external service providers. We've identified a number of areas where the IT organization has key touch points with these vendors, like your service catalog, you need to synchronize catalog information with the external vendors and aggregate it into your own catalog.

Akershoek

But there's also the fulfillment API -- how do you communicate a request to your suppliers or different technology stacks and get the consumption and cost data back in? I think we define that today in the IT4IT standard, but we need to go to a lower level of detail -- how do we actually integrate with vendors and our service providers?

So interfacing with the vendors in the eco-system sits on many different levels. It’s on the catalog level and the request fulfillment, that you actually do provision, the cost consumption data, and those kind of aspects.

Another topic is still the linking in to security and identity and access management. It's an area where we still need to clarify. We need to clarify how all the subscriptions in a service link in to that access management capability, which is part of the subscription and, of course, the fulfillment. We didn’t identify it as a separate functional component.

Gardner: Dwight, where are you most optimistic and where would you put more emphasis?

Dwight David: I'll start with the latter. More emphasis needs to be on our approach to Detect to Correct. Oftentimes, I see people thinking about Detect to Correct as in the traditional mode of being reactive, as opposed to understanding that this model can be applied even to the new changing user-friendly type of economy and within the hybrid type of IT. A change in thinking in the application of the value streams would also help us.

David

Many of us have a lot of gray hairs, including myself, and we revert to the old way of thinking, as opposed to the way we should be moving forward. That’s the area where we can do the most.

What's really good, though, is that a lot of people understand Detect to Correct. So it’s an easy adoption in terms of understanding the Reference Architecture. It’s a good entry point to the IT4IT Reference Architecture. That’s where I see the actual benefit. I would encourage us to make it useful, use it, and try it. The most benefit happens then.

Gardner: And Michael, room for optimism and room for improvement?


Management Guide

Michael Fulton: I want to build on Dwight’s point around trying it by sharing. The one thing I'm most excited about, particularly this week, is the Management Guide -- very specifically, chapter 5 of the Management Guide. I hope all of you got a chance to grab your copy of that. If you haven’t, I recommend downloading it from The Open Group website. That chapter is absolutely rich in content about how to actually implement IT4IT.

Fulton

And I tip my hat to Rob, who did a great piece of work, along with several other people. If you want to pick up the standard and use it, start there, start with chapter 5 of the Management Guide. You may not need to go much further, because that’s just great content to work with. I'm very excited about that.

From the standpoint of where we need to continue to evolve and grow as a standard, we've referenced some of the individual pieces, but at a higher level. The supporting activities in general all still need to evolve and get to the level of detail that we have with the value streams. That’s a key area for me.

The next area that I would highlight, and I know we're actively starting work on this, is around getting down to that level of detail where we can do data interoperability, where we can start to outline the specifics that are needed to define APIs between the functional components in such a way that we can ultimately bring us back to that Open Group vision of a boundaryless information flow.

Gardner: How do we bridge the divide between a cloud provider, or a series of providers, and have IT take on a brokering role within the organization? As the broker, they're going to be held responsible for the performance, regardless of where those services originate and how they interoperate or not.

What do we see as needed in order to make that boundarylessness extend to this idea of a brokered IT organization, a hybrid organization, but still able to produce a common approach to support quality of service across IT in that particular organization? How do we get to that hybrid vision, Philippe?

Geneste: We'll get there step-by-step. There's a practical step that’s implementable today. My suggestion would be that every customer or company that selects an outsourcer, that selects a cloud vendor, that selects a product, uses the IT4IT Reference Architecture in the request for proposal (RFP), putting a strong emphasis on the integration.

We see a lot of RFPs that are still silo-based -- which one is the best product for project and portfolio management, which one is the best service management tool -- but it’s not very frequent that we see the integration as being the topnotch value measured in the RFP. That would be one point.

The discussions with the vendors, again, cloud vendors or outsourcers or consulting firms should start from this, use it as an integration architecture, and tell us how you would do things based on these standardized concepts. That’s a practical step that can be used or employed today.

In a second step, when we go further into the vendor specification, there are vendors today, when you analyze the products and the cloud offerings that are closer to the concepts we have in the reference architecture. They're maybe not certified, maybe not the same terminology, but the concepts are there, or the way to the concepts is closer.

And then ultimately, step 3 and 3.5 will be product vendor certified, cloud service offering certified, hopefully full integration according to the reference architecture, and eventually, even plug-and-play. We're doing a little bit about plug-and-play, but at least integration.

Gardner: What sort of time frame would you put on those steps? Is this a two-year process, a four-year process, to soon to tell?

Achievable goals

Geneste: That’s a tough one. I suppose the vendor should be responding to this one. For the service providers, for the cloud service providers, it’s a little bit trickier, but for the consulting firm for the service providers it should be what it takes to get the workforce trained and to get the concepts spread inside the organization. So within six to 12 months, the critical mass should be there in these organizations. It's tough, but project by project, customer by customer it’s achievable.

Some vendors are on the way, and we've seen several vendors talk about IT4IT in this conference. I know that those have significant efforts on the way and are preparing for vendor certification. It will be probably a multiyear process to get the full suite of products certified, because there is quite a lot to change in the underlying software, but progressively, we should get there.

So, it's having first levels of certification within one to two years, possibly even sooner. I would be interested in knowing what the vendor responses will be.

Gardner: Sue, along the same lines, what do you see needed in order to make the IT department able to exercise the responsibility of delivering IT across multiple players and multiple boundaries?

Have those conversations upfront in the contract conversations, so that everyone is aware of what we're trying to accomplish and that we're trying to seek that seamless integration between those suppliers and us.

Desiderio: Again, it’s starting with the awareness and the open communication about IT4IT and, on a specific instance, where that fits in. Depending on the services we're getting from vendors, or whether it's even internal services that we are getting, where do they fit into the whole IT4IT framework, what functions are we getting, what are the key components, and where are our interface points?

Have those conversations upfront in the contract conversations, so that everyone is aware of what we're trying to accomplish and that we're trying to seek that seamless integration between those suppliers and us.

Gardner: Rob, this would appear to be a buyer’s market in terms of their ability to exercise some influence. If they go seeking RFPs, if there are fewer cloud providers than there were general vendors in a traditional IT environment, they should be able to dictate this, don’t you think?

Akershoek: In the cloud world, the consumer would not dictate at all. That’s the traditional way that we dictate how an operator should provide us data. That’s the problem with the cloud. We want to consume a standard service. So we can't tell the cloud vendor, send me your cost data in this format. That won't work, because we don’t want the cloud vendor to make something proprietary for us.

That’s the first challenge. The cloud vendors are out there and we don’t want to dictate; we want to consume a standard service. So if they set up a catalog in their way, we have to adopt that. If they do the billing their way, we have to adopt it or select another cloud vendor. That’s the only option you have, select another vendor or adopt the management practices of the cloud vendor. Otherwise, we will continuously have to update it according to our policy. That’s a key challenge.

That’s why managing your cloud vendor is really about the entire value chain. You start with making your portfolio, thinking about what cloud services you put in your offerings, or your portfolio. So for past platforms, we use vendor A, and for infrastructure and service, vendor B. That’s where it starts. Which vendors do I engage with?

And then, going down to the Request to Fulfill, it’s more like what are the products that we're allowed to order and how do we provision those? Unfortunately, the cloud vendors don’t have IT4IT yet, meaning we have to do some work. Let’s say we want to provision the cloud environment. We make sure that all the cloud resources we provision are linked to that subscription, linked to that service, so at least we know the components that a cloud vendor is managing, where it belongs, and which service is consuming that.

Different expectations

Fulton: Rob has a key point here around the expectations being different around cloud vendors, and that’s why IT4IT is actually so powerful. A cloud vendor is not going to customize their interfaces for every single individual company, but we can hold cloud vendors accountable to an open industry standard like IT4IT, if we have detailed out the right levels of interoperability.

To me, the way this thing comes together long term is through this open standard, and then through that RFP process, customer organizations holding their vendors accountable to delivering inside that open standard. In the world of cloud, that’s actually to the benefit of the cloud providers as well.

Akershoek: That’s a key point you make there, indeed.

David: And just to piggyback on what we're saying, it goes back to the value proposition. Why am I doing this? If we have something that’s an open standard, it enables velocity. You can identify costs much easier. It’s simpler and it goes back again to the value proposition and showing these cloud vendors that because of a standard, I'm able to consume more of your services, I'm able to consume your services easier, and here I'm guaranteed because it’s a standard to get my value. Again, it's back to the value proposition that the open standard offers.

Gardner: We've heard that this standard makes more sense, at least now, for large organizations than say startups or small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs), and that automation is essential and that manual processes are a bug. How do you react to that? Is that wisdom and truth for you that automation is king and that this is designed for large, complex organizations?

Geneste: It will take more work for a large organization to deploy the full reference architecture than it will be for a smaller organization. Those organizations that today use a lot of DevOps or Agile practices that are close to the concepts that we have -- Service Catalog, Service Backbone -- should be able to get it straight very quickly, including with vendor products and things that aren’t necessarily fully certified, but at least for which the concepts are quite close to what we are recommending here.

I view it as two different challenges, but not necessarily inappropriate for the smaller organizations.  . It’s a set of very good practices that are implementable and the description is in the books that have just been published.

So, the large organizations will have a different set of challenges, which is that there is a massive legacy that we need to transform along the concepts. So it’s possible. We heard recommendations that start with B2C or do it one way or another, but the smaller organizations can get it right by simplifying some of the implementations, getting the right tools, and moving faster onto new tools.

I view it as two different challenges, but not necessarily inappropriate for the smaller organizations. It’s a set of very good practices that are implementable and the description is in the books that have just been published.

The ones for which I see an extra challenge perhaps, or at least that I see today in the industry, are the big outsourcers -- those long-term contracts, data-center outsourcing, five years network, and so forth. Companies that use those should plan before their contract renegotiation, exactly what I said for the RFPs for vendor products.

When you're planning a year ahead, two years ahead, even three years ahead, to renegotiate your outsourcing contracts, introduce the reference architecture and use it as a benchmark for who you're going to contract with. If you know that you're going to re-negotiate with the same vendor, try to influence them enough that you can have these concepts and these architectures in place.

Gardner: Sue, how about this issue of automation? Is it essential to be largely automated to realize the full benefits of IT4IT or is that more of a nice-to-have goal? What's the relationship between a high degree of automation in your IT organization for the support of these activities and the standard and Reference Architecture?

Automation is key

Desiderio: I'm a believer that automation is key, so we definitely have to get automation throughout the whole end-to-end value chain no matter what. That’s really part of the whole transformation going into this new model.

You see that throughout the whole value chain. We talked about it individually on the different value streams and how it comes back.

I also want to touch on what’s the right size company or firm to pick up IT4IT. I agree with where Philippe was coming from. Smaller shops can pick it up and start leveraging it more quickly, because they don't have that legacy IT that was done, where it's not built on composite services and things. Everything on a system is pinpointing direct servers and direct networks, instead of building it on services, like a hosting service and a monitoring response service.

For larger IT organizations, there's a lot more change, but it's critical for us to survive and be viable in the future for those IT shops, the larger ones in large organizations, to start adopting and moving forward.

We, in a larger IT shop, are going to be running in a mixed mode for a long time to come. So, it's looking at where to start seeing that business value as you look at new initiatives and things within your organization.

It's not a big bang. We, in a larger IT shop, are going to be running in a mixed mode for a long time to come. It's looking at where to start seeing that business value as you look at new initiatives and things within your organization. How do you start moving into the new model with the new things? How do you start transitioning your legacy systems and whatnot into more of the new way of thinking and looking at that consumption model and what we're trying to do, which is focus on that business outcome.

So it's much harder for the larger IT shops, but the concepts apply to all sizes.

Gardner: Rob, the subject of the moment is size and automation.

Akershoek: I think the principle we just discussed, automation, is a good principle, but if you look at the legacy, as you mentioned, you're not going to automate your legacy, unless you have a good business case for that. You need to standardize your services on many different layers, and that's what you see in the cloud.

Cloud vendors are standardizing extremely, defining standard component services. You have to do the same and define your standard services and then automate all of those. The legacy ones you can't automate or probably don’t want to automate.

So it's more standardization, more standard configurations, and then you can automate and develop or Detect to Correct as well, if you have a very complex configuration and it changes all the time without any standards.

The size of the organization doesn’t matter. Both for large and smaller organizations you need to adopt standard cloud practices from the vendors and automate the delivery to make things repeatable.

Desire to grow

David: Small organizations don’t want to remain small all the time; they actually want to grow. Growth starts with a mindset, a thinking mindset. By applying the Reference Architecture, even though you don't apply every single point to my one-man or two-man shop, it then helps me, it positions me, and it gives me the frame of reference, the thinking to enable growth.

It grows organically. So, you don't end up with the legacy baggage that most of the large companies have. And small companies may get acquired, but at least they have good discipline or they may acquire others as they grow. The application of the IT4IT Reference Architecture is just not for large companies, it’s also for small companies, and I'm saying that as a small-business owner myself.

Akershoek: Can I add to that? If you're starting out deployed to the cloud, maybe the best way is to start with automation at first or at least design for automation. If you have a few thousand servers running in the cloud and you didn't start with that concept, then you already have legacy after a few years running in the cloud. So, you should start thinking about automation from the start, not with your legacy of course, but if you're now moving to the cloud design, build that immediately.

The entire Reference Architecture applies from day one for companies of any size; it's just a question of whether it's explicit or implicit.

Fulton: On this point, if you were with us yesterday, you might have participated in a maturity model conversation. If you were here this morning for Ryan's plenary speech, he referenced an emergence model. We've just started work within the forum on this topic. Potentially one of the directions we're heading is to figure out this very issue, what of the reference architecture applies at what size and evolution in a company’s growth.

As I mentioned, I think I made this comment earlier, the entire reference architecture applies from day one for companies of any size; it's just a question of whether it's explicit or implicit.

If it's implicit, it's in the head of the founder. You're still doing the elements, or you can be still doing the elements, of the reference architecture in your mind and your thought process, but there are pieces you need to make explicit even when you are, as Charlie likes to say, two people in a garage.

On the automation piece, the key thing that has been happening throughout our industry related to automation has been, at least in my perspective, when we've been automating within functional components. What the IT4IT Reference Architecture and its vision of value streams allow us to do is rethink automation along the lines of value streams, across functional components. That's where it starts to really add a considerable value, especially when we can start to put together interoperability between tooling on some of these things. That’s where we're going to see automation take us to that next level as IT organizations.

Gardner: As IT4IT matures and becomes adopted and serves both consumers and providers of services, it seems to me that there will be a similar track with digital business of how you run your business, which is going to be more a brokering activity at a business level, that a business is really a constituency of different providers across supply chains, increasingly across service providers.

Is there a dual track for IT4IT on the IT side and for business management of services through a portal, through dashboard, something that your business analyst and on up would be involved with? Should we let them happen separately? How can we make them more aligned and even highly integrated and synergistic?

Best practices

Geneste: We have such best practices in IT4IT that the businesses themselves can replicate that and use that for themselves. I suppose certain companies do that a little bit today; if you take the Ubers and the Airbnbs and have these disintermediation connecting with private individuals a lot of the time, but have some of these service-oriented concepts today effectively, even though they don’t use IT4IT.

Just as much as we see today, we have cases where businesses, for their help-desks or for their request management, turn to the likes of HPE for service-management software to help them with their business help-desk. We're likely to see that those best practices in terms of individualization and specification of individual conceptual service, service catalogue, or subscription mechanisms. You're right; the concepts could very easily apply to businesses. As to how that would turn out, I would need to do a little bit more thinking, but I think from a concept’s standpoint, it truly should be useful.

Desiderio: We're trying to move ourselves up the stack to help the businesses in the services that they're providing and so it’s very relevant as we're looking at IT4IT and how we're managing the IT services. It’s also those business services, it’s concurrent, it’s evolving and training and making the business aware of where we're trying to go and how they can leverage that in their own services that they are providing outward.

Where we start talking about transformation, we must be aligned with the business so we understand their business processes and the services that they're trying to serve.

When you look at adopting this, even when you go back down to your IT in your organization where you have your different typical organizational teams, there's a challenge for each IT team to look at the services they're providing and how they start looking at what they do in terms of services, instead of just the functions.

That goes all the way up the stack including the business, the business services, and IT’s job. When we start talking about transformation, we must be aligned with the business so we understand their business processes and the services that they're trying to serve and then how are we truly that business-enabler.

Akershoek: I interpret your question like it's about shadow IT, that there is no shadow IT. Some IT management activity is performed by the business, and you mentioned as well, the business needs to apply IT4IT practices as well. As soon as IT activities are done by the business, like they select and manage their own software-as-a-service (SaaS) application, they need to perform the IT4IT related activities themselves. They're even starting to configure SaaS services themselves. The business can do the configuration and they might even provide the end-user support. Also in these cases, these management activities fit in the IT4IT reference structure model as well.

Gardner: Dwight, we have a business scorecard, we have an IT scorecard, why shouldn’t they be the same scorecard?

David: I'm always reminded that IT is in place to help the business, right? The business is the function, and IT should be the visible enabler of business success. I would classify that as catching up to the business expectations. Could some of the principles that we apply in IT be used for the business? Yeah, it can be, but I see it more the other way around. If you look at a whole value chain that came from the business perspective being approached, being applied to IT, I still see that the business is driven, but really IT is becoming more seamless in enabling the business to achieve their particular goals.

Application of IT

Fulton: The whole concept of digital business is actually a complete misnomer. I hate it; I think it’s wrong. It’s all about the application of information technology. In the context of what we typically talk about with IT4IT, we're talking about the application of information technology to the management of the IT department.

We also talk about the application of information technology to the transformation of business processes. Most of the time, that happens inside companies, and we're using the principles of IT4IT to do that. When we talk about digital business, usually we're talking about the application of information technology into the transformation of business models of companies. Again, it’s still all about applying information technology to make the company work in a different way. For me, the IT4IT principles, the Reference Architecture, the value streams, will still hold for all of that.

Gardner: We have time for one or two questions from our audience ... .

Speaker: A comment was made that you can start with Detect to Correct as an entry point into the value chain, and then I also heard that you don’t have to implement all the functional components. Does that imply that you can do just some of the value streams and not all, and people can kind of pick and choose what they think will help their organization the most?

You don’t start with a specific value stream, because you focus too much on a single value stream. You still look at the overall picture first.

David: At a certain point, it can be Detect to Correct, but as Sue mentioned earlier, it’s where in your business is the pain point. Evaluate the entire value chain because all of the value streams map that to your business activity, identify where you have exactly one of your main pain points, and start there.

Certainly, if you go to Detect to Correct and maybe your shop doesn’t have a problem type of practice, there are certainly options that you can leave out, if that’s not a particular pain point for you. Again the size of the company and level of maturity will determine where you actually start and what you use. But what we do have in the Reference Architecture will help any size of company across the breadth of that particular organization to use and apply the architecture.

Akershoek: My opinion is that you don’t start with a specific value stream, because you focus too much on a single value stream. You still look at the overall picture first. So, even if you can optimize Detect to Correct, it doesn’t make sense if you don’t have requirements to deploy very well organized or you even don’t have your service portfolio management in order.

In that sense, you shouldn't try to optimize a value stream by itself. Most organizations have something in place in all value streams. If you don’t have any (or have a very immature) capability in Strategy to Portfolio, you probably should start with Strategy to Portfolio. Defining what services we start to offer. What investments are needed? So it's best to start there.

But of course, most often you are not in a green-field situation. So you hope that you have some portfolio management capability in place. If not, maybe you need to start there, because otherwise, you can't link your CIs to services; you have no concept of what a service is. So you look at the entire value chain and you select the things that you need to mature first.

Train your workforce

Geneste: One suggestion that we're testing at the moment with the global clients is starting with the past, starting with the platform-as-a-service (PaaS) thing. Train your IT workforce first. They need to understand all these concepts before they move it to the business. IT will source its own services, my development service, my test service and so on.

Once you have piloted that, move on to everything that you develop in all of those digital solutions or solutions for the digital which typically are newer based on these metaphors and have tools that are easier to make work along those concepts. Then, progressively, as these will not work in isolation, they will need to work with some of your legacy, some of the data you have in your existing data sources, and so on. You can bring those on, designing them as services, as standardized APIs and progressively bring in more and more business services in that fashion and try to take over the legacy of the IT progressively like this.

Train your IT workforce first. They need to understand all these concepts before they move it to the business.

Gardner: I am afraid we will have to leave it there. We’ve been talking about the business benefits of transforming IT organizations into agents of change for businesses.

And we’ve heard how The Open Group IT4IT initiative, a new reference architecture for managing IT as a business, grew out of a need at major IT vendors themselves to make their IT departments more responsive, more agile.

I’d like to thank our panelists, Michael Fulton, Principal Architect at CC&C Solutions; Philippe Geneste, a Partner at Accenture; Sue Desiderio, a Director at PriceWaterhouseCoopers; Dwight David, Enterprise Architect at HPE; and Rob Akershoek, Solution Architect IT4IT at Shell IT International.

Also, a big thank you to The Open Group for sponsoring this discussion. And lastly, a big thank you to our audience for joining us.

I'm Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, your host and moderator throughout these Enterprise IT Thought Leadership panel discussions. Thanks again for listening, and do come back next time.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes. Get the mobile app. Download the transcript. Sponsor: The Open Group.

Transcript of a discussion on the business benefits of transforming IT organizations into agents of change for businesses. Copyright The Open Group and Interarbor Solutions, LLC, 2005-2016. All rights reserved.

You may also be interested in:

• Panel explores how the IT4IT Reference Architecture acts as a digital business enabler
• The UNIX evolution: A history of innovation reaches an unprecedented 20-year milestone
• The Open Group president, Steve Nunn, on the inaugural TOGAF User Group and new role of EA in business transformation
•  A Tale of Two IT Departments, or How Cloud Governance is Essential in the Bimodal IT Era
• Securing Business Operations and Critical Infrastructure: Trusted Technology, Procurement Paradigms, Cyber Insurance 
• Enterprise Architecture Leader John Zachman on Understanding and Leveraging Synergies Among the Major EA Frameworks
• Cybersecurity standards: The Open Group explores security and safer supply chains
• Explore synergies among major Enterprise Architecture frameworks with The Open Group
• Health Data Deluge Requires Secure Information Flow Via Standards, Says the Open Group's New Healthcare Director
• The Open Group Amsterdam Conference Panel Delves into How to Best Gain Business Value from Open Platform 3.0
• Healthcare Among Thorniest and Yet Most Opportunistic Use Cases for Boundaryless Information Flow Improvement

Steve Nunn, The Open Group President and CEO, Discusses the Inaugural TOGAF User Group Meeting and Practical Role of EA in Business Transformation

Transcript of a BriefingsDirect discussion with President and CEO of The Open Group, Steve Nunn, on what to expect from The Open Group San Francisco 2016, January 25 to 28.
 
Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes. Get the mobile app. Download the transcript. Sponsor: The Open Group.

Dana Gardner: Hello, and welcome to a special BriefingsDirect thought leadership interview coming to you in conjunction with The Open Group San Francisco 2016 event on January 25. We'll explore a new user group being formed about TOGAF, The Open Group standard, and how

this group will further foster the practical use of the TOGAF enterprise architecture aid for effective and practical business transformation.

Gardner

I'm Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, and I'll be your host as we set the stage for the next chapter in enterprise architecture (EA) for digital business success.

We are now here with the President and CEO of The Open Group, Steve Nunn. Welcome, Steve.

Steve Nunn: Thank you, Dana. Glad to be here.

Gardner: Before we get to the TOGAF User Group news, let’s relate what’s changed in the business world and why EA and frameworks and standards like TOGAF are more practical and more powerful than ever.

Nunn: One of the keys, Dana, is that we're seeing EA increasingly used as a tool in business transformation. Whereas in the past, maybe in the early adoptions of TOGAF and implementations of TOGAF, it was more about redesigning EA, redesigning systems inside an organization more generally. Nowadays, with the need to transform businesses for the digital world, EA has another more immediate and more obvious appeal.

It’s really around an enablement tool for companies and organizations to transform their businesses for the digital world, specifically the worlds of the Internet of Things (IoT), big data, social, mobile, all of those things which we at The Open Group lump into something we call Open Platform 3.0, but it really is affecting the business place at large and the markets that our member organizations are part of.

Gardner: TOGAF has been around for quite a while. How old is TOGAF now?

Nunn: The first version of TOGAF was published in 1993, so it's been quite some time. For a little while, we published a version every year. Once we got to Version 7.0, the refreshes and the new versions came a bit slower after that.

Nunn

We're now at Version 9.1, and there is a new version being worked on. The key for TOGAF is that we introduced a certification program around it for both tools that help people implement TOGAF, but also for the practitioners, the individuals who are actually using it. We did that with version 8.0 and then we moved to what we consider, and the marketplace certainly considers, to be an improved version with TOGAF 9.0, making it an exam-based certification. It has proved to be very popular indeed, with more than 50,000 certified individuals under that program to date.

Gardner: Now the IT world, the business world, many things about these worlds have changed since 1993. Something that comes to mind, of course, is the need to not just think about architecture within your organization, but how that relates across boundaries of many organizations.

I sometimes tease friends who are Star Trek fans that we have gone from regular chess to 3-D chess, and that’s a leap in complexity. How does this need to better manage Boundaryless Information Flow make EA and standards like TOGAF so important now?

Common vocabulary

Nunn: With the type of change that you talked about and the level of complexity, what standards like TOGAF and others bring is commonality and ability to make architecting organizations a little bit easier; to give it all a bit more structure. One of the things that we hear is most valuable about TOGAF, in particular, is the common vocabulary that it gives to those involved in a business transformation, which obviously involves multiple parts of an organization and multiple partners in a group of organizations, for example.

So, it’s not just for enterprise architects. We're hearing increasingly about a level of training and introductory use of TOGAF at all levels of an organization as a means of communicating and having a common set of terminology. So everyone has the same expectation about what particular terms mean. With added complexity, we need things to help us work through that and divide up the complexity into different layers that we can tackle. EA and TOGAF, in particular, are proving very popular for tackling those levels of complexity.

Gardner: So in the next chapter, these things continue to evolve, react to the market, and adjust. We're hearing that there is news at the event, the January 25 event in San Francisco, around this new user group. Tell me why we're instituting a user group associated with TOGAF at this point?

Nunn: It’s going to be the first meeting of a TOGAF User Group, and it’s something we have been thinking about for some time, but the time seems to be now. I've alluded to the level of popularity of TOGAF, but it really is becoming very widely used. What users of TOGAF are looking for is how to better use it in their day jobs. How can they make it effective? How can they learn from what others have done, both good and bad, the things to try and the things not to try or more the things that worked and things that didn’t work? That isn’t something that we've necessarily offered, apart from a few conference sessions at previous events.

So this really ends up getting a broader community around TOGAF, and not just those members of the Architecture Forum which is our particular forum that advances the TOGAF standard. It’s really to engage the wider community, both those who are certified and those who aren’t certified, as a way of learning how to make better and more effective use of TOGAF. There are a lot of possibilities for what we might do at the meeting, and a lot of it will depend on what those who attend would like to cover.

Gardner: Now, to be clear, any standard has a fairly rigorous process by which the standard is amended, changed, or evolves over time. But we're talking about something separate from that. We're talking about perhaps more organic information flow, sharing, bringing points into that standard’s process. Maybe you could clarify the separation, the difference, the relationship between a standard’s adoption and a user group's input.

This is the first time we've offered nonmembers a real opportunity, not necessarily to decide what goes into the standard, but certainly a greater degree of influence.

Nunn: That’s the key point, Dana. The standard will get evolved by the members of The Open Group, specifically the members of The Open Group Architecture Forum. They are the ones who have evolved it this far and are very actively working on a future version. So they will be the ones who will ultimately get to propose what goes in and ultimately vote on what goes in.

Where the role of the user community, both members and non-members -- but specifically the opportunity for non-members -- comes in is being able to give their input, put forward ideas that areas where maybe TOGAF might be strengthened or improved in some way. Nobody pretends it’s prefect as you use it. It has evolved over time and it will evolve in the future. But hearing from those who actually use TOGAF day to day, we might get, certainly from The Open Group point of view, some new perspectives, and those perspectives will then get passed on through us to the members of the Architecture Forum.

Many of those we expect to attend the event anyway. They might hear it for the first time, but certainly we would spend part of the meeting looking at what that input might be, so that we have something to pass on to them for consideration in the standard.

This is the first time we've offered nonmembers a real opportunity, not necessarily to decide what goes into the standard, but certainly a greater degree of influence.

It's somewhat of a throwback to the days where user groups were very powerful in what came out of vendor organizations. I do hope that this will be something that will enable everyone to get the benefit of a better overall standard.

Past user groups

Gardner: I certainly remember, Steve, the days when vendors would quake in their boots when user meetings and groups came up, because they had such influence and impact. They both benefited each other. The vendors really benefited by hearing from the user groups and the user groups benefited by the standards that could come forth and vendor cooperation that they basically demanded.

I recall, at the last Open Group event, the synergy discussions around Zachman, and other EA frameworks. Do you expect that some of these user group activities that you're putting forth will allow some of that cross pollination, if you will, people who might be using other EA tools and want to bring more cooperation and collaboration across them?

Nunn: I would certainly expect that to happen. Our position at The Open Group, and we've said it consistently over the years, is that it’s not "TOGAF or," it’s "TOGAF and." The reality is that  most organizations, the vast majority, are not just going to take TOGAF and let it be everything they use in implementing their EAs.

So the other frameworks are certainly relevant. I expect there to be some interest in tools, as well as frameworks. We hear that quite a lot, suggestions of what good tools are for people at different stages of maturity and their implementation of the EA. So, I expect a lot of discussion about the other thoughts or the other tools in the toolbox of an EA to come up here.

Gardner: So user groups serve to bring more of an echo system approach, voices from disparate parties coming together sounds very powerful. Now this is happening on January 25. This is a free first meeting. Is that correct? And being in San Francisco, of course, it's within a couple hours drive of a lot of influential users, start-ups, the VC community, vendors, or service providers. Tell us a little bit about why people who are within a quick access to the Bay Area might consider coming to this on January 25?

What people would get out of it is the chance to hear a bit more about how TOGAF is used by others, case studies, what’s worked, what hasn’t worked, the opportunity to talk directly with people.

Nunn: That’s another reason, the location of our next event. We were first thinking this is the right time to do a first TOGAF User Group, because you see there are a lot of users of TOGAF in the area or within a few hours of it. What people would get out of it is the chance to hear a bit more about how TOGAF is used by others, case studies, what’s worked, what hasn’t worked, the opportunity to talk directly with people, whether it’s through networking or actually in the sessions in the user group meeting.

We're trying to not put too much rigid structure around those particular sessions, because we won’t be able to get the most benefit out of them. So it’s really what they want to get out of it that will probably be achievable.The point of view of The Open Group is that it's about getting that broader perspective for the attendees, learning useful tips and tricks, learning from the experience of others, and learning a bit more about The Open Group and how TOGAF has evolved.

This is a key point. TOGAF is so widely used now and globally, and even though we have quite a few members in The Open Group, we have more than 350 organization participating in some way in the Architecture Forum, and more in The Open Group as a whole.

But there's obviously a much wider community of those who are using it. Hearing more about how it has developed, what the processes are inside The Open Group, might make them feel good about the future of something that they clearly have some investment in. Hopefully, it might even persuade a few of those organizations to join and influence from the inside.

Gardner: Now, there's more information about the user group at www.opengroup.org. You're meeting on January 25 at 9:30 a.m. Pacific Time at the Marriott Union Square right in the heart of San Francisco. But this is happening in association with a larger event. So tell us about the total event that's happening between January 25 and 28.

Quarterly events

Nunn: This is part of one of our quarterly events that we've been running for lot of years now. They take the form generally of a plenary sessions that are open to anyone and also member meetings, where the members of the various Open Group forums get together to progress the work that they do virtually. But it’s to really knuckle down and progress some of it face-to-face, which as, we all know, is generally a very productive way of working.

Apart from the TOGAF User Group, we have on the agenda sessions on the Digital Business Strategy and Customer Experience, which is an activity that's being driven inside our Open Platform 3.0 Forum, as a membership activity, but this is really to open that up to a wide audience at the conference. So, we'll have people talking about that.

Open Platform 3.0 is where the convergence of technologies like cloud, social computing, mobile computing, big data, and IoT all come together. As we see it, our goal is for our members to create an Open Platform 3.0 Standard, which is basically a standard for digital platform, so that the enterprises can more easily use the technologies and get the benefit of these technologies that are now out there. There will be quite a bit of focus on Open Platform 3.0.

The other big thing that is proving very popular for us, which will be featured at the conference is the Open Group IT4IT Reference Architecture, and there is a membership activity, the IT4IT Forum. They're working on standards. We published the first version of that reference architecture at our last quarterly conference, which was in Edinburgh in October last year.

There has been a lot of interest in it so far, and we are working on a certification program for IT4IT that we will be launching later this year, hopefully at our next quarterly event in London in April.

There has been a lot of interest in it, and it's really a standard for running the business of IT. Oftentimes, IT is just seen as doing its own thing and not really part of the business. But the reality nowadays is that whoever is running the IT, be it the CIO or whatever other individual, to be successful they have to not just run IT as a business, with the usual business principles of return on investment, etc., but they have to be seen to be doing so. This is a reference architecture that's not specific to any industry and that provides a guide for how to go about doing that.

We're quite excited about it. There has been a lot of interest in it so far, and we are working on a certification program for IT4IT that we will be launching later this year, hopefully at our next quarterly event in London in April.

Gardner: I'll just remind our listeners and readers that we're going to be doing some separate discussions and sharing with them on the IT4IT Reference Architecture. So please look for that coming up.

Getting back to the event, Steve, I've attended many of these over the years and I find a lot of the discussions around security, around specific markets like healthcare and government really powerful and interesting. Is there anything in particular about this conference that you're particularly interested in or looking forward to?

Nunn: The ones I've already spoken to are the ones that I'm personally most looking forward to. We'll be having sessions on health care and security, as you say.

In the security area it’s worth calling out that one of the suggestions that we've had about TOGAF -- I won’t call it criticism, but one of the suggestions for future versions -- is that TOGAF is a bit light on security. It could do with beefing up that particular area.

The approach that we've taken this time, which people attending the conference will hear about, is that we have actually got the security experts to say what we need to cover in TOGAF, in the next version of TOGAF from a security point of view. Rather than having the architects include what they know about security, we have some heavyweight security folks in there, working with the Architecture Forum, to really beef up the security aspect. We'll hear a bit more about that.

Customer experience

Gardner: I also see that customer experience, which is closely aligned with user experience, is a big part of the event this year. That’s such a key topic these days for me, because it sort of forms a culmination of Platform 3.0. When you can pull together big data, hybrid cloud architectures, mobile enablement and reach, you can start to really do some fantastic new things that just really couldn’t have been done before when it comes to that user experience, real-time adaptation to user behaviors, bringing that inference back into a cloud or a back-end architecture, and then bringing back some sort of predictive or actionable result.

Please flesh out a bit more for us about how this user experience and customer experience is such a key part of the output, the benefit, the value, and the business transformation that we get from all these technical issues that we've discussed; this is sort of a business issue.

Nunn: You're absolutely right. It’s when we start providing a better experience for the customers overall and they can get more out of what the organizations are offering that everybody wins.

What we're trying to do from the organizational side is focus on what is it that you can do to look at it from the customers’ point of view, meet their expectations, and start to evolve from there.

From the group that we have working on this inside The Open Group, they are coming at it from a point of view that some of these new technologies are actually very scary for organizations, because they are forced to transform. The expectations of customers now are completely different. They expect to be able to get things on their cellphones or their tablets, or whatever device they might be using. That's  quite a big shift for a lot of organizations, and that’s not even getting into some of the areas of IoT, which promises to be huge.

What we're trying to do from the organizational side is focus on what is it that you can do to look at it from the customers’ point of view, meet their expectations, and start to evolve from there.

To me, it’s interesting from the point of view that it’s pretty business-driven. The technologies are there to be taken advantage of or to actually be very disruptive. So the business needs to know at a fairly early stage what those customer expectations are and take advantage of the new technologies that are there. That’s the angle that we are coming from inside The Open Group on that.

Some of the main participants in that group are actually coming from the telco world, where things have obviously changed enormously over the last few years. So that one is going to move quite quickly.

Gardner: It certainly seems that the ability to have boundaryless architecture is essential on that customer experience benefit. You certainly seem to be in the right place at the right time for that.

But the event in San Francisco also forms a milestone for you, Steve. You're now in your first full event as President and CEO of The Open Group, having taken over from Allen Brown last Fall. Tell us a little bit about your earlier roles within the standards organization and a bit more about yourself perhaps for those folks who are not yet familiar with you?

Quite different

Nunn: Yes, it will be quite different this time around. I've been with The Open Group for 22 years now. I was originally hired as General Counsel, and then fairly quickly moving on to Vice President of Corporate, Legal and Chief Operating Officer under Allen Brown as CEO. Allen was CEO for 17 years, and I was with him all of that time. It’s going to be quite different to have somebody else running the events, but I'm very much looking forward to it.

From my point of view, it’s a great honor to be leading The Open Group and its members into our next phase of evolution. The events that we hold are one small part of it, but they're a very important part, particularly these quarterly ones. It’s where a lot of our customers and members come together in one place, and as we have heard, there will be some folks who may not have been involved with one of our events before through the user group, so it’s pretty exciting.

I'm looking forward to building on the very solid foundation that we have and some of the great work activities that we mainly have ongoing inside The Open Group.

I'm looking forward to building on the very solid foundation that we have and some of the great work activities that we mainly have ongoing inside The Open Group.

Don’t expect great change from The Open Group, but just really more of the same good stuff that we've been working on before, having regard to the fact that obviously things are changing very rapidly around us and we need to be able to provide value in that fast changing world, which we are very confident we can.

Gardner: As an observer of the market, but also of The Open Group, I'm glad to hear that you're continuing on your course, because the world owes you in many ways. Things you were talking about 5 or 10 years ago have become very essential. You were spot on on how you saw the vision of the world changing on IT and its influence on business and vice versa.

More than ever, it seems that IT and EA is destiny for businesses. So I'm glad to hear that we're having a long vision, and the future seems very bright for your organization as the tools and approaches and the mentality and philosophy that you have been espousing becomes essential to do some of these things we have been discussing, like Platform 3.0, like customer experience, and IoT.

In closing, let’s remind our audience that you can register for the event at The Open Group website, www.opengroup.org. The first day, January 25, includes that free user group, the inaugural user group for TOGAF, and it all happens at the Marriott Union Square, San Francisco, along with the General Conference, which also runs from January 25 to 28.

Any last thoughts Steve, as we close out, in terms of where people should expect The Open Group to go, or how they can become perhaps involved in ways that they hadn’t considered before?

Good introduction

Nunn: Attending one of our events is a really good introduction to what goes on in The Open Group. For those who haven’t attended one previously, you might be pleasantly surprised.

If I had to pick one thing, I would say it's the breadth of activities there are at these events. It’s very easy for an organization like The Open Group to be known for one thing or a very small number of things, whether it’s UNIX originally and EA more recently, but there really is a lot going on beyond there.

Getting exposure to that at an event such as this, particularly in a location as important to the industry and as beautiful as San Francisco is, is a great chance. So anyone who is on the fence about going, then jump over the fence and try us out.

Attending one of our events is a really good introduction to what goes on in The Open Group. For those who haven’t attended one previously, you might be pleasantly surprised.

Gardner: We'll have to leave it there I'm afraid. We have been talking about how a new user group is being formed around TOGAF, an Open Group Standard. We've heard how this group will be fostering practical use of TOGAF, gaining insights from the field, organic knowledge bubbling up into the standards process around TOGAF. This, of course, is essential for EA to support effective and practical business transformation.

This special BriefingsDirect discussion comes to you in conjunction with The Open Group Event this January in San Francisco. Join me now in thanking our guest. We've been here with Steve Nunn, the President and CEO of The Open Group. Thanks so much, Steve.

Nunn: Thank you very much, Dana, for this opportunity and I hope to see some of your listeners at the event.

Gardner: Very good. Also, a big thank you to The Open Group for sponsoring this discussion. And lastly, a big thank you to our audience for joining us.

This is Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, your host and moderator throughout these Enterprise IT Thought Leadership Interviews. Thanks again for listening, and do come back next time.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes. Get the mobile app. Download the transcript. Sponsor: The Open Group.

Transcript of a podcast with President and CEO of The Open Group, Steve Nunn, on what to expect from The Open Group San Francisco 2016, January 25 to 28. Copyright The Open Group and Interarbor Solutions, LLC, 2005-2016. All rights reserved.

You may also be interested in:

•  A Tale of Two IT Departments, or How Cloud Governance is Essential in the Bimodal IT Era
• Securing Business Operations and Critical Infrastructure: Trusted Technology, Procurement Paradigms, Cyber Insurance 
• Enterprise Architecture Leader John Zachman on Understanding and Leveraging Synergies Among the Major EA Frameworks
• Cybersecurity standards: The Open Group explores security and safer supply chains
• Explore synergies among major Enterprise Architecture frameworks with The Open Group
• Health Data Deluge Requires Secure Information Flow Via Standards, Says the Open Group's New Healthcare Director
• The Open Group Amsterdam Conference Panel Delves into How to Best Gain Business Value from Open Platform 3.0
• Healthcare Among Thorniest and Yet Most Opportunistic Use Cases for Boundaryless Information Flow Improvement
• Gaining Dependability Across All Business Activities Requires Standard of Standards to Tame Dynamic Complexity, Says The Open Group CEO
• Big Data success depends on better risk management practices like FAIR, say conference panelists
• Improving signal-to-noise in risk management