TOGAF Rome conference in Tweets

This is a fairly full collection of tweets over the past few days from the Open Group enterprise-architecture conference over the past few days – more detail on the conference-programme here. It lists most items posted under the #ogrome hashtag: I’ve left out a few RTs (re-tweets) and administrative items, but otherwise it’s pretty much all there.

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 :o)
Posted in Business, Enterprise architecture Tagged with: , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*