systems integration (1)

8/12/2019 Systems Integration (1)

1/76

VOL 10 NO 22012

SySTEmSINTEgraTION

Infosys Labs Briefings


2/76

The erlier hlf of IT evolution ws priril focused on utoting

tie consuing nd lbor intensive tsks. Lter, sstes were built to

utote ll nd sundr orgniztionl processes. as infortion sstes

de workforce productive, n stte-of-the-rt sstes were built in

silos trgeting prticulr proble. These sstes were built using vried

lnguges nd on vried environents. a need ws then felt to integrte

these disprte sstes to build sste tht hs best of ll worlds

functionlit. Sstes Integrtion (SI) therefore eerged s field tht

brought together disprte sstes to operte s one single sste.

Tod the role of sstes integrtors is becoing incresingl iportnt

s ore nd ore sstes re being developed nd such newl built

sstes re to be in snc with the existing sstes. The job of the sstes

integrtors is therefore tht of developing interfces to new nd existing

sstes such tht the glue together s one sste.

moderniztion of existing pltfors hs in w becoe the need of the

hour nd no sne enterprise cn go bout engging in oderniztion

inititive inus clerl defined ethodolog. One cnnot do w with

existing legc sstes, not onl becuse of the huge replceent costs thtenterprises will hve to incur, but lso becuse of the inherent dvntges

tht the hve in ters of being storehouses of enterprise processes nd

dt. Therefore, better nd cleverer w of ebrcing odernit is b

integrting legc sstes with tods enterprise pplictions. Enterprises

now re therefore not to shed their legc sstes but odernize the

leverging SI expertise.

SI hs trditionll been looked upon s deploent nd intennce

function. However, tods SI hs the cpbilit to prtner enterprises in

their business trnsfortion journe. In this collection we hve ppers tht

shed light on how sstes integrtors cn pl ke role in odernizing

legc nd helping trnsfor orgniztions into srter orgniztions.

your feedbck is iportnt to us. as usul, do write to us with our

suggestions on how we cn further iprove our reding experience.

yogesh DndwteDeput Editor

[email protected]

Infosys Labs BriefingsAdvisory Board

Anindya Sircar PhDAssociate Vice President &

Head - IP Cell

Gaurav Rastogi

Vice President,Head - Learning Services

Kochikar V P PhDAssociate Vice President,

Education & Research Unit

Raj JoshiManaging Director,

Infosys Consulting Inc.

Ranganath MVice President &Chief Risk Officer

Simon Towers PhDAssociate Vice President and

Head - Center for Innovation forTommorows Enterprise,

Infosys Labs

Subu GoparajuSenior Vice President &

Head - Infosys Labs

modernize Legc with

Sstes Integrtors


3/76


3

7

15

21

29

35

45

53

59

VOL 10 NO 2

2012

Discussion:Why Enterprise Customers Require Integration with Legacy System?By Anil Prasad Kurnool and Senthilkumar P.R

Seamless integration of enterprise applications is a must in todays competitive world.With more and more devices and platforms coming into existence the need forintegration of enterprise applications has become stronger and all pervasive.

Trend:Complex Events Processing A New TrendBy Karthicraja Gopalakrishnan and Ladislav GataComplex Event Processing (CEP) is emerging in an era when service orientedarchitecture (SOA) and business process management (BPM) are reaching theirmaturity. In this paper the authors analyze how CEP can provide significantbenefits to organizations.

Viewpoint:How Systems Integrators Can Help Build Smarter Organization?By Saurabh Johri and Ganesh JayaramanEnterprises are looking upon System Integrators skills to aid them in

their strategic journey and become smarter organizations.

Analysis:Effectiveness of EA Frameworks in Achieving BITA:An Analysis Based on SAMMBy Ramkumar DarghaBusiness IT Alignment (BITA) is one of the main goals of all enterprise architecture(EA) initiatives. The author draws from his practical experience in discussingthe applicability of SAMM model to the popular EA frameworks like TOGAF,ZACHMAN and analyzing the effectiveness of the support provided by theseframeworks in achieving BITA.

Approach:Proactive Performance Engineering for E-commerce ModernizationBy Saurabh kumar Mishra, Balaji Subbaraman and Rohit ChristopherModernization of existing platforms is the need of the hour and enterprises are

engaging in a modernization initiative without a clearly defined methodology.The authors propose a simple approach that would ensure the success of themodernization program.

Model: How Systems Integration Helps Achieve Progressive Business Transformations?By Anirban Ghosal and Narayanan ChathanurBusiness transformation is aimed at producing enterprise level performanceimprovement through radical changes in the business and IT systems. In this paper,the authors present a view on how this complex process of progressive transformationcan be achieved through simple steps of aligning the business vision with IT vision.

Framework: Applications Integration with ESBBy Prakash Rajbhoj and Narayanan ChathanurAll types of enterprises whether small or large always have the need for EAI.Traditional EAI is expensive and has its own incumbent problems. In this paper theauthors show how enterprises can create an integration platform for their IT systemsby using the pillars of EAI and SOA and solve their business problems.

Insight: Solution Architecture in Large Transformation ProgramsBy Suchit BhatwadekarSolution architecture is a framework to develop end-to-end view of change that fullycaters to the business needs, ensures technical compliance within budget and has amaintainable schedule. In a transformation program, success of any solution is heavilydependent on the acceptance of the solution by the relevant stakeholders opines theauthor.

Practioners Perspective: Role of Systems Integrators in the Co-creation ProcessBy N.VijaykumarCo-creation is a budding discipline of the current wave of innovation. Collaborative

creativity focusing on people and aiming to enhance the value provided to consumersis the focus of co-creation. In this paper the author explains how systems integratorscan help organizations realize the co-creation dream.

Index


4/76

In a transformation program, success of anysolution is heavily dependent on the acceptance

of the solution by the concerned stakeholders.

Suchit Bhatwadekar

Principal Technology Architect

Finacle Consulting andSystem Integration Practice,

Infosys Limitied.

Successful systems integration has enabled organizations

improve operational efficiency with better reaction time,

information accuracy and integrity.

Karthicraja Gopalakrishnan

Senior Technology Architect

Financial Service and Insurance

Consulting & System Integration Practice,

Infosys Limited.


5/76

3

VOL 10 NO 22012

Why Enterprise Customers RequireIntegration with Legacy System?

Enterprises can ill afford to shedlegacy systems completely

By Anil Prasad Kurnool and Senthilkumar P.R.

Se a m l e s s i n t e g r a t i o n o f e n t e r p r i s eapplications is a must in todays competitiveworld. With more and more devices and

platforms carrying data processing muscle

- the most common example being mobile

phones, the need for integration of enterprise

applications has become stronger and all

pervasive.

For the enterprises to achieve the

elusive agile IT infrastructure all the systems

need to be integrated and data flow must

happen without hindrance. Legacy never

dies! goes an old adage. In an industry offaster hardware (Moores Law), fast moving

data (IPv6 networks) and better applications

development methodologies (OOPS, 4GL)

legacy system still strives and holds its own

fort, making it in most of the cases the back

bone of enterprise IT.

CIOs today are caught in the perpetual

dichotomy of ensuring that their IT supports

the fast changing business dynamics even

while retaining legacy systems as part of the

endeavor.

IMPORTANCE OF AND NEED FOR LEGACY

From the perspective of stability, CIOs hark on

the benets that legacy systems have to offer in

comparison to the current systems and hence

legacy systems are the most preferred choices to

host core applications of enterprises. Robustness

is another key feature that makes legacy systems

extremely reliable and promising [1].

In addition, one cannot discount the fact

that an enterprises historic information that

is stored deep within legacy systems plays an

important role while collaborating with external

partners and stakeholders.From a pecuniary perspective too,

legacy systems score heavily in comparison

to niche technologies primarily because of

three reasons easy availability of talent

pool to maintain the legacy system; cost

effectiveness in operations and the need for

fresh investments in replacement technologies.

Legacy system can also be considered

as a source of competitive advantage to the

enterprise as the logic residing in it makes it

difcult for the competitor to emulate.



6/76

4

Some popular reasons that make the legacysystems the most preferred choice are mentioned

below.

Cost of redesigning/replacing a

legacy system is substantial due to the

complexity of the functionality. The

decision of the replacement or redesign

depends on the cost-benet analysis.

Dismantling of the system might

affect a business function, if no proper

equivalent alternate arrangements are

considered. This reinforces the above

mentioned reason that complexity in

building a new application on lines of

the functionality present in legacy is far

from welcoming.

Lack of sufcient technical knowledge

of the current generation development

community to understand the legacy

system and absence of documentation

of the algorithms used to develop the

applications forms a formidable challenge

when one wants to replace legacy [2].

CFOs lack of interest in exploring new

IT ventures, especially when the legacy

systems serve the current purpose.Also failure witnessed in migration and

modernization initiatives is a stumbling

block that fuels the fear of a CFO from

making any new investments in newer

technologies [3].

Despite the hue and cry to migrate

to more sharper and efficient technologies,

legacy systems are going to stay for the reasons

mentioned above. So it would make sense for

enterprises to integrate the advantages that

legacy systems have to offer to realize the muchneeded business agility.

NEED FOR INTEGRATION WITH LEGACY

To stay ahead of the competition companies

must adopt cost effective IT solutions and be

more agile in their business. The pace at which

technology evolves and the resulting changes

have become a constant challenge to the

enterprise IT systems. It is not cost effective to

replace or redesign the applications whenever

there is a change in technology.

Many enterprises would have a set of

applications created for each of their business

lines. Over a period of time, enhancements

and enrichments made to these systems might

have pushed them towards becoming islands of

information or silos. Such silos can be reckoned as

legacy systems. And today, most new initiatives

that enterprises engage in may need data from

different silos. It is here that the business value of

data hidden in the legacy systems can be leveraged

in new business processes and operations by

providing efcient ways to integrate.

Legacy systems do not have their business

logic/functionalities in a readily usable form.

Till their core functionality is made available

in a reusable form, their features might not be

providing the needed value to the business. This

reusability aspect makes the integration of thelegacy systems with other applications a highly

prudent investment for the business.

New business regulations might require

signicant changes and customization to the IT

infrastructure for audits. Data residing in legacy

system can be harnessed by integrating the

legacy system with other applications thereby

bringing in the much needed transparency in

audit exercises.

This integration approach reduces the go-

to-market time for any new business initiative.


7/76

5

Other needs that can prompt integrationwith legacy would be a new business process

optimization initiative, or even a lack of a

complete new commercial off-the-shelf (COTS)

application that can support entire business

needs of an enterprise.

It might be faster to integrate and

assimilate a legacy system than to replace it. As

an additional benet, even while considering

the replacement of legacy due to shelf life issues,

it is benecial to go in with an integrated legacy

system approach.

Once integrated with the perspective

of retirement, any legacy application can be

moved from the core of the IT to be a deemed

as component of IT. This shift would enable

the CIO to segregate the coarse grained

functionalities hosted in legacy system along

with their auxiliary ne grained functionalities

into buckets and then start looking out for

alternatives to these buckets.

Once an alternative is found, then the

bucket from legacy can be retired and the

alternate can be used. This co-existence of

legacy and its alternate may seem to be a long-

drawn retirement plan, but the integration

mitigates most of the risks involved in big-bang

approach, as the hot-swap is ready, in case of

any eventuality and the change needs to be

rolled back as the legacy is still integrated withthe current IT landscape.

PATTERNS OF INTEGRATION FOR

LEGACY SYSTEMS

Todays integration technologies have different

and innumerable techniques for integrating

with the legacy applications. These can be

broadly classied as --

Screen Scraping Technique: This technique is

typically used for terminal based legacy system

where the data on a screen is read through anauxiliary port. The data is fed to a form on the

screen too by writing data to the terminals

memory. This technique mimics a human

interaction with a terminal (also called dumb

-terminal). Even in cases where the existing

application might not be having any known

application programming interface (API) this

technique can be used. This technique can be

used even when the source code of the system is

too complicated to understand, just by writing

directly into the memory of the application.

In a nutshell this is a non-intrusive technique.

Message-based Interactions: IBMs MQ

Series pioneered this technique of message-

based interaction. The product suite or the

middleware, also called Message Oriented

Middleware, can be hosted on a very wide

range of hardware and heterogeneous operating

systems, ranging from Mainframes to AS/400 to

WinTel. Applications considered for integration

need to only communicate with the local agent

on the same box that can provide a message

to the application in the form of subscription

or in a request-response fashion. Based on the

use case, this technique can be either intrusive

(making changes to application to accept

message based instructions) or non-intrusive

(where the application implicitly understandsthe contents and context of message.) This

technique is currently in vogue in most legacy

system based enterprises.

Transaction Wrapping: If the legacy application

uses any of the transaction systems like CICS,

these transactions are wrapped by agents hosted

on the legacy applications box itself. Starting

with ver 3.0, CICS Transaction Server from IBM

began providing wrapping services out-of-box,

in form of web-services [4].


8/76

6

BENEFITS OF INTEGRATING LEGACYSYSTEMS

Of the many options and routes taken by

enterprises for IT agility business process

management (BPM) and services are the

most preferred options. BPM solutions help

enterprises adapt to the fast changing market

conditions and business opportunities quickly

by providing the required tools to the business

users to change the business processes with

relative ease.

The crucial differentiator of a BPM

solution from other IT solutions is that BPM

can be used to create new value by compositing

new business services out of the existing

business systems without impacting the

existing landscape. In this context the agility

derived from BPM-based services includes

legacy systems services without changes

to them. Preserving and extending legacy

systems through BPM-based solution allows

the enterprises to retain their key systems

and capitalize on their strengths. This also

mitigates the potential risk associated with

replacing mission critical applications hosted

on legacy systems. By integrating the legacy

systems business processes can leverage the

data that is residing deep inside them. Through

integration, a layer of abstraction is provided

to the landscape, which can be used and reusedby services and BPM without impacting the

underlying implementation in the legacy

system or in any other system.

CONCLUSION

Modern enterprises need dynamic and agile

systems to take care of their business demands.

However, enterprise IT landscapes are dotted

with the presence of legacy applications. A

typical legacy system is too expensive and risky

to be done away with.

Robustness, reliability and securityoffered by legacy systems make them the

most preferred choice to host core business

functionalities. Usually they earn the patronage

of the CxO community from their cost effective

operations, abundant talent pool and historic

data reasons. However, in any initiative to

automate or SOA-enable an enterprise to cater

to the growing business demands, legacy

systems become the proverbial last mile to

achieve the needed IT agility.

Legacy systems are here to stay and

enterprises need to explore the options of

inclusive agility by integrating them with

other applications instead of replacing them.

Once integrated, the Legacy systems would

prove to be a cost effective way of providing

the functionality needed by business in a very

robust, secure and a reliable way.

REFERENCES

1. Soltis, F. (September 2002), Delivering

Mainframe Advantages to Your Business.

In The Power of Mainframe Computing.

Available at http://www-07.ibm.

com/servers/eserver/au/iseries/

downloads/i890_nal_whitepaper.pdf.

2. Lack of documentation (Definition).

Available at http://www.cc.gatech.edu/

morale/local/morph_glossary.html.3. Bergey J., Northorp L., Smith D. (October

1997), Enterprise Framework for the

Disciplined Evolution of the Legacy

Systems. Available at http://www.sei.

cmu.edu/reports/97tr007.pdf

4. Rayns, C., Burgess, G. ,Cooper, P. et.al

(January 2010), Application Development

for CICS Web Services IBM Redbook,

Chapter 2, ISBN 0738433853. Available

at http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/

abstracts/sg247126.html.


9/76

7

VOL 10 NO 22012

CEP is fast emerging as a major breakthroughfor mainstream adoption in enterprises than

merely being an extension to conceptslike SOA and BPM

Complex Events Processing A New Trend

By Karthicraja Gopalakrishnan and Ladislav Gata


For many years, once of the key successfactor for business process automationhas been enterprise application integration

(EAI), which enabled enterprises to make their

applications talk to one another though they

were not originally built for such dialogues.

Successful systems integration has enabled

organizations improve operational efciency

with better reaction time, information accuracyand integrity. Complex Event Processing

(CEP) elevates these benets to the next level

by enabling organizations link interrelated

business events arising out of the enterprise

systems and develop powerful real-time

business intelligence and cognitive business

processes.

CEP creates such benets by enabling a

very powerful event denition and detection

capability in the enterprise system integration

landscape. CEP as a market solution on the

one hand provides mechanism for the user to

dene event patterns and deploy, and on the

other hand provides a powerful engine that

can recognize event patterns from the cloud

of enterprise system events and trigger an

automated response. Due to its event processing

power, CEP systems can be made to learn and

apply knowledge automatically and made

cognitive and capable of changing preferenceswithout enforcing a programmed path. In this

paper, we analyze how CEP can contribute

signicantly to the competitive advantage of

organizations.

CEP is emerging in an era when service

oriented architecture (SOA) and business

process management (BPM) are reaching

their maturity. As SOA and BPM have been

signicantly affecting the system landscape in

recent years, the impact of CEP on enterprise

architecture very much depends on how it will


10/76

8

marry with these major trends. CEP is joiningSOA and BPM on mission to make enterprise

systems more open to frequent changes

implied by increasing dynamics of the market.

CEP brings an architecturally strong concept

that enables people define more complex

and more dynamic business processes, but

more importantly it can make systems learn

how to optimize business processes without

human intervention. Although CEP has set

off on journey towards mainstream enterprise

technologies mainly by lling the gaps in BPM

and SOA, in the long term it can overrun these

concepts completely and might lay down the

foundation for a new generation of enterprise

systems powered by central information

backbone and central intelligence.

WHAT IS COMPLEX EVENTS PROCESSING?

Enterprises have tried to surface business

significant events from their mainstream

systems for many years now. They were in

the form of specialized handling of conditions

like raising an alert when the inventory drops

to a certain level, or executing an alternative

operation when business exceptions occur or

automatically escalate priority if a particular

business process has not met its service

level agreement, etc. However, these events

were implemented with in an application ora program module and traditionally had a

very limited scope. Secondly, the concept of

analyzing important enterprise events did

exist in the past in the form of management

information reports; however, they did not

cater to producing real time automatic response

or understanding interrelated complex events.

CEP bridges this gap and takes event processing

to the next level in the enterprise. We dene CEP

as an enterprise system capability to analyze

and interpret the complex series of interrelated

events arising out of the enterprise systems withan aim to recognize business signicant events

in real-time. The recognition of an event can be

used for different types of actions. It can alert

humans if the event needs a user attention; it

can trigger automated action in various systems;

or it can distribute information provided by the

event across enterprise.

Some organizations have successfully

implemented CEP for many years in the elds

of algorithmic trading, traffic management

fraud detection, anti-terrorism and in expert

military systems. They have significantly

improved human efciency in understanding

and processing business significant events

from the endless array of information pipeline.

However, the benefits of the CEP have not

reached the enterprise systems.

WHY IS CEP A POWERFUL CONCEPT?

CEP can help enterprise IT and business in

many ways. A CEP application can proactively

recognize a business significant event and

automatically trigger a corrective action or

can surface the complex and behind the scene

details of a seemingly known event to enable

corrective work on the real problems or develop

a central intelligence hub in a non-invasive

manner to control an existing business process

or build a dynamic business process that isdened by states than steps. To understand

how CEP delivers such power and benets it

is essential to understand the anatomy of a

CEP system.

CEP is an event processing system.

In the center of this powerful system lies a

data processing engine capable of handling

huge data correlation in memory. The data

correlation engine builds an event pattern

recognition component to form the core of

CEP. CEP solution development is about


11/76

9

designing event patterns and is developedby business analysts using the event pattern

modeler. Figure 1 depicts the key components

involved in a CEP system.

This architecture of CEP provides the

power and effectiveness in a number of ways;

CEP architecture is event based hence does not

manifest its presence in other applications in the

enterprise landscape and can easily plug into an

existing infrastructure to consume the already

exposed messages. Its capability to process

huge data in-memory under million operations

per second enables real-time analysis of current

and historical data. The adapters and agents

allow consuming data from disparate sources

and nally the action manager allows triggering

compensating operations orchestrated from

outside the existing enterprise applications.

CEP is extremely powerful because of its huge

power to analyze, predict, execute and learn

from a huge pile of information from disparate

sources in real-time and more importantly, in a

non-invasive manner.

HARNESSING THE POWER OF CEP

Though originally conceptualized as an advanced

monitoring solution, CEP today is expanding

in different areas of enterprise systems by

providing real-time intelligence it brings in

the next level of business process visibility inVorder to enable on-time and accurate business

decisions; by enabling unstructured business

process denition; by making processes more

complex, dynamic and exible and by bringing

in aspects of expert systems to enterprise

environment and laying the foundation of future

cognitive enterprise systems.

Real-time Intelligence

Business intelligence has been a batch processing

functionality for enterprises in the past. They

produced daily, weekly and monthly reports

to present a historical view of the business

efciency. CEP takes this to the next level by

providing real-time business intelligence which

means corrective actions and optimizations can

be made instantaneously.

Another important benet of CEP is that

it can subscribe to events from disparate sources

it can be a network event, or storage device

event or events from business systems. CEP

can consume no matter where the event was

generated. Detection of semantically equivalent

fragments from such varied sources has never

been possible before and CEP has enabled it.That means business intelligence can be robust

and extensive.

Unstructured Business Processes

For many years BPM solution strategy assumed

that the business processes are sequential and

predened in certain structure which we call

procedural BPM. Over years of implementation

a better understanding has emerged from

experience that the business process are

unstructured to the tune of about 60-70% and

Figure 1: Key Components in a CEP SystemSource: Infosys Research

Event Pattern Modeller

(Design-time)

Event Pattern Recognition Engine

Message Bus

Database

Rule EngineAction

Manager

Agents/

Adapters


12/76

10

not supported sufciently by the current BPMproducts in the market [2].

As an example, it is not hard to relate

in your enterprise that on many occasions the

user of the business processes wants to change

the way the process is executed. She may want

to skip one of the steps due to a newly arisen

situation or perform the 4th step before the 3rd

step or perform 3rd and 4th step in parallel or

breakdown the 3rd step into two and perform

in the order of 3a, 4, 3b. The point is the

sequence of the business process can change

very frequently.

The current BPM products in the market

do not cater to this fundamental change in

the way workows are dened and are hence

fairly inefcient in delivering to the business

requirements. In situations like these CEP

brings in a major advantage. It can be used for

developing unstructured business processes

by putting the user focus on to advancing

the business process states than advancing

through the steps. This is a major shift in the

way workflows are defined, modeled and

implemented today. One of the real world

examples of such process is mortgages and

loans that have a very long and complex

lifecycle with many variations of loans and

mortgage products. It is too difcult to model

in a procedural way.

Cognitive Systems

Articial intelligence has not been used much

in enterprise business processes partly due to

the complexity involved in developing them

and partly because of the capacity required in

its execution. The characteristics of CEP such as

loosely coupled event based architecture, huge

in-memory processing power and the capability

to recognize event patterns can form a foundation

for implementing expert systems in enterprises.

A CEP system can be designed suchthat it can analyze the user behavior, preserve

knowledge and enable automated reasoning

when there is a high probability of user

repeating the same action. Self optimizing

business process can be made a reality with the

introduction of articial intelligence into the

enterprise applications.

There is no doubt that CEPs potential of

providing added business value is more than

significant and CEP will become a mainstream

adoption for enterprises. However the CEP

jou rney into the ma instream wi ll not be

easy, as the concept is not just filling a gap,

but at certain level also interferes with other

ambitious and more established concepts like

SOA and BPM.

CEP AND FUTURE SYSTEM INTEGRATION

Why should CEP be discussed in context of

system integration? To give an answer we have

to understand the role of integration in modern

enterprise architecture and the direction where

it is heading to. Integration platforms evolution

undoubtedly converges to enterprise service bus

(ESB) concept. ESB driven by SOA concept has

changed the traditional enterprise application

integration (EAI) middleware from a plumbing

infrastructure to a standardized enterprise

backbone exposing business functions. Theevolution of enterprise IT is coming close to

the end of one era where business process

is exclusively owned by applications. ESBs

today have capability to host process engines

and containers for mainstream programming

languages. The standardized environment and

strong component model of ESB will attract

more and more business logic to be hosted in

this ecosystem. In the more distant future this

trend may lead to architecture of centralized

backbone with central intelligence.


13/76

11

We can nd a direct analogy in natureand compare ESB to nervous system of living

creatures. The central nervous system (CNS)

comprising brain and spinal cord is controlling

all body parts through peripheral nervous

system (PNS). The enterprise spinal cord is

the standardized message broker contained by

ESB, the brain is the integrated process engine

and the body parts are various enterprise

applications [Fig. 2]. The PNS is the integration

capability provided by different adapters and

bindings which connect applications to the

central message broker.

CEP will be a critical aspect of making

the vision of central intelligent hub a reality as

this concept will need a more sophisticated brain

than a process engine with procedural logic. To

enable continue business process optimization

the enterprise central intelligence will need to

employ rule-based reasoning engine or other

articial intelligence mechanisms in order to

correlate and react to millions of signals coming

from various applications. This sort of capability,

typical for expert systems, is what CEP lays the

foundation of in enterprise environment. Even

though CEP is used for specic tasks in various

industries for decades, it is system integration

evolution which brings CEP to the mainstream.

This mainstream can be seen as enterprise

architecture with central information backboneand central intelligence evolved from CEP

enabled ESB, an enterprise with CNS.

CEPS IMPACT ON SOA AND BPM

SOA has affected enterprise architecture

dramatically with the evolution of ESB

technology. It has pushed boundaries of system

integration and has changed the way how

applications are built. BPM platforms originally

developed as standalone tools are becoming

part of the SOA reference architecture offering

service orchestration. SOA and BPM hand in hand

are making an attempt to build new enterprise

architecture paradigm viz., publish your business

functions on the bus and model your business

process in BPM tool. The main driver is exibility,

easy creation and change in business process

reusing services. In order to achieve that, ESB

products are becoming tightly integrated with

BPM platforms or directly host BPM engines.

CEP is a new arrival to this family with clear

ambition to make the business process even more

exible and dynamic. So, the biggest question

that remains to be answered is how the marriage

between CEP, SOA and BPM is going to end.

SOA is stil l perceived mainly as

architecture style where one application can

provide business functions consumed by other

applications. In order to manage the intraapplication dependencies SOA employs ESB

as broker between consumer and provider

applications. This SOA based view of ESB

mediating and exposing business functions

for remote invocation has kept out of focus the

fact that ESB is messaging based with ability to

send and receive events. For that reason CEP as

event based infrastructure is fully compatible

with ESB concept and in the next few years CEP

is not going to bring any fundamental change

in ESB evolution.

Enterprise Central Intelligence

InternetEnterprise

Monitoring & Management

Enterprise Information Backbone

Mainframes & Legacy Applications Data Centres

Figure 2: Central Intelligence of EnterpriseSource: Infosys Research


14/76

12

ESB provides abstrtaction of differentapplicat ions funct ions and events in

standardized environment. CEP and BPM

technologies can be hosted in this environment

in order to orchestrate those events and

functions into business logic. BPM enables to

build procedural based logic, CEP is typically

rule based. CEP as paradigm has advantage as

it can model any real world scenario whereas

procedural modeling cannot. Apparently, this

may cause an architectural conict since in many

situations both the concepts are applicable. In

the long run the stronger CEP concept will very

likely overtake the mainstream and accompanied

with other expert system disciplines will become

a key to the next generation of intelligent

enterprise systems. Until this happens CEP and

procedural modeling will coexist in ESB ecosystem

[Fig. 3].

In the next few years, CEP will be

augment more matured BPM platforms making

business processes more dynamic. From pure

system integration perspective, CEP engine as

integral part of ESB will be used for scenarios

where rule based routing and correlation

of events is needed. CEP will also help to

understand and use better the eventing aspect

of ESB which has been often overlooked.

Business activity monitoring as the most visible

CEP discipline today will very likely also enterthe ESB ecosystem in order to get closer to the

source of business events.

MATURITY OF CONTEMPORARY

CEP TECHNOLOGIES

CEP products are dynamically developing

and they are catching up with the evolution of

SOA technologies. Most middleware vendors

are enriching their SOA product stack with

a CEP platform which is often referred to as

event-driven architecture (EDA). The term

EDA is not used consistently by all vendors as

in some cases it can indicate ESB capability to

provide event based interaction without CEP

features offering.

The important characteristic of CEP

technologies is diversity. The diversity is

caused by two key factors: (a) variability of CEP

applications in enterprise environment; and (b)

lack of developed and adopted CEP standards.

The vast majority of CEP products are platforms

that can be used standalone or in conjunction

with other systems including middleware.

There are also emerging ESB products and BPM

suites that may offer integrated CEP features.

In general the standalone CEP platforms

are more mature because of longer history.

Another common symptom is that non-

functional capabilities like development,monitoring and management tools or design

time governance are not in the spotlight yet

and we can expect dynamic growth of these

aspects with the growth of CEP deployments

and increased overall CEP acceptance by

mainstream enterprise technology market.

APPROACHING A CEP IMPLEMENTATION

CEP implementation is for many companies a

new area which is a major risk that needs to be

acknowledged in the rst place and all necessary

Internet BPM

Engine

CEP

Engine

Message Broker

Mainframes & Legacy Applications Data Centres

ESB

Figure 3: Coexistence of CEP and BPM in ESB EcosystemSource: Infosys Research


15/76

13

project management mechanisms should beemployed to mitigate that risk. Apart from that

the main challenges of CEP adoption are:

Identifying the business need for CEP

Understanding the technical nature of

the business need

Selecting and understanding the product

Dening CEP development methodology

Implementing CEP in the intended

fashion.

How does a company then recognize the

need for a CEP? In an earlier section we have

elaborated different areas of CEP applications.

Business requirements addressing some of

those areas should be the rst indication of a

possible CEP need. Subsequently, the particular

business scenario has to be scrutinized in order

to correctly understand its technical nature.

Just precisely derived technical requirements

can justify whether CEP platform would bring

an added value.

In the CEP product selection process

the technical requirements play a key role as the

CEP platform is a sort of software infrastructure

without out-of-the-box business functionality,

therefore the evaluation is focused purely on the

technical aspects. The selection process is more

challenging, as for instance, unlike applicationservers or ESB products, CEP platforms are

not standardized. By evaluating an application

server in the current market the license cost and

level of support might be more important than

actual capabilities. Standardization has brought

many vendors so close in terms of features that

product selection does not mean a signicant

risk. This is not the case for CEP today. Detailed

technical requirement specication and proper

understanding of the product can make a huge

difference in project execution.

To get the right condence it is criticalto work closely with vendors in the product

selection process. There are no standard

methodologies for CEP development, hence

getting close to the product before it gets

selected will help one to identify any additional

challenges and risks of delivery and maintenance

process.

CEP implementation shows symptoms of

high risk projects, hence solution prototyping

and incremental delivery process is preferable

and can help nalize the project in intended

fashion.

CONCLUSION

The CEP as a mainstream is at the beginning, but

should not be ignored. To leverage the full power

of CEP may require radical transformation of

the entire system integration landscape. CEP

function is to capture events and trigger actions

in real-time. In this aspect SOA maturity can

be a critical factor since in an environment

where business events and business functions

are available in standardized ESB ecosystem,

future CEP implementation can be achieved

with lower risk and higher added value. Thus

even if a CEP project is not on your short-term

roadmap, including the CEP readiness in the IT

strategy is the right step to do today.

Although CEP implementation maybe seen as high on investment risk in terms

of project realization, the possible benefits

it can yield may be significant. The added

business value may bring an important

competitive advantage and major breakthrough

in companys business. Bringing exibility of

business process to a new level and ensuring

that decision-making information is available

in real-time can open new opportunities of

business innovations and major improvements

in operational excellence.


16/76

14

4. Vollmer, K. (2009), Forrester WaveComprehensive Integration Solutions

Q4 2010 for Application Development

& Delivery Professionals. Available at

http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/

analystreports/infrastructure/forrester-

cis-wave-2010-189779.pdf.

5. Gualtieri, M., Rymer, J. (2009), The

Forrester Wave- Complex Event Processing

(CEP). Available at http://www.forrester.

com/rb/Research/wave%26trade%3B_

c o m p l e x _ e v e n t _ p r o c e s s i n g _ c e p _

platforms%2C_q3/q/id/48084/t/2.

6. Event-Driven SOA: A Better Way to SOA

(2011). Available at http://www.tibco.

com/multimedia/wp-event-driven-

soa_tcm8-803.pdf.

REFERENCES1. Luckham, D. (2001), The Power of Events:

An Introduction to Complex Event

Processing in Distributed Enterprise

Systems. Addison-Wesley Longman

Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, USA.

2. Luckham, D. (2001), A Short History of

Complex Event Processing. Available

at http://complexevents.com/wp-

content/uploads/2008/02/1-a-short-

history-of-cep-part-1.pdf.

3. Mishra, R. (2010), Unstructured business

processes - creating differential BPM

strategy is the wise thing to do by Rakesh

Mishra. Available at http://www.

infosysblogs.com/bpm-eai/2010/01/

unstructured_business_processe.html.


17/76

15

VOL 10 NO 22012

Harness the potential of your systemsintegrator to build a smarter organization

How Systems IntegratorsCan Help Build Smarter Organization?

By Saurabh Johri and Ganesh Jayaraman

As organizations are increasingly becomingglobal their operations are expandingacross geographies and new products and

services are being introduced at a rapid pace.

Consequently, enterprise complexity in terms

of business processes and underlying IT

systems has also exploded. The ever increasing

complexity over time reduces efciency, speed

and accuracy of operations.

Organizational complexity has cascading

impact in multiple areas of business functions.

For example, an inefficient customer service

management system can adversely impact

customer experience and future revenues. Theorganizations inability to accurately view supply

chain costs will cause reduced prot margins.

While organizations scale up, IT

landscapes typically evolve over time as

disparate subsystems in silos. Such systems

with limited interoperability offer limited

view of organizations state and the entire

business picture. Furthermore the total cost of

ownership increases due to high maintenance

costs. According to a Gartner study, typically

67% of IT spends is directed towards keeping

the lights on operations which leave little for

new transformational projects [1]. With new

technology disruptions like cloud computing

and mobility gaining traction, an inefcient IT

organization will impact rm competitiveness.

System integrators (SIs) have vast

expertise in bringing disparate systems together.

System integration skills can aid organizations

in the strategic journey to become smarter

organizations.

FACTORS LEADING TO COMPLEXITY

A close look at a typical IT landscape of a

large organization will reveal mishmash oflegacy systems, commercial off-the-shelf

(COTS) ERP and CRM applications and a

host of custom applications. Decentralization

of the IT function and its alignment to a

geography or line of business (LoB) leads to

multiple instances of the same application

and duplication of business functionality.

Enforcing a consistent IT governance policy

and application landscape is a key challenge

in the face of rapid changes in the business and

technology environment.



18/76

16

Business Drivers: As markets are gettingliberalized, companies are increasing their

global presence extensively.

Mergers and acquisitions are happening

on a continual basis and integrating the IT systems

of two different rms is a complex task involving

the reconciling of duplicate data and rationalizing

the different storage systems and applications.

Organizations exploring the organic

route to growth introduce new products and

services that are increasingly away from the

core business and that require rapid changes

in business processes and IT systems.

Technology Disruptions:Technology advances

in computing and networking require

organizations to update their legacy systems.

With the explosion of ecommerce and mobility,

IT is the key enabler for new business models.

In a Forrester study, over a thousand

key decision makers from North America

and Europe were asked about their priorities

for from IT. Not surprisingly in the current

economic scenario, cost reduction (89%) and

improved business process execution (84%)

emerged as top business goals [2].

However, CXOs also recognize the fact

that to remain relevant and competitive in the

future, rms need to be more nimble to change

business processes (71%), improve collaborationand information exchange using technology (69%).

Organizations are realizing enterprise

c o m p l e x i t y a f f e c t s a n o r g a n i z a t i o n s

productivity thereby affecting profitability

and impairing competitive ability.

SMARTER ORGANIZATIONS OVERVIEW

The three characterist ics of a smarter

organization is the ability to simplify IT

systems, learn and collaborate better and to be

able to adapt quickly [Fig. 1].

Simplify:By simplication of business processes

and IT systems, accurate and faster information

ow within the organization can be achieved.

Identifying key application portfolios,

creating shared services model by retiring

duplicate systems within the organization

translates to immediate business results in

efciency terms.

Data is a strategic resource which all

organizations possess but few are able to

leverage effectively. Analytics play a key rolein understanding vast reservoirs of data to

predict client behavior trends and optimize

supply costs.

Learn and Collaborate: Global organizations

today have a diverse workforce in terms of

culture, demographics and geographies.

In order to ensure efforts are not

duplicated and information exchange is speedy,

the traditional learning methods are no longer

effective for a mobile workforce.

Simplify

Underlying IT

systems to ensure

accurate & faster

information flow

AdaptBe able to track and

optimize business

objectives on a real

time basis.

Take fact based decisions

faster in an uncertain

business environment

Learn &Collaborate

Better knowledgeexchange

in a distributedmulti-cultural

workforce

Figure 1: Characteristics of Smarter OrganizationSource: Infosys Research


19/76

17

Knowledge management processes andtools gain greater credence to achieve better

information exchange and collaboration to

foster a culture of innovation.

Adapt: A smarter organization will be able

to define and track business objectives on

a real time basis. By providing customized

view of critical information to each business

user, proactive interventions and fact based

decision making can be enabled thus making

the organization nimble and smarter.

IMPACT OF CLOUD COMPUTING

In the past two years, there has been a

great spurt in interest in cloud computing.

Looking beyond the hype, CIOs need to ensure

investments in cloud based offerings deliver

IT simplification and significant reduction in

total cost of ownership. The key concerns that

remain to be completely resolved include data

security, scalability and potential lock-in with

a single vendor.

Current offerings can be classified under three

broad offerings as explained below.

Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS): In IaaS,

clients hire raw computing power such as

CPU, disk storage and network resources.IaaS analysis must include not only the cost

of the computing resources but also the whole

operational and management environment

required.

Platform as a Service (PaaS): Paas involves

pay-per-use for an application platform

which provides tools to develop and maintain

specific business applications. PaaS should be

considered only if significant benefits on cost,

flexibility, development effort and life cycle

management can be obtained as compared toother options including in-house development.

Software as a Service (SaaS): SaaS involves

hiring a ready-to-use hosted product that

requires minimum or no customization to

meet business requirements. Selecting a SaaS

solution requires more attention as compared to

other cloud services as a best-of-breed solution

might fit the business need but may result in

creating new silos in the IT landscape.

IMPACT OF ENTERPRISE INFORMATION

MANAGEMENT

There is a clear shift from the traditional

reporting mindset to more analytical approach

to enterprise information. The second step

is assimilating structured and unstructured

information and delivering key insights to

stakeholders on a timely basis. There are

several areas that need to be addressed.

Master Data Management (MDM):To specify

set of processes and tools that denes and manages

key data entities to ensure a single version of truth.

ERP Systems: Several organizations have

ERP/CRM packages that are rich sources of

critical information. However, inter-operability

issues lead to data non-availability andinconsistencies.

Data Warehousing/BI:Legacy systems that are

focused on transaction reporting and which

require a strategic re-focus to deliver predictive

capabilities to aid decision making.

Enterprise Content Management:Provides

processes and tools to store and organize

unstructured data, for e.g., documents, wikis,

emails and information portals.


20/76

18

Enterprise Search: It is the process of makingavailable information from various sources

searchable for given audience. This would

require strict access management to ensure data

condentiality.

Event Capture:Unexpected or atypical actions

by signicant volume of customers or vendors

should be captured and escalated quickly to

senior stakeholders. This is more strategic for

B2C rms, for e.g., banking, retail and services

to take proactive steps to analyze and respond

faster.

ROLE OF SYSTEM INTEGRATORS

SIs today possess the business and technology

skills to build a comprehensive enterprise

architecture that will help align IT investments

with a long term business strategy and help

reduce organizational complexity by making

applications interoperable. Also they are

capable of integrating emerging disruptivetechnologies while keeping total cost of

ownership under check.

There are four sub-architectures of enterprise

architecture, viz.,

Business: Business sub-architecture defines

the business strategy, model, processes and

the foundation for the other sub-architectures.

Information: Information defines the data

needs of the organization. It identifies and

standardizes information, assigns ownership

and accountability. The data exchange formats

are also dened in this sub-architecture.

Application: Application sub-architecture

defines the application design patterns and

enabling technologies. It also provides an

overview on how the applications should

be bundled to support a business process.

Business Architecture

describes the business

strategy, models,

processes, services and

organisation. Provides the

other enterprise architectue

dimension base their

decisions

Technical

Architecture

Application

Architecture

Business

Architecture InformationArchitecture

Information Architecture identifies,

documents and manages

the information needs of the

enterprise, assigns

ownership and accountability

for this information and

describes how data is

stored by and exchaged

between stakeholders

Application Architecture

defines the specification

of technology enabled

solutions in support of the

business architecture.

Provides a view on how

services should be bundled

to support a business

process

Technical Architecture

defines the strategies and

standards for technologies

and methods used to develop,

execute and operate the

application architecture.

It provides frameworks, technical

patterns and services that support

application requirements

Figure 2: Components of Enterprise Architecture Source: Infosys Research


21/76

19

This also species the middleware and othersoftware applications.

Technical:Technical sub-architecture specifies

the strategies and standards for underlying

netwwork and hardware that supports the

application and information sub-layers. This

sub-architecture lays down guidelines for

data.

Business Advisory Skills:Beyond technology

capabilities, strong understanding of business

processes and people management is very

critical. Change management is often an

underestimated factor in large transformational

initiatives that often leads to failure.

CRITICAL STEPS IN EXECUTION

In order to succeed in the journey to become a

smarter organization, following steps must be

understood and executed.

Right Mix in Leadership: Recognizing the

transformational nature of this journe y, the

leadership must include mix of business

and technology leaders to define the road-

map.

Mission and Goals: A clearly articulated

mission and goals in both business and ITterms should be published and communicated

to all stakeholders. Periodic update meetings

to review progress and update the roadmap

are important.

Business-led Metrics:Align the IT metrics and

milestones with clear business goals. For e.g.,

10% increase in new customer acquisition, or

15% cap on custom applications. These new

metrics will ensure IT architecture will be

tightly aligned to business outcomes.

Continued Executive Sponsorship: It is essentialto understand that transformation is an

ongoing exercise that requires periodic reviews,

assessment and re-alignment of goals and

resources. Senior management must commit

themselves to engage with IT leadership and

vendors on an ongoing basis.

WORKING IN MULTI VENDOR SCENARIO

Increasingly clients are choosing to work

with fewer strategic vendors on large

transformational initiatives. While this results

in reduced total cost of ownership (TCO) and

reduced program management efforts, it places

greater responsibilities on system integrators to

demonstrate depth in capabilities and resource

scalability. Vendor selection and appropriate

governance mechanism needs to be put into place.

It is essential for key IT initiatives to be linked

clearly with business objectives. By creating

responsibility matrix for all stakeholders such

as RACI (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted,

Informed), vendors and client stakeholders

can work closely on shared understanding of

business goals and IT priorities.

CONCLUSION

Traditionally IT was viewed a support

function and was dealt with tactically. Years ofinconsistent IT strategy and ad-hoc technology

adoptions leaves an organizations IT landscape

with several silos and inefciencies. This has

led to adverse impact in business process

efficiencies and thus the ability to serve

customers better. The unwieldy IT systems erode

an organizations ability to compete effectively

in an uncertain business environment.

The new disruptive technology waves

like cloud computing and mobility can lead

to new technology silos and increase system


22/76

20

integration and maintenance costs in the future.Therefore, for an organization to become

smarter it is essential to address enterprise

complexity, by building exible, cost effective

IT systems, creating a learning environment

where employees, customers and vendors can

communicate and collaborate in real time. This

will help organizations adapt faster to key

organizational challenges.

In order to achieve these goals, smarter

organizations are increasingly investing in

enterprise architectures that have defined

business ob jec t ives and s t ra tegies to

streamline business processes and deliver on

organizational information needs. SIs today

have business and technology expertise to

help organizations simplify their IT landscape

and leverage technology to create a learning

environment.

REFERENCES

1. Gomolski , B. and Potter K. (2009),

Integrated IT Spending Perspectives,

G a r t n e r R e s e a r c h . A v a i l a b l e a t

h t t p : / / w w w . g a r t n e r . c o m / i t /

content/1303700/1303722/march_17_

gar tner_ integrated_i t_spending_

perspectives_kpotter.pdf.

2. Kisker, H., et al. (2010), The State Of

Enterprise Software And EmergingTrends: 2010 Forrester Research. Available

at http://www.forrester.com/rb/

Research/state_of_enterprise_software_

and_emerging_trends/q/id/55802/t/2.

3 . Janaki Akella , J . et a l . (2009) , ITArchi tec ture : Cut t ing costs and

Complexity, Mckinsey Quarterly.

Available at http://www.mckinsey.

de/downloads/publikation/mck_on_

bt/2009/mck_on_bt_16_it_architecture.

pdf.

4. Heffner R., Cullen A., An M. (2010).

Top Priority For Cloud Planning:

Integrate Cloud Computing Into Existing

Architecture Strategies. Dont Fall For

Hype Build A Strong Foundation

F o r Y o u r A p p r o a c h T o C l o u d .

Available at http://www.forrester.

com/rb/Research/top_priority_for_

cloud_planning_integrate_cloud/q/

id/56548/t/2.

5. Sohel, A., Obitz, T., Modi, R., Sarkar,

S.(2005). Enterprise Architecture: A

Governance Framework. Available at

http://www.infosys.com/consulting/

architecture-services/white-papers/

Documents/EA-governance-1.pdf.

6. White, M. and Briggs, B. (2010), Depth

Perception: A dozen technology trends

shaping business and IT. Available

a t h t t p : / / w w w . d e l o i t t e . c o m /

us/2010technologytrends.

7. Goel, M. (2009), Are you plagued with

unnecessary costs in your IT projects?SETLabs Briengs Journal, Vol 7 ,No

4 ,pp 4-10. Available at http://www.

infosys.com/infosys-labs/publications/

Documents/OLAR-project-costs.pdf


23/76

21

VOL 10 NO 22012

Effectiveness of EA Frameworksin Achieving BITA:

An Analysis Based on SAMM

By Ramkumar Dargha


Business IT Alignment (BITA) is oneof the main goals of any enterprisearchitecture (EA) initiatives. EA frameworks

like ZACHMAN [1], TOGAF [2], and FEA [3]

help organizations in their EA journey and

are expected to help achieve BITA goals. But

questions that constantly get probed like (a)how far the EA frameworks help in achieving

BITA; (b) what kind of support they provide and

what they do not; (c) whether they cover aspects

of aligning business to IT or IT to business, help

in assessing the utility and relevance of such

frameworks.

Among the many BITA effectiveness

measurement models available in literature,

the strategic alignment maturity assessment

model (SAMM) by Luftman et al [4] is the most

comprehensive model that is typically used to

assess the BITA alignment in an enterprise.

The 40+ factors provided in this model can

also be used as an assessment model to assess

the capability and support provide by other

EA frameworks for achieving BITA. This

paper attempts at applying the SAMM model

to the popular EA frameworks like TOGAF,ZACHMAN, etc., to analyze the effectiveness

of the support provided by these frameworks

in achieving BITA.

BUSINESS AND IT ALIGNMENT

BITA is the degree to which the enterprise

business components composing of business

models, business strategy, processes and

business organization are aligned with IT

infrastructure, IT applications, IT architecture

and IT organization or vice versa. Traditionally,

BITA is the degree to which the enterprisebusiness components composing of business

models, business strategy, processes and

business organization are aligned with IT


24/76

22

BITA meant referred to IT aligning with business.However, today enterprises have realized that

businesses too need to be aligned to IT. ITs

alignment with business or business alignment

with IT are not mutually exclusive. They co-

exist with alignment being the core point of

focus. SAMM allows one to analyze both the

perspectives. SAMM provides a set of criteria

that can be used to assess EA frameworks ability

and support to achieve BITA alignment. The

model captures different factors that determine

BITA effectiveness. SAMM organizes these

factors into six categories, viz., communication,

value measurement, governance, partnership,

scope and architecture, and skills maturity.

ANALYSIS OF EA FRAMEWORKS

USING SAMM MODEL

While there are multiple EA frameworks in

literature, it is important to restrict the scope

of this study to the most popular few to assess

if they are able to satisfy the different criteria

set by SAMM, thereby addressing the BITA

needs of an enterprise. For the purpose of this

study only a select few popular frameworks are

considered and they are analyzed against the

six criteria laid out of SAMM.

Communication Maturity

TOGAFs Architecture Development Method(ADM) is a popular method to develop

enterprise architecture. In addition to ADM,

TOGAF provides clear definitions, content

frameworks, templates, matrices, artifacts,

guidelines, techniques and reference models

for different components of architectures.

TOGAFs capability framework provides

guidelines on processes, skills, roles and

responsibilities required for establishing and

operating architecture functional group within

an enterprise.

So how do all these help in meeting therequired communication criteria prescribed by

SAMM model for BITA?

Artifacts and repository created as

part of TOGAFs architecture vision phase

helps communicate the vision, mission, goals,

drivers, value propositions, constraints, key

performance indicators (KPIs), risks, mitigation

activities and high level business, information,

application and technology architecture of EA

initiative. Stockholder expectations capture

stakeholders, their concerns and requirements

that is one of the first steps in creating the

communication plan.

The set of standard architectural

content and deliverables like architectural

building blocks, architecture contract ,

principles, requirements, roadmap, models,

change management plans, implementation

plan, compliance plan and other standard

architecture contents, as dened in TOGAF and

more elaborately in ZACHMAN framework,

provide a strong means of communication to

all stakeholders.

ZACHMAN frameworks specific

emphasis on architectural artifacts for different

perspectives/roles (like planner, owner,

designer, builder and subcontractor) and for

different aspects (what, how, where, who and

when) enables enterprises to create detailedartifacts that links the needs of different roles

and lifecycle stages, and thus plays a key role in

helping IT understand business and vice versa.

The goal of FEA frameworks

reference models is to facilitate communication,

cooperat ion, and col laborat ion across

organizational boundaries.

Liaison effectiveness that is an important

factor in SAMMs communication criterion can

be incorporated as part of the EA architecture

governance board or architecture capability


25/76

23

group. However, effectiveness measurementof such a liaison activity needs to be added

to the architecture performance measurement

framework.

The EA frameworks thus do a good job in

helping to achieve four of the six communication

needs as outlined by SAMM viz., understanding

of business by IT, understanding of IT by

business, inter/intra organization learning,

liaison effectiveness.

However, some gaps still exist in the three

frameworks, with respect to the remaining two

communications criteria. . For example, there

are no specic guidelines on communication

protocol exibility or protocol rigidity in the EA

frameworks. Also they do not elaborate much

on the communication plan aspects.

In addition, the frameworks do not

provide any specic guidelines for knowledge

sharing. Knowledge sharing is an important

element in the communication criteria as

laid out in SAMM. A typical knowledge

management initiative should take into account

the following four aspects:

Technology: These are the enabling

technologies that help in knowledge

gathering, creation, storing, distribution

and enhancement.

People: Issues related to motivating

employees and other participants in

knowledge creation and sharing.

Processes: Issues related to knowledge

creation process, knowledge protection,

IP and legal aspects.

Culture: Issues related to cultivating

the overall organizational culture of

openness.

Value Measurements MaturityIt refers to the measurement of value that IT

as a whole brings to business. Measuring such

a value effectively and making improvements

based on such value measurements is one

of the main criteria to measure BITA as

per SAMM. So the question is that of how

EA frameworks through their guidelines,

processes and recommendations help in IT

value measurement.

TOGAF has a section on performance

measurements within the architecture

governance module where EA performance

evaluation and business value evaluation of

such architecture is covered briey. ZACHMAN

framework also mentions about the importance

of capturing business value achieved in the

cells corresponding why aspect and planner/

owner perspectives. But the EA frameworks

do not provide comprehensive guidelines

and recommendations on how to measure

the business value of IT as a whole. These EA

frameworks need to be supplemented with other

standard IT measurement frameworks like -

Business Vaue Index (BVI): Used by

enterprises that are new to IT value

measurements as initial steps to IT value

measurement [5].

Total Economic Impact (TEI): From

the Forrester stable, this is a stronger

quantitative framework compared to

BVI. A big advantage of this method

is that it measures intangibles such as

exibility of IT as well [6].

Val IT: An IT Governance Institute

(ITGI) framework this is used mainly for

evaluating new investments rather than

current ongoing IT projects.


26/76

24

Applied Information Economics(AEI) : Very quantitative in nature it

is extremely complex in its nature but

presents the most accurate net present

value (NPV) analysis [7].

SAMM recommends measuring business

value through a balanced metrics approach

which essentially is the combination

of business and IT metrics. The listed

standard IT measurement frameworks

when applied with EA frameworks help

achieve the value measurements criterion

as prescribed by SAMM.

Governance Maturity

There are multiple types of governance that

are of importance to an enterprise, viz.,

corporate governance, IT governance and

architecture governance. SAMM deals with IT

and architecture governance aspects. The EA

frameworks like TOGAF and FEA deal mainly

with architecture governance. IT governance is

a much broader than architecture governance.

Forrester defines IT Governance as the

process by which decisions are made around

IT investments. How decisions are made? Who

makes the decisions? Who is held accountable,

how the results of decisions are measured and

monitored are all parts of IT governance? [8].TOGAF has a comprehensive architecture

governance framework consisting of context,

process, content, repository, monitoring,

reporting, structure, key success factors and

compliance guidelines. But the EA frameworks

do not have similar coverage for IT governance

and IT service level governance.

Enterprises have to use additional

governance frameworks like COBIT, ITIL and

COSO to meet the overall IT governance needs

[9, 10, 11].

C O B I T p r o v i d e s t h e m o s tcomprehensive governance framework with a

strong focus on process of governance, strong

auditing and controls perspectives. While

ITIL provides a framework for IT service

management, COBIT takes the perspective of

audit and control.

Other governance frameworks like

Forrester framework organize governance

around three main categories, viz., governance

structures, governance processes, and

governance communication. While the last

two aspects are addressed in COBIT and ITIL

to a certain degree, the Forrester framework

provides additional emphasis on governance

structures and reporting structures.

By using above frameworks in unison

with EA frameworks the enterprises would be

able to satisfy governance needs as set forth

by SAMM.

Partnership Maturity

The EA frameworks do not deal with business-

IT partnership model or guidelines explicitly.

But the EA frameworks implicitly capture

some of the important aspects required for

an effective business-IT partnership. Before

analyzing EA frameworks support for such a

relationship, let us look at some of the typical

key ingredients of a good partnership model.A partnership model is typically comprised

of some key ingredients like (a) drivers that

are a compelling reason to partner and that

set expectations on outcomes; (b) components

that joint activities and processes that build

and sustain the partnership; (c) facilitators

that enhance partnership growth; (d) outcomes

that refer to the extent performance meets

expectations; and (e) feedback that essentially

refers to the inputs given by partners for

continuous improvement.


27/76

25

Let us now analyze EA frameworkssupport in implementing a successful

partnership model.

Drivers: This aspect is actually an enterprise

level responsibility and is out of scope for a

typical EA framework. These drivers would

be set before venturing into an EA program.

Components: The EA frameworks propose

and recommend many activities and processes

that not only help in creating a good EA, but

indirectly help in building and sustaining

business-IT partnership. In TOGAFs ADM

model, almost all activities have both business

and IT aspects. For example, the stakeholder

lists for each activity and deliverable include IT

and business representatives, the architecture

governance board and architecture center of

excellence (COE) will have representatives

from both IT and business. In addition, the

architecture implementation starts with

business architecture with due importance given

to linking business architecture to subsequent

IT architectural components like information,

application and technology architectures.

Finally, business viewpoints are included in

each of the IT architecture artifacts as proposed

by TOGAF and ZACHMAN drives business-IT

collaboration. All these contribute to the core

components on which a business-IT partnershipcan prosper and function effectively.

Facilitators: The EA frameworks propose and

recommend setting up of architecture governance

board and architecture capability function or

COE. They also recommend representation of

both business and IT groups in these boards and

COEs. These boards/COEs and in addition to

focused/dedicated liaison teams can perform

the role of facilitators in building trust and

partnership between business and IT.

Outcomes: The most important outcomeof effective business-IT partnership would

be to achieve the goals of IT as required by

business. Though EA frameworks themselves

do not cover the metrics and performance

measurement in great detail, there are other

additional frameworks that can supplement to

achieve the outcomes.

Feedback: Facilitators and outcomes play an

important role in the feedback mechanism.

In addition, the stakeholder communication

section in the communication plan needs

to incorporate required formal feedback

mechanisms for IT-business partnership for the

purpose of continuous improvements.

As can be seen f rom the above

analysis, though the EA frameworks do not

explicitly address the business-IT partnership

needs, there are inherent mechanisms as

recommended by these EA frameworks

that can be utilized for such an effective

partnership model.

So how do all these match up to

SAMMs maturity criteria? The combination

of components, facilitators, outcomes and

feedback together can help improve business

perception of IT value and can enhance mutual

trust resulting in shared goals, risks and

rewards, all of which are important criteria inSAAM for achieving an effective business-IT

partnership model.

Scope and Architecture Maturity

SAMMs scope and architecture component

measures ITs ability to create a flexible

infrastructure, its ability to evaluate and apply

emerging technologies, its ability to enable

or drive business process changes, and its

delivery of valuable customized solutions to

internal business units and external customers


28/76

26

or partners [12]. This component answerssome of the questions like: To what extent has

IT evolved to become more than just business

support? How has IT helped the business

to grow, compete and prot? The criterion

covers two important items: (i) ITs ability to

create exible IT systems to satisfy the ever

changing business needs in an agile and efcient

manner; and (ii) ITs ability to perform the role

of a business enabler or driver rather than

just as business support or business process

automation function.

The first aspect above is addressed

to a great extent in EA frameworks. For

instance, both TOGAF and FEA EA frameworks

lay significant emphasis on technology,

information, security and implementation

standards. In all EA deliverables prescribed

by TOGAF, compliance to standards is given a

very important role. TOGAF includes separate

sections on technologies and frameworks that

enable implementation of a standard and exible

architecture. Standards information base (SIB)

is one of the main components of TOGAFs

architecture repository. The SIB captures the

standards with which new architectures must

comply, which may include industry standards,

selected products and services from suppliers,

or shared services already deployed within the

organization. TOGAF also prescribes usingother related standard frameworks like ITIL,

CMMI, COBIT, PRINCE2, PMBOK as applicable

in different phases of EA implementation

cycle[13,14].

FEA too recommends application

development, technology implementation,

project management, governance, vendor

management, production operation, architecture

governance, conguration management and

problem resolution in every phase of EA

lifecycle implementation.

Standards and flexible architecturesprescribed by EA frameworks provide a

mechanism to create flexible and standards

based IT infrastructures that are more amenable

for implementing an agile and efcient system. .

Standard and exible architectures satisfy

SAMMs criteria like standard articulation,

architectural integrat ion, architectural

transparency and exibility.

Skills Maturity

EA frameworks provide a comprehensive

coverage on the skills denition and depth of

knowledge required by different roles in an EA

team. TOGAF covers skills from different skill

dimensions viz., generic skills, business skills,

EA skills, program/project management skills,

IT general knowledge skills, technical IT skills

and legal environment skills) and also covers

different roles viz., architect board member,

architect sponsor, EA manager, technology/

data/application architects, managers and IT

designers in each of the dimensions.

B y f o l l o w i n g t h e g u i d e l i n e s a n d

recommendations prescribed by TOGAF

as above, an enterprise would be able to

satisfy most of the skills criteria set forth by

SAMM. But few other criteria like innovation,

entrepreneurship, locus of power, trusting

environment and career crossover havemore to do with generic organization skills/

capabilities, for which enterprises need to

leverage standard practices available in

organizational management literature.

CONCLUSIONS

A thorough evaluation of EA frameworks

against the canvas of SAMM suggests that

they are riddled with the lacunae of being

reactive frameworks. Hence, it would do

well for an enterprise architect to adopt an


29/76

27

extended framework that consists of the

current EA frameworks along with some key

supplementary frameworks and that meet the

criteria set forth by SAMM to achieve awless

BITA [Fig 1].

Using this extended framework, an enterprise

can proactively take measures and employ

practices to satisfy BITA needs rather than rst

discovering gaps and then taking measureswhile implementing an EA initiative.

Compared to TOGAF, ZACHMAN and

the like, it is more comprehensive and enhances

the repertoire of tools that an EA consultant can

have before embarking on an EA engagement.

It denes a pre-dened set of tools/frameworks

that an EA consultant can pick and choose

during an EA engagement. This increases the

predictability of success of an EA engagement

and reduces time to get started on such an

engagement.

It must however be understood that the

extended framework does not re-invent the

wheel but uses the existing frameworks like

TOGAF, ZACHMAN and builds on top of these

frameworks to address the gaps in order to meet

the BITA needs.

REFERENCES

1. The Zachman Framework. Available

at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zachman_Framework

2. TOGAF Framework. Available at http://

www.opengroup.org/togaf/

3. FEA Enterprise Architecture. Available at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_

Enterprise_Architecture

4. Luftman J., (2000) et al, Assessing Business

IT alignment Maturity, Communications

of the Association for Information Systems

AIS, Vol. 4, Issue 14. Available at http://

aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol4/iss1/14

Business IT

Alignment

EA Frameworks

EA Frameworks

Skills

Organization Learning

Model

Innovation Management

Model

Scope and Architecture

IT driven BPR frameworks

Extended BPR frameworks

Industry Case Studies

Communication

Knowledge

Management Tools

Specialist Liaison Groups

Flexible Protocol Structures

Value Measurements

Business Value Index

Val IT Model

TEI Model

AIE Model

IT Balanced Scorecard

Partnerships

Trust based Strategic

Partnership Models

Cross Participation

Team Effectiveness

Models

Governance

COBIT

ITIL

COSO

ISO 17799

Figure 1: Extended BITA Framework Source: Infosys Research


30/76


31/76

29

VOL 10 NO 22012

Proactive performance engineering holds thekey to improving performance and scalabilityrequirements in a modernization initiative

Proactive PerformanceEngineering for

E-commerce ModernizationBy Saurabh Kumar Mishra, Balaji Subbaraman and Rohit Christopher
