RE: [tgf] NEW TGF PATTERN

[Chris Parker <chris.parker@cstransform.com>]

John

I'd certainly see any reference architecture as needing to cover IoT, so they're certainly not mutually exclusive.

Grateful for views from the rest of the TC on whether a reference architecture would be a useful addition to the TC.  

My own thinking on this was very much informed by the process of working on the BSI smart city framework, where:

- several vendors (IBM, Microsoft, Living PlanIT etc) have similar looking models for an open platform architecture which they recommend to cities
- cities are nevertheless concerned about risk of lock-in to a particular vendor, so tend to be intrinsically distrustful of such vendor-sponsored models, however much they talk about open standards and interoperability
- so there seems real potential value in bringing some of these models together into a consensus model which can command cross-industry support.

In the context of the SCF, BSI concluded that the work needed to do this was out of scope for the initial SCF exercise.  And as I said earlier, I'm unsure how much work is actually involved.  This is out of my area of expertise, so I don't really have a feel for whether it's just half a day's work for the right group of people, or actually it would take months of work and negotiation to get something different market players could converge on.  Like I say, grateful for views from others.

Chris Parker
Managing Partner, CS Transform
+44 7951 754060
________________________________________
From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [tgf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of John Borras [johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: 30 May 2014 11:31
To: TGF TC List
Subject: Re: [tgf] NEW TGF PATTERN

Chris

I'm totally open-minded on this and it's one of the challenges for us to agree how much and what detail we would put into any new pattern. I'm too distant now from the customer end to judge what the needs are and so look to you and others on the TC to spell out what you believe is necessary.

If you see the real need is for a reference architecture of some sort then that would be more appropriate for inclusion in the Tech Mgmt pattern(s) as you suggest.  And it seems to me that we could do that irrespective of any references to the IoT aspects.  But if our main driver is to address the IoT issues then the question is as I have posed, ie do a new pattern or just expand the existing ones.

So are the two aspects ie a reference architecture and  the IoT issues, mutually exclusive or is the former the answer to the latter?

John

From: Chris Parker <chris.parker@cstransform.com>
To: John Borras <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk>; TGF TC List <tgf@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Friday, 30 May 2014, 11:07
Subject: RE: [tgf] NEW TGF PATTERN

John

Thanks for getting this started.

I guess the key questions for me are: a) how much detail can we sensibly get into to underpin this? and b) if the answer is not much, then is it worth doing a separate pattern rather than simply expanding the existing technology management patterns?

When you first raised the idea of a 'TGF Platform Pattern', I assumed this would include - at least at a high level - some sort of reference architecture for an open and vendor-neutral platform which is supportive of the TGF approach to business and service transformation.  I've seen a number of these from different vendors (see for example Microsoft's recommendations on a non-proprietary reference architecture for government at Fig 24 on p27 of their Connected Government Framework, which is published here: http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/9/C/99C30A08-745F-4DC0-A0BF-8DC0DC9D422B/CGFReferenceSolutionArchitectures.pdf), and some governments have also done some work in this area (I think for example that Nig has been involved with work on a cross-government enterprise architecture for the UK?).  I could see real value in the TC looking to develop some sort of consensus model in this space - but don't have much feel for how much work would be involved.  Is this how you see your draft pattern developing, or do you see it as staying at the narrative level?

Regards,

Chris Parker
Managing Partner, CS Transform
+44 7951 754060
________________________________________
From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org<mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org> [tgf@lists.oasis-open.org<mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org>] On Behalf Of John Borras [johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk<mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk>]
Sent: 30 May 2014 09:25
To: TGF TC List
Subject: Re: [tgf] NEW TGF PATTERN

Thanks Nig.  Some suggested wording would be good if you've got the time and inclination.....-)

John

From: Greenaway Nigel <Nig.Greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com<mailto:Nig.Greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com>>
To: TGF TC List <tgf@lists.oasis-open.org<mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org>>
Sent: Friday, 30 May 2014, 9:19
Subject: RE: [tgf] NEW TGF PATTERN

Hi John,
                I think this is a good start. It sparked a few thoughts in my mind where things are starting to change and TGF can add some value (e.g. around leveraging other initiatives such as smart metering, etc. that we can draw out in the detail.. I think we should be able to build up a rich (but not overloaded) pattern and with amendments in the other areas that you outline be able to incorporate the topic with skewing the TGF or changing its overall character.


Regards

Nig

Nig Greenaway
Fujitsu Fellow

FUJITSU
Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 8SN
Tel: +44 (0) 843 354 5637 Internal: 7444 5637
Mob : +44 (0) 7867 833147 Internal: 7383 3147
E-mail: nig.greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com<mailto:nig.greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com><mailto:nig.greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com<mailto:nig.greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com>>
Web: http://uk.fujitsu.com/<http://uk.fujitsu.com/>




From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org<mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org> [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org<mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org>] On Behalf Of John Borras
Sent: 29 May 2014 15:09
To: TGF TC List
Subject: Fw: [tgf] NEW TGF PATTERN

Following on from our discussion about this topic on the last TC call, I've put together a discussion document attached which sets out the basis of a new pattern and other consequential amendments to the TGF.  Before I go too much further down the drafting route what do people think about this as the approach to pursue?

You'll see I'm suggesting we do not use the term Internet of Things if we can avoid it so that we are not seen to be jumping on the latest bandwagon and using new buzzwords, but trying to elaborate in plain simple English what this new component is about.  From what I can see there is still no common definition of IoT and that's another reason for avoiding the term.

Can I have your views on this draft and suggested additional wording for inclusion in the new pattern and the other existing patterns.  If it's not what you have in mind then please articulate your alternative approach.


John

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: John Borras <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk<mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk><mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk<mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk>>>
To: TGF TC List <tgf@lists.oasis-open.org<mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org><mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org<mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org>>>; "colin_wallis@hotmail.com<mailto:colin_wallis@hotmail.com><mailto:colin_wallis@hotmail.com<mailto:colin_wallis@hotmail.com>>" <colin_wallis@hotmail.com<mailto:colin_wallis@hotmail.com><mailto:colin_wallis@hotmail.com<mailto:colin_wallis@hotmail.com>>>
Sent: Friday, 9 May 2014, 14:25
Subject: Fw: [tgf] NEW TGF PATTERN?

Picking up on Chris' point 4 below, what do people think about the idea of producing a new pattern along the lines of
"aiming to map out at a high level the technology architecture which best supports the sort of open and citizen-centric approach recommended in TGF.  This would take some of the principles already enunciated in Pattern T2 (Technology Development and Management) and show what these look like in terms of a high level architectural model based on open standards"

And if we go down this route are there any existing models that members know of or would like to contribute rather than us starting with a blank sheet of paper?

Thoughts please so we can have a focussed discussion on the next call rather than an open-ended brainstorm.

John


----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Chris Parker <chris.parker@cstransform.com<mailto:chris.parker@cstransform.com><mailto:chris.parker@cstransform.com<mailto:chris.parker@cstransform.com>>>
To: John Borras <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk<mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk><mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk<mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk>>>; TGF TC List <tgf@lists.oasis-open.org<mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org><mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org<mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org>>>
Sent: Thursday, 8 May 2014, 14:58
Subject: RE: [tgf] NEW TGF PATTERN?

John

With apologies for the delay, here are some thoughts on the IoT issue, and your suggestion of a new pattern.

My thoughts run something like this:

1) TGF doesn't feel like the place to address any standards development needs that IoT may throw up at the technical level
2) At a business and organisational change level, I'm not convinced that IoT throws up new issues that aren't dealt with in TGF already.  Yes, it is another important and disruptive wave of technology change, but all of the challenges the public sector faces in getting benefit from it feel like the familiar silo and cultural issues TGF is already aimed at addressing.
3) So there may be a case for weaving more reference to IoT into the TGF narrative, but it doesn't feel to me like a pattern in its own right.
4) That said, I think there is real potential in your idea of a 'Platform Management' pattern of some sort.  I would see this as being more part of the Technology Management section of the TGF, aiming to map out at a high level the technology architecture which best supports the sort of open and citizen-centric approach recommended in TGF.  This would take some of the principles already enunciated in Pattern T2 (Technology Development and Management) and show what these look like in terms of a high level architectural model based on open standards.  A number of TC participants like Microsoft and Oracle already have such models they use with government clients, and there is a good degree of commonality.  So I could see value in looking to develop some sort of consensus model in this space, which covered but was not solely focused on IoT.

Look forward to discussing further on the call.



Chris Parker
Managing Partner, CS Transform
+44 7951 754060
________________________________________

From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org<mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org><mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org<mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org>> [tgf@lists.oasis-open.org<mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org><mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org<mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org>>] On Behalf Of John Borras [johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk<mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk><mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk<mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk>>]



Sent: 02 May 2014 10:57
To: TGF TC List
Subject: [tgf] NEW TGF PATTERN?

I've had 2 separate but related email discussions going on over the last couple of weeks.

First my email to the list concerning the Internet of Things to which Nig has so far responded, see attached.  And second a discussion with Hans concerning the Man to Machine interface and Scenario Planning, see attached.

It seems to me that these two aspects are closely related and perhaps point to a new Service Management pattern in the TGF.  It could be another dimension of Channel Management but I feel there is a difference between Channels and Platforms and therefore we could be talking about a new Platform Management pattern.  I'm not sure what the new pattern would say other than raising awareness of this aspect and pointing to the new work in ISO and IEEE that Coin pointed us to on the last call.  It's also interesting the OASIS has just issued a new information note on the IoT and M2M although it doesn't suggest that any new work is about to start in the organisation but it is clearly an emerging topic.

I'll put this on the agenda for our next TC call but it would be good to get some views in advance of that please.  Is there something for us to consider and develop a new pattern or not?

John



Unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu Services Limited, from Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, or from Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, together "Fujitsu".

This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free.

Fujitsu Services Limited, registered in England No 96056, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW.

Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, registered in England No 03808613, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW.

PFU Imaging Solutions Europe Limited, registered in England No 1578652, registered office Hayes Park Central, Hayes End Road, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 8FE.

Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, registered in England No 2548187, registered office Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, Birmingham, B37 7YU.