 Rwy'n fawr, ac mae gennym rhai gweithio gweithio i'r gweithio. Rwy'n fawr, oeddwn i'r meddwl gyda'r cymryd, rydym yn hynny o'r adeiladau. Wrth gwrs, roeddwn i'n meddwl, rwy'n meddwl i'r gweithiau. Roeddwn i'n meddwl i'r meddwl i'r gyfroedd yr ystod o gweld, sy'n mynd i'r cyfrifio ar y ddisgrifennu cyfroedd. is the senior vice president and CTO of the application services for continental Europe in Capgemi. He is also the governing board director of the Open Group and his interest at the moment is in app's rationalisation, the cloud enterprise mobility, the power of open, and we love the O. Slow tech, processed technologies, the Internet of Things, and He's designing above all radical cymdeithasol. Felly, rwy'n fawr i'r Rhondda Llywodraeth. Next up, we're going to turn to IBM, Andrew Salkal, and IBM, as most people would have their own image of IBM. So, if I say it's a technology services and product provider, you kind of get the... I don't need to introduce them particularly. Andrew is vice president and CTO of IBM US Federal and he's also on the governing board of the open group. He's been a driving force behind IBM's adoption of federal government IT standards. He's a member of the IBM software group strategy team. He and his architect team have been responsible for helping the federal government move e-government into the on-demand era. You would probably pronounce it differently than that one, the on-demand era. And his team has been directly involved with multiple high-profile, successful government software and services engagements based on open standards. So, different kind of organisation, hopefully different but consensual views. Third up is TJ Verdy, where's TJ from the Boeing company. And the Boeing company is an organisation of many parts. So, I need to explain which part of Boeing that TJ represents. So, within Boeing they are sometimes a vendor of products and services, especially on the military side. And sometimes they're a customer of enterprise products and services. The relationship we've always had with Boeing in the open group has been as a customer. And so, think of it now, we've got the customer side perspective to balance the other two. And a customer that is a huge organisation, they are the organisation that inspired the vision of Boundaries Information Flow along with EADS and some other transportation companies. We did a round table with some CIOs from a number of these companies and in fact, if you look at the slides we used to describe Boundaries Information Flow and the breakdown of the silos when I do that, those slides were provided to us by the Boeing company. TJ is a senior enterprise IT architect, he's co-chair of the Platform 3.0 forum. He provides technical expertise within Boeing and in the industry to enable strategic IT initiatives targeted to achieve competitive advantage by exploiting the use of cloud, social media, analytics, mobility and other emerging technologies. So, to moderate the panel, we have Dave Lounsbury and Dave Lounsbury is... I can't remember. Dave is the Vice President of CTO of the Open Group, of course, he's been with us for many, many years. He's very well respected in the industry, very little else to say about Dave. And he's going to do all the moderation stuff, so I'm going to get out of the way. Please welcome our panel. Thank you Alan for that great introduction and Ron, Andrew, DJ, thank you very much for participating in the panel. So, it was about a year ago, 2013, we started seeing this concept of a third platform, game currency, with the Gartner reports and some of the others in the industry. And when it started out, it was these broad concepts of, well, maybe it's big data, maybe it's mobile, maybe it's cloud. So, since then, has an industry consensus emerged on what the definition of a platform is? You know, it's a coherent reference model coming out of the work that's been going on here and other places. And, if so, what are the big pieces in that and how do you see them fitting together? Ron, you want to start us off? Yes, sure. I don't think there's a coherent reference model available anytime soon, but for sure the Open Group would be one of the communities that could be working on such a definition. To me, what's much more important is that it's truly a revolutionary step forward, which you can only compare to the emergence of the mainframe first and then the PC second. Everybody knows that the revolution that came with the PC and client-server architectures democratised access to information and technology and it brought us into an entirely new era of methodologies, how we created solutions, who were creating solutions. I think it's very important because the departments and the business units could do it themselves. We still know, by the way, what it could lead to, so I'm not saying that it was an easy revolution or something, but it was clearly a very important step. And to me the real significance of the third platform is exactly the same. We're now entering an era in which we see that different parts of the organisation start to embrace IT once more. We see an unmatched enthusiasm for technology, by the way, at the business side of organisations nowadays, not necessarily for IT people, by the way, but certainly for IT. So that's in itself a revolution, but I think you can only compare it with when the PC came in terms of entirely new ways of creating solutions, entirely new places within the organisation, how you do it, entirely new generation of tools that you do it and a multitude of applications and solutions, which cannot even be compared to what we've been doing in the past few years. So maybe the definition is not that interesting, but we're clearly in an era now, in sort of a revolutionary point in time right now, which I think is the real essence of the third platform. The democratisation points an interesting one, we'll come back to that. Andres, what's your view on convergence? Well I think we need to decompose your question, right? A reference model, I don't think I would agree with everything that Ron said first off, that we're evolving towards a better understanding of what we mean by platform 3.0, but a reference model evolves from a set of observable reference architectures. So what is a reference architecture? A reference architecture is a repeatable pattern that has been seen to work in the field over and over again successfully and then we create a logical representation of that so that it helps guide implementation of future systems. And then a reference model is kind of a higher conceptualized version of reference architectures to characterize a platform or a set of architectures. Do we have an agreed upon consensus on exactly what that looks like right now? I think we have an inkling of where we're going, how it somewhat fits together. I think that we wouldn't have a platform 3.0 forum if we didn't have lots of work to do here. So one of the things we do have to do is we have to go down to the observable, create those reference architectures and continuously ask the question if our reference model is valid, or reference models in many cases might be. I offered one kind of a nascent reference model in my blog. That was in the blog post, right? That was a great post, actually. The concept is quite a bit. Let me come back to saying a few more about what was in that, but I'd like to hear TJ's view on where we are and how it's coming together. So I think we have a fragmented model. It's not really a coherent model right now. We are working towards that, and most industries and other areas are also trying to get into that aspect. I do agree that we don't have that fully reference model defined yet, and that's the space we are working towards. I notice nobody has been bold enough yet anyway to talk about what the big pieces you see are coming into that. Does anybody want to hazard a guess as what are the broad blocks of what's going to end up in such a platform? Well, I did propose a few. I think that even since the eight weeks or nine weeks ago that we started trying to work together to create a white paper and have this discussion in the forum that there has been even some changes in some perceptions. Let me give you an example. I suggested that it was pretty well defined. We all understand that the transactional systems and the core business capabilities must continue to exist. That's kind of like the crown jewels of our business processes within our enterprise or organization, and those are systems of records. The new evolving platform is the mobile platform where it's a system of engagement. It's capturing information. It's the user interface, as well as a new computing platform in and of itself. There's that piece, and then you have the Internet of Things, which is a sensor-based, pervasive computing. All three of these things are coming together, enabled through big data. For example, recently, both IBM and HP started calling the big data piece systems of insight. I personally think that you have a system of insight that is associated with business capabilities, but you don't have just one system of insight. Ron, T.J., Reaction Time. I just have the feeling that it's not the real essence of what we would call the third platform. By the way, I would tend to, just for the record, I would tend to give a bit more credit to IDC in all of this. We're talking a lot about the nexus of forces and this gardener categorization of applications. I think IDC actually introduced the notion of the third platform. That's correct. There's the real essence to me. First platform, mainframe, second one, PC, two big revolutionary areas. Third one, happening right now, which is not necessarily what type of system is it, actually. Are we interacting or engaging or is it insight, but the very fact that there's an explosion of solutions and that the way that we create them, much closer to the business, I would say in general, with a much shorter lifecycle, typically, and a much higher degree of connect of being connected is much more the essence of what you call this third platform. So if we start to reference model ourselves to death, it actually will not really help us. We really need to understand the revolution that's currently going on. Why actually are people in the business nowadays once more enthusiastic about IT, but more typically say these damn IT people, we don't care for them. But we do love IT. We do love what we can do with technology. I think that's the real question that we need to answer. And what we should do from an IT industry perspective to let's say change that attitude a little bit. This is not just what's being done, but how we're doing it. TJ. Yes, so I think if we need to put some phrases, I would think like there may be some kind of guidance for architectures and possibly looking into how semantic interoperable information would be flowing across the enterprise or as well as across the ecosystems in different industry areas. And then some kind of like a maybe coming back to the reference model or some kind of a standardization of, you know, exchange information exchange would be a good thing to have to really make this things more coherent in terms of it. So I would think like if you work on that areas and providing those kind of guidance and making this more like a... And the last part I forgot about the security aspects. Because when we're talking about all this machine or human and all other things that need to work together to really provide an actionable information to a right person. And that needs to be worked on very hard from the beginning. Wouldn't it be nice to turn the perspective a little bit around? So you're talking from the open platform 3.0 perspective, but you mentioned already a lot of different areas that I think are, you know, delegates over here from all of these forms over here in the room as well. So you mentioned security, which I think rightfully so. We've already been talking architecture. And by the way, talk of nine, splendid, big asset, industry standard. Is it fit for the third platform or has it been designed for the first and the second? I tend to think so. So architecture question, what does it mean? Then of course competencies. So let's say a certification. We've created these certifications for IT specialists and architects in the era of the first and the second platform. So yet another question. Then security. We should ask probably security people how do you deal, how do you cope with these new challenges of the third platform. So my hypothesis would be that there are very few forums over here today that wouldn't be impacted by the notion of the third platform. So the question would be how much should we actually do in the working group and how much to what extent should we actually invite each and every working group or forum to engage in this thinking because it's literally a new era. I almost think that we ought to be the requirements gathering forum for the whole. I do think that there is some things that we could do within platform 3.0 ourselves, but you're absolutely 100% correct. I mean integration and architecture go hand in hand and I think the piece that we are missing is how do you actually make all of this cohesively work together. It's not about a new platform for computing. It's all the new business capabilities that you can achieve through adopting this new platform. And so then you can then go a step further and work on security and if you understand integration or how things fit together then you can secure them. I personally don't think you can just apply security concepts without understanding how pieces fit together. I think that one comes before another. But the hypothesis of course that security will have an entirely different dimension in the world of this platform because we designed it to thrive in the era of the first and the second. And maybe it would be a serious inhibitor the way we look at security if we're moving towards the power of this platform. And that's a question we need to ask ourselves I think each and every individual probably in this room as well in terms of the era that I'm particularly involved in to what extent is it affected by what's currently happening. And we'll be happening very soon. Since you mentioned questions don't forget this cards on all the tables. We do want to take questions from the audience a little bit later on. I'm sure I'm going to run out of questions before too long. So please get yours ready. Mon, you mentioned something that I'm kind of interested in that is that pace of innovation that's going on in this area. And you see not just the technology news about new data handling and new analysis tools which kind of go more along with the evolution of the systems of record development that's always been mighty. But you also see the things that are closer to the edge particularly in the internet of things space. You see new devices and to me most interestingly new platforms coming out every day. And one of the interesting characteristics of these is all of them are designed to dramatically lower the barrier to bringing pieces together. Particularly the frameworks you see in the internet of things space is really kind of pushing that out to the edge or lowering the barrier on that. So the great news here is there's all this innovation that really drives progress quickly. But Andras, your blog said the hallmark of successful enterprise systems architecture is a standardized and stable platform. And it seems like this pace of change that Ron has alluded to brings us anything but that. Well, the initial shift always brings a little chaos, right? But you do have to have some of that stability in order to recognize it as a formal platform. So, you know, how, you know, since we're the open group is an organization that does standards, whether they're standards for technology, but also standards for how people do things, you know, like methodology, right? So how do you see those coming together? Do you see that as the either of those is the proper role for where the different platform 3.0 form is heading? Me? Or Ron? Whoever wants to meet me. It's not exactly clear who you're looking at. I'm looking down on why. Really, really. We're going to have the whole panel weigh in on this. So I think that let's talk about, you know, how some of these companies who are, you know, our members are contributing to this pivot and inflection. I think innovation is really important. I think when you talk about standards you have to talk about interoperability. To me, one of the great assets of the open group is the work that we do around architecture, patterns, best practices, and helping facilitate the entire industry moving forward to a level of maturity that is, you know, necessary and sufficient for all of us. So I don't think that you can start off the conversation with saying we need to standardize. I think we need to understand the areas that need, you know, some hand-holding and some facilitating so that we can actually realize the innovation around this new platform. Because we don't want to slow it down. We want to actually facilitate it. And I think that the way in which we're actually building technology these days is slightly different than in the past. And you can't talk about standardization before you actually realize that innovation. Different? Different? Well, you know, if you look out in the, you know, the cloud world, you have so many different languages. I mean, so many different ways of actually developing solutions. If you look at Instagram, for example, that company went through some odd iterations of their platform architecture. And it was very rapid over a period of time. And they did a lot of innovation themselves to get to the next generation. So they couldn't really standardize. They were actually, you know, in the wild west, really, trying to do something very new and innovative. So if you look at it from that perspective, a lot of the new solutions around Platform 3.0 have never been tried before. Right? Especially if you integrate the Internet of Things through business processes and capability and provide, you know, dynamic machine to machine interaction. You know, you simply just can't start off with a conversation of standardization. You have to, you do have to help everybody understand what are the best practices, what has worked and actually help us define what it is those reference architectures models are. And then that can feed into the other points that you made, Ron. I want to ask, because TJ is our co-chair, I want to see, you know, how do you see the work of the group evolving given what we've heard about the pace and position? Yeah, I think we got a head start, actually, and we have certain areas where we actually kind of matured in terms of defining how we're going to provide data in a way that it could be used across, you know, different places. And also, security is also, we actually worked on it with the forum and trying to work together to really address new concerns business has and also, you know, other areas where we need to really make sure that it is very robust and doing some kind of a ways to really analyze up front. So, if we take that head start and keep on moving towards it, I think, you know, we will get better off in terms of defining the reference architecture and really standardizing things in such a way that it would be used across our member organizations and beyond that. So, I truly believe that we are working towards that and it's a good way to really go forward with it instead of just really overanalyzing, you know, the current things. We are hearing about nexus of forces for a long while, almost three, four years, and no other, you know, consortium is really working towards creating these kind of standards. And we might want to do better than we did when the PC came, which was the second platform, because we all know that it's, you know, ended up for many years, arguably even until today in a, you know, chaotic disaster because everybody started to do their own things and it was great. It was the democratization of technology and everybody was enthusiastic about it, but it went all different ways and it took us decades, literally, in the IT industry to clean up the mess that we created ourselves, by the way. And I think we could do better right now by being much more proactive in terms of the type of platform services you would be supplying from the IT perspective to this new aspiring world around you. Probably, in many cases, business driven and be much more proactive in terms of what services will be supplying to that world so that they can quickly, entirely new rhythm, build the next generation of solutions while bridging what we have in the back office or what we have in our existing systems, which I think is one of the biggest issues we have to tackle. Standardisation, by the way, goes hand in hand with innovation, I sincerely believe. So standardisation is very good for innovation. You need to create a highly standardized platform to your point because only then you can let it go and go all sorts of different directions. If you don't have that highly standardized platform, it also will go all directions, but not orchestrated. And again, it will take us decades to clean up the mess, which I don't think is a good idea. I work at the open group because before the open group I worked at a mini-computer company who kind of didn't make it. Mini-computers. Mini-computers. Mini-computers. Mini-computers, that sounds nice. Mini-computers. Sort of between the first and the second platform, mini-computers. Oh wait a minute here. I love it. Just to add quickly here, I think I believe the technical problems are easy to solve than business problems and looking into the business areas. I think we have a good opportunity to really provide a platform at a technical level which any enterprise or anyone can use to make a business solution of it. Well I think one of the really important aspects of what we're going to do in the forum is actually be kind of a center of gravity for gathering requirements for the industry and reflecting them back out and actioning some of them here in the open group. The moniker in the open group is making standards work and we do a tremendous amount of leading standards in the industry as well as creating our own standards. So I think that if we do the right job in the platform 3.0 environment, especially since we're not going to be able to solve all the problems even in the forum itself, other forums are going to participate, we're really going to be doing a lot of documenting the requirements and gathering case studies and helping folks understand the current state of the art and what needs to change as well as suggesting standards and such. It's not just the vision and not just being the technical standards but some of that process management. I know that the group has in fact looked at things like innovation management and those processes. Do you see that coming into it? TJ, is that the car? If you look at IT for IT for example, the forum that was just launched yesterday, you could argue that part of those processes, the way that we look there and that reference architecture is very much based on what we've done so far. But you already see some of the newer areas emerge there as well like DevOps, which is a sheer necessity DevOps in terms of a continuous delivery and development cycle which is completely entwined because otherwise you have the gap and that's already too much of a difference between two areas within the entire life cycle. So you see an entirely new rhythm already created over there, which you could argue is fundamentally different from the way that we've been looking at life cycles so far. So it has an impact on methodology I think and our own core processes just as much. I think it has a huge impact on architecture and methodology and enterprise architecture because there's a bit of an impedance mismatch when you look at these different classes of systems. If you have established sensor network and you've already architected that solution, then the data flow can certainly be used within a system of insight analyzed to shunt to some sort of system of record and business process informing that, interacting with your end user on the mobile platform and the engagement environment and so on and so forth. But if you look at how CRM systems or ERP or even the new EMM systems of the world actually are architected and implemented, their rate and pace and change and how their actually solution is slightly different than the rate of pace and change that uses a DevOps model in the sense that many folks are using it on the cloud right now. So we're going to have to do a lot of work I think Ron in order to figure out how we're going to address all these different rate and pace and change requirements in these different system types because they're not all things being equal, they're not, right? Clearly and in a new world we might not even be speaking of requirements anymore because it's platform based. We look at the catalogue and what's in the platform and that will drive our innovation processes. So in the end, if you look at Tokyo, for example, which has requirements completely central, you know, it's the center of the universe and then we have the crop circles around it. If you think about it, maybe that even would completely change once you are on this new era of platforms and you wouldn't even really be articulating requirements anymore, but you would be thinking maybe in terms of value scenarios you want to fulfill. And then immediately you turn to the platform and see how it can drive these value scenarios, which is a fundamentally different way of looking at it than the requirements first way of thinking. And this is really a holistic issue, I think, as I said, which needs to be addressed I think in each and every forum and working group of the open group rather than solely in the open platform free. I think we actually based over foundations, for example, those cloud computing, you know, workgroup we have, we had some standards made on that one. Big data work is also going on in the platforms and then security forum is doing, helping us to do that. And I.T. for I.T. we are looking into how we can make this platform or in a way to provide a service model on these platforms so it could be very innovative and agile way to really produce new business solutions. So we are working towards doing that so, you know, all members are really encouraged to, you know, provide us some guidance and requirements so we can actually address them properly. I want to ask two more questions and I want to pull on this theme of moving, you know, things beyond the enterprise, moving things out to the edge. One of which I'm going to have to come back to you, Ron, and ask you, you mentioned machine-to-machine interaction. So I'm concerned not everybody in the room will know quite what you meant by machine-to-machine interaction, what's your definition of it. And, you know, how does this, I think we've probably always had machine-to-machine interaction, but how does the growth of machine-to-machine interaction affect what needs to be in the platform or the way we view the platform and does it drive other things coming in like, you know, more automation or even, dare we say, cognition going on as part of the platform. Ron, fathos. What does machine-to-machine? No, but it's definitely, again, of course we've always had machine-to-machine connection, but you could say in terms of the technology as it currently emerges, essentially almost anything could have intelligence and be connected to other things. And it's one of these explosions that actually make the third platform revolution right now. So we're not stuck anymore at PCs or something, but the things might be that the very incarnation and visualization of information might be through these things. And, of course, they'll be interconnected as well. Everything could be a sensor, so it would be providing us with input and stimuli, but equally, anything could be a tool to engage with and communicate and actually access information as well. And I think the sheer size of that, the magnitude of that, we clearly crossed the bridge as well. And that makes for an explosion in a number of applications, the number of solutions, the number of connections. And that's something we need to address and something we've never seen before because this is entirely new to the industry. We've never seen such a diversity. Can you say you want to respond? Yeah, actually I was just probably going to quote something from either, I think it was from Gartner or Forrestam, not sure, but by 2017 I think they were predicting the machines would be doing more learning than doing the processing. So, they're going to be more smarter as they go forward and they're just going to help us make decisions whether, you know, how you program in that way to make more algorithmic processing done up front so human interactions would be a little bit less than actually machine is taking actions on behalf of humans and trying to make sure that it still has the checks and balances there, so you're not doing something which is totally out of bounds. So, you know, to really speed up what I call activities as well as making decisions, those machines would be doing more what I call learning than processing. Well, I mean machine to machine interaction really kind of to me refers to pervasive computing, the use of sensor networks and the interaction between devices in a way that as TJ and Ron have suggested that they're making, you know, decisions based on models without human interaction. And if you look at OSIM level seven, if you go back to, you know, the service integration maturity model, which really the open platform three is based on, you know, the foundation as TJ suggested really is service oriented computing, cloud computing and so on and so forth and all of the integration techniques that we used and worked on here in the open group for such a long time. We didn't just forget them. This isn't a shift away from that. You know, just like all technologies, we kind of stand on the back of the last Rev. But it's important to realize that, you know, when we're talking about machine to machine interaction, we're talking about dynamically reconfigurable business processes and capabilities. So if you look at how this will work, you, you will have an in context change in how the business process flows. So for example, if you have a, you know, a situation where you have a set of sensor net, you know, signals to your in infrastructure in your systems or record that, let's say you have a certain reduction in your your supply chain or you have a degradation of the devices that are deployed into the field. You know, you have the old use case of Caterpillar using all the devices in you promise. And, you know, I think that's a really good example of how that you would then refresh the supply chain and restart manufacturing for those components that are actually going to have to be replaced in the future. And that's an example of it. Yeah. Well, that's actually a good example because it leads into the next question and we're going to take questions from the floor again. So if you do have them, make sure you hand them into, I guess Lawrence collecting Chris. Good. Plenty of questions from the floor. So I better leave plenty of time. But I got to get one last question and I'm going to put the spotlight on TJ, which is that we see a lot of interest in this new platform and machine to machine communication or IoT from the manufacturing sector. And there's an article. Of course, the groups got good roots in that, as Andrash has said, you know, with the open data format and the opening open messaging interface IOT standards. So it was really good to see that the group is moving aggressively into that area. The technology review published the article on that GE's transformation around IoT, which they called their million dollar software back just to be a little provocative. But from a manufacturer's perspective, how do you see that impacting what you do? Yeah, I think GE's spot on there. I think they're talking about 1% of, you know, billions of dollars they have in the equipment and all that area. And they save 1% of it like you save a lot. In terms of manufacturing wise, we are looking into three different areas. New business opportunities, looking into different areas, adjacent areas, trying to figure out how this platform would provide us that one. And then business optimizations, like reduce cycle time, doing things a little bit faster, quicker and better, you know, security is also concerns in all other areas to making sure, you know, we are doing things properly. And then also operational optimization, operational optimization on talking about in terms of compliance related things and doing things at total cost of ownership in terms of putting less operational cost to, you know, to the enterprise. So all these areas actually helping us by using these new convergence of technologies and doing things a little better and faster. But if you think about it. Quick reactions. Yeah, well, if you think about it, products themselves that you manufacture actually become platforms themselves, because if you would be able to access them through APIs and services, as a real platform would be, there would be lots of additional services and products connected or not around it that would make the product itself much richer, right? So the product itself is still nice. It's an intelligent thing, maybe, but actually the notion of the fact that it itself would create a platform that would attract others would be very interesting. And let's not forget, by the way, the notion of a platform is that it's attractive to others because if you're not attracted to a platform, nobody, you know, will use it. It's not really a platform. That's why Marshall Van Halstine talked about that. Well, yeah. So how to create something that actually is attractive to link up to and donate to or contribute to or use it. That's the real essence of a platform, I think. And it's very notable, I think, in manufacturing as well. Yeah. That's where products are going. Totally. Products become platforms. Yeah. The factory automations and all other areas where things would be, you know, you would do product. It's more like we're putting everything. It would be more what we call intelligence. So how they share in information from one product components to another. Our airlines are doing that anyway. Our airplanes are doing that already. So we need to plan other areas. I'm very quick reaction on that. I think these guys pretty much said that all. Well, then let's move on to questions from the audience. Okay. Chris, my colleague Dr Chris Harding, who is the forum director for the platform 3.0 forum, will be asking the questions. Thank you, Dave. And we've got quite a few questions. One actually that I'll read out that I suggest we don't answer it because you've already said quite a bit about this, but just to reinforce the fact that it's a point that people are saying are important. If the service catalogue is the fulcrum between IT and the business, the choice for humans or systems to select capability service or platform, where is the service catalogue in your discussions? And I think you've said a little bit about that already. So maybe the person who asked that if they want to pursue it further could discuss during the break. That was the easiest question I ever answered. Okay, so to move on to one that I don't think we've discussed yet. Isn't the essence of platform 3.0 a change from using my IT, my data, my apps, my tech to using others IT, public data, open apps? Is that what we're talking about? No, I mean I think that that's a really important concept around cloud. And the fact that you had I think several individuals yesterday talk about how the hybrid environment is going to be pretty much the future environment. So absolutely you're going to be using other endpoints that provide a business process when you add it up. A set of capabilities in your business so using Togaf you map your business capabilities down to IT function. If you look at it from that perspective, yes, you're going to see a series of services that are not just contained within your own environment. But quite frankly different organizations are going to approach this differently. It depends on the situation, the business process and the capability that you're trying to solve as to how many of these hybrid endpoints or external endpoints that you're going to be using. So yes and no. I don't think any organization or enterprise would be putting things on the public place, especially the intellectual property. So that's where the security concerns comes in. So there would be something my which would be more private deployment model for enterprises to do things in a way. And you don't see like Apple is announcing something you know what they're going to do in the next platform for iPhone or iPad and all of that. So all those things research and development still going to be privately and it's not going to be public. But having said that you want to be able to do these type of things because you're using other platform stuff to do the things that you used to do yourself in the past. So that you have the room available to do these things that really matter and make a difference. And there is a change. I truly believe as we discussed that there will be less interesting requirements sooner or later. Requirements are yours. I want requirements and actually you're saying here's the platform I can use this stuff and this will be where I start from. And the hell with these requirements it's I'm building on it to make something which is me. But in order to be able to do that I must make the room and I will leverage whatever is in the platform and in the service catalog by the way and in the open APIs and in the data markets and all of the other things that might be part of that platform and use it to kickstart myself on my way through where I really am and what makes me different. I think that if you take a togeff point of view you look at your core competencies if your core competencies don't include certain elements like HR management. A lot of companies are outsourcing their HR and organizational support systems to companies like for example IBM Conexa. And those are all cloud based solutions that are integrated in with your key core capabilities. So really it goes back to that enterprise architecture. What are your core capabilities. What can you outsource and TGF totally agree that those family jewels are going to stay in the castle. But you should reverse the thinking a little bit right. You're talking about HR services outsourcing used to be here's how I did my HR process you please run it for me outsourcing party run run my mess for less. But actually nowadays you know okay well and but nowadays it's much more catalog based. So here's a set of highly standardized AR process HR processes. They are delivered from the cloud multi turn and software. Everybody agrees that it's best industry best practice industry best practice in terms of HR. Why don't we use that until they actually begin to use your process and dictate to you that you have to make changes that are necessary for them because they are still in the high require. Because every company and organization has a different business model. They think so. They think so. You should probably move on to other questions so we get to at least two questions here. So let's go on to the next question and I suspect the answer to this question is simply going to be no but there could be some interesting things to say about it on the way. So the next platform will be high distributed. Do you think we have a robust model to handle distributed transactions. I mean we certainly have standards for for you know transaction management with web services and and you know the whole web infrastructure is based on a bus architecture in a way. So for me I mean I don't have a problem with that architecting solutions that manage you know distributed transactions. MQTX for example is a open source solution that some vendors are actually supporting you know additional you know support for we are. That's a good example of a transactional solution that can coordinate multiple two phase commits you know across the Internet. So I would take a little bit slight different approach here or maybe just wanted to give another opinion. Internet is kind of based on state list and it's not reliable thing so and when you're getting so much of data transactional aspects really come in a way. So you have to build your architecture and systems in such a way that you expect the failures. So transactional would eventually happen you know as it what we call it in the atomic and all of those things. So those things would happen at eventual time but it's probably not going to be the norm you know when we're looking for so much data coming in needs to process quickly and you would actually expect there may be some you know doesn't really get transmitted or it just didn't really. So we have to accommodate that so. I mean it's not lost on me because I have a lot of different customers with different kind of profiles but TJ you are a you represent Boeing and I know Boeing is fairly conservative organization so I would say that you know it sounds like a lot of your processing. You're not going to be outsourcing to other you know providers. You're going to be creating this you know environment within your infrastructure. Is that true? We're still looking for hybrid so we're still going to have something on the public environments which is not public public but community based. You know so you still know who's going to be there and also and there are some public solutions which would be there. You know but it all depend upon what information what data you're sharing. You know what model is really best suited for that so we have so many use cases for different deployment models so. Chris I think we probably have time for one more. One more you think not two. We'll see. Remember that was the question you thought there would be just a note. If we can say yes or no that would be a good question. So there's one thing I've been saying for the last I'll go to that one. In open platform 4.0 will the computers be architecting how humans will be using it? What? See the gift card. This is where the computers be architecting. So I guess they're asking for you know if you look beyond platform 3.0 you know what would you see on the horizon is the way that I interpreted that question. I think cognitive computing will certainly be a very important evolving future element of whether it's platform 3.0 or the next generation who knows. Certainly that is a situation where you have machines making some decisions based on models that may reduce the amount of human interaction. But other than that I really can't you know prove it. I hope to be retired by then anyway so. Probably couldn't care less. So really I'm on the Riviera right? Yes for sure. Trust me. Robot bringing you drink. DJ. No I think the possibilities are there but I don't think we are there yet so. One of the studies I saw on that point said that the skills that would survive would be the ability to show compassion, bring people together, establish consensus and things like that. So I think we're probably all good for a few minutes. It sounds like the okay. I could do that from the Riviera as well. Right. We will have the remote access to the Riviera. Yeah exactly. So maybe we've got three more minutes. Is that another question or so? Okay. How will open platform 3.0 be relevant to current platform providers and consumers? What would be the incentive to adhere to the standard? So I don't see this as any as a one standard kind of approach. You know look at it from this perspective. Was there one standard when we talked about the monolithic mainframe? Well there were fewer certainly. There were many more in the internet PC phase that Ron cited. And there will probably be many more patterns in the open platform 3.0 era as well. So there won't be just one and the incentive will actually be to support the business capabilities of integrating the mobile environment systems of engagement, the internal core transaction systems, those systems of insight that support all of these different capabilities, and of course the internet of things as we begin to integrate these you know sensor environments and pervasive computing into the core business mission. T.J. Ron thoughts? Well from an IT perspective you want to be prepared for whatever will be coming to you. You want to be more proactive. So you want to be able to establish a set of services and platform. And I think the best way to get there is to kickstart it based on what the industry in terms of open standards is producing. That would make a lot of sense. Although of course there will be quite a lot of individuals no doubt that will create their own perspective on platform 3.0 which is fine. But I think it would make a lot of sense to do a kickstart and to have for a change a proactive position because the things are clearly shifting. And as I said at the era of the PC many IT people were for years in denial in terms of you don't need anything else and the mainframe the PC is rubbish. Or wait a minute we can run a spreadsheet on our mainframe as well. I actually saw it happen. I'm dead old. But the third platform you might envision the same right. And so you're hoping not to make the same mistake again and be much more proactive and be actually part of that movement rather than in denial for too long. Petrie final thought. Yeah I think the platform 3.0 work we are doing we are trying to strive for making more agile and you know adopted to not only this nexus of forces technologies. But other technologies that may come forward in the future. So we wanted to make it more agile and as well as you know making sure it's adoptable to what the existing systems and things are in each organization. So we want to make sure that it is more interoperable. It's a semantically accurate information is getting shared. So all those things would be a head start from our point of view to really provide the platform related standard which is going to be stable than any other consortium is providing right now. I mean all of these platforms still exist though. I mean the main frame involved the Internet is evolving PCs evolved to continue. I don't know but he's going to see Microsoft you know you know kick you know close their doors tomorrow. They're going to continue to be part of the equation. They want to be a platform champion as well. That's just like IBM. That's right. Absolutely. We are going to have to move on. Sounds like there is plenty of work ahead for the open platform 3.0 form. So please everyone who is interested in this please see the staff or see the leads on this to get involved. TJ Andrush, Ron, thank you very much for participating and we'll hand it back to Alan.