 we'll have another panel session. But just before we do, I think we have our final poll of the day to run, John. Is that right? Yes, indeed. I'm just setting it up now. Thank you. So looking under the polling tab there, question on reference architecture, which of the following is true, A, B, C, or D, or all of the above or none of the above. Reference architectures are, it's interesting. I would say inside the open group over the last decade, pretty much, being more and more interest and more and more of our forums have been interested in developing reference architectures. Because as I've said several times, it seems to be that one of the beauties of Togaf is that it's applicable across all industries, all technologies, all types of organizations. But obviously a logical next step is that the individual industries want to look at the specific environments that they operate in or any additional or requirements or legislation and dive into kind of a next level of detail on architecture. And that's where the reference architectures can be so useful. And we've seen those in our work in federal aviation and we've seen it with the open process automation forum and military sensors and most recently with the open subsurface data universe work. And IT for IT, of course, which we'll hear a lot more about tomorrow. That's a reference architecture for running the business of IT so far. But the next version is very much focused on the digital product and digital product management included in there. So reference architectures we've seen as very key. So I'll be very interested in how this poll goes. So while that is ongoing, welcome back to Palab and Hanny. Thank you for your thoughts earlier and we have one. And welcome back also to Sonja, who I can't quite see Sonja, but I'm sure you're there. I know you're there. And now I can see it. Great. Okay, so let's kick off. If you have questions, folks, as a reminder, please put them in the Q&A section in the WebEx platform. So the first one to come in was maybe I'll aim this at you, Hanny, if I may, at least to start off, the sustainability, the SDGs that you spoke about and you listed, do the numbers represent a prioritization? I know you mentioned that they're kind of interconnected in many ways, but do the numbers represent a prioritization of any kind or how did the numbers come about? Actually, it's a very simple answer, not at all. Actually, the guys who designed the SDG logo, they have made it in a circle because two things, there is no order and everything is interrelated. So the quick question is no, everything is important, providing that it matches with the country priorities and the country context. Right. Okay. Good to know that. Good to know that. Thank you. And a specific one of those, one of the challenges, how do you deal with challenge number five? How do you overcome challenge number five? I don't know if there can be a reminder of challenge number five. So Steve, let me take this. Yeah, please do. Yeah, because the challenge number five, if I'm not mistaken, was the countries with limited resources. Typically they have multiple initiatives which are driven more by external push and it does not sustain. So yes, it's a good challenge for us to look at because the question is how do you deal with that? So one thing that we're looking at, if you see one of the slides that honey presented at the lower end, it is the attitudes and capabilities. So one way we look to address that is to kind of address the capability gaps that exist in these countries through the, you know, making the body of knowledge accessible to these countries and also coming up with, for instance, a big capability framework and a plan which kind of gets augmented by training at different levels. So there are many ways to do this. But the intent of what we're trying to address here is that the, you know, for digital government initiatives to sustain beyond after the external consultants have left, it's important that the internal staff of the governments are competent enough to continue this and take it forward as Honey was saying in one of the examples that even though the digital services are available, sometimes citizens don't use it for various reasons, which could be because of the capability, which also could be because of the social and cultural barriers, which in fact is the another another factor, which we are trying to address. Right. Okay, that's that's great. Thank you. Thank you. This one is for Juan. Juan, you mentioned moving from interoperability to integration. Could you explain why it's desirable to do that? Okay, I think I mentioned that when I'm talking about digital services. So when we have an interoperative platform that was established, it has more than 10 years and with 250 services were services that are published and almost 100 stations connected to the platform. But when we start to digitalize our digital service, we want to focus on the users because most of the digital service or the services that we want to digitalize were designed by the public agency organization thinking in the needs and not in the user or citizen needs. So we want to integrate these digital services and not only the exchange of information when the public organization needs. So we have to have a view of the whole of the government and think if it's necessary to have two digital services in different public agencies or to integrate in one digital service, we focus on the citizen. Right. Okay. Thank you very much. Next question. I'm going to combine two questions here, I guess. One is specifically about, let's see, where do we go? If you don't have the opportunity to work as an enterprise architect, specifically any government, how would you suggest I could still be part of the project coupled with a more general question, which is how do I become part of the project? And sorry, the project being the workgroup, the government enterprise architecture workgroup, that's the context. So anyone want to take that? Either maybe Palab or? Yeah. So I don't know if I hope I've understood the question if we don't have the opportunity to work as an EA. Yeah. So I'm assuming that even if you don't have the opportunity to work as an EA, you have some knowledge of EA as a discipline. And obviously, it is always helpful if you have experience in the government domain. I know that there are a lot of people here who may come from other industry. One way to get involved in the project, one way of course, which is the more natural way is that the organization that you work for would become a member of the open group. That's of course, the more natural way of logical way of doing it. The other way is that we will make all our work products deliverables of work products that come out of the workgroup available in draft format. They're going to be made available. So you could even act as a reviewer and contribute to it in an individual manner, so to speak. I'm assuming that you want to contribute in an individual manner here. So that's possible. So these are the two ways to get involved in the workgroup, so to speak. Great. Thank you, Pa. This one, several of you may have a view on, but I'll start with you, Sonia, I think. What's the difference between a reference architecture and a baseline architecture? I think the main difference like the baseline architecture is that you're the point of start, you know, you start defining what you have in your organization, and then depending on the approach, you may decide to either make your own architecture, meaning not use it in a reference architecture, or may choose to use one to, for example, provide more facilities about integration, interpretability, and reuse of the assets. So the difference is that the baseline architecture is your current state, and the reference architect is what you use is going to be common into a target state. However, they can be combined as one. So for example, there are cases in which you already have your architecture, even though it's not described, and this is very common, for example, when you're going to implement a system that is already built, you need to adapt with a reference architecture that is already there. So it depends on how the approach is, but I think the main difference is that usually the reference architecture, like I explained our panel of presenters today, is to favor reuse and best practices, and to avoid like starting from zero. So you reuse that, and depending on the sector that you are, we have different reference architecture. There are some of them are for finance, for government, for telcos. So some of them are general. Some models are more specifics. For example, if you go back to the Togov Enterprise continuum, you may go all the way from the very general foundation architecture, for example, the Togov standard, all the way to a very specific architecture, which is, by the way, one of the questions in the poll. What's the value of a reference architecture if at the end you need to deliver value based on your own architecture? So this is the difference between the two of them. Okay. That's helpful. Thank you. Anything to add to that? Any of the other panelists in a government context, or I think it's a good explanation, Sonia? Yeah. Okay. Good. Okay. So I think maybe I can come to you on this one, honey, because I think you mentioned it in your words, and it's around, let me see here. Yes. Has there been any interest in countries in regionalising their digital services? Palab, I know that you put an answer in the Q&A, a written answer in there, in saying, yes, there is. And specifically, there's a follow-up question from the same person. Has there been interest by countries in Africa? So perhaps you could speak to the more general and then African countries, perhaps. Maybe let me contribute to this. There has been some, a number of initiatives actually at different levels to kind of try to harmonise and to regionalise some of the digital service-related activities, particularly on the regulatory front. I mean, we have seen, for example, in Africa, a number of sub-regions, whether in West Africa, East Africa, South Africa, there has been some efforts indeed to kind of harmonise some of the regulatory frameworks, try to come up with model laws, try to come up with some regional electronic acts. However, even smart Africa, I think, that have been also trying to come up with some regional initiatives around digital identity, for example. However, there are a number of kind of challenges when it comes to the adoption of countries. Some of the regional frameworks that has been only one country kind of adopting it. So it's not an easy thing, though as I mentioned in my brief intro, there is a lot of good reasons why you should adopt regional approaches. However, practically speaking, there are a lot of challenges as well. You know, in many countries, even there are some political conflicts and if not, almost like armed conflict between countries, neighbouring countries. So it's extremely difficult, particularly that countries are extremely cautious and about their sovereignty, data sovereignty particularly. So in order to break those types of country barriers and to regionalise, there is a more and more, I would say, awareness from the development partners. You know, if you talk out to the World Bank, to ITU, to the EU, the European Commission, I think everyone is realising that we need to work through regional initiatives and actually we are as ITU and with others involved already in a regional initiative around digital government in East Africa. To what extent you can really have shared infrastructure among different countries, it's not necessarily easy to do. However, you can still do some kind of develop some regional frameworks that countries can kind of adopt and customize instead of trying to reinvent the wheel or try to develop something from scratch. So I think if you think of regionalising, there are different levels of, you know, how can you do things? You can just develop a framework at a regional level, you can try to implement it at a regional level, you can try to have data hosting at a regional level. So there are different levels and there is a very strong also reason why we do that for this concept of single digital market, really to expand as a digital market to reach economies of scale, because as I mentioned, this is another big problem in those countries. So while there is a lot of good reasons why you would want to go regional to kind of, you know, mutualize investments and reduce the investment, increase the impact and return on your investments, there are a lot of hurdles actually to make it really happen on reality. Right, yeah. Yes, no, and there's a comment came in on the chat that obviously Africa is a vast region as we know and you talked about the, you know, approaching it on a regional basis maybe, you know, East Africa, West Africa, South Africa, but even that can be challenging and we see that with standards in general, you know, there are national standards and international standards and frameworks that get picked up to different degrees, but it's very difficult to to share things as important as your digital services or even your infrastructure when maybe all is either not well between nations in the region or there are other factors, just logistics and financial and, you know, economic factors, it's a challenge, but the positives are there as you say. So next one, could you say a little more about the roadmap or what you see as the low hanging fruit in the areas that the working group will tackle? Okay, let me take this. So what we have done is, as I told you, we have the work group has had a few meetings in the past three months and as a team, we have identified three, four priority areas and somewhere alluded to already by honey. So we have three subgroups as of now, you know, which kind of represent the areas that members want to take on in terms of the immediate priority. One is capacity building and competency and which comes back to the question which I answered earlier, how do you deal with ensuring that the digital government architecture is a sustained initiative. So the member, the work group members felt that capacity building and the competency framework is important. So that's one area that we have identified as a low hanging fruit, so to speak. Second is to create a guide for digital government strategy. As honey did mention that many of the countries already have a strategy guide in strategy in place, so to speak, but the problem happens in execution of that strategy. So our focus is getting to a point where, you know, you just kind of assume that the country has access to a strategy based on whatever internal capabilities they have, but how do you execute that strategy. So we are getting to getting to having another subgroup, which focuses on implementing the strategy and what guidance countries need. So that's the second priority area and that will touch many sub areas within that. And the third one is which we have identified is a collection of case studies. So for instance, currently we have within that subgroup of case studies, we have one case study coming up from the Czech Republic. Another one is from Spain and the third one is from Canada. Okay, you can see that we're obviously, you know, we obviously there are going to be case studies from other countries. For instance, India can be included there. We have Bangladesh, which has also been one of the countries which has adopted digital government architecture. So there are many countries, we have Bhutan also, you know, we are interacting with, yeah, so absolutely. So we think that these are the three key areas that we are trying to tackle. And in the slide that honey presented, you saw the 10 factors, there are other factors which are equally important. So one area, which I personally, because I have worked in this domain, which I personally feel is very important is to help countries in their procurement and vendor management, because this becomes a major issue for e-government or digital government, you know, initiatives, so to speak. So it would be good for us to have, for instance, another parallel subgroup to look at procurement and provide some kind of a, if I may use the word like a model RFP, like a template RFP that can be taken up because these countries need a lot of guidance and they are completely dependent on external resources to make this happen. So I think, you know, with that, I've given you a summary of what we are working on. And as I said, the opportunities are huge, they are limitless. So we have just touched on some of the surface areas and we really would like to dig deeper and help the countries that we are trying to target. Absolutely. And to do that, it's good to have more people involved and doing some of the work. Thank you. Question for Juan, you mentioned an open data initiative. Now, data is obviously very important nowadays, new oil or new gold, however you want to describe it. Could you say a little more about that open data initiative? In your guide, please. Yes, first, we have a special group here in Agassiz that works with open data. We have an open data strategy that we built and we have the catalog with open data, we have some many principles that give for the organizations and to develop of the different systems with data open by default and all other principles related to data protection. So we are working with organizations to develop different observatories for the citizens, publish the data, we have a little framework that mandatory have to, the organization have to promote and publish their budget in the website, the structure and some kind of of measurement and accomplishment of the objective they have to achieve. So I'm not the expert of this topic, but we'll cover a little bit of experience of working with open data. Thank you. Thank you. And I think at this point, Sonia, do you want to look at the last poll result? Would that be? Okay, I think let me see. I have the results in here, just let me put them bigger so I can look at them better. So yes, actually interesting results from the poll. First, the first question was reference architecture are important to accelerate and support business transformation. We have 13% of the people saying that it is important. Then reference architecture are one of the key components while delivering your architecture landscape, 13%, but our standard will be improved if more reference architectures are included. We have a 7% people saying that and the value of reference architectures is relative since at the end, organization need to deliver their specific architecture. Sorry, that's one, this is the one that has 7%. Actually, the need to have reference architectures in TOGAP standard is 10%. And the last one, all of the above, so 18% of the people believe that there is value in reference architecture. So we can see there's a trend of people saying that actually, there's value in reference architecture. And even though some organizations prefer to have their own architectures, specific organizations or architectures still having a reference more general one is valuable. And also again, similar to the other polls that we saw in the previous panel, 60% of the people didn't respond. So that gives us again an idea that we need to do more in this phase. So having these kind of testimonials, like for example, the ASIC and the A government one are good ones. Actually, important to mention that we have several reference architecture works in the open group. We have the commercial aviation, which is a working group interactive forum, the healthcare forum, also a reference architecture. We have a very interesting publications into the architecture and archemy forums about the buy-in reference models and the financial industry. And we have also a webinar in the case study that ASIC has shared in the past with us about their work. So it's interesting to follow up now that they are going more into digital space. So there are a lot of information, very valuable information that you can find in the open group library that will help you understand more the value of reference architecture. Of course, we identified with this that we need to do more. And actually, there are a couple of active groups now and the liberals that are in progress into the architecture forum that are around business architecture and business models for the digital enterprise as well. So stay tuned and follow up also our library because you will understand valuable information and find valuable information about this in the open group library as well. Well said. Thank you, Sonja. Thank you. And we will leave it there for the panel. We're right on time. Thank you for enabling that or facilitating that. And so a big thank you to Juan and Palab and Hani and Sonja. So thank you very much. Bye. Take care. Bye. So that's about it for today. Just a few closing points. Thank you all for your attention and participation and the great questions. Thank you to all of our speakers. As I said at the beginning, it's always good for us to hear through the questions and the chat and any other ways that you might be able to get in touch with us. What's on your mind as far as the TOGAP standard is concerned and some are other standards that play to it. And on that point, a plug for tomorrow's event, hopefully some of you will be able to join us on that tomorrow. We've got Digital Professionals Day tomorrow. So we'll be looking at some of the standards that are key in enabling and facilitating the tools that you might use in your digital transformation journeys inside your organization. So we're looking at new operating models, digital product management, emerging roles in a digital operating model, product centric technology operating models. There's some of the themes for the presentations tomorrow and some really good case studies. A lot of fun actually. It will be turning one of our forums, the IT for IT forum, has been working on a novel to set, basically make it a very approachable way of describing a case study in a fictional organization of their digital transformation journey and using some of the open group standards. That will be nice to hear from that tomorrow. So hopefully you can join us for that. If you haven't registered, it's not too late. A reminder, because we do get the question regularly, the presentations will be available usually the Wednesday after the event week. So a week tomorrow they will be available with recordings when they are post-production and we'll make those available to you all. If you are registered, attendee of the event, you will get an email telling you when they are available. So you'll be able to look at those in your in your own time and we'll obviously make sure that the video that Ben was running earlier will be able to be included in that as well as the one that one has. So that's it. Thank you for your attention. Steve, can I just interject for one moment? I would just want to make sure that people understand that the proceedings will be available but sometimes post-production takes a bit longer. So we can't guarantee that that will be available by next Wednesday but it will be available. That's a good clarification, Maggie. Thank you. Yes, the materials you will get next Wednesday and their post-production will be as soon as we can get it done but it'll give you the chance to either look at it again or look at the parts that you were unable to be part of and you'll get those for all three days but do join us live tomorrow and if you possibly can and hope that you found today valuable. We'll leave the meeting open and the chat channel going for anyone who wants to say hello to anyone else that may be attending or give us any feedback. It's been a pleasure having you all here today and take care, enjoy the rest of your days or nights as appropriate and see as many of you as we can tomorrow. Thank you for your participation. Bye-bye. Thank you, Steve. We're just going to run the open group information video now for about five minutes whilst people are finishing their chats and then we'll be closing down the session for today. So thank you all for attending.