 So Dave Lounsbury, CTO, has got a few questions for you. So somebody writes, OK, I'm sold, but how do I get this in my shop? Do I look for trained people? Will we get bids from cloud providers or something else, tool chains? How do you see this manifesting itself in the IT marketplace? I think we're a bit early for that, aren't we? The first thing to do is to get involved. Absolutely. Where we are at this moment is clear possibility. These guys have identified the opportunity. I've tried to explain to you the momentum. The open group now holds all of the collateral. What we need now is help to fully berth what we've husbanded over the last two or three years and create through the open groups ecosystem a way of moving this forward. So what we're looking for is increasing the momentum so that we can actually bring this fully to fruition. So the key point is that it's not as fully baked as it might look. There's a lot of work to do and obviously the value of being engaged in the process, being involved, being able to influence it, is still very, very strong. As I mentioned earlier, I do have my mic. The work we've done so far I guess proves the point and we've got a lot of guidance material. We now would like to get into the phase of normative standardization which then drives product adoption when we ultimately get to the value. Even today, just using the guidance of the reference architecture as this kind of map that I was talking about earlier is value in and of itself. At least I can assure you from various different customers who can prove their way of looking at the value chain and having the various different functions working with each other already tremendously without even any product type thing in the game. There's actually already quite some value in there but ultimately, yes, we need to drive adoption in the market. That's what the next steps is all about. If I look at the roadmap for our IT for IT solutions and process data interventions, we are already guided by this architecture so we don't have ready solutions yet but it helps us think through what the logical order is of replacements of our applications, what kind of database we need to create and also start working on our trusted sources of data in that context. It already provides handrails. Obviously it doesn't really produce a finite or finalized product but it does a lot already for you. I think with quite immediate payoff. I think the key point maybe, the reason we're here today launching this with the Open Group is because we see this as a pervasive issue. It's one that we've all been working on individually as well as together. This is about the world is getting continually more complex. Actually the more people that we can plug into that both from the software point of view, from the service provider point of view but also from the end user point of view as well actually hopefully we can turn this into a standard because life is only going to get more complicated. There'll be more things popping up all over the place and if we can find a way to integrate those around the common taxonomy, around the common data model hopefully we're in a plug-and-play world for everybody. So this sounds like a good initiative but is this only for a really large IT shop like Shell or will smaller companies benefit from this and if so, how? Well again I can start since we've been working with customers using this reference architecture. Let's say you might be able to get the biggest effect with larger customers but it's very much applicable to any size customer and we have been using it almost with any size customer in the market. Actually if you look at one of our fellow consortium members Munich Ray for example, might be a good example because even though they are a very big company from a revenue perspective but the way they do business actually the IT is very focused around very few critical applications and business processes that they drive like for example, underwriting in the re-insurance industry but they use it in exactly the same fashion in their organization or a good example of the diversity of applicability that we can thrive here. Maybe we work with lots of very large corporates they've all got this complexity problem it's a big problem for all of them but actually as you say there are a lot of smaller organizations they're often more extensively sourced they're often using all services in account they've all got the integration problem that we spoke about so this should be applicable at all levels I would have thought. Can I look at our supplier community both IT and non-IT they need to talk with us so partly it's IT talk so it's immediately relevant for the smaller players in our ecosystem to get their minds around this integration challenge as well. The models that Daniel and Hans presented sum it up in terms of the shifting ecosystem that is IT at the end of the day the standard is going to help us work together to choreograph all this so it's almost, you know, there's an analogy with the music that the first speaker made this morning but the world is just going to continue to get complicated so the standard will have an increasing value as that process of innovation unfolds. I think the key thing is that you're talking about small organizations there are gradations of small so small, very small organizations it's going to be not that interesting but relatively small organizations relative to Shell, yeah. For a small 50-person standards organization they can see all of the phases in the reference model and what you do already we have a much more organized and complex infrastructure So how is the work of IT for IT different from the work of Kobe under ISACA and how to manage and govern the enterprise IT? Again me? Okay. So first of all there will be a very good track session in the afternoon with Charlie sitting over there and Lars sitting in the back the famous Scandinavian chief architect that I introduced earlier and they will talk about the positioning of IT for IT in very detail with ITEL, COVID and other standards safe not to forget here but in general so we are really about the information model underneath we're not about the process side of the house we embrace those definitions of capabilities and KPIs on top, we do but what we want to build is how the data actually moves in that value chain what is owned, where you can change things how you integrate those things underneath which is not specified neither by ITEL nor COVID nor ISACA I'm laughing a bit because I was talking with Carol yesterday about what kind of questions can we expect this is one of them so I'm very happy that you're here to elegantly respond to that, Carol Thank you That will be covered in more depth I would add to that by saying that they're highly complimentary so we're not trying to reinvent the wheel here but again back to the notion of choreography and so on making these things work together so governance is a key part of the IT for IT work but in the session you'll have Charlie Betts and Lars Ross and explain the relationship a lot more fully and again we're at a stage of maturity where in the collaboration portal we already have assets that can be picked up by people a white paper on the relationship between ITEL and the IT for IT forums work so that you can see exactly where we are in terms of our own perception of positioning so we've got some substance which we would be very keen to share with you Have you given any consideration yet to how IT for IT may play a role in other of the activities going on at the open group particularly things like the open platform 3.0 work? There's a lot to think about there there's some obviously connections at the end of it in dependability through assuredness measuring those things architecture will come through the open platform the integration of social mobile big beta, cloud, internet things all of those things will have some relevance and like any other forum the IT for IT forum will be encouraged to have meetings with other forums of the open group and share opportunities with each other In addition I did have it on the slide but I didn't really talk to it but the reference architecture when we started building that out we were certainly using concepts and methodologies out of the Kogaf definition and we're using ARCUMATE to actually specify the level 2 and 3 of the reference architecture I do also think that there might be a good opportunity for communication between IT for IT and Kogaf to maybe add a couple more aspects into the Kogaf methodology maybe I'm dreaming here but a lot of what manageability means so non-functional requirements in IT I think could better be architected in the very front to make life a lot easier downstream so if we bring the concepts of security manageability into architecting applications from the start on we may make operations downstream a lot easier not my cat though We're trying to get to the final slide just so we can cover that Communication is a challenge but Martin's cat is very beautiful but no longer with us I think So have you got that last slide, Martin? So we just cover that One last question because we're going to keep people on time So if you consider the convergence of IT and operational technology in the IT for IT model and in the new IT and operational technology organization has to handle both traditional enterprise IT and operational technology tasks such as control systems and SCADA and things like that and the interfaces in between Is that part of the model you guys are looking at? The answer is yes there's another white paper on the way that we address DevOps, Agile and the concepts that surround it Our subject matter expert is very well known It's Charlie Betts who's the author of the book on this material and he relies in his book on an analogy with those of us that have builders in the house We are now making shoes for the cobbler's children We're catching up and those concepts are built into the underpinning ideas that have been driving IT for IT in the last 12 months or so So the answer is yes and again we have materials on the collaboration portal that people can see It's fair to say that the genesis of this has come out of corporate IT if I can have you manage that better Yes, if you start looking at Internet of Things if you start looking at sensors, etc, etc One of the reasons for launting this is an open group forum is precisely so that we can start to expand the scope of it as well So yes, there's a lot more that we could do, I'm sure I have to imagine that Shell has concerns about more than a few SCADA and operational control systems in its IT portfolio Absolutely Okay, thank you