 C nel i wneud y fathy yma, sy'n gweithio hynny sylwg hir creunodd hynny? Dim yn eich stori'r llehau, a alw i'r llehau a chael eu baratodd zygonnodg. Rym ni'r ddegis i'r llehau ar涉io fy乎aaa hynny, mae hi gymmyng ar y hunain 54,000 o âru yn gadw i hynny a y combineldeg y fineconi aboutd hefyd, yn gweithio ar y cyd-fyniad am yw'r cyllid yn gwybod yn 80% y gyd-gwyrd y maen nhw. Felly mae'n gwneud y byd i gynnwysol i'r rhan i'w ddeigfael yng Nghymru i gael cyrgrif forklu i'r gyfrifiadau. Ond yn y cwerthu, mae'n ddysgwch, mae'n rhan i'w ddifwng i'r arferwad, mae'n ddifwng i'r ddifwng i'r ddifwng i'r ddifwng i'r rhagwyr. is your experience of what it's like to actually use tech, or what has been good, what have you seen well, what have you seen not well, those types of things would be great. Whatever you will get in return is the same kind of learning from other practitioners and other people who are using tech. So, if it's evolved here at the open group by the members of the open group architecture forum, that group has been going on all the time now, and the role of organisations involved women and 50 of them, and they will have to evolve the standard and to try to take on all the feedback that they get. Whilst the big group is not anywhere close to the size of the community that is using tech, and that's one of the reasons that we are starting to do these user groups is to get that broader set of perspectives and a broader view of what it's actually like to use tech in the future. So, this is not intended to be too formal. We do have a general group, of course we have, on the generalisation of the bank, so I'm very much looking forward to it. But this is really about you getting value from turning up here today and meeting other people who are using tech. The day we hosted by Terry Bevin, two others from our group, some of you should know that Terry has been involved with tech for a very long time. So, today we have our leaders, first Chris Armstrong, who is the President of the Pharmaceutical Process Group, and an internationally-recognised thought leader and expert in iterative software development, enterprise architecture, entrepreneurial analysis and design. You will have used-case-grip requirements and processes with Chris. Well, thank you very much, Chairperson. My name is Chris Armstrong, and I'm arguing to change the total of the specification to make it annual. I think this is a more than appropriate job introducing me, so time to guidance. Or, do we, I guess almost not through to me, then bring, like, honorable comment? Okay. Our next debater is Paul Fllwyn, Technology Strategy Consultant at IBM, is a certified distinguished IT architect specialising in enterprise architecture. He did not be able to do the usual environments, having worked as a chief architect in both the UK Post Office and the Royal Naval, so he's not only established enterprise architecture and practicing, but he's had to look at the consequences of that. It's very, very good. And Paul, could you please introduce yourself? Good morning. Yes, so thank you for the introduction. The main thing that's out there about that is the photo, so that is still me, but I'll read what they have. I will be arguing against the proposition that the UK media doesn't need to change. So that's one position. Andy, Chris, you now have seven minutes. All right. Well, again, I certainly encourage you to participate in this experiment, which I certainly recognize by the group staff and the user group community, that this is certainly a demonstration of what it needs to be actually. If you do experimentation, fail fast, fail early. But the reason that I am for changing the TOGAP specification, in particular the architecture development method, to your point, whether that is a new change of adding a period and dotting an eye and crossing a T, the extent of the changes, we'll talk about in our discussion this morning. But let's just, you know, start off with, you know, what does agility mean? So if we take, you know, from myriad lefster, agile is marked by the ability to move with quick ease and grace or having quick, resourceful and adaptable character. And I'll extrapolate how does that translate into, you know, what the current version of the specification for 9.1 published in 2011, how may or may not embrace that. But I'd also like to broaden this to think about, you know, what does it mean for an enterprise to be agile? And so we've often borrowed a definition by Carter back in 2009, the ability to sense environmental change and respond effectively and efficiently to that change. I certainly would suggest that any business leader, you know, proposes that would be presented with that proposition, very few would say no, I would just assume the ignorant about what's happening inside my organization and out in the market in place. And when change happens, I would just assume, how should we respond to that very strongly and without good discipline and expected results. But let's look at, you know, what is the evidence in TOGAP that it is or is not agile? Well, let's do a simple forensic investigation. The word agile appears two times in the entirety of the 692 pages of the TOGAP specification. And then one might claim, it'd be interesting to support the proposition that the ADM and TOGAP are agile when the body of knowledge that describes it is 692 pages. Then if we go a little bit deeper, how often does the word agility appear in the standard? It appears six times, so that's an improvement. However, five of those are relegated to a specific chapter on service oriented architecture, which might lead someone to concede that if TOGAP is indeed agile, one must use SOA as an architectural style to realize that agility. The word lean, I'm sure people have heard of all that, being an important dimension of what doing agility means in the real world is not mentioned at all. So I think if we take a look at just some simple word counts, there doesn't seem to be a lot of recognition within the standard that agile and agility is something that we need to be concerned about. I will, however, concede that there are a number of white papers that have been published over the years, and at last count I think there were about five or six that had the word agile in them as it relates to the practice of enterprise architecture or lean. So to me that seems to be, again, supporting evidence because of the absence of how TOGAP ADM addresses agility and has had to be supplemented by additional guidance that is not normative but informative. So I think that it supports some evidence that there is a want within the organization. Now, I don't know if I'm allowed to interact with the audience, but I presume that there are many people here that are familiar with the architecture development method. If you are not, I will please ask you to refer to page 28, section 2.2, in the TOGAP 9.1 pocket guide that you sat upon or sat next to. So if you would open that up, you might be getting your exposure to a reverend called, in many cases, particularly here in the UK, the Crop Circle. So if we take a look at the Crop Circle, then I will acknowledge that there is extensive urban legend that my formidable opponent had a significant hand in conceptualization of that visualization of the lifestyle, which I, you know, grateful and gracefully acknowledge that paramount contribution. However, if we take a look at it, what do you do? We started the preliminary phase, there's an arrow pointing to phase A, architecture vision, and then there's an arrow pointing from phase A to phase B. This is architecture, and then to information systems architecture, technology architecture, opportunities and solutions, migration planning, implementation governance, and then architecture change management. And so if you take a look at those little arrows in between the circles, it certainly implies that this could be interpreted as a deterministic waterfall approach towards development. The thing that is ironic in the standard is that there is actually statements that say, well please do not misinterpret that diagram. It does not meant to imply that it is deterministic and waterfall. And as a practitioner of enterprise architecture, as well as my organization being very much a part of trying to educate and use your organizations about what it means to practice enterprise architecture in the context of the architecture development method, I often find myself explaining, don't pay attention to that picture that's not really the way you do it, and the fact that again that is recognized in the standard itself I think is again substantial evidence that perhaps a reworking of that might be appropriate. If we take a step back and think about it, there's a difference again between what the standard says and how people practice it in the real world. And I think there is to acknowledge there are lightly very many people out there that have been able to figure out what does it mean to practice enterprise architecture in the context of the ADM in an agile fashion. However, I suggest that that extrapolation has been solely dependent on those end users figuring out what that meant. And as presumably the world class organization for the advancement of enterprise architecture here at the older group, I think we can do a lot more service to the end user organizations by providing more prescriptive guidance on what it actually means to do that. So, if we think about extrapolating some of the best practices for agile solution delivery, one thing that I'd like you to consider is a very important principle is the ability of testing early and testing often. So, one thing to throw out there that I do believe we can provide some guidance on is what does it mean to test an enterprise architecture? If we do a little bit of enterprise architecture, how do we provide that to the consumers to get rapid validation and feedback and then make those adjustments to our delivery approach so that we end up actually delivering something of value. And enterprise architecture in many circles has been observed to be a very monolithic process of the long life cycle that is out of touch with the past pace of delivery of a lot of teams. And I think there's fundamentally an impetus mismatch, which is another part of what I think we need to do to make Toga agile is to really support what's called the agile enterprise, both upstream for doing agile decision making and planning, as well as downstream. I have to say it's well planned. Okay, well thank you very much. So, thank you, Roger, and thank you for my worthy opponent for sending me out so much. So, I'd like to find you against the need for change to the Toga agile. And when I come a little to that, I'll do it all right. First of all, the Toga agile. Everything has to have some kind of representation. We've got to be clear and the audience has to point out how clarity is useful when we try to understand something. So, the Toga agile, what is it? Well, is it the crop circle? That's a visualization, of course. For me, it's a framework for developing architecture. It's an obvious name, but that's what it says in the title of the architecture development method. And it's actually available for any purpose, any organisation, any level, any scale. It's not a style guide. It doesn't tell you the style in which you should develop the architecture. The Toga specification, one of the things I think it's relevant to recognise, 695 pages, my colleague has done it, has, it's actually part of why the ecosystem of material, the closed translations, pocket lines, training material exam questions and qualifications is one of the most important things that Stockholm and the Toga ADM have, which is at the heart of all of that in the environment. So, I also have talked about the word agile and what that means. Now, for me, actually, when I'm looking at agile, I'm really talking about agile development. I'm not talking about how easily I get to the bus stop in the morning whereas I really do mean agile development changes into an organisation. So, a project changes stuff, basically. And I look at it, I don't know if people have seen it. I think it's definitely worth viewing the Spotify videos that are available on the internet. People have seen, they've been talking about squads and drives and chapters and guilds and this kind of stuff. How they do their agile development is very important. The company releases all that sort of stuff. And actually, it is a way of what I would call project management bureaucracy. And, you know, why do you have agile project development? Well, faster time to market, greater customer satisfaction. These are some of the things around it. So, the purpose behind agile development is to do agile with somebody who says everything is going to be agile around it or hopefully not. So, in reality, though, is everything agile from day one? Can it be important to be agile? Do you have certain parts of your enterprise that you don't want to be addressed in an agile manner? Do you have to deal with a large legacy? All these things actually make it much more complicated to do this in your ideal world. So, this brings me to the point about agile and ADM in agile, agile, agile architecture. Now, I think the key thing to understand is the difference between doing enterprise architecture in agile way, and I'll call that agile, agile, agile architecture, and doing enterprise architecture for agile development to do the things. The second one is, if you're going to address agile and agile project development in your organisation, then your enterprise architecture needs to be relevant to those efforts. It needs to be consumable, but you can do it in the agile mode. It needs to be accessible to them, and it can't only constrain them and put them back in the world of water for them in those months. However, the question is, what does it sound like in the agile EA? I don't question whether you really need it or not. Do you mean enterprise architecture developing architecture in an agile way? Why? Why do you want to do that? Does it matter if it's taken you a very long time to develop the enterprise architecture, bear with me on this one, had a long approval and assignment process, gone through a lot of pain to make sure it's well documented, well published, highly available? If, at the point of consumption, the agile project is there when they need it, it's there when they need it and it doesn't happen and they can carry on. Now clearly, I'm not advocating that they should take longer and be more difficult, but the unity of the enterprise architecture efforts is not the goal that we're aiming for, we're aiming for, it's agile changes to agile project developments. So just for me, and I did work overall about this as a chief architect before I joined that again, for me, one of the key things about all of that was the word pragmatism. And enterprise architecture, there are frameworks and methods that you can look at, guidance about what to do, but it's all about pragmatism. And nowhere I don't think it's 600 master pages, as it says, don't be pragmatic in your application of this framework. So one of the key things to me is if you've got a vast number of projects in government, you've got lots of things going on, there's lots of changes coming at you. How do you apply the right style to address that? So for me it's about doing things like having co-working strategies, how you work out, what things you're working out, what do you have to do, what do you want to leave. Things like doing just an under architecture just in time. So go ahead and talk about the update by the time you start mapping at one end and you can deal with it. Now to me these are, if you like, agile practices taught in the world of architecture. So as you come to that net, it's not the spec that's important, but that behaves the softer skills of an enterprise architecture in terms of the specification of how they use it in that framework. And just for that I'll add in what I call the enterprise architecture in the CACI host, which is I will apply the benefit of the enterprise, all architectural practices which are required, avoiding those twin traps or overgoldins and architectural lines. So for me, to that thing here is about edge-by-die architecture development. Agile is about project delivery. You need pragmatism, you need engagement. So for me to address agile project development, don't wait me just to appreciate verty, are exactly the sort of the supplements that we need to be able to bring and demonstrate how to use a core that doesn't need change, but we just have to show how to interpret it with supplementary team. That is excellent. Excellent. I know that these folks have been agilising over this debate for a long time, so it may have been a great start. And the interesting thing is it was there I didn't do this. So I will do my hands up. So next, we're going to go on to deal with the floor. So I hope you all have some questions. For example, the impact on specification could be a point for now but you heard the rules, raise your hand, we'll recognise you, we'll bring your microphone over and stage your point, have a maximum of two minutes and then the haters will have time to respond. Okay, so let's see the first question. Good morning, everybody. It's not so much a question but an observation. I think the opposition for not changing agile is very well presented. It is a matter of how we as enterprise architects use tools available to us to make an agile solution. The project manager has actually done quite a good job. So I would like to say thank you very much for your presentations and my time to say that I have put my hand up. Originally as an abstainment, I am now not for change. Okay, statements are on. Good morning, I'm Mike Landon. I'd just like to ask Chris. You counted the number of times togaf uses of word of agile. How many occurrences in the standard does it say you cannot be agile? How many times does it say this must take a year? It's very, very nice question. So certainly I think it would be appropriate to say that the body of knowledge represents a set of patterns and perhaps is explained in the typical way we might explain a lot of those patterns. But it does not in my opinion have a lot of anti-patterns in it which I think is a compensation for that. So I think it's more just because togaf specification does not say that you cannot be agile either way based on my experience explaining this to end user organizations does not mean it is evident that it can be agile and how to make it agile. I know the first response that I get from a lot of people that are coming from the solution delivery community particularly with their face with both the word architecture that's a horrible, awful thing for agile. Enter price architecture, well that's even worse, it's big. There's 692 pages of content you're going to force me to get my brain around to understand this. These are all my belief inhibitors to embracing agile by the primary consumers of which I believe apart from again upstream being of the plan because they're trying to make informed decisions. But again the designated plans that come out of phase F the need for a roadmap or migration plan if the people that are asked to deliver upon it do not understand how they fit into it and see a cognitive dissonance between the concepts that are being described within the official specification I think there's a huge risk that that translation from going from the enterprise architecture to solution delivery and implementation is at risk. And I don't have a lot against statistics in front of me but I'm a guest and many of the organizations of the participants here are doing some kind of agile learning that's likely true. So I think we do a greater service with a great group that's also a difference to the statement earlier that intro gap does not need to change well isn't that the, and in fact the definition of what the agile means responding to change and I think we do again a greater service by not recognizing a significant paradigm shift in what delivery means for the waterfall methods of many decades ago to what is now perceived to be the best practice for solution delivery and basically to say trust us, don't worry, it's in there somewhere, you'll figure it out yourself. Paul, would you like to respond? Well I don't know how many times it's mentioned but I guess by 5. But I think for me it's a prioritization exercise in a lot of ways and I think that I could find many values in making something appropriate and I'm to date to address that kind of thinking but if I was to prioritize those efforts and that energy for me I think worrying about the value of interaction or end-of-the-art infrastructure functions with the projects that they have to work with be where the energy goes and less so actually worrying about the situation. As for the points around access I do think that's a key part but again for me it's always the fact that something is complex how you condition that and make it available is a supplement so I have that for me to think you could help people access the body of knowledge without having to rethink the body of knowledge every time we come up with a new concept. I think recently two months of clarifications here were caused by maybe a few wrong reasons but what I'm thinking here is a child for a child's sake so the very deep question here is a child who wants it because who doesn't want to be a child? A child is something that we don't want is a good person but here the general attitude is a child that doesn't go to the ADN to be a child but it means in the ADN to transform into what is a child's methodology for software development you say no, they are very different a child's technical the ADN is a strategic and if you were at the end because we are doing a child for a child's sake we are doing this for a competition for adoption because that is what it is going to give and enterprise the right to survive then we won't be looking how many times the agile order appears in those sorts of pages because it's not relevant I have seen a portal delivery and it was important because it said it was important but it wasn't a portal and everybody accepted it so it isn't relevant so I would say that the ADN is not waterfall it is always organized by stages the human brain works that way if you look at that it's a myth so we have to look at the room but what I find is that being interactive is much more it's not waterfall it's that idea you only understand the business architecture once you have built down to the information systems architecture and yes you are absolutely right and beyond for some rounds now ok somewhere around did you make your statement or is there a question? no it's okay to make a statement it's okay it's okay I love this interview it's okay it's okay to make a statement but are we talking about making the ADN to be agile for agile sake because it's a project it's a trend is that inappropriate for the perspective it's okay that the agile is more attractive and see that sense because we're pretty secure no doubt but great so to take a stab at responding to what I think the question was was bringing up again I believe agility is a philosophy a way of interaction I would disagree that it's a tactical thing I would suggest that in order for organizations to survive and incredibly fast changing reality in 2016 evolving business models markets and technology that I don't think there would be too many people would say yeah I know we don't need that yet like I said earlier that we need to be in the range of change and respond inappropriately and effectively to that change of course everybody wants to be agile but I guess my experience a lot of people want to be agile but they don't know how to deliver it one of the anti-patterns I've seen in agile solution delivery is it's just an excuse not to follow the rigorous process not to write things down not to make informed decisions it's really a coded language where you're not bossing I'm not even good at the three-die what I do my experience is perhaps many of yours behaving in an agile fashion requires a significant amount of rigor and what I think enterprise architecture brings to the table for those efforts is a data-driven scientific foundation for supporting the hypotheses and conclusions as opposed to the way both decisions are made which are very superficial and very speculative there's not a lot of grounding so I think the irony I think with this is that enterprises need to be agile enterprise architecture is a way to support and they actually instrument an organization to deliver on agility but the fact that the specification does not use that language to describe that I think it's a short money and I think it turns a lot of people off that this is not free I think we can't agree around the similar sort of points in a lot of ways for me another detail I'm kind of making this one up so it's banned but it's a bit like somebody who comes to service the eating in a house and imagine they are the architect or the human in that case is the person who owns the house and they need their boiler servicing there's a tool bag for me in Togabelia is a tool bag and the fact that that tools, gods, banners, remedies, screwdrivers things that's fine I'm a qualified engineer who can go out and service that boiler the boilers will change so we can see that but actually what's really changing for me that might be that agile approach is that the customer service expectation model is different so you can't say I will turn up some time in the back end of the week you have to arrange it's going to be 12.30 on Thursday when they're home you have to be well presented and clean and not even mess dialogue and make for light not doing use perfect language in front of the small children in the house etc etc those behaviours are more prevalent and in mind today that is a style my tool bag could well be exactly the same but my behaviours and how I apply it need to change I don't think that behaviour set sits in my tool bag ok this is the next question there we go here in terms of the architecture work I'm sorry often pretty much all this time I start with this architecture work I actually need to start with this and understand what will be the last to deliver and part of that is time scales is this something which should be done in a short time scale or do I get the luxury of a long time scale with the complexity of the architecture as well very much informs my approach here and this is a great question for you Chris in terms of taking the question literally but you say that we should be replacing the only end with purely agile approach and therefore what's always going on for us next very interesting question I I guess one of the proposals because a part of this as well if the ADM standards should change exactly how should it change and one thing to be need to recognise agile development is agile development prohibitive in toolgap? no absolutely not how did you toolgap with agile and how did you toolgap not with agile how many people would read but yeah well did you toolgap not with agile the way we're building here I do think that we need to acknowledge the complexity of a lot of enterprises and to be certainly oversimplistic many enterprises are in a position right now that really compromises their ability to be agile because of the fact that they have not been agile for the past one 300 years so how do I compensate and recover from that fact organisations like Amazon Spotify are often held out as the golden standard for agile but I think a lot of people overlook the fact that they have an incredibly convenient watch no legacy although they are building their legacy now so it might be interesting to go back and talk to Amazon Spotify in a 100 years to see how easy it is for them to do that I do think there is a there is a paradox though we do want to be able to do long range planning however does long range planning always mean taking a long time to do long range planning and I'll admit that knowing toolgap when it talks about describing future state architectures there's a deference to architecture at a higher level of abstraction with less detail in order to give the organisation an opportunity to respond to the changes that are happening on a regular basis but I do think though that we just to take a step to the left or the right one of the places that enterprise architecture and I'm borrowing on my colleagues democratic aspect of enterprise architecture which I think in the physician space they'll shall do no harm and how many software development teams will go oh yeah the enterprise architecture function is not doing me harm I'm out there on the leading edge embracing new technology that wasn't didn't even exist yesterday I've got to submit a request to get this technology approved and guess what they're going to approve it by the time this project is done or after it's been in operation so I think we've got to find that balance and by no means do I suggest that this is a simple problem but I do think that we ultimately do want to embrace an agile approach to the entirety of the enterprise I call this and many others the imp's mismatch how can the solution delivery be fast and tight when all that's happening in the enterprise and enterprise architecture is going jump, jump, jump, jump, jump and then an annual bi-annual planning is going even slower so in that way I think the agile solution delivery in some ways is compensating for the lack of agility everywhere else throughout the enterprise and I think we need to think about normalizing across all the different parts of it so that it doesn't solely rest upon the solution delivery team maybe they wouldn't have to be so agile if everybody else was maybe a little more agile OK OK, well and I'd have to say I do incur the need for that kind of adaptation the ability to be able to respond to to the need of an organization of that model I like the feelings model very much but just to kind of see not the same people for me I look at most large organizations that have enterprise architecture thinking or concerned and recognize that if I've been in the middle of my model the slower but obviously the same overall kind of speed the slower moving powerful systems of records the stuff that you've got in there which is you don't want to in the words of one of my faculty I've met a monkey of ours is too much because it's important it's a better offer of what you do it's got the integrity the security, the reliability and those words are words and I work in the aerospace and defence sector we're not scared of those words we've got that which is good in the defence area but the in the sense that you need a model that is much more logical resilient in that sense but on outside of your wheel the speed at which things are moving can be much greater so in order to keep up with your model and that's where you can have a more agile approach to the development but I don't see that the enterprise architecture itself has to be developed to be agile it's basically the consumption piece again so it's just really about how to consume and I think it comes back to a colleague point really in that when in FOGAC you're developing your stages of architecture working in there you have to say how long you're going to take to do something and what you're going to deliver in response to the request if that's a very short time frame you have to do something in a rapid adjusting the time basis that's exactly what you do and I don't think respect has to change to do that because that's what I've already said today that you do because it's a feeling on the contrary I've got a few ideas on the terms of the arm just before I said conditionally when you see the approach it starts if you are more difficult for their training and the situation you do not believe it anymore you should not believe it anymore so I don't think that the framework has started to change now but I've got a job and originally I work for more than 10 years and now I've seen some of those I've tried to make the reality of the project it's nice to work with small teams it's really good about the library but the project is part of the strategy to deliver them we have to bridge wall files we have to address organizations and needs so what I find missing is not I don't think that the framework will be fully in the strategy to convey that when these reference frameworks for our industry so I think that the moment a job is still the last and the last one trying to find a way to do reality and at the time I think that we as members of Melbourne should focus on delivering more reference frameworks helping people do more to understand helping business people or CEOs of the time and what is the variation to why it is valued and making more cash to work in delivering things more hands-on so that's why I think that at the moment focus on changing the ways what I would like to be here I would concur that there is a risk of changing things for change sake for agile so we just don't want to throw the baby out with the bad water but I do think the first exposure to the method being the crop circle to assess the tone is not in a very effective way there's in many cases if you show share with executive management CIO, CTO, CEO what Togath is all about it's highly likely you're going to show them the crop circle but that may be the only image that is burning in their mind of what this enterprise architecture thing is so I would agree that we may not need to have to make significant changes change that one graphic I'm not sure that I know the answer I think I have some ideas about some of those characteristics might be a refactor but I do believe that we do need to be thoughtful about not changing for change sake destabilizing things because that's provocative but I would agree as well with that which is restated I think we need to be focusing less on content development at least as practicing enterprise architecture we've got to build stuff reference architectures and standards and processes but I think there's a lot of content out there but I think there's a lack of usage of it and I think the part of that is as enterprise architects we are not building to the right content or delivering it the right way so that it is actually consumable by the people that are supposed to be using it and I would suggest that as a symptom of waterfall development we need to come up with our partners to build the software and throw it over the wall and then let the people in operations fix all the problems and when we weren't listening and interacting with people what they had so again I do think we still need to inject agile as practices into the application of the telegraph ADM and how that actually manifests itself I'm not exactly sure but I do not think we need to significantly destabilize the current effort but I think about how to make it more consumable and accessible to the people that need to know thank you and there's a couple of really interesting points in there for me and in thinking about this particular debate I was reminded to think about other standards and I was prince trained project management before I was prince too quite a lot of time ago and I think about that and I've seen good prince implementations and I've seen not so good prince implementations but actually what varied and when as a recipient of being in those projects and a recipient of that kind of set of standards I didn't feel the need to go back and say you must change prince standard what I felt was actually you need to change the way that people are using it so for example I would attend a risk management meeting and simply because project managers said I've written down some risks we've put some numbers against it and we'll have another meeting next week and we'll put some more numbers down against some more numbers that risk management has done and if the ladies know you've seen the point I don't think the spec needs to change prince for that person to realise actually that's not what risk management is it's a behavioural thing so I think what does good look like that's your reference pattern your architecture, your exemplar it's an excellent way to demonstrate what should happen so it's supplemented the spec with good examples, worked ideas out of how it should work but then the other side is the behavioural part how do you get the people to work I do hear from those who say if they have a problem with their enterprise architecture efforts they don't go, the problem is my what they do is they the problem is my enterprise architecture team and they're not talking to the development of me, they're not eating out of the right tower and going and having an conversation and it's the dialogue that's important there not the change to the specification ok the question is to stand up so all eyes to the industry to start that networking connection with the white mining peoples on observation we're picture drawers and our architects we're picture drawers that we're focusing on the AEM as a convention nothing about the substance behind it what does it mean method can you be a driver in a method can you be satisfied in a method yes you can it almost becomes developments but let's look at the picture how it's built what it says it's a business problem and that's what we're here to solve that's what we're always here to solve that always comes first it's a royal ingredient without that business doesn't work applications and infrastructure so the sequence so the sequence is correct in the future you're not necessarily saving a lot of money a sequence of money so should AEM a driver probably be gone should bring his article to be a driver most of the time is he right to respond there'll have to be but they've received I would certainly agree there's a difference between a pile of horrors and a 700 plus page specification and how a profession embraces that and acts upon it in the real world however maybe this would be a good project compared to other professions that have bodies of knowledge how do they address this issue so I'm at the risk of being bad example and I haven't read it there's a reference manual for the human anatomy a great anatomical reference does that tell you how to be a good surgeon does that tell you how to probably do a particular kind of procedure I don't think so I haven't read it so there must be some place that we can extrapolate from other I think really stable professions that have had to answer this before and to me it's got to I don't know how we got to write it down got to codify it in some fashion I think we need to think about elevating this profession out of tribal neolithic stages that still is in my opinion where we gather around the fire at night and tell stories about what happened and how did we get here and where did we come from and listen to the howls of the wolves in the darkness beyond there must be some way to capture that essence in somebody this is with informative guidance that supplements the stuff I think the risk again we run there is that if it is not being part of the standard people aren't going to read it now that may get into our packaging delivering tolgeff to our earlier points in the most appropriate way I think one of the interesting points really for me is a little bit of the legacy in the way you can think of it as the book and that was the master book you know, possibly in the western world we started from really through it in the students and therefore there is a tendency, that finding a lot of different things in certain ways but what also reminds me of this is one place that worked a little while ago there were two organisations a supplier and a user organisation and between the two organisations was a huge really big contract probably on the side of the Tokyo APM and actually the contract was between the two organisations and was used as a kind of safety buffer and it kind of got in the way of the interaction that was necessary so for me I think one of the things that's quite key is that we shouldn't focus on the specification as our thing to hide behind is going to condition our world and keep us safe from agile developments changes to the business etc we need to be able to use it ourselves for our own assumption and then we have to work out how to interpret it but actually we need to make sure it's not from the centre it's not the thing that we obsess about and I think that's quite what we need to do I didn't have to call close even though it was a little bit before because we had five minute summations and we need to give you all a break we're going to start now with Paul how would you say this so probably I'll have to think of anything unsafe in terms of what you can but I want to know about my mechanic pose which was a sight of a pump there is a line I don't know anything about it but if you did google it you would find the line is close to one of the ones in the middle of the regional mechanic opening just to repeat it I will apply for the benefit of the enterprise all the architectural practices which are required avoiding those twin traps of over governments and architectural so basically it's about finding the right level of guidance of governance looking after the enterprise as well now it's valuable for me too one is I think you have to understand your patient what's appropriate then that's what you're there for but the other reason that I think is useful with this context is that is a translation from the Greek provided by the new properties from thousands years ago and that was actually laid out the modern mechanic pose in the 1990s and it's still new today because there have been a lot of development around technology and medicine and other practices in the field of medicine but the same in the practical is still valuable for changes are the practices around the people adopts and silences around those things so for me that really forces the the idea is to make the purpose of the practical and then what we need to focus on and what we need to worry about how we apply that and the behaviors that we have to various advances and changes so thank you for that thank you very much it's wonderful it's wonderful to be here it's raining outside I'll get a place so thanks everybody for joining us here this morning in our experiment again I still obviously have not been swayed by my worthy opponents arguments I do believe the specification does need to change to individuals observations it may not need to be significantly changed I'm not talking about throwing the whole dang thing away making up a new one from scratch that would certainly be foolhardy it changes to the crop circle I think it needs to be retired it was a great wonderful thing to get us to where we are now but it needs to be subsumed by a more modern representation so that we don't continually have to dance our way around and say well it's not the ADM is agile even though it looks like it's not agile you'll understand once you become a part of the club so I think that's being a little disingenuous particularly that you do not want to be very careful about disenfranchising the largest community in many cases that we're serving which is the solution delivery community there are 50 million developers 100 million developers I would say anybody that has an electronic device might claim themselves to be a developer maybe there's a billion developers how many enterprise architects are and at the risk of my my own there a lot of enterprise architecture communities are populated by us graders I'm 50 years old still hope to be kicking around here for quite some time but I think we do need to be thoughtful about where is the next generation of enterprise architects going to come from and if the current body of knowledge is not recognized off the a typical emerging path for EAs not the sole one coming from the developer community and if you don't even in the standard recognize the words that they talk about every single day agile and lean I think we're on a great risk at bringing those people into our tradition I think again we do not necessarily need to throw out what's there refactor some stuff but I do think we need to add some supplemental guidance to the specification to make it a little bit more clear so that is a perfection I think there's a emergence of what we think we mean by delivery enterprise architectural and agile fashion but I think it behooves our profession that we get together and try to have some convergence on that so that we're all telling the same story not to say that it's all figured out and we can write it down and it will never change so again my appreciation to your patience and willingness and bravery in participating in this experience some of those agile values in that ecosystem honesty, integrity and bravery so I think we certainly have a great foundation to stand upon as we try to take this best practice forward into the 22nd century Thanks so much Again I want to thank Chris and Paul for doing an excellent job and for you again I apologize that we couldn't get to all the questions so we will certainly have time to do the next thing for today to get a few more questions so there you go I'd like to I'd like to ask by round the box where you found this to be at all your schools