Integrating TOGAF and The Banking Industry Architecture Network (BIAN) Service Landscape Whitepaper

Today The Open Group released the updated whitepaper, Integrating the TOGAF® Standard with the BIAN Service Landscape. This release might be beneficial for those architects in the banking space that use or considering to use TOGAF in conjunction with BIAN.

For those not familiar with BIAN, it is a not-for-profit organization which seeks to accelerate the adoption of Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) in the banking industry. It does so by promoting convergence
towards a common service landscape, and by providing semantic standards which makes it
easier and more cost-effective to integrate such services.

Mike The Architect Blog: TOGAF and BIAN Whitepaper

This whitepaper aims to support Enterprise Architects within the banking industry, reaping the synergies of two complementary industry frameworks:

  • TOGAF®, an Open Group Standard, is a proven Enterprise Architecture methodology and framework used by leading global organizations to improve business efficiency.
  • BIAN, the Banking Industry Architecture Network, delivers an overall framework and set of IT Service definitions and BIAN Business Scenarios specific to the banking industry, aimed at improving systems interoperability.

In the heart of the White Paper, both the TOGAF standard and BIAN are mapped to each other. The leverage of the BIAN deliverables in the context of the TOGAF Architecture Development Method (ADM) is further elaborated. For each step in an architecture development process, the integration of BIAN deliverables is described.


For more information


Open Group Enterprise Architecture Conference London 2013 Highlights


Last week , The Open Group kicked off their signature Enterprise Architecture Conference in London. Like others in the  recent past the Open Group has taken on a industry focus for these quarterly conferences. The goal here is to provide a very tailored experience to EA’s in those specific industries. With this focus and where the conference was hosted I was surprised to see the very broad attendance and representation from many nations all over the world that include 28 nations: UK, US, Columbia, Philippines, Australia, Japan, Netherlands, Germany, South Africa and many others.

The theme of this conference was Business Transformation in Finance, Government and Healthcare. There were some very interesting sessions specifically from the keynote presenters based in the UK. If you were not there you can watch the live stream of the keynote presentations here:

You will find from all of these presentations that there is a shift in how EA is used and the results generated. As an example, Judith Jones from Architecting-The-Enterprise, shared her findings from the World Economic Forum, posing the question “what keeps 1000 global leaders awake at night”? There were stats were presented with over 50 global risks – economical, societal, environmental, geopolitical and technological. There wasn’t the typical drudging over IT oriented topics. Luckily this was a shared theme across many of the pure vertical tracks.

The Open Group has posted two summaries are well, I would suggest taking a look at them. I wasn’t going to duplicate much of what they covered since they did such a good job. See below:



Even though there was a vertical focus the Open Group did cover additional areas around the profession of EA, forward looking views on the industry and architecture topics like big data and cloud.

Included in that were a series of announcements:


Mike Walker’s Participation at the Event

Unfortunately for myself I wasn’t able to attend many of the afternoon sessions at the conference. Would see more coverage and thoughts about the event. This was due largely to my leadership duties at the Open Group in developing the next version of TOGAF.  Specifically I spent time in two areas, leading the Business Architecture work stream along with Enterprise Architecture Capabilities workshop (see more here). I will talk more about the Enterprise Architecture Capabilities in another post.

The time that I did spend in the conference center was spent presenting to the conference attendees. I had two sessions that centered around the profession itself:

  • Enterprise Architecture Certifications Distilled
  • Panel Session: Looking to the Future


Enterprise Architecture Certifications Distilled

In my presentation, I distilled a wide range of the certifications directly applicable to Enterprise Architecture. While this was a narrow view on the EA profession, it’s one of the most common questions I get from customers.  Certifications are only one component of a career planning conversation. Most importantly for organizations, it is a component of a competency driven strategy to drive results for your organization.

With that said, and if you agree with the assertion, there are so many different EA certifications out there, without the proper framing it can get a bit confusing. I provide perspectives on certifications like TOGAF®, Open CA, and Open CITS  to name a few. Then discuss why it is important to choose the right certification for your career. I examine why skills and experience-based certifications are becoming increasingly more important to both employers and employees as part of the professional development process.

You can see the Live Stream below for those that wasn’t able to attend:



Looking into the Future Panel


Thanks to David Daniel@AgileEngineer for snapping a shot of all of us.

In this panel session I participated we discussed some of the key issues facing the future development of the Enterprise Architecture discipline. You might of seen me talk on other panels about this very topic. A detailed post on my predictions can be found in the post entitled, “Predictions: Enterprise Architecture In 2020”. My thoughts on these topics haven’t changed much.

The questions asked were:

  1. How will the practice of architecture be materially different in 5 years?
  2. Will enterprise architecture ever achieve a professional status – similar to medicine or law?
  3. Are universities the right place to teach enterprise architecture?
  4. Are there any other disciplines that threaten to supersede EA? If so – what are they?




Thank You

I wanted to extend a big thank you to both The Open Group for asking me to come and speak again at their conference along with all the attendees that joined my sessions, asked some really great questions and tweeted some of my thoughts.

Thank you!

Australian and New Zealand Architects Surveyed on Business Architecture

Mike The Architect Blog: Business Architecture

Business Architecture (BA) is a really hot topic these days. A few years back it was  a topic that people either didn’t talk about or they avoided it. Over the past year or two I have noticed it’s frequency increase a great deal. I think the reason it comes up so much is that we as Enterprise Architects are desperately trying to solve the root business challenges instead of implementing technology for technology sake. 

In this post I will reflect on the two part surveys The Open Group conducted over a few months back. Kudos to them for conducting this in a crowd sourced / practitioner based way and not going into an academic debate over this topic. This is as real world as you can get.

Before we go into the survey I think there is a broader context I want to highlight and take a step back. I believe that Business Architecture is not ply part of EA but also key to EA success.


Business Architecture is Core to the New World of Enterprise Architecture

[UPDATED Gartner Research]

Based on a double blind 2011 worldwide survey and a 2012 survey of Gartner Enterprise Architecture Summit attendees in the US and Europe, Gartner finds that the vast majority of organizations are focusing their EA efforts on how they can drive business value (including IT), not just on driving IT decisions.

In a June 2012 survey, they find that 80% of organizations are focused on how they can leverage EA to either:

  • Aligning business and IT strategies (25%)
  • Delivering strategic business and IT value (39%)
  • Enabling major business transformation (16%)

They also find that 67% of organizations are either: starting (39%), restarting (7%) or renewing(21%) their EA efforts. A point to note that many of the organizations that state that they are "starting EA for the first time" are actually "restarting" because we have talked to them in the past – it is just that the current EA leaders don’t know that there previous efforts.

See more in: Hype Cycle for Enterprise Architecture, 2012


Wow, those are big numbers behind the refocusing . I was very surprised to see that the number was so high. The next set of statements from Gartner was that those new and restarted EA organizations are not rebooting with the same concepts they had in the past but rather business oriented ones instead. That then drives for a much stronger focus on Business Architecture.

With these data points from the analysts and from what I see with customers I certainly see the tide shifting. There is a readiness factor to all of this though. Of the total customers I work with, I would say that currently there are very few that are performing what I would call an end-to-end BA practice. Of that base there is a growing community of EA’s very ready to do BA or have started in some way but again still small. The largest population I’ve seen are the ones willing  entertain the notion because they realize that keeping their heads out of the sand only focusing on technology hasn’t given them overwhelming success.

Evidence shows that business leaders are sick of the IT status quo and are making drastic shifts. IT is getting run by more and more business professionals. Both Gartner and Forrester agree that there is a new breed of the CIO. This person is one that comes from business background and runs IT as such. Gartner says 46% of today’s CIO comes from a business background. This is compounded by other roles taking on IT. Like at NASCAR, the CMO has a large stake in big data and pulling in the IT budget as his own. This is becoming increasingly popular with CMOs but also COOs as well.

The bottom line for me is that this wave is coming, either we can be on top or get swept by it and pulled under by the current.

What is Business Architecture – By The Open Group Survey Members

Back in April 2013, the president of the Open Group, Allen Brown surveyed Australian and New Zealand Architects on their views of Business Architecture. The post was called, "What is Business Architecture".

Some of the questions asked were:

  1. What is Business Architecture in the context of your organization?
  2. Do you have Enterprise Architects in your organization? If so, what is it that you do that they do not? If not, how do you see Business Architecture differently from Enterprise Architecture?
  3. Who do you report to? Is your line of reporting up to the CIO, the COO if you have one, or other senior level person?
  4. How is Business Architecture perceived in your organization? It would also help me if I knew something about your organization.


Allen says it well on the state of Business Architecture:

The first level of analysis, which should come as no surprise is that Business Architecture is a relatively new discipline for most organizations: in most cases it has been around for between 1 and 5 years.  Described by some as a growing capability, or as immature, or even as “largely missing”.  One respondent describes herself quite rightly as a pioneer.


I personally feel you would be hard pressed to find any one individual or organization that is an authority on Business Architecture. Myself included here. I am very much along for the ride to see where this leads as well.  Now with that said I certainly have perspective on the field and want to evolve it to the best of my abilities. As with the other architects that participated in the survey, we all have our own unique perspectives on the matter. With that are success stories that are largely situational in nature and don’t represent the profession.

This is a challenge that we need to be mindful of. We don’t have a baseline that is universally accepted from a BA perspective.  Meaning that without universally accepted outcomes of doing things with common roles and approaches our "mileage will vary". It just will not be repeatable and predictable for the masses. So while it may work in unique situations, once you go outside of that the value may diminish.

I say that because most practitioners, including myself have made our own way through BA. What this leads to is lot of independent thoughts, methods, misconceptions, etc. around this discipline of BA. You can see evidence of this in Nick Malik’s blog post about Business Architecture definitions. We are all over the map. 

These architects surveyed see this as an issue. They want standardization from both a broad industry perspective and their respective industries.

A recurring theme was that the ability to have a company-wide or industry-wide model was critical as it provides a common terminology across the board to what the organization actually does and enables understanding of the implications of any changes. 


Which of the five interrogative’s do business architects focus on?

In the post some of the surveyed architects said that BA focuses on the "what" part of the equation. An area of clarif
ication that I would add to the comments is in regards to BA’s only focusing on  "What" the business is. I don’t think this gives the BA its full justice.

In my opinion, I see the common mistake that business architect make is that they focus on what the business currently is, instead of focusing on what the business should be. You need both views to guide you. Business Capability Models (BCM) do a great job of addressing "what" the business is. But if you don;t understand the motivations and value creation and ultimately realization you are left with a context-less and a risk of a flawed BCM.

Business Architecture in my opinion all boils down to rationalizing "Why". To be explicit, rationalizing and not creating the business strategy.

Below is a model I have used to articulate this:

Business Architecture Overview


I believe the surveyed architects nailed the BA focus with the following listed:

  • Understanding strategic themes and drivers
  • Modeling value chains, value streams, configurations
  • Context modeling e.g. external interactions
  • Capabilities, including business capability, service capability (including both business and IT capabilities), capability maturity, targets and gaps
  • Calling out the interdependencies of all the business and architecture domains: strategy, governance, market, distribution, product, capability
  • Design – entities, people (organization structure, incentives), process, systems, functions, roles
  • Linking with and supporting the strategy and injecting into the investment planning cycle
  • The Business Architect provides processes, part of the input and information for the business to determine whether or not any investment will be made within their organisation

The only thing I would add here is that while models, templates and tools are good and helpful, we need to be wary not to develop a model for a models sake. Business Architecture facilitates the process of understanding the business and how to improve it based on that analysis. In other words it’s not about the destination (models and tools) but the journey (collaboration, ideation, rationalization, negotiation, etc.).


Again, a big thank you to the Open Group for conducting the survey and distilling the results for all of us. Much appreciated.

Mike Walker on Business Architecture, Part 2


In this is Part 2 article, “Walker on Business Architecture” in the Architecture and Governance Magazine , I continue to explore and answer questions in the business and information architecture discipline. In part 2 of this article we switch the focus to real world application of BA and IA.

  • Describe examples of business architecture (BA) and/or information architecture (IA) you have seen at organizations you have worked for or been exposed.
  • Have you seen anyone make an attempt at BA or IA and fail?
  • If you had to pick one critical success factor for BA/IA, what do you think it would be?
  • General comments/thoughts as it relates or does not relate to enterprise architecture.

Before we get into the article, be sure to go to the Architecture and Governance Magazine site and check out all the other great articles as well. Just sign up and you can browse all the volumes.


Part 2, Walker on Business Architecture

A&G: Describe examples of business architecture (BA) and/or information architecture (IA) you have seen at organizations you have worked for or been exposed to (generic, no company names)? And how would you rate those efforts?

Walker: In regard to business architecture success stories, I’ve seen a company transform its entire IT landscape to make business architecture a first-class citizen. It did this by creating an executive business steering committee. And that executive business steering committee was responsible for centralizing the corporate strategy. Having that structure tied down then led to a formal business architecture team. The business architecture team reported directly to the strategy steering group. So, for the first time in that company’s history, it had a business architecture translating the business corporate strategy into something consumable by the enterprise. That function was elevated all the way up to executive vice presidents, the highest level in the corporation, to focus on the discipline of the business architecture.

The outputs of that were things like road maps, business and IT strategies, and architectures and future state models of where the company wants to go. The company was so ambitious that it said let’s forget the sins of the past and let’s focus on what this company would look like 10 years from now, and let’s create that view. Committee members spent several months creating that view, and then they went back to the enterprise and said, okay, what is the gap, because this is where we need to go as a company. It really gave the company focus and direction in what’s important and what’s not important.


A&G: Have you seen anyone make an attempt at BA or IA and fail? If so, what led to that failure?

Walker: A lot of times it comes down to a few factors. Executive support: it has to be something that’s important to your CIO level executives. If they don’t buy in, it’s not going to happen. I’ve seen those failures. I’ve seen environments where the CIOs were believers but the people didn’t have the right level of business acumens, or they didn’t have the right leadership skills that would make it happen.

All that is important to note here is none of these failures were the result of having a bad tool, a bad technology, or a bad model. I’ve seen all those failed organizations overcompensate on capability models and strategy maps, etc. The result was that they lacked the critical soft skills to make that a successful venture in their companies. The linchpin in all of this is: if the people who are booting this up don’t have great people skills, they will fail. Because, at that level, this job is based on influence and making people understand that this is important. It’s not about the model you use; it’s about how you conduct yourself and how you win the hearts and minds of the organization.


A&G: If you had to pick one critical success factor for BA/IA, what do you think it would be?

Walker: The critical success factor really comes down to two things. One is business acumen: knowing the business, what the company wants to accomplish, its goals and objectives, its strategies, etc. That will help you have a meaningful conversation. Second is soft skills. I’ve talked a lot about this on my blog: emotional intelligence, which is self-awareness of yourself but also self-awareness of other people, things like empathy. If you don’t have a high degree of emotional intelligence, if you’re not empathetic, you’re not making a connection. And if you’re not making a connection, they’re less likely to buy into what you’re doing. Why is this important? Because when you’re at the business architecture and information architecture levels, the stakes are much higher because they have broad and pervasive impacts. It becomes much harder to convince someone to change or architect their business architecture versus buying a new server.


A&G: What other general comments/thoughts do you have about business and information architecture as it relates or does not relate to enterprise architecture? To solution development and delivery?

Walker: Both of those disciplines, in my opinion, are part of enterprise architecture. There are specific things you do to make sure you have the right enterprise architecture. If you look at any methodology out there, it says you should start out with understanding the corporate strategy. Then, you should go and do a business architecture. Then, you should go understand your information architecture, application, technology, etc.

These two disciplines roll under enterprise architecture. If we look at the BAIT model, which is business, application, information, and technology architecture, enterprise architects are focused more on the business and information and will look at application and technology more secondary. The IT architects have a tendency to focus more on the application and technology architecture. Primarily speaking, they can’t divorce themselves from the other stuff, but if they’re going to focus on transforming the company those are the two disciplines they have to spend more time on.


More Resources

The Business Model Canvas: Know Thy Business

Mike The Architect Blog: Do you Really Know Your Business? As Enterprise Architects we drive to maximize value in our companies. With most EA teams residing within an IT area under a CIO we can find ourselves bogged down by the technology weighing down on decisions. The challenge with that is one of context. Without understanding “Why” we are solving a problem will most certainly inhibit the value in which is achieved.

So the question is, do we really know our business before we make architecture decisions? What tools do we use or don’t use to understand the business model?

I was happy to see Alexander Osterwalder  publish on the Harvard Business Review blog a post titled, “A Better Way to Think About Your Business Model”.  Certainly take a look at this. His post provides some high-level information on why it’s important to use the model. If you find value in the model as I do, you will want to pick up his book, Business Model Generation. Personally I like the hard copy best given it’s so visual. There is also an iPad app that you can get that works really well too. You can find it in the Apple App Store here: 

As I eluded to above, I have found a lot of value in this tool. It is one that I’ve been using for quite some time now. It’s a brilliant model that helps you dissect what your business is. The data itself isn’t rocket science. It’s the conversation that it triggers which drives the value. I often apply this in workshop like sessions rather than one off data collecting exercises.


Mike The Architect Blog: business model canvas


WARNING: While it can allude to, the Business Model Canvas does not tell you why your business has been built in the fashion it has. This is within strategy oriented methods and models.

The business model canvas can really help you to understand your business. What is nice about it is that the questions can be applied at multiple levels. You can apply it at a corporate level or apply it to a business unit.

As an example of this, I applied it to an already established enterprise architecture organization. I used the model to assess the organization on its “health”. Asking those business oriented questions forces us to think as if we were a business unit, and that’s not a bad thing. The results were quite amazing because it got the right level of conversation and thinking going to evolve the overall value proposition.


About the Business Model Canvas

If your not familiar with the Business Model Canvas below is a two minute overview of the Business Model Canvas, a tool for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. The business model canvas — as opposed to the traditional, intricate business plan — helps organizations conduct structured, tangible, and strategic conversations around new businesses or existing ones. Leading global companies like GE, P&G, and Nestlé use the canvas to manage strategy or create new growth engines, while start-ups use it in their search for the right business model. The canvas’s main objective is to help companies move beyond product-centric thinking and towards business model thinking.



Find out more at

EA Practitioners Have Significant Influence on $1.1 Trillion in Enterprise IT Spend


Gartner just released a report entitled, "EA Practitioners Have Significant Influence on $1.1 Trillion in Enterprise IT Spend” that strongly links to their Business Outcome Driven Enterprise Architecture.  This is interesting article because it’s shows the latest thinking from real EA practitioners with some real good stats on where we are at from an industry perspective. 

What is also clear is that EA is now positioned to do what we have wanted to do for years, drive business results not just technology decisions. This is a big opportunity for us and it is now our opportunity to lose.


EA Practitioners Have Significant Influence on $1.1 Trillion in Enterprise IT Spend

Fifty percent of enterprise architecture (EA) practitioners have a significant impact on enterprise IT budget activities and decisions, according to a recent survey by Gartner, Inc. A July 2012 Gartner survey of EA practitioners found that half of EA practitioners have an influence over their organization’s IT budget allocation that is either "final decision maker" or "great deal of influence."

Based on the EA survey results from Gartner events in North America and Europe, analysts estimate that EA practitioners have a "final decision-making" influence on $331 billion in worldwide enterprise IT spend and a "great deal of influence" on $774 billion in worldwide enterprise IT spending. Overall, EA practitioners have an influence that is either "final decision maker" or "great deal of influence" on $1.1 trillion in worldwide enterprise IT spending.

"Overwhelmingly we find EA practitioners focused on delivering on business value and strategic transformation," said Philip Allega, managing vice president at Gartner. "Gone are the days of just ‘doing EA’ with little value or impact. Sixty-eight percent of organizations surveyed stated that they are focusing their EA program on aligning business and IT strategies, delivering strategic business and IT value, or enabling major business transformation."

Gartner is leading the way in defining and mastering a radical new approach to EA, which is business outcome-driven EA. Leading EA practitioners are focused on creating diagnostic deliverables to help business and IT leaders respond to business and technology disruptions.

"This new generation of EA practitioners offers technology and service providers (TSPs) with an opportunity as well as a threat," said Mr. Allega. "Technology and service providers should develop targeted marketing to this new generation of EA practitioner as they have a significant influence on their organization buying decisions. Those that fail to understand the priorities, strategic focus and impact of EA practitioners will jeopardize their ability to sell into an organization."

Gartner has identified the impact of EA trends on IT purchasing decisions, and has the following advice and recommendations to help TSPs target this audience more effectively:

In organizations supporting EA as strategic, and as collaborative between business leaders and IT, TSPs will increasingly find EA practitioners influencing IT spend.

EA practitioners have a high degree of influence over emerging technology purchases, with 52 percent of the EA practitioners surveyed reporting directly to a CIO or CTO. They are also "very involved" in integration consulting services (64 percent) and business applications (52 percent). As EA practitioners continue to focus on integrating and aligning with business priorities and actively working with business leaders, their degree of influence on business intelligence tools, workplace tools and business applications will likely increase as well.

Organizations starting, restarting or renewing their EA efforts present an opportunity for providers to market to and influence a new generation of EA practitioners.

The survey revealed that 77 percent of respondents were either restarting or renewing EA efforts (18 percent), initiating EA for the first time (34 percent) or taking EA efforts to the next level (25 percent). In organizations starting EA for the first time, EA practitioners have a significant influence on IT budget decisions, but significantly less have decision-making authority. These new and restarting organizations present an opportunity for TSPs to target a new generation of EA practitioners.

As organizations become more mature in supporting EA, they will have a greater degree of influence on IT budget allocations to products and services.

Many organizations begin their EA journey by focusing inside the IT organization on system consolidation, standardization and cost management. As they mature, this evolves into looking more closely at the "alignment" between the business strategy and IT strategy. From here the EA program evolves further to become "business outcome-oriented," such that in a mature EA program, other areas of decision making are guided and influenced by business outcome-driven EA.


More Information

Additional information is available in the Gartner report, "EA Practitioners Have Significant Influence on $1.1 Trillion in Enterprise IT Spend”. The report is available on Gartner’s website at

Come See Mike Walker Speak on the EA Industry Expert Panel and Present at the Troux Conference 2013

Troux WWC 2013

The Troux Worldwide Conference is returning to Austin, Texas on March 19-20, 2013. If you are a Troux customer, partner, or actively involved in Enterprise Architecture (EA) or Enterprise Portfolio Management (EPM), this is your opportunity to enjoy peer networking and joint learning with a focus on delivering rapid results with Troux EPM solutions.

Mike Walker Troux Conference

I’m flattered and feel very fortunate to be invited back to speak on the EA Industry Expert Panel for a third year in a row! This is certainly an honor and I thank Troux for the opportunity to be invited back to this exclusive event each year. I especially am humbled to be surrounded by a great line up of speakers and EA practitioners. 

It should be a great event!

If there are folks that are the conference or in the Austin area that want to meet up to discuss EA please let me know either through the comments on this post or through Twitter. 

 You can see me in two sessions:

  1. Presentation – Highly Impactful EA Organizations Make Value Driven Decisions
  2. EA Industry Expert Panel – Success in the Connected Enterprise
Below I have provided the descriptions of each:

Highly Impactful EA Organizations Make Value Driven Decisions
Enterprise Architects are faced with a rapidly changing business climate, competitive pressures and a shifting technology landscape that is forcing the enterprise to evolve. With this acceleration of change in the market it requires faster decisions that are well informed to maximize value. Enterprise Architects are at the tip of the spear to enable this change but need the tools.

In this session I will explore one of the proven practices that I have found from highly impactful Enterprise Architecture (EA) organizations, namely enterprise portfolios. Enterprise portfolios extend past the traditional project and program discipline to cover all aspects of the enterprise. Moving from disconnected, static and context-less pieces of data to a governed portfolio of enterprise knowledge that can maximize value and mitigate risk to our businesses.

Success in the Connected Enterprise

Success in the connected enterprise requires that executives understand the cause-effect relationships that exist across their organization. They must know what can and should change, when to change it, and where to take risks, all while avoiding unintended consequences. Transforming people, product and processes is difficult, but it is even harder without having access to detailed and reliable knowledge about how the parts of their organizations fit together, operate and evolve. In this session our panelists will share their personal insights, and answer your questions, on how they use various portfolio concepts to navigate and guide critical decision-making in their organizations