Dana Gardner: Hello,
and welcome to a special BriefingsDirect thought
leadership panel discussion on how The Open Group is spearheading ways
to make smart cities initiatives
more effective.
 |
| Gardner |
Many of the latest
technologies -- such as Internet of Things (IoT)
platforms, big data analytics,
and cloud computing
-- are making data-driven and efficiency-focused digital transformation more
powerful.
But exploiting these advances
to improve municipal services for cities and urban government agencies face
unique obstacles. Challenges range from a lack of common data sharing
frameworks, to immature governance over multi-agency projects, to the need to
find investment funding amid tight public sector budgets.
The good news is that
architectural framework methods, extended enterprise knowledge sharing, and
common specifying and purchasing approaches have solved many similar issues in
other domains.
We will now explore how The Open Group is ambitiously seeking to improve the impact of smart cities initiatives by implementing what works organizationally among the most complex projects.
I’m Dana Gardner,
Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, your
host and moderator as we now examine the future of smart cities programs.
With that, please join me in welcoming our panel, Dr. Chris Harding,
Chief Executive Officer at Lacibus. Welcome, Dr. Harding.
Dr. Chris Harding: Thank
you, Dana. It’s a pleasure to be on the podcast, and I am looking forward to a
great discussion.
Gardner: We’re
also here with Dr. Pallab Saha,
Chief Architect at The Open Group. Welcome.
Dr. Pallab Saha: Thank
you, Dana. It’s great to be on this panel. I look forward to a very involved
discussion.
Gardner: Don
Brancato, Chief Strategy Architect at Boeing, joins us. Welcome, Don.
Don Brancato:
Thanks very much, Dana. I appreciate joining the discussion.
Gardner: We
are here, too, with Don Sunderland,
Deputy Commissioner, Data Management and Integration, New York City Department of
IT and Telecommunications. Welcome, Don.
Don Sunderland: Thank
you. I am very much looking forward to the conversation.
Gardner:
Filling out our panel is Dr. Anders Lisdorf,
Enterprise Architect for Data Services for the City of New
York. Welcome, Dr. Lisdorf.
Dr. Anders Lisdorf: Thank
you for having me.
Gardner: Chris,
why are urban and regional government projects different from other complex
digital transformation initiatives?
 |
| Harding |
Harding: Municipal
projects have both differences and similarities compared with corporate enterprise
projects. The most fundamental difference is in the motivation. If you are in a
commercial enterprise, your bottom line motivation is money, to make a profit
and a return on investment for the shareholders. If you are in a municipality,
your chief driving force should be the good of the citizens -- and money is
just a means to achieving that end.
This is bound to affect the
ways one approaches problems and solves problems. A lot of the underlying issues
are the same as corporate enterprises face.
Bottom-up blueprint approach
Brancato: Within
big companies we expect that the chief executive officer (CEO) leads from the
top of a hierarchy that looks like a triangle. This CEO can do a cause-and-effect
analysis by looking at instrumentation, global markets, drivers, and so on to
affect strategy. And what an organization will do is then top-down.
In a city, often it’s the
voters, the masses of people, who empower the leaders. And the triangle goes
upside down. The flat part of the triangle is now on the top. This is where the
voters are. And so it’s not simply making the city a mirror of our big
corporations. We have to deliver value differently.
There are three levels to
that. One is instrumentation, so installing sensors and delivering data. Second
is data crunching, the ability to turn the data into meaningful information.
And lastly, urban informatics that tie back to the voters, who then keep the leaders
in power. We have to observe these in order to understand the smart city.
 |
| Saha |
Saha: Two
things make smart city projects more complex. First, typically large countries have
multilevel governments. One at the federal level, another at a provincial or
state level, and then city-level government, too.
This creates complexity
because cities have to align to the state they belong to, and also to the
national level. Digital transformation initiatives and architecture-led
initiatives need to help.
Secondly, in many countries
around the world, cities are typically headed by mayors who have merely
ceremonial positions. They have very little authority in how the city runs,
because the city may belong to a state and the state might have a chief
minister or a premier, for example. And at the national level, you could have a
president or a prime minster. This overall governance hierarchy needs to be
factored when smart city projects are undertaken.
These two factors bring in
complexity and differentiation in how smart city projects are planned and implemented.
Sunderland: I
agree with everything that’s been said so far. In the particular case of New
York City -- and with a lot of cities in the US -- cities are fairly autonomous.
They aren’t bound to the states. They have an opportunity to go in the
direction they set.
The problem is, of course, the
idea of long-term planning in a political context. Corporations can choose to
create multiyear plans and depend on the scale of the products they procure. But
within cities, there is a forced changeover of management every few years. Sometimes
it’s difficult to implement a meaningful long-term approach. So, they have to
be more reactive.
Create demand to drive demand
Driving
greater continuity can nonetheless come by creating ongoing demand around the
services that smart cities produce. Under [former New York City mayor] Michael
Bloomberg, for example, when he launched 311 and nyc.gov, he had a basic philosophy which was,
you should implement change that can’t be undone.
If you do something like offer
people the ability to reduce 10,000 [city access] phone numbers to three
digits, that’s going to be hard to reverse. And the same thing is true if you
offer a simple URL, where citizens can go to begin the process of facilitating whatever
city services they need.
In like-fashion, you have to
come up with a killer app with which you habituate the residents. They then
drive demand for further services on the basis of it. But trying to plan delivery
of services in the abstract -- without somehow having demand developed by the
user base -- is pretty difficult.
By definition, cities and
governments have a captive audience. They don’t have to pander to learn their demands.
But whereas the private sector goes out of business if they don’t respond to
the demands of their client base, that’s not the case in the public sector.
The public sector has to focus
on providing products and tools that generate demand, and keep it growing in
order to create the political impetus to deliver yet more demand.
Gardner:
Anders, it sounds like there is a chicken and an egg here. You want a killer
app that draws attention and makes more people call for services. But you have
to put in the infrastructure and data frameworks to create that killer app. How
does one overcome that chicken-and-egg relationship between required technical resources
and highly visible applications?
 |
| Lisdorf |
Lisdorf: The
biggest challenge, especially when working in governments, is you don’t have
one place to go. You have several different agencies with different agendas and
separate preferences for how they like their data and how they like to share it.
This is a challenge for any Enterprise Architecture
(EA) because you can’t work from the top-down, you can’t specify
your architecture roadmap. You have to pick the ways that it’s convenient to do
a project that fit into your larger picture, and so on.
It’s very different working in
an enterprise and putting all these data structures in place than in a city
government, especially in New York City.
Gardner: Dr. Harding,
how can we move past that chicken and egg tension? What needs to change for
increasing the capability for technology to be used to its potential early in
smart cities initiatives?
Framework for a common foundation
Harding: As Anders
brought up, there are lots of different parts of city government responsible
for implementing IT systems. They are acting independently and autonomously -- and
I suspect that this is actually a problem that cities share with corporate
enterprises.
Very large corporate
enterprises may have central functions, but often that is small in comparison
with the large divisions that it has to coordinate with. Those divisions often
act with autonomy. In both cases, the challenge is that you have a set of
independent governance domains -- and they need to share data. What’s needed is
some kind of framework to allow data sharing to happen.
This framework has to be at
two levels. It has to be at a policy level -- and that is going to vary from
city to city or from enterprise to enterprise. It also has to be at a technical
level. There should be a supporting technical framework that helps the
enterprises, or the cities, achieve data sharing between their independent
governance domains.
Gardner: Dr. Saha,
do you agree that a common data framework approach is a necessary step to
improve things?
Saha: Yes, definitely.
Having common data standards across different agencies and having a framework
to support that interoperability between agencies is a first step. But as Dr.
Anders mentioned, it’s not easy to get agencies to collaborate with one another
or share data. This is not a technical problem. Obviously, as Chris was saying,
we need policy-level integration both vertically and horizontally across
different agencies.
Some cities set up urban labs as a proof of concept. You can make assessment on how the demand and supply are aligned.
Obviously, it is a
chicken-and-egg problem. We need to go beyond frameworks and policies to get to
where citizens can try out certain services. When I use the word “services” I
am looking at integrated services across different agencies or service
providers.
The fundamental principle here
for the citizens of the city is that there is no wrong door, he or she can
approach any department or any agency of the city and get a service. The
citizen, in my view, is approaching the city as a singular authority -- not a
specific agency or department of the city.
Gardner: Don Brancato,
if citizens in their private lives can, at an e-commerce cloud, order almost
anything and have it show up in two days, there might be higher expectations for
better city services.
Is that a way for us to get to
improvement in smart cities, that people start calling for city and municipal
services to be on par with what they can do in the private sector?
Public- and private-sector parity
Brancato: You
are exactly right, Dana. That’s what’s driven the do it yourself
(DIY) movement. If you use a cell phone at home, for example, you
expect that you should be able to integrate that same cell phone in a secure
way at work. And so that transitivity is expected. If I can go to Amazon and
get a service, why can’t I go to my office or to the city and get a service?
 |
| Brancato |
This forms some of the
tactical reasons for better using frameworks, to be able to deliver such value.
A citizen is going to exercise their displeasure by their vote, or by moving to
some other place, and is then no longer working or living there.
Traceability is also important.
If I use some service, it’s then traceable to some city strategy, it’s
traceable to some data that goes with it. So the traceability model, in its
abstract form, is the idea that if I collect data it should trace back to some
service. And it allows me to build a body of metrics that show continuously how
services are getting better. Because data, after all, is the enablement of the
city, and it proves that by demonstrating metrics that show that value.
So, in your e-commerce catalog
idea, absolutely, citizens should be able to exercise the catalog. There should
be data that shows its value, repeatability, and the reuse of that service for
all the participants in the city.
Gardner: Don
Sunderland, if citizens perceive a gap between what they can do in the private
sector and public -- and if we know a common data framework is important -- why
don’t we just legislate a common data framework? Why don’t we just put in place
common approaches to IT?
Sunderland: There
have been some fairly successful legislative actions vis-à-vis making data
available and more common. The Open
Data Law, which New York City passed back in 2012, is an excellent
example. However, the ability to pass a law does not guarantee the ability to
solve the problems to actually execute it.
 |
| Sunderland |
In the case of the service levels
you get on Amazon,
that implies a uniformity not only of standards but oftentimes of [hyperscale] platform.
And that just doesn’t exist [in the public sector]. In New York City, you have 100
different entities, 50 to 60 of them are agencies providing services. They have
built vast legacy IT systems that don’t interoperate. It would take a massive
investment to make them interoperate. You still have to have a strategy going
forward.
The idea of adopting standards
and frameworks is one approach. The idea is you will then grow from there. The
idea of creating a law that tries to implement uniformity -- like an Amazon or Facebook can --
would be doomed to failure, because nobody could actually afford to implement
it.
Since you can’t do top-down
solutions -- even if you pass a law -- the other way is via bottom-up
opportunities. Build standards and governance opportunistically around specific
centers of interest that arise. You can identify city agencies that begin to
understand that they need each other’s data to get their jobs done effectively
in this new age. They can then build interconnectivity, governance, and
standards from the bottom-up -- as opposed to the top-down.
Gardner: Dr. Harding,
when other organizations are siloed, when we can’t force everyone into a common
framework or platform, loosely coupled interoperability has come to the rescue.
Usually that’s a standardized methodological approach to interoperability. So
where are we in terms of gaining increased interoperability in any fashion? And
is that part of what The Open Group hopes to accomplish?
Not something you can legislate
Harding: It’s certainly
part of what The Open Group hopes to accomplish. But Don was absolutely right. It’s
not something that you can legislate. Top-down standards have not been very
successful, whereas encouraging organic growth and building on opportunities
have been successful.
The prime example is the
Internet that we all love. It grew organically at a time when governments
around the world were trying to legislate for a different technical solution; the Open Systems
Interconnection (OSI) model for those that remember it.
And that is a fairly common experience. They attempted to say, “Well, we know what
the standard has to be. We will legislate, and everyone will do it this way.”
That often falls on its face.
But to pick up on something that is demonstrably working and say, “Okay, well,
let’s all do it like that,” can become a huge success, as indeed the Internet
obviously has. And I hope that we can build on that in the sphere of data
management.
It’s interesting that Tim
Berners-Lee, who is the inventor of the World Wide Web, is now
turning his attention to Solid, a personal online datastore,
which may represent a solution or standardization in the data area that we need
if we are going to have frameworks to help governments and cities organize.
A prime example is the Internet. It grew organically when governments were trying to legislate a solution. That often falls on its face. Better to pick up on something that is working in practice.
Lisdorf: I
think that is the only way to go because, as I said earlier, any top-down sort
of way of controlling data initiatives in the city are bound to fail.
Gardner: Let’s
look at the cost issues that impact smart cities initiatives. In the private
sector, you can rely on an operating expenditure budget (OPEX) and also gain capital
expenditures (CAPEX). But what is it about the funding process for governments
and smart cities initiatives that can be an added challenge?
How to pay for IT?
Brancato: To
echo what Dr. Harding suggested, cost and legacy will drive a funnel to our
digital world and force us -- and the vendors -- into a world of
interoperability and a common data approach.
Cost and legacy are what
compete with transformation within the cities that we work with. What improves
that is more interoperability and adoption of data standards. But Don
Sunderland has some interesting thoughts on this.
Sunderland: One
of the great educations you receive when you work in the public sector, after
having worked in the private sector, is that the terms CAPEX and OPEX have
quite different meanings in the public sector.
Governments, especially local
governments, raise money through the sale of bonds. And within the local government
context, CAPEX implies anything that can be funded through the sale of bonds. Usually
there is specific legislation around what you are allowed to do with that bond.
This is one of those places where we interact strongly with the state, which stipulates
specific requirements around what that kind of money can be used for. Traditionally
it was for things like building bridges, schools, and fixing highways. Technology
infrastructure had been reflected in that, too.
What’s happened is that the
CAPEX model has become less usable as we’ve moved to the cloud approach because
capital expenditures disappear when you buy services, instead of licenses, on the
data center servers that you procure and own.
This creates tension between
the new cloud architectures, where most modern data architectures are moving to,
and the traditional data center, server-centric licenses, which are more easily
funded as capital expenditures.
The rules around CAPEX in the
public sector have to evolve to embrace data as an easily identifiable asset
[regardless of where it resides]. You can’t say it has no value when there are
whole business models being built around the valuation of the data that’s being
collected.
There is great hope for us
being able to evolve. But for the time being, there is tension between creating
the newer beneficial architectures and figuring out how to pay for them. And
that comes down to paying for [cloud-based operating models] with bonds, which
is politically volatile. What you pay for through operating expenses comes out
of the taxes to the people, and that tax is extremely hard to come by and
contentious.
So traditionally it’s been a
lot easier to build new IT infrastructure and create new projects using capital
assets rather than via ongoing expenses directly through taxes.
Gardner: If
you can outsource the infrastructure and find a way to pay for it, why won’t municipalities
just simply go with the cloud entirely?
Cities in the cloud, but services grounded
 |
| Credit: Wikimedia Commons |
Saha: Across
the world, many governments -- not just local governments but even state and
central governments -- are moving to the cloud. But one thing we have to keep
in mind is that at the city level, it is not necessary that all the services be
provided by an agency of the city.
It could be a public/private
partnership model where the city agency collaborates with a private party who provides
part of the service or process. And therefore, the private party is funded, or
allowed to raise money, in terms of only what part of service it provides.
Many cities are addressing the
problem of funding by taking the ecosystem approach because many cities have
realized it is not essential that all services be provided by a government
entity. This is one way that cities are trying to address the constraint of
limited funding.
Gardner: Dr.
Lisdorf, in a city like New York, is a public cloud model a silver bullet, or
is the devil in the details? Or is there a hybrid or private cloud model that
should be considered?
Lisdorf: I don’t
think it’s a silver bullet. It’s certainly convenient, but since this is new
technology there are lot of things we need to clear up. This is a transition,
and there are a lot of issues surrounding that.
One is the funding. The city still
runs in a certain way, where you buy the IT infrastructure yourself. If it is
to change, they must reprioritize the budgets to allow new types of funding for
different initiatives. But you also have issues like the culture because it’s
different working in a cloud environment. The way of thinking has to change. There
is a cultural inertia in how you design and implement IT solutions that does
not work in the cloud.
There is still the perception that
the cloud is considered something dangerous or not safe. Another view is that
the cloud is a lot safer in terms of having resilient solutions and the data is
safe.
This is all a big thing to
turn around. It’s not a simple silver bullet. For the foreseeable future, we
will look at hybrid architectures, for sure. We will offload some use cases to
the cloud, and we will gradually build on those successes to move more into the
cloud.
Gardner: We’ve
talked about the public sector digital transformation challenges, but let’s now
look at what The Open Group brings to the table.
Dr. Saha, what can The Open
Group do? Is it similar to past initiatives around TOGAF as an architectural
framework? Or looking at DoDAF,
in the defense sector, when they had similar problems, are there solutions
there to learn from?
Smart city success strategies
Saha: At
The Open Group, as part of the architecture forum, we recently set up a Government
Enterprise Architecture Work Group. This working group may develop a
reference architecture for smart cities. That would be essential to establish a
standardization journey around smart cities.
One of the reasons smart city
projects don’t succeed is because they are typically taken on as an IT initiative,
which they are not. We all know that digital technology is an important element
of smart cities, but it is also about bringing in policy-level intervention. It
means having a framework, bringing cultural change, and enabling a change
management across the whole ecosystem.
At The Open Group work group
level, we would like to develop a reference architecture. At a more practical
level, we would like to support that reference architecture with implementation
use cases. We all agree that we are not going to look at a top-down approach;
no city will have the resources or even the political will to do a top-down
approach.
Given that we are looking at a
bottom-up, or a middle-out, approach we need to identify use cases that are
more relevant and successful for smart cities within the Government Enterprise
Architecture Work Group. But this thinking will also evolve as the work group
develops a reference architecture under a framework.
Gardner: Dr.
Harding, how will work extend from other activities of The Open Group to smart
cities initiatives?
Collective, crystal-clear standards
Harding: For
many years, I was a staff member, but I left The Open Group staff at the end of
last year. In terms of how The Open Group can contribute, it’s an excellent
body for developing and understanding complex situations. It has participants
from many vendors, as well as IT users, and from the academic side, too.
Such a mix of participants, backgrounds,
and experience creates a great place to develop an understanding of what is needed
and what is possible. As that understanding develops, it becomes possible to
define standards. Personally, I see standardization as kind of a
crystallization process in which something solid and structured appears from a
liquid with no structure. I think that the key role The Open Group plays in
this process is as a catalyst, and I think we can do that in this area, too.
Gardner: Don
Brancato, same question; where do you see The Open Group initiatives
benefitting a positive evolution for smart cities?
Brancato: Tactically,
we have a data exchange model, the Open Data Element Framework
that continues to grow within a number of IoT and industrial IoT patterns. That
all ties together with an open platform, and into Enterprise Architecture in
general, and specifically with models like DODAF, MODAF, and TOGAF.
Data catalogs provide proof of the activities of human systems, machines, and sensors to the fulfillment of their capabilities and are traceable up to the strategy.
The notion of data catalogs,
which are the children of these service catalogs, provides the proof of the
activities of human systems, machines, and sensors to the fulfillment of their
capabilities and then are traceable up to the strategy.
I think we have a nice
collection of standards and a global collection of folks who are delivering on that
idea today.
Gardner: What
would you like to see as a consumer, on the receiving end, if you will, of
organizations like The Open Group when it comes to improving your ability to
deliver smart city initiatives?
Use-case consumer value
Sunderland: I like
the idea of reference architectures attached to use cases because -- for better
or worse -- when folks engage around these issues -- even in large entities
like New York City -- they are going to be engaging for specific needs.
Reference architectures are
really great because they give you an intuitive view of how things fit. But the
real meat is the use case, which is applied against the reference architecture.
I like the idea of developing workgroups around a handful of reference
architectures that address specific use cases. That then allows a catalog of use
cases for those who facilitate solutions against those reference architectures.
They can look for cases similar to ones that they are attempting to resolve.
It’s a good, consumer-friendly way to provide value for the work you are doing.
Gardner: I’m
sure there will be a lot more information available along those lines at www.opengroup.org.
When you improve frameworks, interoperability,
and standardization of data frameworks, what success factors emerge that help propel
the efforts forward? Let’s identify attractive drivers of future smart city
initiatives. Let’s start with Dr. Lisdorf. What do you see as a potential use
case, application, or service that could be a catalyst to drive even more smart
cities activities?
Lisdorf: Right
now, smart cities initiatives are out of control. They are usually done on an
ad-hoc basis. One important way to get standardization enforced -- or at least
considered for new implementations – is to integrate the effort as a necessary
step in the established procurement and security governance processes.
Whenever new smart cities initiatives
are implemented, you would run them through governance tied to the funding and
the security clearance of a solution. That’s the only way we can gain some sort
of control.
This approach would also push
standardization toward vendors because today they don’t care about standards;
they all have their own. If we included in our procurement and our security
requirements that they need to comply with certain standards, they would have
to build according to those standards. That would increase the overall
interoperability of smart cities technologies. I think that is the only way we
can begin to gain control.
Gardner: Dr. Harding,
what do you see driving further improvement in smart cities undertakings?
Prioritize policy and people
 |
| Credit: Wikimedia Commons |
Harding: The
focus should be on the policy around data sharing. As I mentioned, I see two
layers of a framework: A policy layer and a technical layer. The understanding
of the policy layer has to come first because the technical layer supports it.
The development of policy
around data sharing -- or specifically on personal data sharing because this is
a hot topic. Everyone is concerned with what happens to their personal data. It’s
something that cities are particularly concerned with because they hold a lot
of data about their citizens.
Gardner: Dr. Saha,
same question to you.
Saha: I look
at it in two ways. One is for cities to adopt smart city approaches. Identify
very-high-demand use cases that pertain to environmental mobility, or the economy,
or health -- or whatever the priority is for that city.
Identifying such high-demand
use cases is important because the impact is directly seen by the people, which
is very important because the benefits of having a smarter city are something
that need to be visible to the people using those services, number one.
The other part, that we have
not spoken about, is we are assuming that the city already exists, and we are
retrofitting it to become a smart city. There are places where countries
are building entirely new cities. And these brand-new cities are perfect
examples of where these technologies can be tried out. They don’t yet have the
complexities of existing cities.
It becomes a very good lab, if
you will, a real-life lab. It’s not a controlled lab, it’s a real-life lab
where the services can be rolled out as the new city is built and developed. These
are the two things I think will improve the adoption of smart city technology
across the globe.
Gardner: Don
Brancato, any ideas on catalysts to gain standardization and improved smart
city approaches?
City smarts and safety first
Brancato: I like
Dr. Harding’s idea on focusing on personal data. That’s a good way to take a
group of people and build a tactical pattern, and then grow and reuse that.
In terms of the broader city,
I’ve seen a number of cities successfully introduce programs that use the
notion of a safe city as a subset of other smart city initiatives. This plays
out well with the public. There’s a lot of reuse involved. It enables the city
to reuse a lot of their capabilities and demonstrate they can deliver value to
average citizens.
In order to keep cities involved
and energetic, we should not lose track of the fact that people move to cities because
of all of the cultural things they can be involved with. That comes from
education, safety, and the commoditization of price and value benefits. Being
able to deliver safety is critical. And I suggest the idea of traceability of
personal data patterns has a connection to a safe city.
Traceability in the Enterprise
Architecture world should be a standard artifact for assuring that the programs
we have trace to citizen value and to business value. Such traceability and a
model link those initiatives and strategies through to the service -- all the
way down to the data, so that eventually data can be tied back to the roles.
For example, if I am an
individual, data can be assigned to me. If I am in some role within the city,
data can be assigned to me. The beauty of that is we automate the role of the
human. It is even compounded to the notion that the capabilities are done in
the city by humans, systems, machines, and sensors that are getting
increasingly smarter. So all of the data can be traceable to these sensors.
Gardner: Don
Sunderland, what have you seen that works, and what should we doing more of?
Mobile-app appeal
Sunderland: I am
still fixated on the idea of creating direct demand. We can’t generate it. It’s
there on many levels, but a kind of guerrilla tactic would be to tap into that
demand to create location-aware applications, mobile apps, that are freely
available to citizens.
The apps can use existing data
rather than trying to go out and solve all the data sharing problems for a
municipality. Instead, create a value-added app that feeds people location-aware
information about where they are -- whether it comes from within the city or
without. They can then become habituated to the idea that they can avail
themselves of information and services directly, from their pocket, when they
need to. You then begin adding layers of additional information as it becomes
available. But creating the demand is what’s key.
When 311 was created in New
York, it became apparent that it was a brand. The idea of getting all those
services by just dialing those three digits was not going to go away. Everybody
wanted to add their services to 311. This kind of guerrilla approach to a
location-aware app made available to the citizens is a way to drive more demand
for even more people.
When 311 was created in New York, it became apparent that it was a brand. The idea of getting all of those services just by dialing those three digits is not going away.
For more information on this
and other topics and events, please check out The Open Group website at www.opengroup.org.
Please join me in thanking our
panel: Dr. Chris Harding, Chief Executive Officer at Lacibus; Dr. Pallab Saha,
Chief Architect of The Open Group; Don Brancato, Chief Strategy Architect at
Boeing; Don Sunderland, Deputy Commissioner Data Management and Integration,
New York City Department of IT and Telecommunications, and Dr. Anders Lisdorf,
Enterprise Architect for Data Services for the City of New York. Thanks to you
all.
And a big thank you as well to
The Open Group for sponsoring this discussion. Lastly, thank you to our
audience for joining. I’m Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor
Solutions, your host and moderator. Thanks again for listening, and do come
back next time.
Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes.
Download
the transcript. Sponsor:
The Open Group.
Transcript
of a discussion on how
The Open Group is ambitiously seeking to improve the impact of smart cities initiatives
by easing the complexity and unique challenges inherent in public-sector
digital transformation projects. Copyright Interarbor Solutions, LLC,
2005-2018. All rights reserved.
You
may also be interested in:
- The Open Group digital practitioner effort eases the people path to digital business transformation
- How The Open Group Healthcare Forum and Health Enterprise Reference Architecture cures process and IT ills
- Why government agencies could lead the way in demanding inter-public cloud interoperability and standardization
- Panel explores how the IT4IT Reference Architecture acts as a digital business enabler
- The UNIX evolution: A history of innovation reaches an unprecedented 20-year milestone
- The Open Group president, Steve Nunn, on the inaugural TOGAF User Group and new role of EA in business transformation
- A Tale of Two IT Departments, or How Cloud Governance is Essential in the Bimodal IT Era
- Securing Business Operations and Critical Infrastructure: Trusted Technology, Procurement Paradigms, Cyber Insurance
