Federal Enterprise Architecture

Achieving Universal Healthcare Interoperability by Algebra instead of System Integration – Solving Uncertainties in Large Complex System

For discussion on algebra behind Universal healthcare Interoperability :- Discussion by Dr. Barry Robson who has pioneered in computational biology; developed Quantitative Semantic Algebra to realize Probabilistic Ontology to solve large systems riddled by complexity and afflicted by uncertainties.

http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&discussionID=242195622&gid=3105178&commentID=138621684&goback=%2Eanp_3105178_1369067682268_1%2Eamf_3105178_69634045&trk=NUS_DISC_Q-subject&_mSplash=1

Difference between Algebra vs Arithmetic 

Algebra vs Arithmetic

On Tom Munnecke’s blog discussion

Dear Chuck I’m using this informal salutation in honor of your status as one of the fathers of VistA, I was impressed with your concise and accurate

via Open Letter to Chuck Hagel: DoD still does not know what the hell they are doing.

Extract from Tom Munnecke’s blog below observation vital to achieve universal healthcare interoperability; such that they eventually enable Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) and Pharmacogenomics which transform the healthcare to evidence based and into personalized healthcare delivery. The mechanism of interoperability across the heathcare actors:- providers, payers, pharma etc and also working across numerous data standards is achieved by weaving together probabilistic inference, linguistic semantics, inference engine, machine learning etc driven by algebric mathematical underpinning. Most importantly the probabilistic ontology achieved by algebriac mathematics developing capabilities beyond RDF / OWL creates opportunities for studies such as Complex Adaptive System, which together with EBM allows for systemic studies ensuring efficiency in healthcare management and efficacy in healthcare delivery.

From Tom’s Munnecke’s posting:-

<.  This is equivalent to building a ladder, rather than trying to get out of a hole by digging deeper.  The current approach throws away the conceptual integrity that made VistA such a success, replacing it with an “aircraft carrier” mentality that obliterates the ethos that drove VistA’s success.  The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology published a health IT study that a great job of describing some of the foundations of this metadata approach, and treating Health IT as a “language” problem, not an “interface.”  This is a very nuanced difference, but think of how easy it is to link an Amazon.com book reference to a Twitter post:  you simply drag the URL of the book to Twitter, and press send.  You do not need to interface Twitter to Amazon, or use the “Book reference nomenclature standard,” etc.  It is simply an intrinsic property of the information space.  Similarly, we could build a healthinformation space that that allowed this kind of sharing ( with enhanced patient privacy and security), as an intrinsic of being part of the common information space.  This move to a higher level of abstraction is a bit like thinking of things in terms of algebra, instead of arithmetic.  Algebra gives us computational abilities far beyond what we can do with arithmetic.  Yet, those who are entrenched in grinding through arithmetic problems have a disdain for the abstract facilities of algebra.  The DoD is rejecting the Uplift model, instead succumbing to the “Humpty Dumpty Syndrome” – breaking things into pieces, and then trying to integrate them again.  This is great work for “all the Kings men” as long as the King has the resources to pay them to try to put Humpty together again.  But sooner or later (and I had hoped you would have chosen the “sooner” option) the King needs to cut off this funding.>>>

Advertisements

Invention (Innovation) Not Strategy Creates Renaissance – Moving from Darwinian Adaptive to Generative Transformation

Invention (Innovation), Not Strategy Creates Renaissance. Most Darwinian concepts does not engender to developing creativity, and so to innovation. Instead it is about strategy for developing dominant position, this is not a sustainable model as history has shown. Instead, Enterprise Architects should begin reinforcing energy into lost opportunities in innovation and explore to create newer territories.

In the recent times, we saw the fall of Michael Porter’s ideas around corporate Darwinism. His company during the past two decades influenced the CEO’s with trickle down ideas and C level were enamoured by it, as it helped them device system giving them enormous clout. Suddenly the landscape has changed, the market response has been very different, from what the CEO’s sought. This is because Darwinian theory does not sustain. Inorganic decisions are not working. From recent HP’s fiasco (Autonomy acquisition), it is much evident how corporates are massively faltering. Decade back, Carly Fiorina then HP’s CEO sought EA framework based on Darwinian adaptive principles as a way to achieve business enablement. It has not worked. It is now exactly a decade since she introduced. Theories developed on Darwinian dominance has been flawed and it is now much evident. Porter’s company recently declared bankruptcy. Those ideas are history.

What killed Michael Porter’s Monitor Group
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2012/11/20/what-killed-michael-porters-monitor-group-the-one-force-that-really-matters/

Check out interview with Carly’s Darwin EA framework to create adaptive capabilities.

http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/execteam/speeches/fiorina/forbes04.html

Based on flawed ideas, corporates employed resources targeting to achieve market dominating capabilities. Against this landscape, IT unfortunately has been delivering diminishing return. To overcome the value struggle that IT could offer, various schemes in the industry has been probed. Especially, TOGAF itself has been maturing to develop dialogue for IT from being across LOB service provider, cost to profit center, to more ambitious as business enabler. The argument of Nicholas Carr’s IT Does Not Matter when seemed almost true, ideas around creating EA driven strategic operating model emerged. Jeanne Ross book on EA as Strategy – Achieve Competitive Advantage

These ideas are getting outmoded. The essence of creating sustainable business model is to keep throttle on innovation. Challenges still remain to solve or probably discover newer opportunities by innovation that creates generative system, which intrinsically allows for emergence.

Check out Jeanne Ross discussion on EA – IT in context of business transformation

MIT’s Ross on How Enterprise Architecture and IT More Than Ever Lead to Business Transformation

In my mind, even Jeanne dwells on conventional wisdom. She is not discovering newer landscape. She discuses to improve the leverage to achieve strategy for transformation. The question is why/ which / what / where/ when strategy and how transformation and finally what outcome??

Dealing with thoughts like these, EA is not a domain of IT alone. EA is an integrative subject that brings together several disciplines to solve both macro systemic and micro functional concerns. EA can be used to reimagine and repurpose architectures including those realized by IT.

Another concern that EA must tackle in its value proposition is the value it can help achieve at system level. The GDP related to digitization has been in the increase. However, what is not evident is the “productive” impact of the digitized portion of the GDP. Meaning what activities in the digitized world are essential to mankind’s survival, are productive GDP. Innovations are required in increasing the potential of the productive GDP driven by IT. This argument is crucial.

In my view, EA can offer a great leverage to reimagine future, besides achieving leverage in the existing operating model. In pursuit of such mission, EA does not belong to “IT” alone. What we need is generative and not mere adaptive transformation efforts. It is in generative system, where integrative disciplines will work to allow for tacit knowledge creation. It is this tacit knowledge that will trigger emergence of newer opportunities, creating emergent architecture.

Operating Model – Have Fed Agencies abandoned creating “Enterprise Transition Plan” ? ETP is challenging for the OCIO

Enterprise Transition Plan – Line Of Sight – Operating Model

Ref:- FEAC Institute, FEA Guidance, INGINE INC, Srinidhi Boray[/

Conceiving a coherent modernization plan and executing them has always been a challenge for OCIO. Enterprise Transition Plans generally documents the visions, goals, capabilities at the strategic level and then progresses to envisage “target conceptual architecture”, while planning for tactical efforts working through the mechanisms of architecture lifecycle needed to transition towards the target enterprise conceptual architecture. This results into creating the “roadmap”. The documents that holistically speaks to organizationals capability in reaching such a roadmap is the “Enterprise Transition Strategy”.

Reading the Enterprise Transition Strategy following should be evident:

Organization’s maturity and competence to perform and embrace the future capabilities

Organization’s present constraints in delivering the needed “capabilities”

The profile of the architecture cross sections (segments) needing modernization to develop the intended “portfolio of capabilities”

Investment Profile – planned to executive segment modernization

The governance structure and mechanism that engages the different functional capabilities, such as leadership – management, lines of businesses, enterprise architecture, capital planning and program management. This group together develops and vets – strategic plans, tactical plans and implementation plans governed by following  life cycles

  • Performance Management (Architect, Invest, Implement)
  • Architecture Segment (Notional, Planned, In-Progress, Completed)
  • Release Architecture (sadly mostly do not plan this – it is here interdependence of architectures or capabilities are realized and maintained)
  • Capital Planning (Preselect, Select, Control & Evaluate)
  • Investment (mixed, steady state, Development, Modernization & Enhancement -DME)

A “Sequence Plan” along with “Implementation Plan” is developed to reach the desired Target Architecture (temporal perspective)

Finally Operating Model – The most important component – it assimilates all the decisions chosen for creating an operating leverage, that creates degree or order of leverage to deal with inherent systemic complexities against the efforts of creating economy of scale in delivering the enterprise capabilities essential for delivering the enterprise mission.

More discussion in below link in creating Enterprise Transition Strategy

https://ingine.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/ea-framework-for-transition-planning/

Transformation Framework Capturing an Operating Model

https://ingine.wordpress.com/2012/08/03/transformative-enterprise-architecture-framework-connecting-strategy-tactical-operational-execution-implementation/

Distortions leads to Cancerous Growth within Enterprise

Programmed Cell Death is very important function to understand to gain insight into the way Transformation need to occur. When distortions occur in Enterprise Engineering, then this leads into obvious cancerous growth, which does not have easy remedy.

How many CIO’s in the market inadvertently are responsible for distortions?! Countless.

Federal IT Budget 2010 – OMB

As of March 30th 2010. This keeps changing, they have quarterly refresh.

Only “major” investments reported to OMB. From the reported data it is evident that 50% of the investment categorized under “minor” goes unreported. This means nearly 50 % of the total IT Budget of $74.2 Billion for some  reason does not qualify to be reported promoting transparency.

Federal IT Budget 2010 in Billions
Agency Major Minor Total
DOD 9.6 23.42 33.02
DHS 4.9 1.3 6.2
HHS 2.3 3.66 5.96
DOC 2.1 1.52 3.62
TREASURY 2.3 0.76 3.06
DOT 2.4 0.61 3.01
DOJ 2 0.86 2.86
VA 2.6 0.23 2.83
USDA 1.4 0.94 2.34
ENERGY 1.6 0.52 2.12
OTHERS 7.3 1.88 9.18
TOTAL 38.5 35.7 74.2

Investments Reported By Agencies to OMB

Implicate Order as Ontology – Descriptive Mechanism for System of Systems

Past is your Enemy

Changing patterns. Moving targets. Contending objectives. Subjective Strategies. Difficult to align objective actions. Probabilistically Deterministic. High Occurrence of Random events.

When System Behavior Characterized by Cartesian Dilemma.

Then “Implicate Order” as Ontology is the answer : Probabilistic Ontology