Smart-city implementation reference model

Smart-city implementation reference model

Alexander SAMARIN

For IEC/SEG Smart-city plenary meeting in Atlanta, September 2014

Smart-city implementation reference model v4 2

• A digital enterprise architect– from a programmer to a systems architect – creator of systems that work without me– broad experience: company, canton, country, continent

• I believe that many improvements in operational excellence and strategy execution are achievable relatively easy

• HOW I do what I do– architecting synergy between strategies, technologies, tools and

good practices for the client’s unique situation, and knowledge transfer

• WHAT is the result of my work for clients– less routine work, less stress, higher performance, higher security,

less risk, higher predictability of results, better operations, less duplication and liberation of business potentials

© A. Samarin 2014

About me


• Context

• Smart-city implementation reference model

• Views

© A. Samarin 2014

Agenda


• Smart-city: a city architected to address public issues via ICT-based solutions on the basis of a multi-stakeholder municipally based partnership

• A smart-city is a socio-technical system of systems

• Relationships between social and technical elements should lead to the emergence of productivity and wellbeing

• System: a set of interacting interdependent components forming an integrated whole

© A. Samarin 2014

Introduction


• Almost unlimited life-cycle (unpredictable and incremental evolution)

• Socio-technical system

• Collaborative system

• Industrialised system

• Ability for rapid innovation is important

• Variety of services (several hundred governmental services are listed in the Swiss e-government catalogue)

• High level of security for personal data

© A. Samarin 2014

Complexity of smart-city as a socio-technical system of systems


• Context


• Views

© A. Samarin 2014

Agenda


• All smart-cites deliver the same services, albeit in a different manner

• Realisation of smart-city potentials would benefit from a holistic approach

• BSI standard PAS 181:2014

© A. Samarin 2014

WHY implementation reference model (1)


• Digital age - It is not about “just the website”, “online services” or “transactions”

• Everything becomes digital: products, information, content, documents, records, processes, money, rights, communications – Digital eats physical

• If digital then intangible thus news tools and new execution speed immediately – Fast eats slow

• Digital things are at new scale – Big eats small

• With this new speed and scale, there is no time for human intervention and errors in routine operations and at interfaces

© A. Samarin 2014



• There is a way to combine diversity and uniformity

• The problem of combining them is also known as “shared services”

• Example - Business units (BUs) have different levels of computerisation

– a standard solution from the IT department is not always good for everyone

© A. Samarin 2014


BU1 BU2 BU3

Standardsolution

Level of computerisation

IT department

Smart-city implementation reference model v4 10© A. Samarin 2014


BU1 BU2 BU3

Level of computerisation

A CBB BAC

1) Standardsolution is based on processes and shared services

2) Each BU is moving to a similar architecture

IT department


• Considers together all implementations and architects the ability to reproduce results

– ready-to-use solutions, tools, patterns and architectures

– offers the best possible services for each citizen

– becomes the centre of societal transformation

– seamlessly incorporates innovations

– implementable at your pace

– secure by design© A. Samarin 2014



• Applies the power of enterprise architecture

– platform-based implementation

– enterprise-as-a-system-of-processes

– microservices

– modernisation of legacy applications

• Forms a Common Urban Business Execution (CUBE) platform

© A. Samarin 2014

HOW does this reference model work


• Architect: a person who translates a customer’s requirements into a viable plan and guides others in its execution

• Enterprise Architecture (EA): the process of translating business vision and strategy into effective enterprise change by creating, communicating and improving the key requirements, principles and models that describe the enterprise's future state and enabling its evolution and transformation

© A. Samarin 2014

EA explained (1)


• EA is the ideal “tool” to address the challenge of diversity and uniformity because EA is a holistic coordinator of people, processes and technologies in 4 dimensions:

– business domains span – organisational unit, segment, enterprise, supply-chain, municipality, province, ministry, country, region, continent, etc.

– architectural practices span – business, data, application, security, information, technology, etc.

– time span – solution life-cycle, technology life-cycle, tool life-cycle, project life-cycle, enterprise life-cycle, etc.

– sector span – detecting and re-using common patterns (good business practices) in unique processes from different sectors

© A. Samarin 2014

EA explained (2)


EA views: projects, solutions, capabilities and platforms


EA views: time span


EA views: business domains span vs time span


EA views: architectural practices span vs business domains span


EA: Many stakeholders (participants)

• Citizens• Government authorities• Funding bodies• Local government stakeholders• National regulatory agencies• Political parties• Public service providers• Local businesses• IT vendors• Architects• Project managers• Local NGOs• External NGOs• Global businesses


Matrix of stakeholders and views

The numbers “2.2” etc. are references to chapters in the concept paper


• Reference functional architecture

• Partner and smart-city-entity interaction view

• Partner view

• Evolution of implementation view

• The governmental-entities integration view

• Paperless or digital work view

• Platform-based implementation view– Platform-based approach– Platform-based implementation practices– Project management practices– Implementation governance view– Architecture-based procurement view

© A. Samarin 2014

WHAT reference model: many views (1)


• Common functional capabilities• Enterprise as a system of processes• Enhancing information security through the use of

processes• Enterprise Risk Management reference model• Records management as a BPM application• Multi-layered implementation model• Agile solution delivery practices• Microservices• Various technologies around the implementation model• Modernisation of applications to become process-centric• Moving services to clouds

© A. Samarin 2014

WHAT reference model: many views (2)


• Context


• Views

© A. Samarin 2014

Agenda


• Common functional capabilities


• Partner view


• The governmental entities integration view



© A. Samarin 2014

VIEWS (1)


• Smart-city common capabilities

– City-related registries: citizens, business, services

– Inter-participants secure data and information exchange

– Repository of community-important flows of events

– Repository of community-important business objects (during their full life-cycle)

• Smart-city domains capabilities

– To be provided during the evolution of the platform

© A. Samarin 2014

Common functional capabilities (1)


• Good business practices

• Universal business capabilities

• Specialised enterprise capabilities

• Basic technical capabilities (or technologies)

© A. Samarin 2014

Common functional capabilities (2)




• Partner view





© A. Samarin 2014

VIEWS (1)


Four communication patterns for exchanges between a partner and the

government

Government

2. Patrner-declaration

1. Government-announce

4. Partner-demand

Spread in time

3. Government-demand

Spread in time

Partners (citizen, business, and other organisations)

1. Government-announcement, e.g. broadcasting changes in a law2. Partner-declaration, e.g. communicating a change of the partner’s address3. Government-demand, e.g. inviting to pay taxes4. Partner-demand, e.g. requesting a certificate (fishing license)

© A. Samarin 2014


A partner-initiated-demand may required several exchanges between the

partner and the government

Government

Time© A. Samarin 2014

1 2 3 4


The partner may need to deal with some ministries

Government

Ministry A Ministry B Ministry C

Time

Methodologies:+ data modelling+ electronic document exchange

Tools:+ standard data schemas+ electronic signature

• data flow (black dashed lines)

© A. Samarin 2014


Process

+ + + +

E-gov coordinates partner’s interactions with the government

Government

• control flow (black solid lines)



Time

1 2 3 4

Methodologies:• data modelling• electronic document

(ED) exchange+ BPM discipline+ process modelling

Technologies:• standard data schemas• electronic signature+ BPM suite

1

2 3

4

5

6

7

8

© A. Samarin 2014


Process --

E-gov unifies the communication between the partner and the ministries

Government

Ministry B

Time

1

2

3

45

2

2a 2cx

2b



Methodologies:• data modelling• electronic document

(ED) exchange+ BPM discipline+ process modelling

Technologies:• standard data schemas• electronic signature+ BPM suite

© A. Samarin 2014

… …


Process

+ + + +

E-gov provides a social collaborative extranet for partners

Government


Time

Methodologies:• data modelling• ED exchange• BPM discipline• process modelling+ ED management+ records management+ collaboration+ social

Technologies:• standard data schemas• electronic signature• BPM suite+ ECM

Social collaborative extranet



© A. Samarin 2014




• Partner view





© A. Samarin 2014

VIEWS (1)


Partner’s view

© A. Samarin 2014




• Partner view





© A. Samarin 2014

VIEWS (1)

Smart-city implementation reference model v4

Partners

Existing application

Coordination and integration backbone

e-Government

© A. Samarin 2014 37

E-gov application architecture view


e-gov service



Government

Technologies:• BPM suite• SOA orientation• ECM

e-gov service

e-gov service


Partners



E-gov traditional application architecture

Portal



Government

Appl

icati

on

Appl

icati

on

Appl

icati

on


Partners



e-Government


E-gov introductory application architecture


e-gov service



Government

e-gov service

e-gov service


Partners



e-Government


E-gov transitional application architecture


e-gov service


Government

e-gov service

e-gov service

Coordination backbone

Service Service



Partners


e-Government


E-gov target application architecture


e-gov service

e-gov service

e-gov service

ServiceService Service


Partners


E-social system


E-social system application architecture


Public service

Private service

Professionalservice

Social service

Voluntary service


Steps of evolution in application architecture

Introductory architecture

Target architecture

E-Social system architecture

Portal-centric architecture

Transitional architecture




• Partner view





© A. Samarin 2014

VIEWS (1)


Integration process instead of N-to-N connectivity

Nx(N-1)/2 complexity N complexity


• Business (processing) envelope

• Delivery (addressing) envelope

• Transportation (routing) envelope

© A. Samarin 2014

Use of many security envelopes




• Partner view





© A. Samarin 2014

VIEWS (1)


Platform-based architecture (1)

• Business concern: How to deliver many similar applications for various highly-diverse clients; define everything up-front is not possible (typical BPM or ECM project)

• Logic

– Developing individual applications will bring a lot of duplications

– The provisioning of solutions should be carried out incrementally with the pace of the target client

– Consider a platform

1. must standardise and simplify core elements of future enterprise-wide system

2. for any elements outside the platform, new opportunities should be explored using agile principles


• Principles

– The platform frees up resource to focus on new opportunities

– Successful agile innovations are rapidly scaled up when incorporated into the platform

– An agile approach requires coordination at a system level

– To minimise duplication of effort in solving the same problems, there needs to be system-wide transparency of agile initiatives

– Existing elements of the platform also need periodic challenge

© A. Samarin 2014

Platform-based architecture (2)

A2A1

A3Platform

S2…S

1S3

Functionality

Delivery by solutions Delivery by applications

Scope


• There are two primary types of activity.

– On-going and centralised platform evolution

– Rapid implementation of solutions as mini-projects

• Platform evolution is carried out by an inter-organisational-units coordination committee

© A. Samarin 2014

Overall platform governance


Advantages of the corporate ECM platform

Dev env 1 Dev env 2

Development environment 3Generic web-

development platforms

DEVELOPMENT

Functionality

Basic features of a common ECM platform

Advanced features of a common ECM platform

Company-specific features

Process-centric integration

• Current development cost & time for a collaborative application

– Cost: 40 – 200 K $

– Time: 0,5 – 2 years

• Corporate platform program cost & time

– Cost: 600 K $

– Time: 1 year

• Expected development cost & time for a collaborative application within the corporate platform

– Cost: 20 - 60 K $

– Time: 1 - 3 months

© A. Samarin 2014 Smart-city implementation reference model v4 52

Financial estimations

N apps.

$$

N≈8

Without common platform

With common platform




• Partner view





© A. Samarin 2014

VIEWS (1)


• Entities are permitted to advance at different paces in their ascent to the top of the “ladder”.

© A. Samarin 2014

Ladder of maturity meta-pattern


• The platform is designed to be tools-independent by standardizing data, information, interfaces and coordination between various capabilities.

© A. Samarin 2014

Component-oriented design




• Partner view





© A. Samarin 2014

VIEWS (1)


• It combines decomposition with agile implementation of “architected” components

© A. Samarin 2014

Architecture-based agile project management




• Partner view





© A. Samarin 2014

VIEWS (1)


Structural dependencies between various artefacts


Business initiatives (business-specific demand)

Business capabilities(business-generic demand)

IT capabilities (IT-generic supply)

Roadmap programmes(from AS-IS to TO-BE)

Business demand IT supply

Business strategicobjectives

Governance

Maturity improvement Requested maturity Business priority

1

2

3

2

2->5

2->4

1->3

1->4

2->4

1->3

2->5

2->4

3->4

4

4

5

3

1

2

3

4

4

1

1

2

3

2

2

4

4

5

3

3->4

1->4

3->5

3->4

2->4

IT tools(IT-specific supply)

3

Programme priority

5

4

3

4

4

Dynamic relationships between various artefacts

© A. Samarin 2014

Manage business by processes

Manage processes BPM suite


• Implications

– A formal way to discover points of the most leverage

– The decision-making process is explicit and transparent

– A strategy adjustment and validation becomes a routine on-going activity during its implementation (like functioning of the GPS navigator)

© A. Samarin 2014

Implications and example




• Partner view





© A. Samarin 2014

VIEWS (1)


• Separation of duties

• Architecture group: selection of IT

• Procurement group: acquisition of such IT components (licensees, installation, training, documentation, operations, etc.)

• Of course, the architecture group must make the selection logic as explicit as possible.

© A. Samarin 2014

Architecture-based procurement


• Common functional capabilities• Enterprise as a system of processes• Enhancing information security by the use of processes• Enterprise Risk Management reference model• Records management as an BPM application• Multi-layered implementation model• Agile solution delivery practices• Microservices• Various technologies around the implementation model• Modernisation of applications to become process-centric• Moving services to clouds

© A. Samarin 2014

VIEWS (2)


• In the context of enterprise functioning, business activities must be coordinated

• Coordination maybe strong (e.g. as in the army) or weak (e.g. as in an amateurs football team)

• Coordination maybe implicit or explicit

• Coordination maybe declarative (laws) and imperative (orders)

• Based on coordination, let us think about “levels of cohesion” 1. process patterns (coordination within processes)2. processes3. cluster of processes (coordination between processes)4. system of processes (coordination between clusters of processes)

© A. Samarin 2014

Enterprise as a system of processes


• Business case: typical “claim processing” process – claim, repair, control, invoicing, and assurance to pay

© A. Samarin 2014

Process fragments – patterns

SI

PAR

SI

IPS

Click for animation

© A. Samarin 2014 Smart-city implementation reference model v4 67

SI animated diagram

Click for animation


• Simple event-based (which looks like a state machine)

© A. Samarin 2014

Coordination between processes (1)


Coordination between processes (2)

1. state-machine

2. synchronous invocation

3. asynchronous invocation

4. fire and forget

5. parallel processes

6. co-processes (pattern SI)


• CLOPs are usually formed with functional processes which are implemented a particular business function, e.g. Field Services

• And a “halo” of extra processes

1. monitoring

2. operating

3. governance

© A. Samarin 2014

CLuster Of Processes (CLOP)


Enabler group, supporting group and customer group of clusters


Implicit coordination between CLOPs (1)






• Business Object (BO) lify-cycle as a process

© A. Samarin 2014

Make coordination between CLOPs explicit (1)


• Add enterprise-wide event dispatcher

© A. Samarin 2014





Functional view at a system of processes (1)







© A. Samarin 2014

VIEWS (2)


Dynamic provision of the access


Extra relationships between activities

Mandatory: different actors because of the separation of duties

Potentially: different actors because of performance impact – avoid assigning mechanical (low-qualified “red”) activities and added-value (“green”) activities to the same actors


• There are security-related relationships between activities

• Example– “Activitiy_B” relates to Activity_A as “Validating the work”

– These activities may be in different processes

– No actors must be assigned to both “Role_1” and “Role_2”

© A. Samarin 2014

Extra relationships between activities (3)

Activity_A

Activity_B

Carry out the work

Carry out the work Validating the work

Role_1

Role_2


• Doing the work

– To which ROLES the work can be delegated

– To which ROLES the work can be send for review

• Assuring the work

– other ACTIVITIES to audit (1st, 2nd and 3rd party auditing)

– other ACTIVITIES to evaluate the risk (before the work is started)

– other ACTIVITIES to evaluate the risk (after the work is completed)

• Validating the work

– Other ACTIVITIES to check the output (errors and fraud prevention)

• Some ACTIVITIES must be carried out by the same actor, some ACTIVITIES must not

© A. Samarin 2014

BPM and information security: Extra relationships between activities

(4)


Process-enhanced security for electronic medical records



© A. Samarin 2014

VIEWS (2)


• Normal activities are enriched by “check-points”

© A. Samarin 2014

Embed risk management into functional processes


ERM reference model



© A. Samarin 2014

VIEWS (2)


• Symptoms of becoming legacy

– ad-hoc integration

– difficult incorporation of new technologies

– old programming techniques

– expensive maintenance

– heavy releases and upgrades

– availability of industrial products for previously unique functionality (e.g. event management)

– some functionality is a commodity right now (e.g. BPM and BRM)

– just slow to evolve

• What is the root cause?

– Emergent/historical grow and not architected evolution© A. Samarin 2014

Typical problems with legacy software


• Implement end-to-end processes with the maximum reuse of existing IT applications and infrastructure

• Agile (with the pace of business) provisioning of business solutions

• From disparate IT applications to a coherent business execution platform which will “liberate” people for business innovations

• Business evolution to drive technical transformation

• BUT Application as a unit of deployment is too big

© A. Samarin 2014

The goal of modernisation


• Step-by-step technical transformation by:

1. Disassemble into services

2. Add, if necessary, more services

3. Assemble via processes

• Combine various tactics: assemble, rent, buy, build, outsource, standardised, re-engineered

• Incremental improvements and refactoring within a well-defined big picture

• Intermix business evolution and technical transformation

• Keep the users happy and feel secure

© A. Samarin 2014

How to carry out the modernisation


Monolithic applications are decomposed into interconnected services

Monolith application

GUI screen 2GUI screen 1 GUI screen 3

Business logic

BO1 persistence BO2 persistence

Business logic service

Interactive service 1



Coordination

BO1persistence service

BO2persistence service

Assembled solution

GUI screen 2GUI screen 1 GUI screen 3

Business logic

BO1 persistence BO2 persistence


• Only the flow of data is traceable

• Flow of control is explicit, becausethe primary importance is the result of working together, but not individual exchanges(think about football)

© A. Samarin 2014

How to coordinate?


• By processes

• By events (EPN)

• By rules, work-load, etc.

© A. Samarin 2014

Several coordination techniques may be used together


Transformation from typical inter-application data flows to end-to-end

coordination of services


• To externalise the flow of control from existing monolith applications

© A. Samarin 2014

Using events


• The danger of “DOUble Master” (DOUM) anti-pattern – particular data (actually a business object) are modified via application or process but not either

• Few techniques

– lock-down the data manipulation interface in the application (a screen) and provide a similar functionality in the process

– dynamic provisioning of the access to a screen for a staff member who is carrying out a related activity (see next slide)

– decomposition of a screen into separate functions, e.g. Create (out-of-process), Update (within-process) and Delete (separate-process)

– combination of previous ones

© A. Samarin 2014

Co-existence of a legacy application and a process solution


• Business processes make bigger services from smaller services

• The relationship between services and processes is “recursive”

– All processes are services

– Some operations of a service can be implemented as a process

– A process includes servicesin its implementation

© A. Samarin 2014

Process-centric solutionsAssemble via processes (1)


• Who (roles) is doing What (business objects), When (coordination of activities), Why (business rules), How (business activities) and with Which Results (performance indicators)

• Make these relationships explicit and executable

What you model is what you execute

“The map is the app”

© A. Samarin 2014

Process-centric solutionsAssemble via processes (2)

102© A. Samarin 2014 Smart-city implementation reference model v4

Process-centric solutionsMulti-layer implementation model (1)



B C

A

A - SharePoint

B – in-house development

C – SAP ECC6



SAP BW/BI, etc.

NetWeaver PI, SolMan, etc.

NetWeaver BPM, etc.NetWeaver BRM, Java, ECC6, etc.

XSD, Java, .Net

SQL Server, Oracle, etc.


Multi-layer implementation model and other technologies



© A. Samarin 2014

VIEWS (2)


Different deployment ZONEs

HQ

VIOLET ZONE - outside enterprise and service-provider-managed public cloud

GREEN ZONE - outside enterprise and enterprise-managed private cloud

YELLOW

GOLD

GOLD ZONE - classic within enterprise computing

YELLOW ZONE - within enterprise private cloud

BLUE ZONE - outside enterprise and service-provider-managed private cloud


Profiling services - example


Decision taking - example


• Let us use the power of modern technologies to enable and drive societal transformation of our cities

© A. Samarin 2014

Conclusion


• QUESTIONS?

• EKSALANSI website: http://www.eksalansi.org

• Blog http://improving-bpm-systems.blogspot.com

• LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/alexandersamarin

• E-mail: [email protected]

• Twitter: @samarin

• Mobile: +41 76 573 40 61

• Book: www.samarin.biz/book

Thanks

© A. Samarin 2014

http://www.eksalansi.org/



http://improving-bpm-systems.blogspot.com/

http://improving-bpm-systems.blogspot.com/

http://www.linkedin.com/in/alexandersamarin

http://www.linkedin.com/in/alexandersamarin

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.twitter.com/samarin

http://www.samarin.biz/book

Technology

Smart-city implementation reference model