CORA and Application Lifecycles

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 09:12:28 GMT

Introduction
In many organizations there is a friction between “Central IT” – in charge of the big legacy systems, ERP and data stores - and “de-central” business units who want to have flexible and easy–to-use solutions. Capgemini recognized this paradox and states that this has to do with the dynamics of different application lifecycles. To explain this the modes of transport are used as a metaphor.

CORA Methodology, playing with Lego

Thu, 09 Dec 2010 10:00:00 GMT

Introduction

What is the impact of a business question on an IT landscape? The CORA model offers a layering model to help answering this question. But how does CORA determine this in practice? This is described in this blog by discussing the major steps to be taken in order to design an explainable and traceable solution in which we’re able to point out the risk areas, thus seeing the impact of the Business Question on the IT landscape.

Within the many projects I used CORA as a starting point for creating IT solutions I discovered that a lot of these solutions are based on the same combination of CORA-elements. I call these combinations "CORA patterns", and because they are re-usable I'll introduce the "CORA pattern library", being a major part of the CORA Methodology.

The roadmap for Fusion Applications, CORA is there to help

Tue, 16 Nov 2010 07:15:51 GMT

Introduction

Oracle Fusion Applications came to birth last september at Oracle Open World. After five years of development the first Fusion functionalities have been released. What does this mean for the customers using eBusiness Suite, Siebel, JD Edwards and/or Peoplesoft? What steps do they need to take? Oracle realizes that pushing customers towards Fusion Applications will chase them away although Oracle keeps on repeating the message that it will not harm their existing investments. To avoid this Oracle announced (yet again) a three-word acronym for the strategy for customers with respect to their existing (legacy) landscape and integration towards Fusion Applications:

Continue: on your current path, stay with your current portfolio and upgrade.
Adopt: a co-existence strategy, add Fusion Apps to the landscape while at the same time continue with your current stack.
Embrace: the complete suite, start from scratch with Fusion Apps.

It is clear that the last strategy option will not be the most likely choice. Oracle aims for the second one where clients use Fusion Apps in co-existence with their current stack. But how will this impact your landscape? In order to move (in your pace) towards the future Fusion Apps stack a roadmap needs to be created with intermediate “islands of stability”, safe heavens based upon product versions with known and proven functionality/technology.

The CORA model is highly suitable for creating these type of roadmaps with regard to:

Combining Oracle Fusion Applications components with existing Oracle Applications,
Combining Oracle and non- Oracle applications,
Providing orchestration of processes and workflow,
Enabling real time insight in processes.

Moving onwards through the roadmap the CORA Model can be applied perfectly to incorporate new possibilities like new Fusion Apps components.

Based upon a case around the co-existence ("adopt") strategy the impact on your landscape will be shown, including the involved risk areas.

Technovisions "Sector-as-a-Service" mapped

Wed, 03 Nov 2010 07:10:33 GMT

Introduction

This is the sixth blog in a series about Capgemini's Technovison and the mapping onto CORA. In the first blog Technovision was explained, being in short the provisioning of a clear picture of the information technologies that are the most relevant to the organizations' business drivers and how these technologies and their evolution will impact business.

With Technovision the business drivers are mapped to innovations as an input to the IT-Strategy. With the CORA model the gap between the IT strategy and actual implementation of software is bridged because the CORA model can be used at different levels (Enterprise level, project implementation level) and has the possibility to design and implement elements with a mixture of ‘architecture styles’ on the best fitted platform available (or planned).

By mapping the 17 identified key information technology trends within Technovision onto the layers and logical elements of the CORA model the impact on the IT landscape is visualized and assessed in more detail. In the second, third, fourth and fifth the key information technology trends within the "You Experience", "We Collaborate", "Process-on-the-Fly"and "Thriving on Data"cluster. In this blog post this is described regarding the "Sector-as-a-Service" cluster.

Business Logic and the CORA Model, Part II

Wed, 27 Oct 2010 16:03:00 GMT

Introduction

In the first blog of this series I described the positioning of Business Logic in CORA 1.0. where business logic is present in several layers and in several elements but with a different perspective and purpose. I showed that a clear definition of business logic is important, to make a proper mapping between the CORA elements and layers. In this blog I use the IPhone example of Wilco and Maarten (Part I and Part II) to discuss this further, but first I want to elaborate on the way the CORA model is used in this example.

CORA and Cloud Computing: Static versus Dynamic View

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 13:51:30 GMT

Introduction

This blog is the second in a series about the CORA model and Cloud Computing. In the first blog the viewpoint of the CORA model was described shortly (being to enforce predictable, repeatable and risk-aware application design on different architecture levels, being Enterprise level and Implementation Level). After that the Cloud definition of the NIST-institute was used to connect CORA with Cloud Computing.

The CORA model delivers a 'common' stack of IT landscape elements and their interaction to support the decision making process regarding architecture style to be used, elements needed, their interaction etc. Besides this a 'dynamic' view is needed showing how a (hybrid) cloud should work in the end with the actual interaction between services presented, derived from the CORA elements and based on the concept of information hiding. This is described in this blog using TOGAF as a reference.

Technovisions "Thriving on Data" mapped

Fri, 08 Oct 2010 15:10:33 GMT

Introduction

This is the fifth blog in a series about Capgemini's Technovison and the mapping onto CORA. In the first blog Technovision was explained, being in short the provisioning of a clear picture of the information technologies that are the most relevant to the organizations' business drivers and how these technologies and their evolution will impact business.

By mapping the 17 identified key information technology trends within Technovision onto the layers and logical elements of the CORA model the impact on the IT landscape is visualized and assessed in more detail. In the second, third and fourth blog the key information technology trends within the "You Experience", "We Collaborate" and "Process-on-the-Fly Collaborate"cluster were mapped and assessed. In this blog post this is described regarding the "Thriving on Data"cluster.

CORA Foundation

Sun, 03 Oct 2010 19:36:59 GMT

Introduction

Organizations who want to introduce new business models and technologies (i.e. create a stable innovation platform) need an IT landscape supporting both flexibility as well as regulatory demands. This is explained in more detail based upon two existing models, the Architectural Maturity by means of the Ross model and Governance by means of the Crown model. Both models provide the foundation for the layering of the CORA. Based on this foundation the connection with existing Vendor Reference Architectures is described.

The "Architecture Maturity Model"

The Architecture Maturity Model was the result of 10 years of research by Dr Jeanne Ross, the Principle Research Scientist at the MIT Center for Information Systems Research. This model shows the four stages organizations move through when building an IT landscape designed to create an innovation platform.

Business Silos architecture
Organizations focus their investments on delivering solutions for local business problems. Interaction between IT systems is complex and expensive due to technology standards not being used. The main force pushing organizations to the next level is the high IT costs of interfacing and not the existence of isolated systems.

Standardized Technology architecture
In this stage organizations shift their IT investments from local applications to shared infrastructure. Instead of looking for technology that best suits a solution, organizations choose the best possible solution within the chosen technology platform.

Optimized Core architecture
In this stage organizations move from a local view of data and applications to an enterprise view. IT investments shift from local applications and shared infrastructure to enterprise systems and shared data. Optimizing core processes and data is a major managerial challenge, because this stage involves taking control over local business unit leaders.

Business Modularity architecture
Strategic agility can be achieved through customized and reusable modules. According to Ross two approaches can be applied. One is to create reusable modules (i.e. webservices) and allow business units to select customer-oriented processes from a menu of options. A second approach is to grant business unit managers greater discretion in the design of front-end processes, which they can individually build or buy as modules connecting to core data and back-end processes.

This model indicates that taking control over local business unit leaders is necessary to facilitate local deviations in a later stage. This has to do with the fact that individual modules must be build on a standardized core and link to other modules through standardized interfaces in order to provide a stable platform for innovation.

Emering new (Web 2.0) technologies and the Crown model

With the emergence of Web 2.0 technologies new business models are created because of changes in the way information is shared and communicated. These Web 2.0 technologies can be separated into three different categories.

The first category is called ‘Rich Internet Application’. A Rich Internet application (RIA) is a Web application designed to deliver the same features and functions normally associated with desktop applications, such as drag and drop, menus and toolbars. Because the richness is related to functionality, RIA’s are classified as function oriented.

‘Mashups’ are where data and data streams from various sources are fused into a representation that allows for the derivation of new information or added value. With the help of Mashups it is possible to create and share information in a personalized way. The last category is called ‘Socialization of the web’. This where information on the web is tagged by users, not only for individual structuring and ordering, but also for evaluation by other users. This way information is structured and classified in an ‘organic’ way.

Although these new (Web 2.0) technologies can create new flexible business models, they also need to co-exist within standardized (‘compliant’) processes, data and roles.This apparent contradiction is explained in the Crown Model, developed by Andy Mulholland, global CTO of Capgemini.

Personalize (interaction)

As explained earlier, more and more (Web 2.0) technology such as weblogs, wikis and virtual networks (i.e. Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn) as well as ‘consumerization’ technology (i.e. Smartphone’s and iPods) is available to gain and share knowledge andinformation in a unique personal way. The use of ‘Mashups’, widgets and gadgets is a growing part of this layer as individuals seek to create their own ‘view’ of the immense amount of content that is now available for them to use.

Differentiate (interaction)
Organizations use (Web 2.0) technology such as ‘Rich Internet Applications’ to be able to create innovative solutions with limited delay when business circumstances change. Changes such as trying to gain market share by increasing the variety of offerings to capture more specialised elements of the market. The challenge is that these solutions must connect at some time and in some way with the Enterprise procedures, labelled as ‘Comply’ in the Crown model.

Organize (transaction)
This layer connects the interaction based Differentiation & Personalisation layers to the transaction based Enterprise Applications in the ‘Comply’ layer by using technology standards. The ‘Organise’ layer is where ‘Orchestration’ of internal as well as ‘Choreography’ of external activities (i.e. ‘services’) are managed. The ‘Organize’ layer is the crucial linking and integrating capability layer. To make the role of the ‘Organize’ layer clear it is necessary to move to the lowest layer and describe the role of the ‘Comply’ layer.

Comply (transaction)
Because every organization needs to have strong procedures that manage the integrity of their transactions it is very important to rely on standardized data, roles, authorization and basic processes. The pressure for ‘compliance’ in the form of strong procedures that manage the integrity of the transactions, with resulting data recorded, has grown both through legislation and auditing requirements.

Relationship between Ross and Crown

Both models have a different scope: Ross is a maturity model, Crown is a governance model.

From a maturity perspective Ross’s model emphasizes the managerial challenge needed to facilitate this. For this reason stages should not be skipped due to major organizational changes being encountered at each stage. Ross’s research shows that especially PBS-implementations that tried to skip stages had to be halted or scaled back. From a governance perspective the Crown model emphasizes the influence which individuals have on the behavior of organizations, regarding the way knowledge and information is gained and shared in a personal way.

When comparing the two, both models indicate that implementing an innovation platform to support new business models can only be achieved when the core is stable and technology & governance standards are used. Both models also show that a stable innovation platform is an essential part of the IT architecture landscape. The layering in both models is therefore used as a foundation for the CORA.

Relationship between ‘Crown’, ‘Ross’ and CORA

When using the approach of Ross and Crown to support an architectural guided transformation, the effect on the IT landscape has to be determined and showed to effectively identify and scope IT projects. This becomes clear when the Crown model is mapped to the CORA.

‘Personalize’ and ‘Differentiate’ can be realized by the top three layers ‘Channel access’, ‘Presentation’ and ‘Composition’. They enable flexibility based on a solid integration foundation and business functionality (application and data). ‘Organize’ is possible using the orchestration capabilities of ‘Composition’ and the integration capabilities of ‘Integration’. ‘Comply’ (to rely on standardized data, roles, authorization and basic processes) is mainly focused on ‘Application’, ‘Data’ (and of course ‘Security’).

By combining these three models, an instrument becomes available to effectively guide transformation.

Vendor architectures compared

Various vendors (including Microsoft, SAP, Oracle, IBM/Open Group and Intel) have created their own reference architecture. These architectures are usually aimed at the product stack of the vendor. Therefore they cannot be used solely at Enterprise Level where a variety of technologies and vendors may need to exist. The risk of vendor locking will be inevitable. It must be remembered that the CORA is a vendor agnostic model. Mapping a vendor architecture to the CORA helps to better understand the vendor architecture itself. If no vendor architecture is present it can be designed by using the CORA. It is advisable to use the CORA as a reference architecture and apply vendor architectures to it when vendor products are actually chosen. Various vendor reference architectures (i.e. SAP, Oracle, IBM/Open Group and Microsoft) are mapped onto the CORA.

Business Logic and the CORA Model, Part I

Mon, 27 Sep 2010 17:50:18 GMT

Introduction

It is great to see how in a few months this website has grown into an impressive collection of articles around CORA. Especially the contributions by other practitioners in the field are very important. We have created the CORA model from our real life experiences as a generalization of the models and approaches that were a common factor in our projects. So to read the examples on this site (the SAP mapping by Theo, implementing repositories by Philippe and the ROA based iPhone App by Wilco and Maarten) is fantastic!

Looking at the contribution from Wilco en Maarten, one of their conclusions with regards to CORA is that the CORA model does not provide direct guidelines on where to implement business logic. It describes where it can exist, but does not explicitly state where it should be placed. They suggest elaborating on this for CORA 2.0. I think that is a very good point. Of course we had discussions about this when we worked on CORA 1.0, but I will elaborate a bit more about it in this blog as a stepping stone for CORA 2.0. In this first part I describe the way we look at business logic from a CORA point of view. In a second blog I discuss the way this is used within the iPhone example of Wilco and Maarten.

CORA and IBM

Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:13:00 GMT

Introduction

This blog is the first in a series around on the comparion between the CORA model and IBM. In this first part, after introducing IBM, the SOA Reference Architecture of IBM is mapped onto the CORA model.