Smart-city implementation reference model

Smart-city implementation
reference model
Alexander SAMARIN
For IEC/SEG Smart-city plenary meeting in
Atlanta, September 2014

About me
• 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 Smart-city implementation reference model v4 2

Agenda
• Context
• Smart-city implementation reference model
• Views

Introduction
• 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

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

Agenda
• Context
• Views

WHY implementation reference model (1)
• 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

• 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
Smart-city implementation reference model v4 8

• 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
BU1 BU2 BU3
Standard
solution
Level of
computerisation
IT department

Level of
computerisation
© A. Samarin 2014
B C A B A B C
BU1 BU2 BU3
1) Standard
solution 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

HOW does this reference model work
• 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

EA explained (1)
• 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

EA explained (2)
• 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

EA views: projects, solutions,
© A. Samarin 2014
capabilities and platforms

© A. Samarin 2014
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

WHAT reference model: many views (1)
• 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

WHAT reference model: many views (2)
• 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

Agenda
• Context
• Views

VIEWS (1)
• Partner view
• The governmental entities integration view

Common functional capabilities (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

Common functional capabilities (2)
• Good business practices
• Universal business capabilities
• Specialised enterprise capabilities
• Basic technical capabilities (or technologies)

VIEWS (1)
• Partner view

Four communication patterns for
exchanges between a partner and the
government
Partners (citizen, business, and other organisations)
Government
2. Patrner-declaration
1. Government-announce
4. Partner-demand
Spread
in time
3. Government-demand
Spread
in time
1. Government-announcement, e.g. broadcasting changes in a law
2. Partner-declaration, e.g. communicating a change of the partner’s address
3. Government-demand, e.g. inviting to pay taxes
4. Partner-demand, e.g. requesting a certificate (fishing license)

A partner-initiated-demand may
required several exchanges between the
partner and the government
Government
Time

The partner may need to deal with some
ministries
Government
Ministry A Ministry B Ministry C
Methodologies:
+ data modelling
+ electronic document
exchange
Time
Tools:
+ standard data schemas
+ electronic signature
• data flow (black
dashed lines)

E-gov coordinates partner’s interactions
Methodologies:
• data modelling
• electronic document
Process
with the government
+ + + +
Government
• control flow (black solid
lines)
• data flow (black dashed
lines)
Time
(ED) exchange
+ BPM discipline
+ process modelling
Technologies:
• standard data schemas
• electronic signature
+ BPM suite

E-gov unifies the communication
between the partner and the ministries
Methodologies:
• data modelling
• electronic document
(ED) exchange
+ BPM discipline
+ process modelling
… …
Process --
Government
2b
Ministry B
Time
2a x 2c
lines)
lines)
Technologies:
+ BPM suite

E-gov provides a social collaborative
Methodologies:
• data modelling
• ED exchange
• BPM discipline
• process modelling
+ ED management
+ records management
+ collaboration
+ social
Process
extranet for partners
+ + + +
Government
Time
Technologies:
• BPM suite
+ ECM
Social collaborative extranet
lines)
lines)

VIEWS (1)
• Partner view

Partner’s view

VIEWS (1)
• Partner view

E-gov application architecture view
Partners
e-gov
service
e-gov
service
e-gov
service
Coordination and integration backbone
Existing
application
e-Government
Existing
application
Existing
application
Government
Technologies:
• BPM suite
• SOA orientation
• ECM
© A. Samarin 2014 37
Smart-city implementation reference model v4

E-gov traditional application architecture
Partners
Application
Existing
application
Portal
Application
Existing
application
Application
Existing
application
Government

E-gov introductory application
architecture
Partners
e-gov
service
e-gov
service
e-gov
service
Existing
application
e-Government
Existing
application
Existing
application
Government

E-gov transitional application
architecture
Partners
e-gov
service
e-gov
service
e-gov
service
Existing
application
e-Government
Existing
application
Coordination backbone
Existing
application
Service Service
Government

E-gov target application architecture
Partners
e-Government
e-gov
service
e-gov
service
e-gov
service
Service Service Service

E-social system application architecture
Partners
E-social system
Public
service
Social
service
Private
service
Professional
service
Voluntary
service

Steps of evolution in application
architecture
Introductory
architecture
Target
architecture
E-Social system
architecture
Portal-centric
architecture
Transitional
architecture

VIEWS (1)
• Partner view

Integration process instead of
N-to-N connectivity
Nx(N-1)/2 complexity N complexity

Use of many security envelopes
• Business (processing) envelope
• Delivery (addressing) envelope
• Transportation (routing) envelope

VIEWS (1)
• Partner view

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

Platform-based architecture (2)
• 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
Delivery by applications Delivery by solutions
A2
A1
A3
S2
S …
1
Platform
S3
Functionality
Scope

Overall platform governance
• 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

Advantages of the corporate
ECM platform
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
Functionality
Process-centric
integration
Company-specific
features
Advanced features of a
common ECM platform
Basic features of a
common ECM platform
Generic web- environment 3
development platforms
Dev env 1 Dev env 2
Development

Financial estimations
• 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
N apps.
N≈8
Without
common
platform
With
common
platform

VIEWS (1)
• Partner view

Ladder of maturity meta-pattern
• Entities are permitted to advance at different paces in
their ascent to the top of the “ladder”.

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

VIEWS (1)
• Partner view

Architecture-based agile project
management
• It combines decomposition with agile implementation of
“architected” components

VIEWS (1)
• Partner view

Structural dependencies between
various artefacts

Dynamic relationships between various
Business
initiatives
(business-specific
demand)
Manage
business by
processes
Business
capabilities
(business-generic
demand)
Manage
processes BPM suite
IT
capabilities
(IT-generic
supply)
Roadmap
programmes
(from AS-IS
to TO-BE)
Business demand IT supply
Business
strategic
objectives
Governance
1
2
3
2
2->5
2->4
1->3
1->4
2->5
2->4
1->3
2->4
3->4
5
4
3
4
Business priority Requested maturity Maturity improvement
1
2
3
4
4
1
1
2
3
2
2
4
4
5
3
IT tools
(IT-specific
supply)
3->5
3->4
1->4
3->4
2->4
3
Programme priority
5
4
3
4
4
artefacts

Implications and example
• 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)

VIEWS (1)
• Partner view

Architecture-based procurement
• 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.

VIEWS (2)
• Enhancing information security by the use of processes
• Records management as an BPM application
• Microservices

Enterprise as a system of processes
• 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. processes
3. cluster of processes (coordination between processes)
4. system of processes (coordination between clusters of processes)

Process fragments – patterns
Click for animation
• Business case: typical “claim processing” process – claim,
repair, control, invoicing, and assurance to pay
SI
PAR
SI
IPS

SI animated diagram
Click for
animation

Coordination between processes (1)
• Simple event-based (which looks like a state machine)

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)

CLuster Of Processes (CLOP)
• 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

Enabler group, supporting group and
customer group of clusters

Implicit coordination between CLOPs (1)

Make coordination between CLOPs
explicit (1)
• Business Object (BO) lify-cycle as a process

explicit (2)
• Add enterprise-wide event dispatcher

explicit (3)

Functional view at a system of processes (1)

VIEWS (2)
• Microservices

Dynamic provision of the access

Extra relationships between activities
© A. Samarin 2014
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
(3)
Activity_A
Carry out the work
Activity_B
Carry out the work
Validating the
work
Role_1
Role_2

BPM and information security:
• 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
(4)

Process-enhanced security for electronic
medical records

VIEWS (2)
• Microservices

Typical problems with legacy software
• 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

The goal of modernisation
• 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

How to carry out the 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

Monolithic applications are decomposed into
interconnected services
Monolith
application
GUI GUI screen 1 1 GUI GUI screen 2 2 GUI GUI screen 3
3
Business Business logic
logic
BO1 BO1 persistence persistence BO2 BO2 persistence
persistence
Business
logic service
Interactive
service 1
Interactive
service 2
Interactive
service 3
Coordination
BO1
persistence service
BO2
persistence service
Assembled
solution

How to coordinate?
• Only the flow of data is traceable
• Flow of control is explicit, because
the primary importance is the result of
working together, but not individual
exchanges
(think about football)

Several coordination techniques may be
used together
• By processes
• By events (EPN)
• By rules, work-load, etc.

Transformation from typical inter-application
data flows to end-to-end
coordination of services

Using events
• To externalise the flow of control from existing monolith
applications

Co-existence of a legacy application and
a process solution
• 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

Process-centric solutions
Assemble via processes (1)
• 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 services
in its implementation

Assemble via processes (2)
• 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”

Multi-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

VIEWS (2)
• Microservices

Different deployment ZONEs
© A. Samarin 2014
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

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

• QUESTIONS?
Thanks
• EKSALANSI website: http://www.eksalansi.org
• Blog http://improving-bpm-systems.blogspot.com
• LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/alexandersamarin
• E-mail: alex@eksalansi.org
• Twitter: @samarin
• Mobile: +41 76 573 40 61
• Book: www.samarin.biz/book
© A. Samarin 2014

Smart-city implementation reference model

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (18)

Ähnlich wie Smart-city implementation reference model

Ähnlich wie Smart-city implementation reference model (20)

Mehr von Alexander SAMARIN

Mehr von Alexander SAMARIN (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Smart-city implementation reference model

Hinweis der Redaktion