Better than Glasgow! – although may well have been due to being further along in working with EA/TOGAF. Also HE day was useful although to a great extent confirmed what we already thought/direction in which we were already going. Seemed from the HE day that – as one of the Dutch participants said – Governance is more of a problem for HE than EA. Or maybe you can’t get anywhere with EA until Governance in place.
Which is where attendance at the Architecture Forum was surprisingly useful. Both myself and Bill Olivier made the point pretty strongly that where we needed help in promoting EA in HE was in convincing senior management/decision makers that this was something worth doing. New focus of the Strategy and work of Adoption/BA working groups suggests that this might be an area where the Open Group might be able to help, and they seemed to be very supportive.
Made the point strongly – & several times – that EA needs to speak the language of the business & not be so IT-related, & also that in the HE sector particularly speaking the language of “the business” is not necessarily the same as speaking the language of “business”. Seemed to be accepted, have to see what happens.
Also raised the issues about the cost of membership – David Rose is taking it up with the appropriate people. Overall felt that our contribution was valued/relevant.
So having expected this Conference to confirm my view that Open Group membership was not much use, now I’m not so sure. If the new Strategy really does take off in the suggested direction might be more help. Discussed future position with David Rose & Bill Olivier – & now tend to think that if future HE membership continues, will need to be better structured, focussed on particular work groups, & maybe will need to be different people involved.
Largely a matter of watch this space.