Managing Cloud Computing Brings Complex Duality Between IT and Business
Managing Cloud Computing Brings ComplexDuality Between IT and BusinessPodcast of a BrieﬁngsDirect podcast in conjunction with the Open Group Conference in SanFrancisco. Capgemini CEO Andy Mulholland discusses the transformed enterprise.Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod. Sponsor: The Open Group Register for The Open Group Conference Jan. 30 - Feb. 3 in San FranciscoDana Gardner: Hello, and welcome to a special BrieﬁngsDirect Thought Leadership interviewseries coming to you in conjunction with The Open Group Conference this January in San Francisco. Im Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions and I will be your host throughout these discussions. The conference will focus on how IT and enterprise architecture support enterprise transformation. Speakers in conference events will also explore the latest in service oriented architecture (SOA), cloud computing, and security. [Disclosure: The Open Group is a sponsor of BrieﬁngsDirect podcasts.] Today, we’re here with one of the main speakers of the conference, AndyMulholland, the Global Chief Technology Ofﬁcer and Corporate Vice President at Capgemini. In2009, Andy was voted one of the top 25 most inﬂuential CTOs in the world by InfoWorld. Andin 2010, his CTO Blog was voted best blog for business managers and CIOs for the third yearrunning by Computer Weekly.As a lead into his Open Group Conference presentation on the transformed enterprise, Andy andI are now going to drill down on one of the year’s hottest technology and business trends, cloudcomputing.Capgemini is about to publish a white paper on cloud computing. It draws distinctions betweenwhat cloud means to IT and what it means to business while examining the complex dualrelationship between the two.To ﬁnd out more about the two cloud imperatives, please join me now in welcoming AndyMulholland, Global Chief Technology Ofﬁcer at Capgemini. Welcome back to BrieﬁngsDirect,Andy.Andy Mulholland: Hi, and thank you very much for inviting me.
Gardner: My pleasure. I really enjoyed reading a preview of this white paper. I read it withgreat interest, and what jumps out at me this duality. Why do business people think they have arevolution on their hands, and yet IT people look at it perhaps more as an evolution, somethingabout efﬁciency of infrastructure?Mulholland: Well, that’s because we deﬁne the role of IT and give it the responsibility and the accountability in the business in a way that is quite strongly related to internal practice. It’s all about how we manage the company’s transactions, how we reduce the cost, how we automate business process, and generally try to make our company a more efﬁcient internal operator. When you look at cloud computing through that set of lenses, what you’re going to see is how I can use it in that model. Some of the technologies from cloud computing, principally virtualization, give you ways to improve how you deliver the current cloud server-centric, application-centric environment.So you see there’s an evolution and you start asking questions about how far can we go. Would Igo outside and put enterprise applications on the cloud, would I maybe run a private cloudinternally, etc?However, when the business people want to talk about that subject, they tend to talk about it andreﬂect on it in terms of the change in society and the business world, which we all ought torecognize because that is our world, around the way we choose what we buy, how we choose todo business with people, how we search more, and how we’ve even changed that attitude.Changed our waysTheres a whole list of things that we simply just don’t do anymore because we’ve changed theway we choose to buy a book, the way we choose and listen to music and lots of other things.So we see this as a revolution in the market or, more particularly, a revolution in how cloud canserve in the market, because everybody uses some form of technology. So then the question isnot the role of the IT department and the enterprise -- it’s the role technology should be playingin their extended enterprise in doing business.Gardner: In the paper, it describes the IT view of cloud as inside-out -- so their IT-centric world,their legacy, their requirements, what they view as their mission, and how to project thatoutward. And then the term it uses for the business side that you just described is outside-in. Thatis to say, beyond the perimeter of IT, beyond the perimeter of the business.How is it these seemingly disjointed and confusing approaches can come together? Is there aneed for them to somehow mesh and be aligned?Mulholland: Most businesses ought to be aligned in their operations or it becomes quickly quitea problem. But if we just pick up the terms, which we used as ways to deﬁne the ﬁrst word, the
function inside is the primary function and out is the secondary function and the other wayaround. IT is clearly internally focused. When we look at what we do outside the ﬁrewall, we deﬁne it on the governance, security, and the risk structure of inside IT. In other words, were worried about the exported information. Were worried about who comes throughthe ﬁrewall and under what circumstance. And we’re worried that when you go out with yourcorporate machine in the big wide world, someone might steal it with data on it.Alternatively, you might be unfortunate enough on the net to pick up some nasty malware thatcould have some bad effects. For all of those reasons, we put very heavy governance andrestrictions on PCs. They usually lock down more than only one control, but when we gooutside, we’d like to hear there’s a virtual private network (VPN) to reincorporate inside theﬁrewall for safety.By deﬁnition, we have a way around outside-in. People are saying, well no, actually, I requirevery little about the internal world. Im very focused on the external world. Obviously, that servespeople, service engineers, but actually it’s quite a lot of people. The small joke there is thatpeople don’t buy iPads in order to get better use of enterprise IT. They buy iPads to escape thelimitations of enterprise IT, because thats fundamentally working on the web outside with verylimited internal links.When I’m out on the road, there are four services I use from Capgemini. All of them are web-mounted. I simply don’t use a VPN connection and I don’t use a lockdown machine during theday. I tend to do it in the evenings or in the early mornings, when I have to do things which areabout the more sensitive side of our operations.The rest of the day, web-based push email works really well on my iPad. Not to give particularlyadvert for that, but I also use a Windows phone. I also use social networking system and I use aknowledge management system and I use time and expenses recording systems.The outside worldAll of them enable me to function in the outside world without a number of restrictions. Why?Because the primary task I have is to work with industry partners, clients, and various teamsbased on other people’s sites. All of that is about how I function in the outside world.Now when we take an interesting example of that: customer relationship management (CRM).You can see very clearly CRM has meant how the company keeps its sales funnel, its clients, andother things inside its IT, transacts it, secures it, and grinds it into business information so itknows where it is.
Today, we talk about social CRM and when we talk about social CRM, we mean its outside-in.We mean its sales people using packages that can look at the person they’re selling to, ﬁnd allthe information about them by looking at various social sites. They can exchange throughcollaboration and knowledge, and share in social networks with their colleagues, any informationabout the account thats known or whatever is happening. In other words, it becomes an externaltask.Now the two sides clearly exist together because you must keep your funnel up. You must knowwhat’s happening. You must keep the internal clients. The other way around, the sales peoplewant to exploit insights of what’s happening that they can gain from very different directionsthan classic internal structured information.Gardner: So there are some signiﬁcant advantages to users like yourself to pursue outsideservices, recognizing that they can get process innovation, data sharing or transference. Theresan opportunity to engage with partners. At the same time, IT still needs to be mindful of itsmission around security and protection.So Im wondering again, not so much alignment, but somebody has to bend. Does IT need to gothinking more outside or do the folks who are doing these outside activities need to think moreabout IT? How can they meet up in the middle somewhere?Mulholland: Now we’re back to your point about enterprise transformation and what that reallymeans. Im always very conscious of the fact that the phrase has been used for a long time in avariety of ways, as have many of the other buzzwords that go with it.But this time, what we actually mean is that as with the last wave of where the big technologychange in late 80s and early 90s, when we brought in the PC, there is almost a direct correlationbetween the two. Business people brought in PCs, because they could use spreadsheet and couldbe more insightful in their use of information, such as it was at that time.But what happened was that they slowly, but surely, destroyed the business integrity of the databy all having different versions. Where we went to with that was two things. We went toenterprise resource planning (ERP), which was one version of the truth. But the really importantpoint was that we started to redesign around business process reengineering to ﬂow all theprocess across the organization. Not that we had separate isolated departments, but the questionwas how do we ﬂow across.That was quite difﬁcult at that time because it presented a lot of command and control problems.In fact, email was brought in as the answer, because you needed the names of the people alongthe process and you could do command and communication along the process, even if in theprevious structure, department organization hadn’t ﬁt.
Business transformationThat was a business transformation at that time. It was a transformation around the way weorganized our business to do business. From that, we organized our business model to be basedon that.So we use phrases like "do more with less," "concentrate on one or two or three lines whereyoure the number one or two in the market," etc. That was a very clear business transformationin the way we do business, the way we organize our business, and our business models.Two of the most popular books recently, include Seizing the White Space, which argues that inthe past, it was difﬁcult to transfer your business model too far. I use an example, Amazon. Ifthey sold books, they could sell DVDs, because fundamentally the same business processsupported both. But in Seizing the White Space, a popular book on Harvard Business Press, itdeﬁnes for a lot of people 19 new business models that their enterprise could adopt.It deﬁned the idea that actually they could do something like Amazon Web Services, where howthey service the market was distinctly different from how they ran their business process andcreated an invoice.A more popular book more recently has been The Power of Pull, and in all of these, the idea isthat we’re really seeing a decentralization of the front ofﬁce in order to respond to and follow themarket and the opportunities and the events in very different ways.The Power of Pull says that I do what my market is asking me and I design business process orcapabilities to be rapidly orchestrated through the front ofﬁce around where things want to go,and I have linkage points, application programming interface (API) points, where I take anythingsigniﬁcant and transfer it back.Most of the major technology players in the software industry are pretty advanced with this inthe way that theyre supporting their current application-centric IT environment, developing anew environment in front of that, and offering middleware and mix the two together. Register for The Open Group Conference Jan. 30 - Feb. 3 in San FranciscoBut the real challenge is -- and it was put to me today in a client discussion -- that their businesswas designed around 1970 computer systems, augmented slowly around that, and they still feltthat. Today, their market and their expectations of the industry that theyre in were that theywould be designed around the way people were using their products and services and the eventsand that they had to make that change.
To do that, theyre transformed in the organization, and thats where we start to spot thedifference. We start to spot the idea that your own staff, your customers, and other suppliers areall working externally in information, process, and services accessible to all on an Internetmarket or architecture.So when we talk about business architecture, it’s as relevant today as it ever was in terms ofinterpreting a business.Set of methodologiesBut when we start talking about architecture, The Open Group Architectural Framework(TOGAF) is a set of methodologies on the IT side -- the closed-coupled state for a designed setof principles to client-server type systems. In this new model, when we talk about clouds,mobility, and people traveling around and connecting by wireless, etc., we have a stateless loose-coupled environment.The whole purpose of The Open Group is, in fact, to help devise new ways for being able toarchitect methods to deliver that. Thats what stands behind the phrase, "a transformedenterprise."Gardner: All right. So we certainly have a strong case for transformation being necessary andpressing, especially as organizations try to react to their very dynamic markets, accommodatethem, and then to try to tool the means of orchestrating the processes and supporting those newmarket requirements.At the same time, Andy, theres some added complexity in that, the external landscape has shiftedwhen we think about things like mobility, which means any connection, any device, any service.Also, when we think about cloud, which is compute and development resources, as well as pastand present IT resources on demand and then we think about big data, so real-time informationand intelligence as well as greatly improved efﬁciencies around storage and search.Then, I suppose, the last big variable to consider in this mix is the external economicenvironment. The timing is that most organizations are still facing reduced spending. They havealso expectations from the customers that are more demanding.So, given the fact that we’ve identiﬁed the need, how can we leverage these changes in themarket, things like mobility, cloud, big data, and the requirements around efﬁciency andproductivity to spur the enterprise forward? What do we need to start doing differently that wasnot the same as in the early 90s with business process reengineering?Mulholland: Let’s go back again to the conversation this morning with a client. It’s alwaysinteresting to touch reality. This particular client is looking at the front end of a complexecosystem around travel, and was asked this standard question by our account director: do youhave a business case for the work we’re discussing?
The reply from the CEO is very interesting. He ﬁxed him with a very cold glare and he said, "Ifyou were able to have 20 percent more billable hours without increasing your cost structure,would you be bothered to even think about the business case?"The answer in that particular case was they were talking about 10,000 more travel instances -- ormore -- a year with no increase in their cost structure. In other words, their whole idea was therewas nothing to do with cost in it. Their argument was in revenue increase, market share increase,and they thought that they would make better margins, because it would actually decrease theircost base or spread it more widely.Thats the whole purpose of this revolution and thats the purpose the business schools are alwayspushing, when they talk about innovative business models. It means innovate your businessmodel to look at the market again from the perspective of getting into new markets, gettingincreased revenue, and maybe designing things that make more money.Using technology externallyWere always hooked on this idea that we’ve used technology very successfully internally, butnow we should be asking the question about how we’re using technology externally when thepopulation as a whole uses that as their primary method of deciding what they’re going to buy,how they’re going to buy it, when they’re going to buy it, and lots of other questions.If we go back to the basic mission of The Open Group, which is boundarylessness of thisinformation ﬂow, the boundary has previously been deﬁned by a computer system updatinganother computer system in another company around traditional IT type procedural businessﬂow.Now, we’re talking about the idea that the information ﬂow is around an ecosystem in anunstructured way. Not a structured ﬁle-to-ﬁle type transfer, not a structured architecture of whodoes what, when, and how, but the whole change model in this is unstructured.It’s a model around big data, saying that there is information everywhere. How do I get theinsight I want from it? And when I’ve got the insight I want from it, which is more driven bysearch than ever was driven by queries in the old landscape, how and where do I use it? In otherwords, how do I start to evoke a process between different companies?Let’s just reiterate this whole theme about clouds, mobility, and so on, in a very simple way. It isactually the fourth generation of the Internet. Some people will talk about it being the thirdbecause they will miss out one of the stages. I would say it’s the fourth for the following reason.The ﬁrst generation was universal connectivity. That’s what underpins mobility. The secondgeneration was universal shared content. We could read and look at content, the beginnings ofthe big data model that we know today, the beginnings of the shift to the search engine model,and the way we used the big data model of the web.
The third one is sometimes not included by one or two other people. One or two of mycolleagues, friends, and companies don’t always include Web 2. I think Web 2 is quite important,because it showed us that actually we are focused upon people making insightful decisions, asmuch or more than weve ever been focused previously around the computer.The fourth one is that if I can connect to you, if I can see the content, if I can interact to ﬁnd outthat, that really is what I want to do. I ought to be able to trigger shared process. I ought to beable to trigger something that the process is from the various parties in that model. Travel, as Ijust said this morning, are actually able to come together to give me my version of what I want,and that includes other comments people hear about open data, etc.If you want to see a classic example of this its from Apple. I appreciate that Im using Apple alot, but Im using it, because this is relatively mature at the moment and its pretty easy todemonstrate. Go to the Apple App Store and load iFly. If youre a frequent airline ﬂyer, youregoing to thank me a lot for this.It takes the information which is published all the time in an open data format by variousairports, airlines, etc., and consolidates it to give it a polarized view for you of the travel youreabout to do. It tells you about the airport youre going to go through, you can ﬁnd out whatrestaurants are by the gate youre going to travel from. It tells you whether the aircraft is on time/off time, how it synchronizes with the next ﬂight youre going to make, etc.Transformation modelThat is a transformation. When we talk about these elements, if we recombine them around thisloose structured coupling to give different polarizations to the person, the situation, or the event,by combining those four factors, that’s what’s leading to the business transformation model.Gardner: I guess its important to point out here, Andy, that the stakes are relatively high. If youlook at these issues and you think that its a perfect storm that these are things that are toocomplicated, difﬁcult to manage, youre just going to hunker down, reinforce your ﬁrewall, thenthis could be an existential decision.On the other hand, like the CEO that you mentioned this morning, if you look at this as a gamechanging opportunity, 20 percent improvement in revenue and share, but at no additional cost,well, then this could be a game changing beneﬁcial approach.How do organizations make sure theyre the latter and not the former? Who in the organizationcan be the change agent that can make that leap between the duality view of cloud that IT has,and these business opportunists?Mulholland: Frankly, its happening in most organizations already in much the same way as Isaid earlier. Theres a direct correlation with what happened with the PC. If you go into manyorganizations today, and the advice I usually offer is go through the corporate credit cards and
ﬁnd out who is spending money with places like Amazon or Google or something like that, theanswer is usually pretty shocking. Its much more than people realize.My point about that exercise is that the business managers on these systems, which are relativelyeasy to do something quick around, like a quick spreadsheet was, are actually alreadyimplementing and getting good results.The other way around, the CEOs are quite noticeably reading the right articles, hearing the rightinformation from business schools, etc., and theyre getting this picture that theyre going to havenew business models and new capabilities. So the drive end is not hard. The problem that isusually encountered is that the IT department’s deﬁnition and role interferes with them beingable to play the role they want.What were actually looking for is the idea that IT, as we deﬁne it today, is some place else. Youhave to accept that it exists, it will exist, and it’s hugely important. So please don’t take thoseprinciples and try to apply them outside.The real question here is when you ﬁnd those people who are doing the work outside, and Iveyet to ﬁnd any company where it hasn’t been the case -- maybe weve got at least one, if notmore, doing it -- the question should be how we actually encourage and manage that innovationsensibly and successfully?What I mean by that is that if everybody goes off and does their own thing, once again, well endup with a broken company. Why? Because their whole purpose as an enterprises is to leveragesuccess rapidly. If someone is very successful over there, you really need to know, and you needto leverage that again as rapidly as you can to run the rest of the organization. If it doesn’t work,you need to stop it quickly.Changing rolesIn models of the capabilities of that, the question is where is the government structure? So wehear titles like Chief Innovation Ofﬁcer, again, slightly surprising how it may come up. But wesee the model coming both ways. There are reforming CIOs for sure, who have recognized thisand are changing their role and position accordingly, sometimes formally, sometimes informally.The other way around, there are people coming from other parts of the business, taking the titleand driving them. I’ve seen Chief Strategy Ofﬁcers taking the role. I’ve seen the head of salesand marketing taking the role.I recognize also that there are a lot of companies where they have actually formed a whole newbusiness division to behave differently. Again, the real example is a global company in deskingsystems recognizing the number of people in ofﬁces at desks is ﬁnite at best, and possibly goingdown, starting a division around virtual ofﬁces and supporting their employees to work awayfrom a ﬁxed ofﬁce.
Its the same clients theyre dealing with, the same customers, the same core competences.Theyre just reinventing a new business model to get them new revenue as there are uncertaintiesabout the other one.Now the question behind that was that its clearly a business strategic decision, but there was thepossibility of recognizing that it could be done, the technology existed, and the customers werechanging their mind.Certainly, recognizing the technology possibilities should be coming from the direction of thetechnology capabilities within the current IT department. The capability of what that meansmight be coming differently. So it’s a very interesting balance at the moment, and we don’t knowquite the right answer.We had CIOs who were not sure what was the right answer. Some of them came in with the PCsthemselves, and some of them were business managers who took over the role and started to lookto see what they could do.So right now, I don’t know that there is a single ﬁxed answer. What I do know is that it’shappening and the quick-witted CIOs are understanding that it’s a huge opportunity for them toﬁx their role and embrace a new area and a new sense of value that they can bring to theirorganization.Gardner: So perhaps it’s going to be some organic or combination of organic and structuredapproaches. It could be any number of people that are the drivers in these different companiesand in different verticals. I suppose what’s really important then is identifying successes, andthen making them repeatable.How do the roles, the traditional roles of the enterprise architect and the business architect cometo bear on this ability to recognize successes -- the inside out, the outside in successes, somecombination? Make them repeatable and perhaps move towards this cloud opportunity, ratherthan cloud as a handicap, to your company’s success?Issuing invoicesMulholland: Well, this goes prominently about the new world and the transformedenvironment, but we should never forget that all sorts of business are actually about the issuingof an invoice and proving that it was a valid invoice to an auditor.So, that puts us ﬁrmly back in the old world. What were really talking about is how do you movethrough three different recognizable layers in an organization, while remaining compliant -- theworld that says we have to able to show to an auditor procedures and processes and data andmethods that are all clean and good.
Then if we look above that, we have our core competencies. What is the industry were in, and, ifI put it in business jargon, what is the value that the shareholders are buying from us.Motorcars might be an example. We have factories, skilled staff, and every detail. But in thatlayer, we see a very rich set of applications that enable us to, if we stick to automotives, designCAD, do things with them, etc. All were talking about is in front of that is a new layer that askshow we differentiate.Classic differentiation has been around brand. Theres Volkswagen, Audi, Fiat and Škoda. If wetake a European respective of a very successful car company, each of those brands reaches adifferent marketplace, and that gives them more reach than if they only had one brand.But that differentiation is built on the same chassis in each one of those cars. So their corecompetency actually gives them a core base ordered to express differentiation. Beyond that, howdo the people map to the layers?If you start looking at the business that way, you actually start this top down. You ask where wedifferentiate, how do we engage with a market in a different way, or is our new business modelwhere you look bottom up? You ask how we make sure were issuing valid invoices?If you check that through, that use of thread in a process that runs through from the front to theback, always has to be. At the back, its very focused on the procedure, application, and data. Atthe front, its very focused on orchestration of clusters of different services to seek differentenvironments.Each of those services is a deﬁnable entity with a deﬁnable task. Success starts from SOA, whichfrankly we didn’t do very well as an industry. It starts from the idea that we know and deﬁneeach web services properly, and we deﬁne the rules in terms of how the orchestration of thosecan work. That’s why there is a lot of interest at the moment in business process management.Redesigning processWhat we’ve eventually done is say at the back we’ve bolted the clusters together in amonolithic application and how we integrate those together, whereas at the front, our task isactually to identify spectacular small business service elements in a very well deﬁned manner, sothat they can be clicked together to give us the freedom to redesign process on the ﬂy in order toadjust to this new market.So the clarity of thinking about business, the transition of that into technology architecture hasnot decreased at all. In fact, if anything, it’s gotten more complicated and more interesting as wenow add this new layer of business to technology architecture.Gardner: Returning to the upcoming Capgemini white paper, it adds a sense of urgency at theend on how to get started. It suggests that you appoint a leader, but a leader ﬁrst for the inside-
out element of cloud and transformation and then a second leader, a separate leader perhaps, forthat outside-in or reﬂecting the business transformation and the opportunity for what’s going onin the external business and markets. It also suggests a strategic road map that involves bothbusiness and technology, and then it suggests getting a pilot going.Were about out of time Andy, but on this sense of urgency in getting started, as you say, a lot ofthese things are happening already. How does it become something that you can manage,something that you can measure that becomes something that is lower risk and more comfortablefor the leadership in these organizations?Mulholland: I usually reply to most challenges Im given about the complexity of trying to keepeverybody going in the same direction in Capgemini with one very simple answer. The questionis do you know who is responsible. If you don’t, youd better ﬁgure out how youre going tomake someone responsible, because in any situation, someone has to be deciding what weregoing to do and how were going to do it.Having deﬁned that, there are very different business drivers, as well as different technologydrivers, between the two. Clearly, whoever takes those roles will reﬂect a very different way thatthey will have to run that element. So a duality is recognized in that comment.On the other hand, no business can survive by going off in half-a-dozen directions at once. Youwont have the money. You wont have the brand. You wont have anything you’d like. Its simplynot feasible.So, the object of the strategic roadmap is to reafﬁrm the idea of what kind of business weretrying to be and do. That’s the glimpse of what we want to achieve. In other words, do we wantto go from books into DVDs or do we want to go from DVDs into web services -- the example Igave earlier.There has to be a strategy. Otherwise, you’ll end up with way too much decentralization andpeople making up their own version of the strategy, which they can fairly easily do and fairlyeasily mount from someone else’s cloud to go and do it today.So the purpose of the duality is to make sure that the two roles, the two different groups oftechnology, the two different capabilities they reﬂect to the organization, are properly addressed,properly managed, and properly have a key authority ﬁgure in charge of them.Enablement modelThe business strategy is to make sure that the business knows how the enablement model thatthese two offer them is capable of being directed to where the shareholders will make money outof the business, because that is ultimately that success factor theyre looking for to drive themforward.
Gardner: Very good. We’ve been talking with Andy Mulholland, the global chief technologyofﬁcer at Capgemini. As a lead in to his opening group presentation on the transformedenterprise, Andy and I have been exploring some of the major concepts from an upcomingCapgemini white paper on the intriguing dualities of cloud computing.This special BrieﬁngsDirect discussion comes to you in conjunction with the Open GroupConference from January 30 to February 3 in San Francisco. You’ll hear more from Andy andmany other global leaders on the ways that IT and enterprise architecture support enterprisetransformation.So thank you very much Andy for joining us. Its been a fascinating discussion.Mulholland: Thank you very much indeed. I’ve enjoyed it.Gardner: And I look forward to your presentation in San Francisco. I also encourage our readersand listeners to register, explore, and attend the conference.This is Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst and Interarbor Solutions, your host and moderatorthroughout these series of thought leadership interviews in association with the conference.Thanks to you our audience for listening, and come back next time. Register for The Open Group Conference Jan. 30 - Feb. 3 in San FranciscoListen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod. Sponsor: The Open GroupPodcast of a BrieﬁngsDirect podcast in conjunction with the Open Group Conference in SanFrancisco. Capgemini CEO Andy Mulholland discusses the transformed enterprise. CopyrightInterarbor Solutions, LLC, 2005-2012. All rights reserved.You may also be interested in: • Exploring Business-IT Alignment: A 20-Year Struggle Culminating in the Role and Impact of Business Architecture • Enterprise Architects Increasingly Leverage Advanced TOGAF 9 for Innovation, Market Response, and Governance Beneﬁts • Open Group Cloud Panel Forecasts Cloud s Spurring Useful Transition Phase for Enterprise Architecture • The Open Groups Cloud Work Group Advances Understanding of Cloud-Use Beneﬁts for Enterprises • Exploring the Role and Impact of the Open Trusted Technology Forum to Ensure Secure IT Products in Global Supply Chains