The document provides an overview of how the ArchiMate modeling language can be used to model enterprise risk management and security concepts and relationships. It summarizes relevant risk and security standards and frameworks and extracts a set of core concepts. It then demonstrates how these concepts can be modeled using the ArchiMate language by mapping the concepts to ArchiMate elements and including examples from case studies. The document concludes that the ArchiMate language allows for modeling of the majority of common risk and security concepts and their relationships to other enterprise architecture concepts.
This Case Study demonstrates the value of the ArchiMate® 2.1 modeling language for planning and expressing complex business transformation. The Case Study is about a fictitious manufacturer named ArchiMetal. Through high-level architecture modeling, the ArchiMate language illuminates the coherence between an organization, and its processes, applications, and infrastructure. This Case Study presents examples of ArchiMate models that can be elaborated as necessary for analysis, communication, decision support, and implementation.
The TOGAF® Architecture Development Method recommends that "an architecture description be encoded in a standard language". As the Open Group standard for enterprise modeling, Archimate is a strong candidate for this role. This presentation will explore how a diversified financial services company selected and is using Archimate for its TOGAF® implementation. The speaker will compare available enterprise modeling languages and explain why Archimate was selected, and will explain how his organization developed an enabling metamodel and diagram templates using a leading enterprise modeling tool. Methodology transition will also be covered, including how existing diagram types were mapped to TOGAF®, and how TOGAF® diagram content was mapped to Archimate.
Delivered at February 2011 Open Group San Diego Conference
This Case Study demonstrates the value of the ArchiMate® 2.1 modeling language for planning and expressing complex business transformation. The Case Study is about a fictitious manufacturer named ArchiMetal. Through high-level architecture modeling, the ArchiMate language illuminates the coherence between an organization, and its processes, applications, and infrastructure. This Case Study presents examples of ArchiMate models that can be elaborated as necessary for analysis, communication, decision support, and implementation.
The TOGAF® Architecture Development Method recommends that "an architecture description be encoded in a standard language". As the Open Group standard for enterprise modeling, Archimate is a strong candidate for this role. This presentation will explore how a diversified financial services company selected and is using Archimate for its TOGAF® implementation. The speaker will compare available enterprise modeling languages and explain why Archimate was selected, and will explain how his organization developed an enabling metamodel and diagram templates using a leading enterprise modeling tool. Methodology transition will also be covered, including how existing diagram types were mapped to TOGAF®, and how TOGAF® diagram content was mapped to Archimate.
Delivered at February 2011 Open Group San Diego Conference
Wilbert Kraan introduces Archimate and Enterprise Architecture modelling.
Presented at the first JISC Emerging Practices workshop (2012/03/29).
http://emergingpractices.jiscinvolve.org/wp/doing-ea-workshop/
An Introduction to the ArchiMate 3.0 SpecificationIver Band
This White Paper provides an overview of the ArchiMate® 3.0 Specification, an Open Group Standard, including the role of the language in Enterprise Architecture, a description of its structure and content, and a summary of the new features of this major update.
The ArchiMate 3.0 Specification is a major update to the ArchiMate 2.1 Specification, and was published as an Open Group Standard in June 2016. New features included in Version 3.0 include elements for modeling the enterprise at a strategic level, such as capability, resource, and outcome. It also includes support to model the physical world of materials and equipment. Furthermore, the consistency and structure of the language have been improved, definitions have been aligned with other standards, and its usability has been enhanced in various other ways.
The ArchiMate Language for Enterprise and Solution ArchitectureIver Band
The ArchiMate standard provides:
* A language with concepts to describe architectures
* A framework to organize these concepts
* A graphical notation for these concepts
* Guidance on visualizations for different stakeholders
* An open standard maintained by The Open Group
This presentation illustrates the value of ArchiMate modeling with a Big Data case study.
The latest version of the TOGAF standard has special emphasis on Business Architecture, Digital Trends, and Business Transformation beyond IT. Stuart Macgregor takes us through some of these changes to the TOGAF® 9.2 standard and discuss how they will benefit us.
Introduction to Enterprise architecture and the steps to perform an Enterpris...Prashanth Panduranga
This presentation was used to introduce Enterprise Architecture, Introduction to how to perform an Enterprise Architecture Assessment followed by TechSharp introduction.
Deliverables in the presentation is not clear, the slides represent what was shown as part of the demo.
List of deliverables:
Application Rationalization framework
Portfolio Analysis framework
Road Map
Current state analysis
Target State establishing process
System Context
System Landscape
HD version: http://1drv.ms/1eR5OQf
This is my publication on how the integration of the TOGAF Enterprise Architecture framework, the SABSA Enterprise Security Architecture framework, and Information Governance discipline add up to a robust and successful Information Security Management Program.
Enterprise Security Architecture: From access to auditBob Rhubart
Paul Andres' presentation from OTN Architect Day in Pasadena, July 9, 2009.
Find an OTN Architect Day event near you: http://www.oracle.com/technology/architect/archday.html
Interact with Architect Day presenters and participants on Oracle Mix: https://mix.oracle.com/groups/15511
In this presentation Michael Payne debates the merits of placing Business Architecture within an organisation’s Business, IT or Enterprise Architecture departments. He examines some of the options available to organisations starting out with Business Architecture, and touches on Business Architecture engagement models. In addition, Michael provides a sneak peak into the new developments in the Open-BA Framework.
Value analysis with Value Stream and Capability modelingCOMPETENSIS
The new Archimate 3.1 has improved the strategy layer with major modeling objects related to value analysis: value stream and capability.
These objects are linked and answer major questions :
- [VALUE STREAM] What value do we deliver to customers ? What value do we want to deliver to customers ? This is the enterprise business model.
- [CAPABILITY] What operational model do we need to deliver value ? The capability model describes the operational model required to deliver value to customers.
You cannot succeed to transform a business model, enterprise activities without considering Value Stream & Capability analysis. Technology considerations are necessary but not sufficient.
Feel free to contact if you wish to get more support with your transformation projet.
Cloud-Based CRM with On-Premises Integration at a Diversified Financial Servi...Iver Band
Last year, The Standard, a diversified financial service company, delivered two phases of its enterprise CRM solution for its Employee Benefits Sales and Retirement Plans Service functions. However, many of the data sources and applications necessary for a complete solution remained on-premises, presenting significant application integration challenges. To develop and gain approval for the solution architecture, the project architects combined an internal architecture development method based on elements of the Eclipse Process Framework with the ArchiMate® language and a powerful viewpoint from the TOGAF® Architecture Content Framework. This presentation gives an overview of the solution architecture and the architecture development process, with a focus on application integration. It explores how IT organizations can provide business value by integrating cloud-based CRM with established line-of-business applications. This presentation illustrates how the ArchiMate language can be used to model business, application, technology and information architectures, and how it empowers architects, enhances communication between diverse stakeholders, and complements existing architecture methods.
Key takeaways:
1. Typical enterprise CRM architecture problems and solutions for financial services companies
2. Techniques for integrating cloud and on-premises applications
3. How the ArchiMate language is used to develop and communicate complex solution architectures
Wilbert Kraan introduces Archimate and Enterprise Architecture modelling.
Presented at the first JISC Emerging Practices workshop (2012/03/29).
http://emergingpractices.jiscinvolve.org/wp/doing-ea-workshop/
An Introduction to the ArchiMate 3.0 SpecificationIver Band
This White Paper provides an overview of the ArchiMate® 3.0 Specification, an Open Group Standard, including the role of the language in Enterprise Architecture, a description of its structure and content, and a summary of the new features of this major update.
The ArchiMate 3.0 Specification is a major update to the ArchiMate 2.1 Specification, and was published as an Open Group Standard in June 2016. New features included in Version 3.0 include elements for modeling the enterprise at a strategic level, such as capability, resource, and outcome. It also includes support to model the physical world of materials and equipment. Furthermore, the consistency and structure of the language have been improved, definitions have been aligned with other standards, and its usability has been enhanced in various other ways.
The ArchiMate Language for Enterprise and Solution ArchitectureIver Band
The ArchiMate standard provides:
* A language with concepts to describe architectures
* A framework to organize these concepts
* A graphical notation for these concepts
* Guidance on visualizations for different stakeholders
* An open standard maintained by The Open Group
This presentation illustrates the value of ArchiMate modeling with a Big Data case study.
The latest version of the TOGAF standard has special emphasis on Business Architecture, Digital Trends, and Business Transformation beyond IT. Stuart Macgregor takes us through some of these changes to the TOGAF® 9.2 standard and discuss how they will benefit us.
Introduction to Enterprise architecture and the steps to perform an Enterpris...Prashanth Panduranga
This presentation was used to introduce Enterprise Architecture, Introduction to how to perform an Enterprise Architecture Assessment followed by TechSharp introduction.
Deliverables in the presentation is not clear, the slides represent what was shown as part of the demo.
List of deliverables:
Application Rationalization framework
Portfolio Analysis framework
Road Map
Current state analysis
Target State establishing process
System Context
System Landscape
HD version: http://1drv.ms/1eR5OQf
This is my publication on how the integration of the TOGAF Enterprise Architecture framework, the SABSA Enterprise Security Architecture framework, and Information Governance discipline add up to a robust and successful Information Security Management Program.
Enterprise Security Architecture: From access to auditBob Rhubart
Paul Andres' presentation from OTN Architect Day in Pasadena, July 9, 2009.
Find an OTN Architect Day event near you: http://www.oracle.com/technology/architect/archday.html
Interact with Architect Day presenters and participants on Oracle Mix: https://mix.oracle.com/groups/15511
In this presentation Michael Payne debates the merits of placing Business Architecture within an organisation’s Business, IT or Enterprise Architecture departments. He examines some of the options available to organisations starting out with Business Architecture, and touches on Business Architecture engagement models. In addition, Michael provides a sneak peak into the new developments in the Open-BA Framework.
Value analysis with Value Stream and Capability modelingCOMPETENSIS
The new Archimate 3.1 has improved the strategy layer with major modeling objects related to value analysis: value stream and capability.
These objects are linked and answer major questions :
- [VALUE STREAM] What value do we deliver to customers ? What value do we want to deliver to customers ? This is the enterprise business model.
- [CAPABILITY] What operational model do we need to deliver value ? The capability model describes the operational model required to deliver value to customers.
You cannot succeed to transform a business model, enterprise activities without considering Value Stream & Capability analysis. Technology considerations are necessary but not sufficient.
Feel free to contact if you wish to get more support with your transformation projet.
Cloud-Based CRM with On-Premises Integration at a Diversified Financial Servi...Iver Band
Last year, The Standard, a diversified financial service company, delivered two phases of its enterprise CRM solution for its Employee Benefits Sales and Retirement Plans Service functions. However, many of the data sources and applications necessary for a complete solution remained on-premises, presenting significant application integration challenges. To develop and gain approval for the solution architecture, the project architects combined an internal architecture development method based on elements of the Eclipse Process Framework with the ArchiMate® language and a powerful viewpoint from the TOGAF® Architecture Content Framework. This presentation gives an overview of the solution architecture and the architecture development process, with a focus on application integration. It explores how IT organizations can provide business value by integrating cloud-based CRM with established line-of-business applications. This presentation illustrates how the ArchiMate language can be used to model business, application, technology and information architectures, and how it empowers architects, enhances communication between diverse stakeholders, and complements existing architecture methods.
Key takeaways:
1. Typical enterprise CRM architecture problems and solutions for financial services companies
2. Techniques for integrating cloud and on-premises applications
3. How the ArchiMate language is used to develop and communicate complex solution architectures
Enterprise Architecture with the Zachman Framework and the Archimate LanguageIver Band
The ArchiMate visual modeling language enables modelers to create views for all columns and rows of the Zachman Framework. This brief presentation shows how the language and framework can be used together for business, data, application and technology architecture.
The Strengths & Limitations of Risk Management StandardsBen Tomhave
Much airtime is given to various standards for information security and risk management, but how much value can really be derived from them? At what point do they cross the line from "useful" to "too much effort and cost"? How can you best leverage standards to improve quality and performance? These questions, and more, will be addressed in this session as we explore the most common standards and how to best leverage them in managing the operational risk portfolio.
Changing the Security Landscape: An overview of the powerful SABSA Business Attributes Profiling technique and it's applications and benefits including two-way traceability, risk & opportunity management, strategic planing and executive reporting.
Enterprise Architecture
Enterprise Architectural Methodologies
A Brief History of Enterprise Architecture
Zachman Framework
Business Attributes
Features & Advantages
SABSA Lifecycle
SABSA Development Process
SMP Maturity Levels
Introduction to Enterprise Architecture and TOGAF 9.1iasaglobal
Santos Pardos nos dará una visión general a TOGAF. Durante 2 horas, Santos nos introducirá al mundo de The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF), ese marco de trabajo de Arquitectura Empresarial que muchos escuchamos hablar. Nos contará el enfoque propuesto para el diseño, planificación, implementación y gobierno de una arquitectura empresarial de información. También repasará, a alto nivel, cuatro niveles o dimensiones: Arquitectura de Negocios Arquitectura de Aplicaciones Arquitectura Tecnológica Arquitectura de Dat
Enterprise Security Architecture for Cyber SecurityThe Open Group SA
Cyber Security is one of the major challenges facing organisations within all industries. This presentation will examine the integration of an Enterprise Architecture approach with an Enterprise Security Architecture approach (TOGAF and SABSA) and propose a generic framework.
Download this presentation at http://opengroup.co.za/presentations
This month, there are two important events taking place – one in Mumbai (India) and other one in Abu Dhabi (UAE) and ICISS is Event Partner for both of them! While the seminar in Mumbai, “Secutech India Safety & Security Conclave 2014” is focusing on Security Solutions for Vertical Markets, the “Global Energy Security Conference 2014” in Abu Dhabi will have in-depth discussions on Corporate Security Integration with the Business, Security Mitigation Measures for International Companies and Ensuring Security at Oil & Gas Infrastructure in High Risk Areas against Terrorism.
The Pinkerton initiatives in India have been very useful in identifying the real threats faced by various sectors and strategies to mitigate them. The past survey results have been found very useful by the Corporates operating in India and for those wishing to set-up their operations in India in formulating their Security & Risk Policies and the measures to counter the treats. Like last year, the ICISS has partnered in this survey and we request all our readers to positively respond to this survey.
Capt S B Tyagi
For ICISS
Open Source Insight: Open Source 360 Survey, DockerCon 2017, & More on the Cl...Black Duck by Synopsys
In open source security and cybersecurity news: Take the opportunity to join the Open Source 360 Survey and help give the world a snapshot of the state of open source in usage, risk, contributions and governance/policies. The top four sessions you don’t want to miss at Dockercon 2017. Does the Cloudera IPO really argue against open source business? TechCrunch creates a new index to track the explosive growth of open source. Why creating an open source ecosystem doesn't mean you're taking on security risks. And building containerized ecosystems with Ansible Container.
Using the TOGAF® 9.1 Framework with the ArchiMate® 2.1 Modeling LanguageIver Band
This White Paper describes the TOGAF®
9.1 framework and the ArchiMate®
2.1 modeling language, showing at a high level how these two open standards from The Open Group can
be used together.
The main observations are:
The TOGAF framework and the ArchiMate language overlap in their use of viewpoints, and the concept of an underlying common repository of architectural artifacts and models; i.e., they have a firm common foundation.
The two standards complement each other with respect to the definition of an architecture development process and the definition of an Enterprise Architecture modeling language.
The ArchiMate 2.1 standard supports modeling of the architectures throughout the phases of the TOGAF Architecture Development Method (ADM).
The combined use of the TOGAF framework with the ArchiMate modeling language can support better communication with stakeholders inside and outside organizations supporting The Open Group vision of Boundaryless Information Flow™.
Using the TOGAF® 9.1 Architecture Content Framework with the ArchiMate® 2.0 M...Iver Band
A thorough comparison of the ArchiMate 2.0 metamodel with the Content Metamodel
from the TOGAF 9.1 Architecture Content Framework reveals that these two Open
Group standards are highly compatible. The ArchiMate 2.0 visual modeling language
is therefore well suited for architecture initiatives guided by the TOGAF 9.1 standard,
and this White Paper provides both theoretical preparation and practical guidance for
users of the ArchiMate language working on such initiatives.
This work supports The Open Group vision of Boundaryless Information Flow by
further enabling the combined use of the TOGAF standard and the ArchiMate
modeling language for consistent representation of architectural information across
diverse organizations, systems, and initiatives.
Companies can engage in the 3Os in many ways and for different reasons. In many cases, strategic and competitive advantages are at the core of a company’s decisions, but in other cases, motivations can involve social and ethical considerations such as reciprocity, altruism, and democratization of knowledge. In this talk, we outline the main business-related motivations identified by the ZOOOM project for using and contributing to FOSS. Among them: pursuing competitive advantage, reduction of development costs, technological innovation, access to knowledge or assets, and interoperability. Based on the interviews conducted by the ZOOOM partners, we also discuss major challenges and risks that businesses leveraging the 3Os must navigate.
Open Source has the potential to deliver faster development cycles and better security than traditional proprietary approaches to software. However, turning the potential of Open Source into reality can be difficult. Recent security issues like Heartbleed, Shellshock and the Panama Papers highlighted some of the challenges users of Open Source can face. This talk will explore how we can address them.
All Things Open 2023
Presented at All Things Open 2023
Presented by Deb Bryant - Open Source Initiative, Patrick Masson - Apereo Foundation, Stephen Jacobs - Rochester Institute of Technology, Ruth Suehle - SAS, & Greg Wallace - FreeBSD Foundation
Title: Open Source and Public Policy
Abstract: New regulations in the software industry and adjacent areas such as AI, open science, open data, and open education are on the rise around the world. Cyber Security, societal impact of AI, data and privacy are paramount issues for legislators globally. At the same time, the COVID-19 pandemic drove collaborative development to unprecedented levels and took Open Source software, open research, open content and data from mainstream to main stage, creating tension between public benefit and citizen safety and security as legislators struggle to find a balance between open collaboration and protecting citizens.
Historically, the open source software community and foundations supporting its work have not engaged in policy discussions. Moving forward, thoughtful development of these important public policies whilst not harming our complex ecosystems requires an understanding of how our ecosystem operates. Ensuring stakeholders without historic benefit of representation in those discussions becomes paramount to that end.
Please join our open discussion with open policy stakeholders working constructively on current open policy topics. Our panelists will provide a view into how oss foundations and other open domain allies are now rising to this new challenge as well as seizing the opportunity to influence positive changes to the public’s benefit.
Topics: Public Policy, Open Science, Open Education, current legislation in the US and EU, US interest in OSS sustainability, intro to the Open Policy Alliance
Find more info about All Things Open:
On the web: https://www.allthingsopen.org/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AllThingsOpen
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/all-things-open/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/allthingsopen/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AllThingsOpen
Mastodon: https://mastodon.social/@allthingsopen
Threads: https://www.threads.net/@allthingsopen
2023 conference: https://2023.allthingsopen.org/
US AI Safety Institute and Trustworthy AI Details.Bob Marcus
This is a discussion of the possible role of the US AI Safety Institute in regulating Generative AI. It includes External Red Team Testing and an Incident Tracking Database.
How do organizations build secure applications, given today's rapidly moving and evolving DevOps practices? Join Black Duck and our customer experts on best practices for application security in DevOps.
You’ll learn:
-New security challenges facing today’s popular DevOps and Continuous Integration (CI) practices, including managing custom code and open source risks with containers and traditional environments
-Best practices for designing and incorporating an automated approach to application security into your existing development environment
-Future development and application security challenges organizations will face and what they can do to prepare
Similar to Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate Language (20)
Enhancing Organizational Performance by Creating a Culture of Stewardship wit...Iver Band
Genesis Financial Solutions (GFS), a leading nonprime consumer credit platform, has created a culture of stewardship with LeanIX. Stewardship at GFS includes acquiring, creating, sustaining, enhancing, and retiring assets. Stewards are the primary decision-makers for their assigned assets. They collaborate with consumer lending and technology leaders to guide the evolution of business capabilities, applications, and IT components.
Chronic Absenteeism Rate Prediction: A Data Science Case StudyIver Band
This was my capstone project for the Coursera Advanced Data Science with IBM Specialization. It demonstrates all phases of a data science project, including modeling with a neural network and a decision tree ensemble using Keras and scikit-learn.
What Can We Do With The ArchiMate Language?Iver Band
Last year, the Open Group released version 3.0 of the ArchiMate® standard, which provides a language with concepts for describing enterprise and solution architectures, a framework for organizing these concepts, a graphical notation for these concepts, and recommendations for viewpoints, which are visualization templates that address the concerns of particular stakeholders. The standard is public and free for end users. It can be extended through specialization of its concepts and relationships, and is supported by an increasing number of tools, consultancies and training organizations.
We use a fictitious—but realistic—case study to describe what we can do with the ArchiMate language. Each of the sections in this article presents one or more views of an ArchiMate model that tells a story about the collection and analysis of Big Data to create business value. Big Data consists of datasets that cannot be handled efficiently with traditional centralized data architectures due to their extensive volume, variety, velocity and variability. These characteristics demand scalable architectures for efficient storage, manipulation and analysis.
Cloud architecture with the ArchiMate LanguageIver Band
Today's commercial cloud platforms enable the migration of on-premises architectures to environments that offer increased flexibility, resilience, and security. These platforms also offer innovative managed services that enable architects, designers and developers to focus on business logic and user experience rather than underlying infrastructure.
Enterprise Architects can use the ArchiMate language to guide the use of cloud platforms to meet business and technical goals. This presentation models an architecture based on a leading cloud platform. The model uses all layers and aspects of the ArchiMate language as well as its customization mechanisms, which express vendor-specific platform elements and relationships. It provides an appreciation of the depth and versatility of the ArchiMate 3.0 language, and an introduction to developing architectures that use commercial cloud platforms.
Modeling Big Data with the ArchiMate 3.0 LanguageIver Band
Health care enterprises use big data methods and technologies to gain insights for improving the efficacy, efficiency, and accessibility of their services. Effective big data initiatives require shared understanding among diverse stakeholders of business challenges and the often complex architectures required to address them. Enterprise and solution architects can use the ArchiMate language to build this understanding with compelling visual models.
This presentation introduces the ArchiMate 3.0 language, and uses it to explore the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Big Data Reference Architecture (NBDRA), and to present a health care case study based on the NBDRA. Participants will learn how to use the ArchiMate 3.0 language, in alignment with the TOGAF framework, to propose, justify and plan big data initiatives, and to guide their successful implementation.
ArchiMate 3.0: A New Standard for ArchitectureIver Band
This keynote presentation from the July 2016 Open Group Austin Conference introduces the new version of the ArchiMate standard. ArchiMate 3.0 extends the language with various concepts that help enterprise architects tackle challenges in digital transformation and business change. This major new version introduces explicit support for capability-based planning, and improves linkage between business strategy and all architecture layers. ArchiMate 3.0 also enables modelers to describe the Internet of Things and the systems of the physical world, such as manufacturing and logistics. In addition, the new version supports more compact and intuitive visual models. This presentation includes examples that use these improvements and demonstrates how architects can benefit from them.
Modeling and Evolving a Web Portal with the TOGAF Framework and the ArchiMate...Iver Band
Today's enterprise web portals are complex beasts. Leading portals deliver fresh and relevant personalized experiences to multiple audiences, each with their own branding, content, and interactions. They aggregate content from multiple sources and present it using components, some of which are are reused across audiences. They make users productive by interacting with core transactional systems, and secure themselves with role-based access control. Web portals require careful management to ensure they deliver robust, personal, agile, and sustainable experiences in the face of continuous change.
The ArchiMate language is ideal for elucidating the structure and function of web portal applications and infrastructure, and linking them to the consumer experiences and internal operations they support. Modelers can also link critical business stakeholders, drivers, and goals to requirements for new investments, link these requirements to changes in applications and infrastructure that satisfy them, and show how these changes can be implemented over time.
Join practicing Enterprise Architect and ArchiMate Forum Vice Chair Iver Band and portal expert Ryan Kennedy to learn how to use the TOGAF Framework and the ArchiMate language to depict complex architectures and the changes they require.
An Introduction to Enterprise Architecture Visual Modeling With The ArchiMate...Iver Band
A half-day introduction to the ArchiMate language, including core concepts, a visual Overview, and a case study. Introduces the entire language, including the Business, Application and Technology layers as well as the Motivation and implementation and Migration extensions. Ideal for enterprise and solution architects and other architecture contributors.
The case study uses the free Archi tool, and includes download instructions. Those interested in learning the language can attempt each case study exercise using Archi, and flip to the next slide to check their work.
Always-On Services for Consumer Web, Mobile and the Internet of ThingsIver Band
US healthcare payers must develop innovative consumer businesses while continuing their core business operations
This requires a bimodal IT architecture with an Adaptive Service Layer between consumer and core business applications
This layer must enable reliable, scalable and reusable services
These Always-On services must protect core business systems and data
Organizations must understand service usage to build successful consumer apps
An Adaptive Service Layer can consist of an API Platform, BaaS and ESB
The Read, Publish, and Subscribe patterns enable a broad range of services
The Pass-Through pattern gives existing services added reusability, visibility and security
An Enterprise Repository can facilitate service reuse
Standards-based Enterprise Architecture can persuasively link business strategies to specific IT investments
Effective Strategy Execution with Capability-Based Planning, Enterprise Arch...Iver Band
The difficulty of strategy execution should not be underestimated
Capability-based planning helps make strategy concrete
Enterprise architecture closes the remainder of this gap, and ensures alignment and coherence
Enterprise portfolio management allows managing large enterprise landscapes based on business value
ArchiMate models tie it all together, providing a clear line of sight from strategy definition to realization
Powerful tool support makes this a strong combination!
Thought Leader Interview: Atefeh Riazi on the Past, Present and Future of Met...Iver Band
Atefeh Riazi, currently Assistant Secretary-General and Chief Information Technology Officer at the United Nations, has also led IT at the advertising agency Ogilvy and Mather, the New York City Housing Authority, and the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA), an agency of the New York State Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). This interview focuses on Ms. Riazi's work at the MTA leading the implementation of MetroCard, a fare collection system that serves 8.5 million daily commuters. MetroCard collects fares on bus and rail transit systems operated by the MTA and other government agencies serving New York City and surrounding counties in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.
Thought Leader Interview: Atefeh Riazi on the Past, Present and Future of Met...Iver Band
Atefeh Riazi, currently Assistant Secretary-General and Chief Information Technology Officer at the United Nations, has also led IT at the advertising agency Ogilvy and Mather, the New York City Housing Authority, and the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA), an agency of the New York State Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). This interview focuses on Ms. Riazi's work at the MTA leading the implementation of MetroCard, a fare collection system that serves 8.5 million daily commuters. MetroCard collects fares on bus and rail transit systems operated by the MTA and other government agencies serving New York City and surrounding counties in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.
Guiding Agile Solution Delivery with the ArchiMate LanguageIver Band
Solution Architects can develop clear and actionable guidance for Agile development teams using the ArchiMate language. They can rapidly leverage Enterprise Architectures, and specify just the right amount of detail to constrain the solution while leveraging developers' expertise, initiative and creativity. As solutions are developed, architectural models can be enriched with additional implementation details, enabling Solution Architects to contribute high-quality baseline architectures and reusable building blocks to their enterprise repositories. This presentation prepares Enterprise and Solution Architects to lead Agile implementation of their architectures and roadmaps.
Book Review: Making Technology Investments ProfitableIver Band
In “Making Technology Investments Profitable”,
management consultant Jack Keen diagnoses and treats
business and IT leaders that expect value but let it slip
away. “On-value” is the essential companion to “on-time”
and “on-budget”. Too often, leaders choose inferior
investments, assume that on-time and on-budget
programs1 are also on-value, and are forced to shut
down programs after they disrupt or disappoint their
intended beneficiaries.
From Capability-Based Planning to Competitive Advantage: Assembling Your Bus...Iver Band
Many organizations are investing in capability-based planning, portfolio management, architecture and agile development processes. While they derive value from each practice, many struggle with getting all of them to work together. In rapidly evolving industries such as healthcare, businesses need to change continuously. Instead of programs and projects, they need transformation value networks that adapt to dynamic organizational and external drivers.
This presentation will use a unified framework and method to define and relate the ingredients for continuous transformation. The presenters will also demonstrate the value of standards-based visual modeling for integrating, expressing and improving business transformation practices. Visual models will show how American and European healthcare payers are improving quality and efficiency in response to demographic, economic and regulatory pressures.
Learning Objectives:
• Understand how to integrate capability-based planning, portfolio management, architecture and agile development processes
• Identify and position key frameworks for capability-based planning, portfolio management, architecture and agile development processes
• Understand core concepts and key applications of the ArchiMate language for visual modeling, an Open Group standard
• Understand the basics of visually modeling business strategy and organizational transformation
• Become familiar with the objectives and methods for an example of business transformation
• Understand how and when to integrate strategic guidance into agile development processes
Thought Leader Interview: Dr. William Turner on the Software-Defined Future ...Iver Band
As the Vice President, Datacenter Architecture at Presidio,
William Turner, PhD has more than 20 years of hand-son,
full-project-cycle experience in strategizing, designing and
deploying large-scale Fortune 500 networks and security
solutions. His extensive background in banking, security,
and government has yielded several well regarded industry
standards and noted reference models.
Dr. Turner envisions and drives a future in which sophisticated software provisions and de-provisions IT infrastructure automatically in response to business needs. The specialized appliances enterprises traditionally rely upon will be replaced by industry-standard hardware playing necessary roles on demand.
EAPJ conducted this interview from the perspective of an infrastructure architect considering a software-defined future for the networking, hosting and storage underlying a
major upcoming application investment.
Thought Leader Interview: Allen Podraza on Records ManagementIver Band
Allen Podraza is a Certified Information Professional who believes that organizations benefit from developing a strategy for managing their information. He serves as the Director of Records Management & Archives for the American Medical Association in Chicago. He is an active member of a number of professional associations including the Association for Information and Image Management (AIIM), ARMA International and the Society of American Archivists (SAA), and has advised organizations on the development and administration of records management and archive programs. He also provides a wealth of “How To” advice though his blog, posts, and tweets.
This interview uses the Architecture Development Method (ADM) of The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF®) as a template for interviewing Allen Podraza. As shown in the figure below, the ADM cycle focuses successively on the establishment of an architecture capability, the development of an architecture, planning for the transition to the new architecture, and architecture governance. Allen has responded to this unusual interview format with expert advice relevant to all aspects of the architecture lifecycle.
Visualizing IT at the Department of Homeland Security with the ArchiMate® Vi...Iver Band
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Chief Information Officer (CIO) Luke McCormack recently
submitted testimony to a US Senate Subcommittee. This case study, which is based on CIO
McCormack’s testimony, demonstrates how enterprise architects using the ArchiMate® language can
quickly capture business situations using viewpoints defined in the ArchiMate specification. These
viewpoints are templates for views that address particular sets of stakeholder concerns. This case study
contains views based on and named after standard templates.
This issue focuses on how EA can empower organizations to achieve their goals. EA and quality expert Mike Novak compares the TOGAF®1 framework for enterprise architecture with the Baldrige approach to organizational performance assessment and improvement, and shows how organizations could benefit from integrating the two paradigms. This is a great article for all those who have wondered about the relationship between EA and quality practices, or would like to learn more about either paradigm. The article assumes a bit of familiarity with the TOGAF standard, so novices should consult one of the references at the bottom of this page. This issue also features an interview with Mike Callahan, a senior partner in AgileLayer, a business architecture methodology, software and consulting provider. Mike Callahan introduces us to his area of expertise, and explains how business architects practice many of the methods Mike Novak describes in his TOGAF/Baldrige article.
Builder.ai Founder Sachin Dev Duggal's Strategic Approach to Create an Innova...Ramesh Iyer
In today's fast-changing business world, Companies that adapt and embrace new ideas often need help to keep up with the competition. However, fostering a culture of innovation takes much work. It takes vision, leadership and willingness to take risks in the right proportion. Sachin Dev Duggal, co-founder of Builder.ai, has perfected the art of this balance, creating a company culture where creativity and growth are nurtured at each stage.
GDG Cloud Southlake #33: Boule & Rebala: Effective AppSec in SDLC using Deplo...James Anderson
Effective Application Security in Software Delivery lifecycle using Deployment Firewall and DBOM
The modern software delivery process (or the CI/CD process) includes many tools, distributed teams, open-source code, and cloud platforms. Constant focus on speed to release software to market, along with the traditional slow and manual security checks has caused gaps in continuous security as an important piece in the software supply chain. Today organizations feel more susceptible to external and internal cyber threats due to the vast attack surface in their applications supply chain and the lack of end-to-end governance and risk management.
The software team must secure its software delivery process to avoid vulnerability and security breaches. This needs to be achieved with existing tool chains and without extensive rework of the delivery processes. This talk will present strategies and techniques for providing visibility into the true risk of the existing vulnerabilities, preventing the introduction of security issues in the software, resolving vulnerabilities in production environments quickly, and capturing the deployment bill of materials (DBOM).
Speakers:
Bob Boule
Robert Boule is a technology enthusiast with PASSION for technology and making things work along with a knack for helping others understand how things work. He comes with around 20 years of solution engineering experience in application security, software continuous delivery, and SaaS platforms. He is known for his dynamic presentations in CI/CD and application security integrated in software delivery lifecycle.
Gopinath Rebala
Gopinath Rebala is the CTO of OpsMx, where he has overall responsibility for the machine learning and data processing architectures for Secure Software Delivery. Gopi also has a strong connection with our customers, leading design and architecture for strategic implementations. Gopi is a frequent speaker and well-known leader in continuous delivery and integrating security into software delivery.
The Art of the Pitch: WordPress Relationships and SalesLaura Byrne
Clients don’t know what they don’t know. What web solutions are right for them? How does WordPress come into the picture? How do you make sure you understand scope and timeline? What do you do if sometime changes?
All these questions and more will be explored as we talk about matching clients’ needs with what your agency offers without pulling teeth or pulling your hair out. Practical tips, and strategies for successful relationship building that leads to closing the deal.
State of ICS and IoT Cyber Threat Landscape Report 2024 previewPrayukth K V
The IoT and OT threat landscape report has been prepared by the Threat Research Team at Sectrio using data from Sectrio, cyber threat intelligence farming facilities spread across over 85 cities around the world. In addition, Sectrio also runs AI-based advanced threat and payload engagement facilities that serve as sinks to attract and engage sophisticated threat actors, and newer malware including new variants and latent threats that are at an earlier stage of development.
The latest edition of the OT/ICS and IoT security Threat Landscape Report 2024 also covers:
State of global ICS asset and network exposure
Sectoral targets and attacks as well as the cost of ransom
Global APT activity, AI usage, actor and tactic profiles, and implications
Rise in volumes of AI-powered cyberattacks
Major cyber events in 2024
Malware and malicious payload trends
Cyberattack types and targets
Vulnerability exploit attempts on CVEs
Attacks on counties – USA
Expansion of bot farms – how, where, and why
In-depth analysis of the cyber threat landscape across North America, South America, Europe, APAC, and the Middle East
Why are attacks on smart factories rising?
Cyber risk predictions
Axis of attacks – Europe
Systemic attacks in the Middle East
Download the full report from here:
https://sectrio.com/resources/ot-threat-landscape-reports/sectrio-releases-ot-ics-and-iot-security-threat-landscape-report-2024/
Elevating Tactical DDD Patterns Through Object CalisthenicsDorra BARTAGUIZ
After immersing yourself in the blue book and its red counterpart, attending DDD-focused conferences, and applying tactical patterns, you're left with a crucial question: How do I ensure my design is effective? Tactical patterns within Domain-Driven Design (DDD) serve as guiding principles for creating clear and manageable domain models. However, achieving success with these patterns requires additional guidance. Interestingly, we've observed that a set of constraints initially designed for training purposes remarkably aligns with effective pattern implementation, offering a more ‘mechanical’ approach. Let's explore together how Object Calisthenics can elevate the design of your tactical DDD patterns, offering concrete help for those venturing into DDD for the first time!
A tale of scale & speed: How the US Navy is enabling software delivery from l...sonjaschweigert1
Rapid and secure feature delivery is a goal across every application team and every branch of the DoD. The Navy’s DevSecOps platform, Party Barge, has achieved:
- Reduction in onboarding time from 5 weeks to 1 day
- Improved developer experience and productivity through actionable findings and reduction of false positives
- Maintenance of superior security standards and inherent policy enforcement with Authorization to Operate (ATO)
Development teams can ship efficiently and ensure applications are cyber ready for Navy Authorizing Officials (AOs). In this webinar, Sigma Defense and Anchore will give attendees a look behind the scenes and demo secure pipeline automation and security artifacts that speed up application ATO and time to production.
We will cover:
- How to remove silos in DevSecOps
- How to build efficient development pipeline roles and component templates
- How to deliver security artifacts that matter for ATO’s (SBOMs, vulnerability reports, and policy evidence)
- How to streamline operations with automated policy checks on container images
PHP Frameworks: I want to break free (IPC Berlin 2024)Ralf Eggert
In this presentation, we examine the challenges and limitations of relying too heavily on PHP frameworks in web development. We discuss the history of PHP and its frameworks to understand how this dependence has evolved. The focus will be on providing concrete tips and strategies to reduce reliance on these frameworks, based on real-world examples and practical considerations. The goal is to equip developers with the skills and knowledge to create more flexible and future-proof web applications. We'll explore the importance of maintaining autonomy in a rapidly changing tech landscape and how to make informed decisions in PHP development.
This talk is aimed at encouraging a more independent approach to using PHP frameworks, moving towards a more flexible and future-proof approach to PHP development.
Accelerate your Kubernetes clusters with Varnish CachingThijs Feryn
A presentation about the usage and availability of Varnish on Kubernetes. This talk explores the capabilities of Varnish caching and shows how to use the Varnish Helm chart to deploy it to Kubernetes.
This presentation was delivered at K8SUG Singapore. See https://feryn.eu/presentations/accelerate-your-kubernetes-clusters-with-varnish-caching-k8sug-singapore-28-2024 for more details.
Transcript: Selling digital books in 2024: Insights from industry leaders - T...BookNet Canada
The publishing industry has been selling digital audiobooks and ebooks for over a decade and has found its groove. What’s changed? What has stayed the same? Where do we go from here? Join a group of leading sales peers from across the industry for a conversation about the lessons learned since the popularization of digital books, best practices, digital book supply chain management, and more.
Link to video recording: https://bnctechforum.ca/sessions/selling-digital-books-in-2024-insights-from-industry-leaders/
Presented by BookNet Canada on May 28, 2024, with support from the Department of Canadian Heritage.
Epistemic Interaction - tuning interfaces to provide information for AI supportAlan Dix
Paper presented at SYNERGY workshop at AVI 2024, Genoa, Italy. 3rd June 2024
https://alandix.com/academic/papers/synergy2024-epistemic/
As machine learning integrates deeper into human-computer interactions, the concept of epistemic interaction emerges, aiming to refine these interactions to enhance system adaptability. This approach encourages minor, intentional adjustments in user behaviour to enrich the data available for system learning. This paper introduces epistemic interaction within the context of human-system communication, illustrating how deliberate interaction design can improve system understanding and adaptation. Through concrete examples, we demonstrate the potential of epistemic interaction to significantly advance human-computer interaction by leveraging intuitive human communication strategies to inform system design and functionality, offering a novel pathway for enriching user-system engagements.
Key Trends Shaping the Future of Infrastructure.pdfCheryl Hung
Keynote at DIGIT West Expo, Glasgow on 29 May 2024.
Cheryl Hung, ochery.com
Sr Director, Infrastructure Ecosystem, Arm.
The key trends across hardware, cloud and open-source; exploring how these areas are likely to mature and develop over the short and long-term, and then considering how organisations can position themselves to adapt and thrive.
Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate Language
1. Modeling Enterprise Risk
Management and Security
with the ArchiMate®
Language
A White Paper by:
Iver Band, EA Principals
Wilco Engelsman, BiZZdesign
Chrisophe Feltus, Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology
Sonia González Paredes, Dux Diligens
Jim Hietala, The Open Group
Henk Jonkers, BiZZdesign
Sebastien Massart, Arismore
January, 2015
3. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 3
Table of Contents
Introduction.....................................................................................6
Risk and Security Standards, Frameworks, and Concepts................12
Introduction to the ArchiMate Standard .........................................19
Modeling Risk and Security Aspects with the ArchiMate Language .22
Case Studies and Examples.............................................................27
Summary and Conclusions .............................................................37
References......................................................................................38
About the Authors..........................................................................40
About The Open Group..................................................................42
4. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 4
Boundaryless Information Flow
achieved through global interoperability
in a secure, reliable, and timely manner
Executive Summary
Enterprise Architects can use the ArchiMate®
language to model Enterprise Risk
Management (ERM) and security concepts and relationships. This widely accepted
open standard provides the modeling constructs to describe and interconnect business
and technical architectures. Applying the ArchiMate language to represent risk and
security concepts results in the ideal vehicle to consider these aspects in an integral
way. The ArchiMate language fits well with other Enterprise Architecture (EA)
frameworks and standards, such as the TOGAF®
standard and the Zachman
framework, as well as enterprise security management frameworks such as the
Sherwood Applied Business Security Architecture (SABSA).
Through its Motivation extension, the ArchiMate language makes it possible to link
control measures to security requirements, principles, and goals, as well as to the
results of a risk analysis. On the other hand, ArchiMate models can be linked to
design languages for business processes and IT solutions such as BPMN and UML.
These linkages enable precise gathering of a set of broadly accepted risk and security
concepts, analysis of their semantics, and consensus regarding the most important
ones of the full scope of enterprise risk.
This White Paper, a joint project of The Open Group ArchiMate Forum and The
Open Group Security Forum, demonstrates this approach and identifies opportunities
for future work that would enhance it.
5. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 5
After summarizing the ArchiMate 2.1 language, this White Paper reviews relevant
standards and frameworks, including the TOGAF framework, the COSO ERM
framework, the SABSA framework, and The Open Group Risk Taxonomy (O-RT)
standard, upon which the Open FAIR risk analysis method is based. From these well-
established paradigms, this White Paper extracts a broadly accepted set of risk and
security concepts for expression in the ArchiMate language. These concepts cover:
Vulnerability analysis: Asset at risk, vulnerability
Risk management: Risk, threat, threat agent, loss event
Security deployment: Control objective, control measure
Classification: Risk domain
This White Paper examines three approaches to modeling risk and security concepts.
1. Using only the standard ArchiMate 2.1 language
2. Defining risk and security-specific specializations of ArchiMate 2.1
concepts
3. Defining risk and security concepts that complement ArchiMate 2.1
language concepts
This White Paper demonstrates, through concept mapping and case studies, that
options 1 and 2 suffice for the majority of common risk and security concepts. The
concepts that cannot readily be mapped, domain and operational policy, are also not
specific to risk and security; they are specializations of concepts useful in a broader
range of EA efforts.
Enterprise and security architects as well as risk and security analysts can benefit
from this White Paper, which supports The Open Group vision of Boundaryless
Information Flow™ by showing how ArchiMate models can help enterprises manage
the myriad risks of our pervasively interconnected world while embracing its myriad
opportunities.
6. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 6
Introduction
The importance of Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) and security rises with the progress of globalization
and growth of the Internet. An increasing number of organizations interact with consumers and trading
partners around the world, and are therefore exposed to an increasing variety of risks. Furthermore, they
interact using electronic communications that can be compromised or abused. Many organizations are
therefore facing complex risk scenarios that demand sophisticated planning and execution to protect their
interests. Therefore, the ability to identify and manage risk has become a key priority in organizations no
matter their size, industry, or region. Organizations need to understand the variables that affect their
operations, so describing, classifying, managing, and mitigating risk factors is very important.
Enterprise Architecture (EA) builds transformative capabilities from people, processes, technology, and
information. All of these capabilities can be threatened by diverse factors. Therefore, the assets that compose
them must be protected. An EA approach that promotes systematic analysis, common understanding, and
well-defined approaches to complex situations can therefore assist in the management of enterprise risk and
security.
Enterprise Architects must help organizations manage risk through architectures that help avoid, transfer,
mitigate, or accept adverse risks, because risks are not only inherent in the baseline state of every enterprise;
they are inherent in any opportunities that the enterprise may embrace. ERM and security are therefore
concerns that span all EA domains. Enterprise Architects can support ERM practices by:
• Understanding risk categories, the assets exposed to risks in each category, and the relationships between
different risks
• Defining risk assessment methods
• Guiding risk management processes
• Integrating ERM into the EA practice
Risk and security models help organizations develop guidance and take action to embrace opportunity and
manage risk. This White Paper examines a selection of well-established paradigms for risk and security
modeling and analysis, extracts a set of core concepts from them, and maps most of the concepts to
ArchiMate language elements.
This White Paper analyzes a representative sample of authoritative ERM and security frameworks and
methods in order to gather a set of broadly accepted risk and security concepts, analyze their semantics, and
reach consensus regarding the most important ones. The analyzed frameworks include the Casualty Actuary
Society (CAS) ERM overview [10], the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission (COSO) framework [9], Factor Analysis of Information Risk (Open FAIR) [3] and the
Sherwood Applied Business Security Architecture (SABSA) [7,8]. This White Paper then models the
Coldhard Steel case study from the CAS ERM overview, along with some original information security
extensions. Based on the results of these modeling exercises, this White Paper describes the capabilities of
the ArchiMate 2.1 language as specified, and as enhanced through its specified extension mechanisms
(specialization of concepts, both from the ArchiMate core and the Motivation extension, and adding risk and
security-specific attributes).
7. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 7
The TOGAF and ArchiMate Approach to Security
The TOGAF standard [20] presents security architecture as one of the important issues and organizational
practices for Enterprise Architects. In the TOGAF Architecture Development Method (ADM), business
requirements and drivers for security are mentioned as important issues for Phases A and B. The ADM
focuses on generating requirements related to security, as well as for risk, by explaining how an
organization’s attitude towards risk determines the kind of protection that an asset needs and what the
resulting security requirements are. It also mentions the need to define asset stewardship, especially for
information assets, and the need to perform risk assessments and relate security to them.
The section of the TOGAF standard providing security guidance (Chapter 31: Risk Management) is mainly
focused on security considerations and requirements for an EA iteration applying the ADM. It identifies
specific areas of concern for security such as authentication, authorization, auditing, assurance, availability,
asset protection, and administration, and relates them to risk management. All of these aspects are mainly
presented as IT functions related to the information security discipline.
The TOGAF standard specifies security architecture viewpoints and frameworks, and also provides very
general guidance for applying the Architecture Content Framework (ACF) and the TOGAF Metamodel to
security views and patterns. The TOGAF standard presents examples like the data security diagram. In
Chapter 35 (Architectural Artifacts) some basic patterns for security views are presented, and they are
primarily focused on information systems security.
Regarding security management, the ADM recommends the integration of the EA effort with the security
management organizational function along with other adjacent functions such as risk, project, and portfolio
management.
This White Paper will extend the existing risk and security content of the TOGAF standard using relevant
industry standards and leveraging the ArchiMate visual modeling language to:
• Cover risk assessment and protection of assets beyond information security
• Provide guidance and detailed tools and techniques for constructing specific models, viewpoints, and
patterns that help practitioners to develop security architecture models
• Identify modeling patterns for functions such as authentication and authorization, security auditing, and
monitoring
• Provide elements and mapping to the TOGAF ACF and Metamodel
The ArchiMate 2.1 specification makes very brief mentions of risk and security. It identifies risk and security
as an important EA aspect that the language does not explicitly address, although it identifies the
Infrastructure, Implementation, and Deployment and Project Viewpoints as useful for addressing risk or
security concerns.
The TOGAF framework and the ArchiMate language can be extended and combined to help Enterprise
Architects address risk and security. This White Paper provides specific guidance for risk and security
modeling by extending the TOGAF standard and using the ArchiMate language.
8. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 8
Defining ERM and Security Together
This section gathers definitions for ERM, security, and related terms. It first summarizes a selection of
leading definitions of ERM.
The Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) is a coalition of
professional organizations for accounting, auditing, and financial management. COSO issued its Enterprise
Risk Management – Integrated Framework [9] in September 2004. The COSO ERM Framework includes key
principles and concepts, a vocabulary, and guidance for evaluating and implementing ERM.
COSO defines ERM as:
“… a process, effected by an entity’s board of directors, management, and other personnel, applied in
strategy setting and across the enterprise, designed to identify potential events that may affect the entity, and
manage risk to be within its risk appetite, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the achievement of
entity objectives.”
Figure 1 assembles the definitions in this section into a generic ERM model. An enterprise contains
stakeholders concerned with risk, who engage in ERM activity that assesses and manages risk.
Figure 1: Generic Risk Model
Here is the Casualty Actuary Society (CAS) [10] definition:
“ERM is the discipline by which an organization in any industry assesses, controls, exploits, finances, and
monitors risks from all sources for the purpose of increasing the organization’s short- and long-term value to
its stakeholders.”
The Institute of Risk Management (IRM) [4] defines risk management (clearly in an enterprise context) as
follows:
9. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 9
“Risk management is a central part of any organization’s strategic management. It is the process whereby
organizations methodically address the risks attaching to their activities with the goal of achieving sustained
benefit within each activity and across the portfolio of all activities.”
Each of these three ERM definitions discusses an enterprise engaging in risk-related activities that support or
directly achieve organizational objectives. Each definition at least implies the existence of risk assessments,
as well stakeholders concerned with risk. Therefore, they align with the ERM model in Figure 1.
This White Paper deals with modeling security as well as ERM. In relation to ERM, what does “security”
mean? The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) [5] has a number of definitions that match typical goals of
ERM:
• The state or condition of being or feeling secure
• Freedom from danger or threat:
o The safety of an organization, establishment, or building from espionage, criminal activity, illegal
entrance, or escape
o With reference to encryption, or telecommunications or computer systems: the state of being
protected from unauthorized access; freedom from the risk of being intercepted, decoded, tapped,
etc.
The OED also has a number of definitions that match the behaviors and mechanisms of ERM:
• Something which secures or makes safe …
• A protection or defense against, from, for something …
• Grounds for regarding something as secure, safe, or certain; an assurance, safeguard, guarantee
• … any checks and procedures intended to keep a person, place, or thing secure
The OED reference to “encryption … telecommunication or computer systems” addresses information
security. The SANS Institute [12] defines information security as:
“… the processes and methodologies which are designed and implemented to protect print, electronic, or any
other form of confidential, private, and sensitive information or data from unauthorized access, use, misuse,
disclosure, destruction, modification, or disruption …”
This definition is closely related to the well-known Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability (CIA) model
used for developing security policy.
In summary, information security is part of security, which is in turn part of ERM, and these domains
encompass related goals. Figure 2 builds on Figure 1 to show the relationship between these domains.
10. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 10
Figure 2: Security and Information Security as Specializations of ERM
COSO identifies four types of objectives for the continuous, enterprise-wide risk management activity that it
specifies:
• Strategic objectives are high-level and aligned with the enterprise’s mission.
• Operations objectives are concerned with effective and efficient use of resources.
• Reporting objectives are concerned with reliable reporting.
• Compliance objectives are concerned with applicable laws and regulations.
To specify and realize these activities, COSO defines seven types of activities:
• Objective Setting – Management must have a process in place to set objectives consistent with both the
mission of the enterprise and its appetite for risk.
• Event Identification – Enterprises must identify both internal and external events, and distinguish
between the risks and opportunities that they pose. Opportunities should be used for strategy
development or objective setting.
• Risk Assessment – Enterprises must analyze and consider the likelihood and impact of risks, both
11. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 11
inherently and residually.
• Risk Response – Enterprises must determine how to respond to risks, which may be avoided, accepted,
reduced, or shared, with actions based on organizational risk tolerance and appetite.
• Control – Policies and procedures must be established and implemented for effective responses to risk.
• Information and Communication – Timely identification, capture, and communication of relevant
information across, up, and down organizations enables people to carry out their risk management
responsibilities.
Figure 3 below models these activities as functions carried out by enterprises (entities, in COSO ERM
parlance) to realize risk management objectivities.
Figure 3: COSO ERM Model
12. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 12
Risk and Security Standards, Frameworks, and Concepts
This section identifies the risk and security concepts in the most common frameworks, including the Risk
Taxonomy (O-RT) standard, the TOGAF security view risk classification, and the SABSA framework.
The breadth of ERM requires a structured approach to risk analysis along with a method of organizing the
myriad risks facing every enterprise. The FAIR Risk Taxonomy defines and hierarchically classifies the
elements of risk.
The Open Group Risk Taxonomy Standard/Open FAIR
This section summarizes The Open Group Risk Taxonomy (O-RT) standard, also known as the Open FAIR
Risk Taxonomy (a part of the Open FAIR Body of Knowledge). This Open Group standard provides a
definition and taxonomy for information security risk, as well as information regarding how to use the
taxonomy. It describes the main factors that drive risk, their definitions, and relationships, so it provides a
guideline for defining the basic terms for defining and measuring risk using a single logical and rational
taxonomical framework. Although Open FAIR has its roots in information security risk, it can be applied to
analyzing all kinds of risk.
The risk taxonomy overview is presented in Figure 4, which is taken from the O-RT standard.
Figure 4: Open FAIR Risk Taxonomy [3]
In this taxonomy, “risk” is defined as the probable frequency and probable magnitude of future loss, which
means that the risk definition is dependent on two factors: loss event frequency and probable loss magnitude.
Then, recursively, each one of the rest of the factors is defined until the lower branches for the model are
reached. For example, in the left branch of the model, the loss event frequency is dependent on threat event
frequency and vulnerability.
All of the elements of the Open FAIR Risk Taxonomy refer to organizational assets that are being threatened
by different environmental factors or agents that can be either internal or external to the organization. This
risk exposure depends on the time interval in which the asset is being exposed and the vulnerability level that
the asset might have. The right side of the model considers the risk impact, which depends on probable loss
magnitude, which in turn depends on a hierarchy of loss factors.
13. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 13
Classifying Risks and Risk Assessments
While the Open FAIR Risk Taxonomy can be used to decompose and analyze a single risk, there are other
risk taxonomies that seek to classify all risks within a particular domain. For example, the CAS ERM
overview identifies four types of enterprise risk [10]:
• Hazard Risks include risks from fire and other property damage, windstorm and other natural perils, theft
and other crime, personal injury, business interruption, disease and disability, as well as from liability
claims.
• Financial Risks include risks from price, liquidity, credit, inflation and purchasing power, as well as from
hedging and basis.
• Operational Risks include risks from business operations, empowerment mechanisms such as leadership
and change readiness, information technology issues such as relevance and availability, as well as from
problems with information and business reporting.
• Strategic Risks include risks from reputational damage, competition, customer wants, demographic and
social and cultural trends, technological innovation and capital availability, as well as from regulatory
and political trends.
Figure 5 represents the top two levels of this classification of enterprise risk.
Figure 5: CAS Classification of Enterprise Risk
Similarly, the American Society for Healthcare Risk Management (ASHRM) has developed an enterprise
risk taxonomy for the healthcare domain [0], which is summarized in Figure 6 below.
Figure 6: ASHRM Common Healthcare Risk Domains
There could be several types of risks; some of them are more closely related with the EA development such
as the operational, compliance, and security risks; however, other risk categories such as financial, project,
organizational change, and system risk can also influence and be influenced by the EA practice.
14. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 14
Sherwood Applied Business Security Architecture (SABSA)
The SABSA matrix (framework) is a structure that is very similar to the Zachman framework, but
specifically aimed at risk and security aspects. This matrix defines relevant viewpoints for risk and security
modeling, in a systematic way. SABSA does not define specific modeling concepts, but the matrix does
describe a wide variety of aspects that a modeler should be able to express. The exact content of each of the
“cells” of the matrix is open to interpretation.
Figure 7: SABSA Framework [7,8]
In the context of this White Paper, mainly the upper three layers are relevant. The lower three layers are
concerned with the detailed design of security controls. Some of the views are regular ArchiMate views that
serve as the context for risk and security aspects, while others address specific security issues.
The table below summarizes the (new or specialized) concepts identified to populate the cells of the top three
layers of the SABSA matrix. Concepts written in italics denote concepts that are already part of the
ArchiMate language (core and extensions).
15. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 15
Assets Motivation Process People Location Time
Contextual
Architecture
business
asset;
goal
opportunity;
threat; risk;
stakeholder;
driver, goal
business
process
business
actor,
business role
location;
network
plateau,
requirement
Conceptual
Architecture
business
attribute
profile
(business
strategy;
business
driver;
business
asset; goal;
objective)
business policy;
control
objective;
(goal; principle;
requirement)
security
strategy
security entity
(business
role; business
actor;
application
component)
(security
domain);
security
element
(security entity;
security object);
security policy
lifecycle
Logical
Architecture
information
asset
policy, policy
statement
(requirement);
policy
procedure
(process);
policy, guideline
business
process;
business
service
trust;
entity schema
rule;
object
network
domain,
people/actor
role
information
resource
service;
application
component;
application
function;
infrastructure
service;
network,
infrastructure
function;
information
domain;
application
domain;
people domain
plateau,
program,
project
Figure 8: Main Concepts in SABSA Framework Layers 1 to 31
The SABSA approach toward risk factors considers both the risk of adverse occurrences as well as the
prospect of beneficial events. The following ArchiMate model illustrates this approach, in which an asset at
risk can be information, software, tangible organizational assets, human assets, and intangible assets. The two
types of factors that can act against an asset are threats that have to be controlled and also opportunities that
could become beneficial if exploited correctly.
1
Concepts in italics more or less directly map to concepts in the ArchiMate 2.1 specification.
16. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 16
For a threat-based risk the following factors are important and are also mentioned in the Open FAIR Risk
Taxonomy section of this White Paper:
• Threat
• Vulnerability
• Control
Threat management is not sufficient for organizations that want to innovate, enhance the value they deliver,
and grow. Those organizations must also proactively identify events that present opportunities to increase the
value of their assets and enhance their overall capabilities to deliver value to customers. The right side of
Figure 9 depicts this approach, and differentiates it from the threat-centric approach to risk management.
Figure 9: Comparison of Threat Risk and Opportunity Risk Approaches
Information System Security Risk Management (ISSRM) Domain Metamodel
In research performed at Tudor Research Centre, the different concepts of ISSRM and their relationships
have been formalized as a domain metamodel (Figure 10); i.e., a conceptual model depicting the studied
domain [15]. The ISSRM domain model has been established through the analysis of the related literature:
risk management standards, security-related standards, security risk management standards and methods, and
security requirements engineering frameworks (e.g., references [16,17,18]).
The ISSRM domain model is organized in three groups of concepts, as represented in Figure 10:
• Asset-related concepts describe assets and the goals which guarantee asset security.
• Risk-related concepts present how the risk itself is defined.
17. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 17
Risk treatment-related concepts describe what decisions, requirements, and controls should be defined and
implemented in order to mitigate possible risks.
Figure 10: ISSRM Domain Model (Extracted from reference [15])
In this work, the concept of Security Goal merges the concepts of Security Criterion and Security Objective
defined in an initial model. The description of the main concepts of the ISSRM domain model is summarized
in the table below. An extension of the ArchiMate language with these concepts has been proposed in
reference [20].
Concept Description
Asset Anything that has value to the organization and is necessary for achieving its
objectives.
Business Asset Describes information, processes, capabilities, and skills inherent to the business and
core mission of the organization, having value for it.
IS Asset A component of the IS supporting business assets like a database where information
is stored.
Security Goal A property or constraint on business assets describing their security needs, usually
for confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
Risk The combination of a threat with one or more vulnerabilities leading to a negative
impact harming the assets.
Impact The potential negative consequence of a risk that may harm assets of a system or an
organization, when a threat (or the cause of a risk) is accomplished.
Vulnerability A characteristic of an IS asset or group of IS assets that can constitute a weakness or
a flaw in terms of IS security.
18. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 18
Concept Description
Threat A potential attack or incident, which targets one or more IS assets and may lead to
the assets being harmed.
Risk Treatment An intentional decision to treat identified risks.
Security Requirement The refinement of a treatment decision to mitigate the risk.
Control Controls (countermeasures or safeguards) are designed to improve security,
specified by a security requirement, and implemented to comply with it.
19. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 19
Introduction to the ArchiMate Standard
Core Concepts
ArchiMate [2], an Open Group standard, is an open and independent modeling language for EA that is
supported by different tool vendors and consulting firms. It provides uniform representations for diagrams
that describe EAs. Its core concepts (Figure 11) specify three main types of elements that are in turn often
used to represent classes of real-world entities. These element types are:
• Active Structure Elements, which are entities capable of performing behavior
• Behavior Elements, which are units of activity performed by one or more Active Structure Elements
• Passive Structure Elements, upon which Active Structure Elements perform behavior
The ArchiMate language specializes two of these core element types to enable service-oriented architectural
viewpoints:
• Behavior Elements, known as services, are units of functionality that systems expose to their
environments. Services deliver value to their consumers while concealing the internal operations of the
systems that expose them.
• Active Structure Elements, known as Interfaces, are points of access where systems expose one or more
services to their environments.
Figure 11: ArchiMate Core Concepts (Source [2])
Note that, in this diagram, relationships are red using the verb closest to the first element; e.g., an Active
Structure Element uses an Interface, and a Service accesses a Passive Structure Element.
The ArchiMate language contains a core set of relationships that fall into three categories:
• Structural relationships model the structural coherence between structural or behavioral concepts of the
20. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 20
same or different types. They include association, access, used by, realization, assignment, aggregation,
and composition.
• Dynamic relationships model dependencies between behavioral concepts. They include flow and
triggering. In addition, the ArchiMate language enables the derivation of dynamic relationships between
structural elements to which the behavioral functions are assigned. For example, modelers can depict a
flow relationship between two application functions as a flow relationship between separate Application
Components that perform those functions.
• Other relationships are neither structural nor dynamic. They include grouping, junction, and
specialization.
The ArchiMate language defines three main layers based on specializations of its core concepts:
• The Business Layer models products and services available to external customers of the organization that
is being described. These services are realized by business processes performed by business actors.
• The Application Layer provides the Business Layer with application services that are realized by
software applications.
• The Technology Layer provides the infrastructure services such as data processing, storage, and
communications necessary to run applications. These services are realized by hardware and system
software.
The ArchiMate language combines its three layers with its three core element types for a nine-cell framework
(Figure 12).
Figure 12: The ArchiMate Core Framework (Source [2])
Extensions
To its nine-cell core framework, the ArchiMate 2.1 standard adds two extensions:
• The Motivation extension models the elements that motivate enterprise design and operation. Its concepts
include: stakeholder, driver, assessment, goal, requirement, and principle.
21. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 21
• The Implementation and Migration extension models the implementation of all aspects of EAs, as well as
the migration between generations of implemented architectures. Its concepts include: work package,
deliverable, plateau, and gap.
Viewpoints
The ArchiMate language also includes a set of architecture viewpoints and classifies them in two ways:
• Purpose, which may be designing a solution, deciding on a course of action, or informing employees,
customers, or other stakeholders.
• Abstraction levels, which may embody the details needed by stakeholders such as software and process
engineers, the systemic coherence needed by operational managers who must understand key
relationships to solve problems and implement change, or the overview needed by executives, Enterprise
Architects, and others who must make key decisions and manage change.
The ArchiMate Standard as a Modeling Language for the TOGAF Standard
The ArchiMate modeling language, together with its two extensions, can be used to model architectures
developed using the TOGAF ADM. Figure 13 shows the correspondence between the activities of the ADM
phases and the parts of the ArchiMate language.
Figure 13: Correspondence between TOGAF ADM Phases and the ArchiMate Framework (Source [2])
22. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 22
Modeling Risk and Security Aspects with the ArchiMate Language
Business Value of Modeling ERM with the ArchiMate Language
The ArchiMate standard provides the modeling constructs to describe and interconnect the various
architectural domains. Applying the ArchiMate language to represent risk and security concepts results in the
ideal vehicle to consider these aspects in an integral way.
The ArchiMate language is a widely accepted open standard for modeling EA, with a large user base and a
variety of modeling tools that support it. It fits well with other EA frameworks and standards, such as the
TOGAF standard and the Zachman framework, as well as enterprise security management frameworks such
as SABSA.
Through the Motivation extension, the ArchiMate language makes it possible to link control measures to
security requirements, principles, and goals, as well as to the results of a risk analysis. On the other hand,
ArchiMate models can be linked to design languages for business processes and IT solutions (e.g., BPMN
and UML). In this way, full forward and backward traceability between architecture and design is achieved.
This traceability enables the definition of precise relationships between business and information technology
entities, which facilitates cause and effect analysis. The ArchiMate language also allows modelers to define
additional profile attributes for model elements. These attributes can be used to analyze architectures and
determine the impact of architectural change on risk and security concerns. ArchiMate models are therefore
suitable as a basis for both qualitative and quantitative risk and security analysis.
Consolidation of Risk and Security Concepts
This section identifies the common denominator of concepts for risk and security identified in our overview
of standards and frameworks, and which are relevant in the context of EA models. It provides definitions for
these concepts, as well as their main properties.
Risk
• The probable frequency and probable magnitude of future loss [3].
• The potential of loss (an undesirable outcome; however, not necessarily so) resulting from a given action,
activity, and/or inaction, foreseen or unforeseen.
• A number of risk metrics are commonly applied, such as [3] loss event frequency and probable loss
magnitude.
• Furthermore, a distinction may be made between:
o Initial risk: before mitigation
o Residual risk: after mitigation
Loss Event
Any circumstance that causes a loss or damage to an asset.
23. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 23
Threat
A possible danger that might exploit a vulnerability to breach security and thus cause possible harm. The
term is ambiguous, as it can refer to a threatening circumstance, an entity capable of causing harm (threat
entity), or the actual event that may cause harm (threat event). Therefore, we also introduce the more specific
concepts:
• Threat agent: Anything – for example, an object, substance, individual, or group – that is capable of
acting against an asset in a manner that can result in harm. This can be intentional; i.e., an attacker, but
also unintentional; e.g., a well-intentioned, but inept, computer operator who trashes a daily batch job by
typing the wrong command.
• Threat event: Event with the potential to adversely impact an asset. An attack is a specific type of threat
event that is the result of an intentional malicious activity of an attacker, which is a specific type of threat
agent.
Vulnerability
• The probability that an asset will be unable to resist the actions of a threat agent [3].
• A weakness which allows an attacker to threaten the value of an asset.
Domain
A set of related entities that share one or more characteristics and define the semantic of a specific field. This
concept is essential to the next definition.
Risk Domain
A domain consisting of entities that share one or more characteristics relevant to risk management or
security. A risk domain is also a context or set of conditions that affects a risk exposure level.
Risk Control, Treatment, Mitigation
• An action, device, procedure, or technique that reduces a threat, a vulnerability, or an attack by
eliminating or preventing it, by minimizing the harm it can cause, or by discovering and reporting it so
that corrective action can be taken.
• The deployment of a set of security services to protect against a security threat.
Control Requirement
A formalized need to be fulfilled by means of a control in order to face an identified threat.
Asset at Risk
• Anything tangible or intangible that is capable of being owned or controlled to produce value.
• Any data, device, or other component of the environment that supports information-related activities.
Policy
A set of rules which governs the behavior of a system:
24. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 24
• Exists at different levels: Strategy, Management, Design
• May be of different types: Operational, Structural, and Behavioral
Modeling Options
There are three different options for modeling risk and security aspects with the ArchiMate language:
1. The use of ArchiMate 2.1 concepts unmodified, as specified in the standard.
2. The use of the extension mechanisms as specified in the standard to define additional attributes or
specializations of existing ArchiMate concepts.
3. The use of additional concepts that do not yet exist in the ArchiMate 2.1 standard and can be directly
linked to existing concepts.
Of course, it is likely that a combination of these options will be used. If a combination of options 1 and 2
suffices, this would result in what could be called a “risk and security overlay” of the ArchiMate language,
which may or may not be proposed for inclusion in the standard. If it turns out that option 3 is also required,
this will result in proposing an actual risk and security extension for the standard.
Mapping of Consolidated Risk and Security Aspects to the ArchiMate Language
Although the TOGAF and ArchiMate standards, and various other standards and frameworks, deliver very
valuable material that can help practitioners understand risk and security in the EA practice, they do not
include specific guidelines and examples on how to model security and risk management. Therefore, in the
remainder of this White Paper, this content is developed. Specific mappings will be suggested, and actual
ArchiMate concepts and relations will be combined with profiling and specialization. Also, examples from
case materials will be used to illustrate the use of these concepts.
The remainder of this section proposes a mapping between the consolidated risk and security concepts
defined previously and components and concepts from the ArchiMate 2.1 specification.
Loss Event
A loss event can be mapped to the business event concept in ArchiMate, which may be triggered by a threat
event. It may be useful to define a specific specialization of a business event to denote a loss event.
Threat
As indicated before, the term “threat” is ambiguous. The general notion of threat as a threatening
circumstance can be modeled as a driver in the ArchiMate language. The mappings of the more specific
concepts of “threat agent” and ‘threat event’ are given below.
• Threat agent: Different types of threat agent can be modeled as different kinds of active structure
elements in the ArchiMate language; e.g., a business actor, business role, application component, node,
system software, or device.
• Threat event: A threat event may map most naturally to a business event in the ArchiMate language.
Because the concept of threat event plays an important role in risk management, it is advisable to
introduce it as a specialization of a business event.
25. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 25
Risk
A risk is a quantification of a threat, and as such it maps most naturally to an assessment in the ArchiMate
language. Because of the central role of this concept in ERM, the proposal is to define the risk concept as a
specialization of an assessment.
Risk Metrics
As well as the different types of risks (e.g., initial and residual), may be defined as attributes in a risk profile
of an assessment.
Vulnerability
A vulnerability is the result of analyzing the weaknesses of elements in the architecture considering all the
environmental factors that could affect the system. An example of a vulnerability is a non-encrypted
communication channel over the public Internet, which means that confidential messages may be intercepted.
For explicitly modeling a vulnerability, it most naturally maps to an assessment in the ArchiMate language.
In that case, the proposal is to model a vulnerability as a specialization of an assessment. Alternatively, it
may be specified as an attribute of an asset at risk or a risk domain.
Domain
The ArchiMate language does not yet define a general domain concept. The location concept represents a
specific kind of domain (i.e., a geographic domain). The grouping relation can also be used to group elements
that belong to a certain domain, but has some limitations (e.g., it is not possible to link a group to other
elements with a relation). For an example of the use of the domain concept, see Use of the Risk Domain
Concept.
Risk Control, Treatment, and Mitigation
Depending on the kind of control, almost any core concept or combination of core concepts can be used to
model the implementation of the control. A control may also be realized by a grouping of a number of core
concepts, which is something that cannot properly be modeled in the ArchiMate language (see Domain).
Control Requirement
In a risk analysis process, a specification of an action or set of actions that have to be performed or that
should be implemented as part of the control, treatment, and mitigation of a particular risk. A control
requirement is realized by core entities used for mitigation, treatment, and control.
Asset at Risk
Almost any core concept or combination of concepts can be an asset to the organization. A specific asset
profile can be assigned to these concepts to specify specific attributes of assets; e.g., their value.
Alternatively, the concept can be associated with the ArchiMate value concept.
Policy
At the design level, a policy may map to a principle from the ArchiMate Motivation extension. The
ArchiMate language does not yet have the concept of operational policy. This is a candidate concept that
could be considered for a future version of the ArchiMate standard. Note that the concept of policy can be
used in a generic way, with risk policy and security policy as possible specializations.
26. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 26
Figure 14summarizes the main mapping of the concepts.
Figure 14: Mapping of Risk and Security Concepts to the ArchiMate Language
27. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 27
Case Studies and Examples
This section further explores the risk domain concept and uses the ArchiMate 2.1 language together with
additional risk domain notations to depict four scenarios. The first is an original scenario involving security at
aircraft maintenance facilities, and the next three are elaborations of the Coldhard Steel scenario [9]. This
scenario, part of the CAS ERM Overview, describes the risks faced by a US-based manufacturer of steel
products, such as roller and ball bearings, used in industrial machinery. The final scenarios in this section
illustrate a vulnerability assessment of technical infrastructure.
Use of the Risk Domain Concept
In Mapping of Consolidated Risk and Security Aspects to the ArchiMate Language, this White Paper has
defined a risk domain as “consisting of entities that share one or more characteristics relevant to risk
management or security”. Table 1 details these common characteristics and provides examples of domains
that share them. The entries describing common characteristics are numbered for reference in examples later
in the text.
Table 1: Common Characteristics Shared by Entities within a Risk Domain
Common Characteristic Example Risk Domains
Exposure to a threat or risk Registered users of an e-commerce website from which credit card
information has been stolen, and are therefore particularly vulnerable to
fraudulent charges, or residences that do not have smoke alarms, and
are therefore particularly vulnerable to fire.
Possession of a vulnerability Individuals who record their passwords on paper near their computer
workstations, or instances of an operating system that are missing a
critical security patch.
Possession of a control
requirement
Individuals recently released from prison who must report regularly to a
parole officer, or wireless devices that access a corporate network that
transmits sensitive information, and must therefore be authenticated,
authorized, and monitored whenever they are connected.
Participation in a control,
treatment, or mitigation
Individuals who use password managers to generate and store complex,
random passwords for the websites they access, or firewalls that control
access to a government network.
Participation in a threat agent Individuals with criminal records who possess unlicensed handguns or
flammable material stored in a warehouse.
Relevance, authority, or influence
of a control, treatment, or
mitigation
Individuals subject to the laws of a particular jurisdiction, or all
neighborhoods in a city subject to extra police patrols due to high crime
rates.
Inclusion in a classification for the
purpose or assessing or
mitigating risk
All computers that are connected to the same corporate network and
running a particular operating system, for which a patch assessment or
patching cycle could be developed, or all individuals living in a
neighborhood that has been exposed to toxic industrial chemicals, for
which a set of health checks or precautionary recommendations could be
developed.
28. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 28
ArchiMate modelers can use the grouping relationship to identify domains and describe their contents. The
grouping concept is uniquely suited for this purpose, since it is the only relationship within the language in
which any number of elements representing any combination of concepts can participate. This flexibility is
critical to representing domains, since instances, classifications, and assessments of vulnerabilities, risks,
threats, controls, and related risk concepts frequently aggregate diverse elements.
For example, a software component may possess an internal vulnerability that could be exploited by an
attacker, but if the software component is used within a cardkey system to control physical access to an
aircraft maintenance facility operated by an airline, its vulnerability may put the functioning of the aircraft,
the lives of passengers and crew, and the financial health of the airline at risk. A comprehensive approach to
mitigating the overall risk of access control software malfunction could require:
• Technical controls such as software patches and code restructuring instituted by the software vendor
• Administrative controls such as:
o Enhanced quality assurance procedures instituted by the software developer
o Revisions in the contract between the airline and the software vendor
o Audits of the software vendor by the airline or a trusted agent
o Enhanced patching procedures instituted by the airline’s IT organization
• Physical controls such as placing the onsite access control server appliance in a locked closet
In addition, different domains might require different controls to mitigate the risk (Table 1, entry 6). If the
airline uses two aircraft maintenance facilities at different airports with separate instances of the same
cardkey system, but outsources the operations of one to a service provider, then mitigating the risk at the
second facility could also require:
• Administrative controls such as:
o Enhanced patching procedures instituted by the outsourcer’s IT organizations
o Revisions in the contract between the airline and the outsourcer
o Audits of the outsourcer by the airline or a trusted agent
The ArchiMate grouping relationship can be used for this scenario to organize both the elements of risk, and
the measures taken to mitigate risk. However, in order to express the mitigation relationship between the risk
of software attack and different combinations of measures required to mitigate that risk at the two aircraft
maintenance facilities, ArchiMate modelers must be able to combine diverse elements into risk domains that
can participate in explicit mitigation relationships (Table 1, entry 1).
Figure 15 illustrates the use of the ArchiMate 2.1 language, and the opportunities for expression of domains
and mitigation relationships. The diagram expresses domains as ellipses with dashed borders, and mitigation
relationships as thick grey lines with long dashes, and hollow-point arrows pointing from the mitigating
domain to the domain exposed to the risk. The two facility domains share exposures to the same risks (Table
1, entries 4 and 6) which are expressed as drivers. The shared risk of unauthorized access positively
influences the risk of aircraft malfunction, which has enterprise-wide implications. Per the scenario, some
mitigation requirements are specific to one of the two facilities, and some are shared. Each of the three
29. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 29
mitigation domains (Table 1, entry 4) contain requirements that mitigate the risks of software attack and
unauthorized access.
Figure 15: Aircraft Maintenance Scenario with Risk Domains
Figure 18 and Figure 19 illustrate a risk mitigation approach – continuous improvement of machine reliability
– which applies across the entire Coldhard Steel risk domain (Table 1, entry 1). However, the Gary and
Chicago factory risk domain have different vulnerabilities (Table 1, entry 2), and therefore the local
implementation of the enterprise risk mitigation strategy constitutes two very different domains (Table 1,
entry 4).
Coldhard Steel
This section uses the Coldhard Steel company case from reference [9] to illustrate the stereotyping of
ArchiMate Motivation extension concepts as risk concepts. Coldhard Steel manufactures products such as
roller and ball bearings that are used in other industrial machinery. Coldhard Steel operates in the Midwest
30. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 30
region of the United States, is family-owned, and has a unionized labor force. The Coldhard Steel case has
been selected because it is a well-accepted example case in the risk and security field.
Figure 16 illustrates such use of stereotyped ArchiMate 2.1 concepts to model risk and security concepts.
Coldhard steel experiences a threat that machines may fail due to inadequate power supply. This threat is
mapped onto the concept of driver. This threat leads to a risk that once a year the power supply is inadequate,
and with an effect that the production loss is $100.000, an assessment is stereotyped to risk. A control
objective is added to mitigate the risk. The control objective is to increase peak capacity of the power
supplies. The concept goal is stereotyped to control objective. A control measure, replace factory power
supplies, is used to realize the control objective. A requirement is stereotyped to control measure to model
this.
A threat can also lead to a loss event, in the case of Coldhard Steel a power supply failure. A business event
is stereotyped to express this. A vulnerability of an asset can lead to a loss event. In the case of Coldhard
Steel, the power supply cannot handle large power fluctuations. An assessment is stereotyped to express this.
ArchiMate Core elements are stereotyped to assets. In this example the asset realizes the control measure, to
illustrate that the control measure is implemented.
Figure 16: Coldhard Steel, Example 1
Figure 17 illustrates two other examples. The left figure can be read as follows. There is a threat that an
employee submits a compensation claim for work-related injuries. This leads to the risk that the
compensation claims for injuries are unacceptable. A control objective is stated to reduce the exposure to
compensation claims. The control measure is to implement safety procedures. The threat can lead to the loss
event work-related safety incident. This loss event is possible through the vulnerability of inadequate safety
procedures.
The right part of the figure illustrates yet another kind of risk example. Coldhard steel is situated in an area
where there is a threat of tornados. These tornados can cause damage to plant and equipment. This leads to
the risk that there are unacceptable costs to repair the damage. This leads to the control objective to reduce
exposure to tornado damage and the control measure to improve the structural integrity of the building.
31. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 31
The threat can lead to the loss event that the tornado hits the factory. The vulnerability that the equipment is
not resistant to tornados leads to the loss event and the risk.
Figure 17: Coldhard Steel, Examples 2 and 3
As another example of the use of the domain concept, as explained in the previous subsection, Figure 18 and
Figure 19 illustrate a risk mitigation approach – continuous improvement of machine reliability – which
applies across the entire Coldhard Steel risk domain (Table 1, entry 1). However, the Gary (Figure 18) and
Chicago (Figure 19) factory risk domains have different vulnerabilities (Table 1, entry 2), and therefore the
local implementation of the enterprise risk mitigation strategy constitutes two very different domains (Table
1, entry 4).
32. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 32
Figure 18 Mitigation of Machine Failure Risk at Coldhard Steel Gary Factory
33. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 33
Figure 19: Mitigation of Machine Failure Risk at Coldhard Steel Chicago Factory
34. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 34
Vulnerability Assessment of a Technical Infrastructure
A vulnerability assessment is the process of identifying, quantifying, and prioritizing (or ranking) the
vulnerabilities in a computer network or system. A vulnerability assessment may include the use of a
penetration test (pen test); i.e., an attack on a computer network or system with the intention of finding
security weaknesses, potentially gaining access to it, its functionality, and data. This process may be
supported by one of the many available commercial or open source automated vulnerability scanners, which
produce a report of the vulnerabilities found in a computer network, host, or set of hosts.
Figure 20 below shows an example of the results of a vulnerability scan of a single application server. Five
vulnerabilities are found, with varying levels of risk (risk factors), related to different ports. The overall
security of the server is determined by the weakest link; i.e., the maximum of the risk factors of the relevant
vulnerabilities.
Figure 20: Results of a Vulnerability Scan
Figure 21 shows the context of one of these vulnerabilities. The vulnerability is present on three different
hosts in the network. Also, a known control measure that can be used to mitigate the risk associated with
vulnerability is shown in the model.
35. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 35
Figure 21: Vulnerability Context
Although a vulnerability assessment provides an overview of vulnerabilities at the technology level, this is
not sufficient for a well-informed assessment of the risks at the business level. An EA model can help to
analyze the business impact of the technical vulnerabilities, as illustrated in the example in Figure 22. Based
on the results of this analysis, the (intermediate or final) results of which may be captured as profile elements
attached to ArchiMate concepts, a decision can be made as to whether a control measure should be
implemented to mitigate the risk.
36. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 36
Figure 22: Business Impact of a Technical Vulnerability
37. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 37
Summary and Conclusions
ERM and security are closely interlinked with EA, including the design of organizations and the IT
applications and infrastructure that support them. Therefore, this White Paper proposes how ERM and
security can be expressed in the ArchiMate language for EA modeling.
In order to identify the relevant concepts, this White Paper examines a wide variety of standards and
frameworks for ERM and security deployment, including those employed in the risk and security-related
activities of The Open Group. Based on this, the paper establishes a common set of risk and security
concepts, and demonstrates a mapping of these concepts to the ArchiMate language. Example cases illustrate
these concepts.
The mapping and examples show that most of the risk and security concepts can be mapped to existing
concepts in the ArchiMate language (Core and Motivation extension). However, to improve understanding, it
is helpful to make explicit which of the risk or security concepts they represent. Specialization, one of the
language extension mechanisms described in the ArchiMate standard, is primarily used for this. Two
elements used in some of the examples are not in the standard language: the domain concept, a grouping that
can have relationships with other concepts; and the mitigation relationship.
This White Paper also illustrates that the security and risk concepts and relationships can be added to a wide
range of ArchiMate viewpoints. Any of the viewpoints described in the current ArchiMate 2.1 standard can
be overlaid with risk and security concepts, and organizations may adopt these to assess risks. In a similar
way, these concepts can also be used to express risk and security aspects in several TOGAF diagrams. In
addition, modelers may add a number of additional viewpoints; e.g., a risk mitigation domain viewpoint (see
the examples in Use of the Risk Domain Concept) or a risk analysis viewpoint (see the examples in the
Coldhard Steel section).
38. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 38
References
(Please note that the links below are good at the time of writing but cannot be guaranteed for the future.)
[1] R.E. Giachetti: Design of Enterprise Systems, Theory, Architecture, and Methods, CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL, 2010 (p.4).
[2] ArchiMate®
2.1 Specification, Open Group Standard (C13L), December 2013, published by The Open
Group; available at: www.opengroup.org/bookstore/catalog/c13l.htm.
[3] Risk Taxonomy (O-RT), Version 2.0, Open Group Standard (C13K), October 2013, published by The
Open Group (as part of the Open FAIR Body of Knowledge); available at:
www.opengroup.org/bookstore/catalog/c13k.htm.
[4] Institute of Risk Management: A Risk Management Standard, 2002; refer to:
www.theirm.org/publications/documents/Risk_Management_Standard_030820.pdf.
[5] Oxford English Dictionary; refer to: www.oed.com (consulted December 2013).
[6] D. Ionita: Current Established Risk Assessments Methodologies and Tools, MSc Thesis, University of
Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands, July 2013.
[7] J. Sherwood, A. Clark, D. Lynas: Enterprise Security Architecture: A Business-driven Approach,
CMP Books, 2005.
[8] J. Sherwood, A. Clark, D. Lynas: Enterprise Security Architecture, White Paper, SABSA Institute,
2009.
[9] Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) Enterprise Risk
Management – Integrated Framework, 2004; refer to:
www.coso.org/documents/coso_erm_executivesummary.pdf.
[10] Casualty Actuary Society (CAS) Overview of Enterprise Risk Management, 2003; refer to:
http://www.casact.org/area/erm/overview.pdf.
[11] Risk Management Handbook for Healthcare Organizations, Sixth Edition, Volume 1, American
Society for Healthcare Risk Management (ASHRM), 2011.
[12] SANS Institute; refer to: www.sans.org/information_security.php (consulted December 2013).
[13] 44 United States Code (USC) 3542 – Definitions; refer to: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/3542
(consulted December 2013).
[14] Chad Perrin: The CIA Triad; refer to: www.techrepublic.com/blog/it-security/the-cia-triad/488
(consulted December 2013).
[15] E. Dubois, P. Heymans, N. Mayer, R. Matulevičius: A Systematic Approach to Define the Domain of
Information System Security Risk Management (ISSRM), in Intentional Perspectives on Information
Systems Engineering, S. Nurcan, C. Salinesi, C. Souveyet, J. Ralyté, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer
Berlin Heidelberg, 2010 (pp.289–306).
39. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 39
[16] AS/NZS 4360: Risk Management, SAI Global, 2004.
[17] ISO/IEC Guide 73: Risk Management – Vocabulary – Guidelines for Use in Standards, Geneva:
International Organization for Standardization, 2002.
[18] ISO/IEC 13335-1: Information Technology – Security Techniques – Management of Information and
Communications Technology Security – Part 1: Concepts and Models for Information and
Communications Technology Security Management, Geneva: International Organization for
Standardization, 2004.
[19] E. Grandry, C. Feltus, E. Dubois: Conceptual Integration of Enterprise Architecture Management and
Security Risk Management, The Fifth Workshop on Service-Oriented Enterprise Architecture for
Enterprise Engineering (SoEA4EE’2013), Vancouver, BC, Canada.
[20] TOGAF®
Version 9.1, Enterprise Edition, Open Group Standard (G116), December 2011, published
by The Open Group; available at www.opengroup.org/bookstore/catalog/g116.htm.
40. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 40
About the Authors
Iver Band is a practicing Enterprise Architect and a developer and communicator of
Enterprise Architecture standards and methods. Recently, he joined Cambia Health
Solutions, where he shapes solutions that promote accountability, quality, and efficiency
in healthcare delivery. For the previous six years at The Standard, a diversified financial
services company, he focused on business solutions and governance, and prior to that,
infrastructure. He guided contact center and CRM implementations, claims system
modernization, end-user computing, and trading workflow automation. In his
infrastructure role, Iver developed data center, computing platform, and resilience
strategies. Prior to his work at The Standard, Iver had a lengthy career at Hewlett-
Packard with roles ranging from IT Director for a global business to HP Labs Visiting
Technologist. At HP Labs, he researched security topics such as role engineering, and
led the development of a patented approach to network security management.
Iver also serves as Director of Enterprise and Solution Architecture for EA Principals, a
training and consulting firm, for which he works with clients, develops curriculum
materials, and edits the Enterprise Architecture Professional Journal and EAPJ.org. Iver
represents EA Principals in The Open Group, where he is the elected Vice Chair of The
ArchiMate Forum. As Vice Chair, Iver has led development of a number of Open Group
White Papers.
Iver is TOGAF 9 Certfied, ArchiMate 2 Certified, a Certified Information Systems Security
Professional (CISSP), a Certified Information Professional (CIP), and a Prosci Certified
Change Consultant.
Wilco Engelsman is a research consultant at BiZZdesign, specialized in the areas of
enterprise architecture, business requirements management and enterprise risk
management. He was one of the main contributors to the development of the Motivation
extension of the ArchiMate standard. He is also pursuing a PhD in Computer Science at
the University of Twente.
Christophe Feltus graduated as an Electromechanics Engineer from the Institut
Supérieur Industriel des Art et Métiers Pierrard (Belgium) and Doctor of Science
(Computer Science) from the University of Namur (Belgium). He worked for several years
in private companies as: Production Head at Pfizer SA in Jette, Project Coordinator at
Nizet Entreprise in Louvain-la-Neuve, and Assessor for the Civil Belgium Aviation
Administration in Brussels, Belgium. Than he joined the Public Research Centre Henri
Tudor in the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg in 1999 to work in the field of Service Science
and Innovation. There he has taken part in projects related to IT security, IT governance,
business IT/alignment, and enterprise architecture modeling. In 2015, the Public
Research Centre Gabriel Lippmann and the Public Research Centre Henri Tudor merged
to become the Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology.
Sonia Gonzalez is a Senior Consultant at Dux Diligens. Sonia provides consulting and
training services in the areas of business innovation, business process modeling, and
Enterprise Architecture. In this position she is involved in the development of new
products and services that the company is offering to its customers in Latin America and
Spain. She is also TOGAF
®
9 Certified and ArchiMate
®
2 Certified, and is a trainer for an
accredited training course provider and has developed workshops and EA consultancy
projects using the TOGAF standard as a reference framework and the ArchiMate
standard as a modeling language. As a representative of an Open Group member
organization, she is participating in several projects in the Architecture and ArchiMate
Forums.
41. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 41
Jim Hietala, CISSP, GSEC, is Vice President, Security for The Open Group, where he
manages all security and risk management programs and standards activities, including
the Security Forum. He has participated in the development of several industry standards
including O-ISM3, O-ESA, Risk Taxonomy, and O-ACEML. He also led the development
of compliance and audit guidance for the Cloud Security Alliance v2 publication.
Jim is a frequent speaker at industry conferences. He has participated in the SANS
Analyst/Expert program, having written several research white papers and participated in
several webcasts for SANS. He has also published numerous articles on information
security, risk management, and compliance topics in publications including CSO, The
ISSA Journal, Bank Accounting & Finance, Risk Factor, SC Magazine, and others.
An IT security industry veteran, he has held leadership roles at several IT security
vendors. Jim holds a BS in Marketing from Southern Illinois University.
Henk Jonkers is a senior research consultant, involved in BiZZdesign's innovations in
the areas of Enterprise Architecture and engineering. He participates in multi-party
research projects, contributes to training courses, and performs consultancy
assignments. Previously, as a member of scientific staff at an applied IT research
institute, he was involved in research projects on business process modeling and
analysis, EA, SOA, and model-driven development. He was one of the main developers
of the ArchiMate language and an author of the ArchiMate 1.0 and 2.0 Specifications,
and is actively involved in the activities of The Open Group ArchiMate Forum.
Sébastien Massart is a senior consultant at Arismore and is responsible for the first
ArchiMate training center in France. He manages the ArchiMate Work Group at The
Open Group France, providing methodology and assessing competencies to elect new
trainers. He works across a variety of sectors, with a particular focus on
Telecommunications and Industries. His current mission is a project which bridges the
gap between business and IS/IT through the Entreprise Architecture Taskforce. Prior to
his current role, he was a Technical Architect on a range of complex infrastructures.
42. Modeling Enterprise Risk Management and Security with the ArchiMate®
Language
www.opengroup.org A White Paper Published by The Open Group 42
About The Open Group
The Open Group is a global consortium that enables the achievement of business objectives through IT
standards. With more than 400 member organizations, The Open Group has a diverse membership that spans
all sectors of the IT community – customers, systems and solutions suppliers, tool vendors, integrators, and
consultants, as well as academics and researchers – to:
• Capture, understand, and address current and emerging requirements, and establish policies and share
best practices
• Facilitate interoperability, develop consensus, and evolve and integrate specifications and open source
technologies
• Offer a comprehensive set of services to enhance the operational efficiency of consortia
• Operate the industry’s premier certification service
Further information on The Open Group is available at www.opengroup.org.