Photo removed
The Open Group Certified Architect (Open CA) Program:
Certification Package
Level 2: Master Certified IT Architect
October 03, 2008
Revision 2.3
Candidate Name
Last Name / Brown / First Name / GordonCandidate I/D / 98765 / Middle Initial / W
This template is to be used with:
The Open Group Certified Architect (Open CA) Program:
Conformance Requirements Version 2.01
And is for applications for certification at:
Level 2: Master Certified IT Architect
© Copyright 2005 - 2008, The Open Group
All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. Permission for storage, editing and transmission by electronic means is hereby granted for the sole purpose of supporting applications to The Open Group for Open CA Certification.
1. Contents
1. Contents 2
2. Compliance With Skill Requirements 3
2.1 Skill Levels 3
2.2 Compliance to Core Foundation Skills Requirements 3
2.2.1 People Skills 4
2.2.2 Project Management 8
2.2.3 Business 9
2.2.4 Architecture 10
3. Compliance With Experience Requirements 23
4. Professional Development 28
5. Contributions to the IT Architect Community 30
6. Experience Profiles 31
6.1 Experience Profile 1: ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE: TRAINING ACADEMY 32
6.1.1 Project Summary 32
6.1.2 Business Opportunity or Problem 32
6.1.3 Solution 34
6.1.4 Results 38
6.1.5 Lessons Learned 38
6.2 Experience Profile 2: <Project>: BUSINESS SOLUTIONS ARCHITECTURE 39
6.2.1 Project Summary 39
6.2.2 Business Opportunity or Problem 39
6.2.3 Solution 40
6.2.4 Results 43
6.2.5 Lessons Learned 43
6.3 Experience Profile 3: INFORMATION-EXCHANGE ARCHITECTURE: AAA AUTHORITY 44
6.3.1 Project Summary 44
6.3.2 Business Opportunity or Problem 44
6.3.3 Solution 45
6.3.4 Results 47
6.3.5 Lessons Learned 48
7. References 48
2. Compliance With Skill Requirements
2.1 Skill Levels
See Open CA: Conformance Requirements section 3.1 and 3.2
Skill Levels and Proficiency Ratings
Skill Level / Proficiency / ExperienceLimited / Limited or no knowledge / None
General / General conceptual knowledge only / Limited – Read about it, some education
Applied / Applied knowledge / Performs with supervision or mentoring
Deep / In depth knowledge / Mastered the current state of the art and is able to perform without supervision.
Expert / Expert knowledge / Advances the state of the art.
Use the above skill level definitions when completing the Core Foundation Skills tables below
2.2 Compliance to Core Foundation Skills Requirements
Evidence for CFSs and ECs should normally be within 8 years. It is recommended that Candidates use examples from the projects cited in the experience profiles. If evidence is not in the last 8 years, expect to be questioned closely by the board.
2.2.1 People Skills
CFS01Apply Communication Skills / Demonstrate good written communications, including the use of proper grammar, spelling, document organization, clarity, and use of content appropriate for the audience. Demonstrate good verbal communications, including strong eye contact (where culturally appropriate), responsiveness to questions, ability to stay on subject, use of good feedback, and follow-up questions, etc., so that effective two-way communications is demonstrated.
Skill level required: Deep / Skill level you claim: / Deep
CFS01.1 Demonstrate written application of communication skills
From (mm/yy) / To (mm/yy) / Project or Major Activity / List three or more documents that were published or provided to clients that demonstrate your ability to effectively communicate architectural decisions and designs.
Provide the name of the document and a short description of the purpose of the document.
10/09 / 03/10 / XXXXX – construction of the <major facility> by the AAA Authority / AAA Authority (A-A) – Information Management Strategy. This document describes the intended strategy for A-A’s handling of information (documents, computer aided design (CAD) drawings, geographical information systems (GIS) data, etc) throughout the phases of the Program. The document described (using Archimate notation), the information flows, processes, stakeholders and business objects involved. The document was submitted to the A-A Executive Management Board (EMB), receiving its unanimous endorsement. It was also subsequently endorsed by The National Archives and sets out the principles for information management by the A-A.
07/09 / 03/10 / Consultancy: Business Solutions an energy research centre, <Location>. / Final Report: <Customer> Business Solutions. This document was the final deliverable in a major consultancy project. The report addressed the software-enabled services required by the Research Center, describing the deployment architecture (based on a fully virtualized platform) together with the functional and non-functional requirements for each system to be procured and configured. The document forms the basis of the invitations to tender that will be provided to prospective Master Systems Integrators who wish to bid for the <Project> systems contract. Section 6.2.3 below refers.
01/08 / 06/08 / Training Academy – Information Systems and Services Development / Training Academy – Information Systems Strategic Plan 2008. As Chief Information Officer (CIO) of the Training Academy, I was responsible for the formulation of the Information Technology, Information Systems and Information Management strategy for the organization. In exercising this responsibility, I was required to prepare a Strategic Plan to express the vision for information systems development and delivery and to define the overall systems architecture. The Academy is a complex federation of organizations, with links to parts of Government . Hence, the systems architecture is complex, with numerous stakeholders and special requirements. The Strategic Plan was accepted by the Academy’s Management Board and formed the basis of subsequent procurement and development activity. Section 6.1 below describes my enterprise architecture work at the Academy in further detail.
CFS01.2 Demonstrate verbal application of communication skills /
From (mm/yy) / To (mm/yy) / Project or Major Activity / List three or more formal presentations that were published and presented verbally to stakeholders, and which demonstrate your ability to effectively communicate architectural decisions and designs.
Provide the name of the document and a short description of the purpose of the document. /
05/10 / 05/10 / <Project>: Business Solutions Project / Presentation to <Employer> Management Consulting Forum 2009 – <Project> Business Solutions Architecture. This presentation, to an audience of around 200 consultants from <Employer>’s practices around the world, was to inform <Employer>'s consultants about my recent activity with the Firm in Enterprise Architecture. The presentation covered the use of methods (specifically, the TOGAF ADM), frameworks (notably Archimate but also MODAF) and their application to the creation of a systems architecture to provide the business solutions required for a major overseas energy research centre.
02/10 / 04/10 / Consultancy: Deployment Architecture for ABC Rail’s Automated Fare Collection (AFC) System / Final Presentation to Management Board – Automated Fare Collection System Deployment Architecture. ABC Rail required consultancy advice regarding the technology platforms to be used to support their future Automated Fare Collection system. The matter was contentious, as the Board had received conflicting advice from its selected supplier and its own internal IT department. The presentation to the Board addressed the advantages and disadvantages of the solution options, recommending a way forward. The recommendation was unanimously endorsed by the Board and now forms the basis for the future development of the AFC system.
01/07 / 03/07 / Evolution of the Information Systems and Services, and enterprise architecture, for the Training Academy. / Strategic Plan for Information Systems Development at the Training Academy: Briefing to the Academy Management Board. I delivered this briefing in my role as Chief Information Officer of the Training Academy. My audience was composed of senior academic and business management responsible for the major components of the Academy. The purpose of the briefing was to present my proposals for the future evolution of the information systems needed by the Academy as it evolved and expanded. The proposals included an overarching information systems architecture to enable the integration of the geographically and culturally distinct components of the Academy into a cohesive whole. The architecture was accompanied by a Strategic Plan for its implementation. Both deliverables had been produced during the period January – March 2007 and were built upon the foundation of my previous architectural and strategy work at the Academy.
CFS02
Lead Individuals & Teams / Given a scope of architectural work to be accomplished, plan the work, form a team to perform the work, and guide the team in performing the work to completion.
Skill level required: Deep / Skill level you claim: / Deep
From (mm/yy) / To (mm/yy) / Project or Major Activity / Provide three instances where you led a team to perform a specific work effort and were recognized as the driving force to perform and accomplish the task.
Describe the project or major activity in which you were the recognized leader. Provide a short description of the leadership skills that you used to accomplish this task.
01/04 / 06/08 / Enterprise Architecture: Training Academy / The development of an EA for the Training Academy is described in my Experience Profile. At the outset of the engagement, I held the post of Chief Technology Officer. The duties of this post were extended part-way through the work described and re-designated Chief Information Officer. In those roles, I directly led a team of 12 managerial and technical staff and had overall responsibility for the governance of ICT delivery across the Academy. The major tasks, described in further detail in the Experience Profile, over which I had direct leadership responsibility and full accountability for outcome were the creation of the overall EA; the creation of the intranet/portal; the creation of the public website (including extranet); the creation of the new VLE. Section 6.1.3 below refers.
10/04 / 05/07 / Training Academy: Interface to wider Government Systems / In this project, I was the leader of a team comprising my own staff (a total of 8 technical specialists were involved during the course of the project architecture and delivery phases), a further 4 specialists from the Academy’s academic partner University IT team and, for performance and security optimisation work, an additional 2 specialist sub-contractors. I planned and managed implementation of the architecture, chairing the relevant steering group meetings, providing overall leadership to the delivery team, and reporting upwards.
07/09 / 03/10 / <Project>: Business Solutions / The delivery of the architecture and business solutions requirements specification for <Project> was a project for which I was accountable. I was required to assemble a team to deliver the work to demanding time limits and within budget. I did so by creating a team of supporting consultants from within my (consulting) group and from the wider Firm, and I also engaged a sub-consultant from another organisation. My team and I engaged with the client’s technical team. I was, as team leader, responsible for all aspects of delivery of the project, from conception to release of the final deliverables. In directing that process, I was also accountable for the quality control and budget management of the work. Section 6.2.2 below refers.
CFS03
Perform Conflict Resolution / Mediate opposing viewpoints and negotiate equitable solutions to ensure successful and stable outcomes.
Skill level required: Applied / Skill level you claim: / Deep
From (mm/yy) / To (mm/yy) / Project or Major Activity / Document three situations where you helped to mediate opposing technical/architectural viewpoints and successfully negotiated an equitable solution to ensure the successful outcome of an IT project or architectural task.
02/10 / 04/10 / ABC Rail Automated Fare Collection System deployment architecture. / <Employer>’s Newcastle office asked me for specialist architectural support to mediation between their client’s (a major rail and public transport company)business leaders and the IT organisation. The disagreement related to the solution deployment architecture. The business envisaged a wholly outsourced solution; the internal IT department warned of significant associated risks and disadvantages. A stalemate had been reached. The timely delivery of the project was at risk. I assessed the architectural options and the risks to service delivery, cost containment, timeliness and security (including PCI/DSS compliance). I concluded the engagement by the delivery of a report and a presentation to the Management Board and the Head of IT. I recommended (inter alia) that the local IT department operate the disaster recovery facility instead of the outsourced service provider. This resolved the conflict equitably and unblocked the project.
08/09 / 06/10 / Information-Exchange Architecture: AAA Authority / I was asked to mediate between the IT provider and the Information Security group within the A-A. The former wished to deliver a cost-effective IT service with what they perceived as adequate levels of security; the latter wished to avoid, or at least minimise, risk. I was asked, by the Head of Systems and Technology (representing the A-A Finance Director) to assess the risk and cost implications of the alternative architectures from impartial perspective. I did so, recommending a more balanced and cost-effective option. This was adopted. The business-level outcome was that the A-A was able to proceed towards systems accreditation, whilst containing the cost within the original budget and without jeopardising the building program or risking contractor penalties. Section 6.3.2 refers.
01/04 / 06/08 / Enterprise Architecture: Training Academy / One of the early consequences of the architecture I proposed was the interconnection of previously separate LANs and the creation of inter-domain trusts between their Windows domains. This was, at first, vehemently rejected by the Heads of IT in the Colleges that were to be joined. The reasons put forward for the rejection were related to the risks that such connection and extension of trust would, it was argued, incur. It was argued that these risks would mean that the service expected of their respective IT departments could not be provided.
The solution that I proposed was to adopt a incremental, measured series of transitional architectures, gradually opening up inter-connections as trust was established. This route was slower and more costly than a leap to the target architecture, but was more appropriate for the culture of the colleges concerned. Therefore, the interconnection came into being with high-grade firewalls at either end of a “no man’s land” of fibre across the site; each firewall was controlled solely by the nearest College’s IT staff. Domain trusts were also slowly and incrementally established; at first the trust extended only to specific machines and was not transitive; this was progressively extended to meet the more urgent business requirements until, eventually, full inter-domain trust was created. Eventually, with a change in the arrangements for IT support across the Academy’s main campus, one of the two firewalls was removed. The final (distant) target architecture was the full removal of all firewalls between the College systems and their combination in a single Active Directory domain. Nonetheless, a workable arrangement was put in place and the degree of inter-College IT integration improved sufficiently quickly to support the courses that spanned multiple Colleges. Section 6.1.2 refers.