vendredi 11 novembre 2011

Should intellectual property be addressed by Enterprise Architecture ?

Would you think that INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY should be addressed in ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE ?

Started on nov 3. 2011. on Enterprise Architecture Group
As of dec. 12, 2011 : 128 comments

[whether you can design an EA without taking into account regulation]
on your "business law" question [ If business law should be part of EA] : just think of an enterprise operating in a regulated industry...

(...) tdk
[on the value of IP as an asset]
 If you write a book on EA which would be sold by 2 millions, i'll bet that your wife would be happy. 

[on designing the EA of a bakery]  the bakery is great : i woud believe that you do not run the bakery if you are an independant business or a franchise. 

Our own business is a good case as well.
Would you run a consulting business and design you EA if you are affiliated to a best practice ( ex : TOGAF) or have created your own (imagine that you would be M. Zachmann) ? 

Are you fully positive when you say that ISO 27001 adress formally and explicitely intellectual property issues ?  

on the scope of security :
would you say that "intellectual property" is something apart from "data privacy" or included into "data privacy" ?  

When i looked at the glossay of a reputed EA framework (ie TOGAF from The Open Group), i could not find the entry "intellectual property"...

 In Togaf glossary, there are the following entries

Information : "Any communication or representation of knowledge such as facts, data, or opinions, in any medium or form (...)"
Security : "services which protect data, ensuring its confidentiality, availability and integrity".

I would feel that IP has been overlooked in most reputed IT management frameworks.

Is it a shared feeling ?
If it is so : why ? 

[on Cobit addressing IP] mentioned in the documentation, maybe
but in the glossary ?

EA starts at the strategic level and that's for sure.

Would we say that
(1] IT and IP are heads on with EA at this level
(2] that IT and IP are encapsulated within EA ? 

Does ISO/IOEC 27001 formally make a difference between data privacy and intellectual property ? 

 do you make a difference between knowledge and intellectual property ? 

a good EA practice lays in the definitions for it has to be shared among various stakes and shareholders.
Would you make difference between knowledge and know how ?

My point is that (from my perspective in France) IP needs to do its "coming out" in IT governance and management (and in the whole enterprise).

For leading enterprises, it's done. But how about the others ?

You do not need to be a lawyer to make a distinction between "privacy" and "intellectual property" and most frameworks seem to overlook this basic distinction.

Just have a look at the User Agreement underneath. [Linkedin]

fortunately, there are skilled trainers and practionners who can fill the gaps between the real life and the "best practices".

"Best practices " are written by physical authors who can not help to bear their own history, culture and education.
For some people such as native Americans, land property was a strange thing...

Bloom's taxonomy might by fine from an operational perspective but IP is a different thing : it a legal (property) perspective and disclosure is another.

Let's be specific :
your place where you live is private and not confidential if you choose to display it
But the set of places in LinkedIn database is owed by LinkedIn (IP)
And statistics out of this database might be some valuable knowledge that LinkedIn might sell. 

[Intellectual] Property and the [economic] value you might get out of it are two things.

There are plenty of patents which have been depreciated by their owners.

IP is like a novel : when you write you create IP (at least from a French perspective). But only J. K. Rowling wrote Harry Potter. 

My remark on Harry Potter was to illustrate that IP is decoupled from economical value, just like real estate :
it not because there is no value that you do not own it and it a piece of knowledge which has some proven value can be in the public domain.

I understand the "tacit knowledge" or "implicit knowledge" is at the center of your thinking design.

Would you use also the notions of "tacit information" et "implicit information" ?
Would you use also the notions of "tacit process" et "implicit process" ?

what is "data" and what is "information" depends on the user.
For exemple, your address is data from LinkedIn perspective and information for an enterprise who wants to hire you.

I prefer to use
structured data/information and
freeform data /information.

[1] freeform is used by Pr Andrew McAfee in his definition of Enterprise 2.0. 

what is "CIA criteria" ? is there a site somewhere ? 

[on CIA as Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability] i have to confess that i was not aware of this acronym and the story (but the concepts yes) Thanks. 

you are right. The question is somewhat confusing but at the same time, it leaves room for various reading and therefore discussions.

the question is "one form or another". let me review (from a French regulation perspective)
- business process : not IP
- SEC reports : ?
- shareholders report : IP (generally under copyright)
- point of contacts : IP (data base)
- social content (eg employee contracts and data) : not IP but privacy
- product and technical doc : IP (copyright)

If we come back to IT, would you think that the Enterprise Architecture of a software company would be the same if this company deliver
- proprietary software or
- Open Source software ? 

[you say] "On the other hand if you are food retailer - then taking care of IP will be a unnecessary noise". 

I would rather think that all businesses needs to address IP : they all have a brand, and produce copyrights.

Unfortunately, i am uncertain that most reputed EA "best practices" adress IP at the right level of details to be qualified as holistic.

Thank you for this list.

This list should drive to assess that most EA best practices (Togaf, Zachmann,...) should need a little bit refresh.

What do you think ?

 do you mean that EA depends on how you tackel with IP at the strategic level ? 

 since you ask, "How to make an update ?" , before addressing some responses, can we assume that we all agree that there is a gap on IP management which should be filled in most popular IT best practices such as :
- Togaf,
- Zachmann
- ITIL 2011
- CobIT / ValIT / RiskIT
- eSCM SP and eSCM CL ?

you are right. IP should be addressed as well as other immaterial assets.

So the gap between the current popular Best Practices and the real business needs is much larger.

A business opportunity for consultants before ITIL 201x, Cobit y , Togaf z and others are published with
* x>1
* y>4.1
- z>9  

would you say
* data = intellectual property
* data < intellectual property
* data > intellectual property ? 

you are fully right. IP is defined by law texts like any property.
And the next question is reading the law...

I am undercertain whether there are companies with "accountancy strategy" but tax (fiscal) strategy, for sure.

And best of breed IT companies have IP strategy : IBM; Apple,...
Countries also : standards for example.  

There is lot discussion on IP and positions often reflect personal values and ideologies.

For my part, i have difficulty to understand the basis of claiming patents on a simple, immediate and direct observation of human activity.

To my perception, France (the French administration) is one of the countries pushing for Open Source. Open World Forum 2011 (Paris) is the third edition on Paris.

In France, when the software is tightly coupled with some hardware (eg the hardware can not work without the software), patent might elligible for the system.

By standards, i meant DIN or AFNOR or ...ITIL 

If EA is a systemic approach, it means that EA si helpless to plan for non-systemic enterprise such as "lean start up" enterprises [1]

And from running my little consulting business i confirm it.
If i had a unique business site, planned in a traditional top down, i have strong doubt that creativity would be the same. But who knows...

[1] concept attributed to Eric Ries.