Search Results

Search found 33 results on 2 pages for 'ergo'.

Page 2/2 | < Previous Page | 1 2 

• init.d script runs correctly but process doesn't live when booted fully up

  - by thetrompf

  I have a problem with an init.d script #!/bin/bash ES_HOME="/var/es/current" PID=$(ps ax | grep elasticsearch | grep $ES_HOME | grep -v grep | awk '{print $1}') #echo $PID #exit 0 case "$1" in start) if [ -z "$PID" ]; then echo "Starting Elasticsearch" echo "Starting Elasticsearch" /var/tmp/elasticsearch su -m elasticsearch -c "${ES_HOME}/bin/elasticsearch" exit 0; else echo "Elasticsearch already running" echo "Elasticsearch already running" /var/tmp/elasticsearch exit 0; fi ;; stop) if [ -n "$PID" ]; then echo "Stopping Elasticsearch" kill ${PID} echo "Stopped Elasticsearch" exit 0; else echo "Elasticsearch is not running" exit 0; fi ;; esac The scripts runs just file, as I can see in /var/tmp/elasticsearch a new line is added after every boot, but if I run: /etc/init.d/elasticsearch stop Just after the server is booted, I get "Elasticsearch is not running", ergo somehow the process does not stay alive. My question is why? and what am I doing wrong? Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• How can I make my Super keys (Windows Key) behave more like Ctrl/Alt/Shift in Linux

  - by deltaray

  After using the Ctrl + "arrow keys" for 13 years to switch virtual desktops in X windows, I've been convinced recently to change to using the Super keys instead (the windows key and the context menu key, which I've remapped). This all works fine for the most part. However, something is still picking up the key events that these keys are sending as if they are a normal alphanumeric like key. For example, I first noticed this in Google Docs spreadsheet that if I press the windows key alone over top of a cell, that it starts editing that cell. It doesn't insert anything, it just sends a key event that Firefox sees and starts editing the cell. This caused problems on a collaborative document I was working on as the way Google docs works, it led to me accidentally erasing the data in a few fields before I realised what was going on. I like using the super keys, but I want them to behave more like a Ctrl or Alt key does in that its a modifier key and doesn't send anything until a second key is pressed. My setup is the following: Ubuntu 10.10 XFCE 4 Microsoft Natural Ergo 4000 keyboard (with the logo scratched out) The following is my .Xmodmap file: remove Lock = Caps_Lock keycode 66 = Escape ! The below maps my other windows context menu key. keycode 135 = Super_R Edit: As requested, here is the relevant output from xev for a keypress and keyrelease of my Super_L (left windows key) KeyPress event, serial 34, synthetic NO, window 0x8200001, root 0x15d, subw 0x0, time 2428849342, (177,174), root:(182,228), state 0x10, keycode 133 (keysym 0xffeb, Super_L), same_screen YES, XLookupString gives 0 bytes: XmbLookupString gives 0 bytes: XFilterEvent returns: False KeyRelease event, serial 34, synthetic NO, window 0x8200001, root 0x15d, subw 0x0, time 2428849430, (177,174), root:(182,228), state 0x50, keycode 133 (keysym 0xffeb, Super_L), same_screen YES, XLookupString gives 0 bytes: XFilterEvent returns: False

  Read the article

• Representing Mauritius in the 2013 Bench Games

  Only by chance I came across an interesting option for professionals and enthusiasts in IT, and quite honestly I can't even remember where I caught attention of Brainbench and their 2013 Bench Games event. But having access to 600+ free exams in a friendly international intellectual competition doesn't happen to be available every day. So, it was actually a no-brainer to sign up and browse through the various categories. Most interestingly, Brainbench is not only IT-related. They offer a vast variety of fields in their Test Center, like Languages and Communication, Office Skills, Management, Aptitude, etc., and it can be a little bit messy about how things are organised. Anyway, while browsing through their test offers I added a couple of exams to 'My Plan' which I would give a shot afterwards. Self-assessments Actually, I took the tests based on two major aspects: 'Fun Factor' and 'How good would I be in general'... Usually, you have to pay for any kind of exams and given this unique chance by Brainbench to simply train this kind of tests was already worth the time. Frankly speaking, the tests are very close to the ones you would be asked to do at Prometric or Pearson Vue, ie. Microsoft exams, etc. Go through a set of multiple choice questions in a given time frame. Most of the tests I did during the Bench Games were based on 40 questions, each with a maximum of 3 minutes to answer. Ergo, one test in maximum 2 hours - that sounds feasible, doesn't it? The Measure of Achievement While the 2013 Bench Games are considered a worldwide friendly competition of knowledge I was really eager to get other Mauritians attracted. Using various social media networks and community activities it all looked quite well at the beginning. Mauritius was listed on rank #19 of Most Certified Citizens and rank #10 of Most Master Level Certified Nation - not bad, not bad... Until... the next update of the Bench Games Leaderboard. The downwards trend seemed to be unstoppable and I couldn't understand why my results didn't show up on the Individual Leader Board. First of all, I passed exams that were not even listed and second, I had better results on some exams listed. After some further information from the organiser it turned out that my test transcript wasn't available to the public. Only then results are considered and counted in the competition. During that time, I actually managed to hold 3 test results on the Individuals... Other participants were merciless, eh, more successful than me, produced better test results than I did. But still I managed to stay on the final score board: An 'exotic' combination of exam, test result, country and person itself Representing Mauritius and the Visual FoxPro community in that fun event. And although I mainly develop in Visual FoxPro 9.0 SP2 and C# using .NET Framework from 2.0 to 4.5 since a couple of years I still managed to pass on Master Level. Hm, actually my Microsoft Certified Programmer (MCP) exams are dated back in June 2004 - more than 9 years ago... Look who got lucky... As described above I did a couple of exams as time allowed and without any preparations, but still I received the following mail notification: "Thank you for recently participating in our Bench Games event.  We wanted to inform you that you obtained a top score on our test(s) during this event, and as a result, will receive a free annual Brainbench subscription.  Your annual subscription will give you access to all our tests just like Bench Games, but for an entire year plus additional benefits!" -- Leader Board Notification from Brainbench Even fun activities get rewarded sometimes. Thanks to @Brainbench_com for the free annual subscription based on my passed 2013 Bench Games Master Level exam. It would be interesting to know about the total figures, especially to see how many citizens of Mauritius took part in this year's Bench Games. Anyway, I'm looking forward to be able to participate in other challenges like this in the future.

  Read the article

• EWS 2010: Public Folder Problem using .NET

  - by Daniel

  I've recently coded a .NET Console app using C#. It's purpose was to read the emails within a specific folder, parse them for specific values and save them to a database. Our email system, at the time I originally coded this, was Exchange 2003. However, I was made aware we would soon be upgrading to Exchange 2010: ergo, I built the code to work in both environments. Following the migration to 2010, however, the app has broken. The app uses the EWS API for 2010 functionality. When it attempts to use the ExchangeService's FindFolders method to find the publicfoldersroot, it throws an exception. Here's the code: ExchangeService service = new ExchangeService(); FindFoldersResults findRootFldrs; service.UseDefaultCredentials = true; service.AutodiscoverUrl("[email protected]", delegate(string x) { return true; }); FolderView fview = new FolderView(100); fview.Traversal = FolderTraversal.Deep; if (findRootFldrsSub == null) { //Set to root to test local folders -- findRootFldrs = service.FindFolders(WellKnownFolderName.PublicFoldersRoot, fview); } The exception: "The mailbox that was requested doesn't support the specified RequestServerVersion" I've attempted: -Setting the exchangeservice to 2007 (throws an exception: "An internal server error occurred. The operation failed.") -Giving myself the highest level of permission to the Public Folder (no effect) -Manually setting my credentials (no effect) I can view the public folders in outlook; the publicfoldersroot property is available in the intellisense; the code works on local folders (I can parse my inbox). My current thinking is that it's a setting on the recent setup of Exchange 2010: unfortunately that isn't really my field.

  Read the article

• Lock ups, crashing, transferring files using TrueCrypt with iSCSI

  - by Anthony

  I have looked into this error and it seems that it hasn't been discussed yet - or at least I can't find any information relating. I'm having issues transferring files, usually larger files over a couple of hundred MB. Here is the setup: QNAP 410 as iSCSI Target with multiple LUNs. (CRC is turned on (Data Digest and Header Digest) Server 2003 with iSCSI Initiator version 2.08 - build 3825 (I'm copying files from anothe machine to shares on Server 2003 = into TrueCrypt volume ergo onto the NAS) I have mounted the LUN and formatted it with TrueCrypt using NTFS (Full format, not a quick one). What happens is some files, mainly RAR/Compressed files, appear as if they copy but fail. I've tested this in a number of ways and can repeat the process every time. So I thought to check transfer over iSCSI without TrueCrypt in between, a plain NTFS format - no problem at all. So it would seem TrueCrypt is at least part of the problem here. I haven't tried copying directly from the server yet, I will try that. I also haven't tried it without CRC but fail to see how that would affect this. I will update with my findings later. In the meantime does anyone have any ideas as to what could be wrong? Thanks for your time. Update: I copied a set of files, the ones I was having issues with, to the server then from there I copied those into two places within the TrueCrypt volume (Mounted on the NAS). A seperate directory create in the root of the volume The same initial directory I was using in the first instance Both worked fine. So it now seems clear that this is a link between TrueCrypt, iSCSI and Windows Shares. I say this because I originally setup the whole system using TrueCrypt volume files, not iSCSI. I changed it as it didn't suit my requirements - day wasted as well. While I had this setup though I copied my entire file set to the volume files and all files copied without error - over the network, from a pc, to the server where TrueCrypt had the volume files mounted from the NAS. I didn't bother turning off CRC on the iSCSI system as I highly doubt that is the cause in light of this finding. So any ideas?

  Read the article

• Dynamic allocating of const member structures

  - by Willy

  I've got class which is using plain-only-data struct with const variables and I'm not sure, if I'm allocating these structures in a proper way. It looks more or less like: #include <cstdlib> #include <iostream> using std::cout; using std::endl; struct some_const_struct { const int arg1; const int arg2; }; class which_is_using_above_struct { public: some_const_struct* m_member; const some_const_struct* const m_const_member; public: const some_const_struct& get_member() const { return *m_member; } const some_const_struct& get_const_member() const { return *m_const_member; } void set_member(const int a, const int b) { if(m_member != NULL) { delete m_member; m_member = NULL; } m_member = new some_const_struct((some_const_struct){a, b}); } explicit which_is_using_above_struct(const int a, const int b) : m_const_member(new some_const_struct((const some_const_struct){a, b})) { m_member = NULL; } ~which_is_using_above_struct() { if(m_member != NULL) { delete m_member; } if(m_const_member != NULL) { delete m_const_member; } } }; int main() { which_is_using_above_struct c(1, 2); c.set_member(3, 4); cout << "m_member.arg1 = " << c.get_member().arg1 << endl; cout << "m_member.arg2 = " << c.get_member().arg2 << endl; cout << "m_const_member.arg1 = " << c.get_const_member().arg1 << endl; cout << "m_const_member.arg2 = " << c.get_const_member().arg2 << endl; return 0; } I'm just not quite sure if the statement: m_member = new some_const_struct((some_const_struct){a, b}); doesn't produce unnessesary use of some_const_struct's copy constructor, ergo allocating that struct twice. What do you think? And is it reasonable to make that struct's members const? (they're not supposed to change in their lifetime at all)

  Read the article

• How can I get penetration depth from Minkowski Portal Refinement / Xenocollide?

  - by Raven Dreamer

  I recently got an implementation of Minkowski Portal Refinement (MPR) successfully detecting collision. Even better, my implementation returns a good estimate (local minimum) direction for the minimum penetration depth. So I took a stab at adjusting the algorithm to return the penetration depth in an arbitrary direction, and was modestly successful - my altered method works splendidly for face-edge collision resolution! What it doesn't currently do, is correctly provide the minimum penetration depth for edge-edge scenarios, such as the case on the right: What I perceive to be happening, is that my current method returns the minimum penetration depth to the nearest vertex - which works fine when the collision is actually occurring on the plane of that vertex, but not when the collision happens along an edge. Is there a way I can alter my method to return the penetration depth to the point of collision, rather than the nearest vertex? Here's the method that's supposed to return the minimum penetration distance along a specific direction: public static Vector3 CalcMinDistance(List<Vector3> shape1, List<Vector3> shape2, Vector3 dir) { //holding variables Vector3 n = Vector3.zero; Vector3 swap = Vector3.zero; // v0 = center of Minkowski sum v0 = Vector3.zero; // Avoid case where centers overlap -- any direction is fine in this case //if (v0 == Vector3.zero) return Vector3.zero; //always pass in a valid direction. // v1 = support in direction of origin n = -dir; //get the differnce of the minkowski sum Vector3 v11 = GetSupport(shape1, -n); Vector3 v12 = GetSupport(shape2, n); v1 = v12 - v11; //if the support point is not in the direction of the origin if (v1.Dot(n) <= 0) { //Debug.Log("Could find no points this direction"); return Vector3.zero; } // v2 - support perpendicular to v1,v0 n = v1.Cross(v0); if (n == Vector3.zero) { //v1 and v0 are parallel, which means //the direction leads directly to an endpoint n = v1 - v0; //shortest distance is just n //Debug.Log("2 point return"); return n; } //get the new support point Vector3 v21 = GetSupport(shape1, -n); Vector3 v22 = GetSupport(shape2, n); v2 = v22 - v21; if (v2.Dot(n) <= 0) { //can't reach the origin in this direction, ergo, no collision //Debug.Log("Could not reach edge?"); return Vector2.zero; } // Determine whether origin is on + or - side of plane (v1,v0,v2) //tests linesegments v0v1 and v0v2 n = (v1 - v0).Cross(v2 - v0); float dist = n.Dot(v0); // If the origin is on the - side of the plane, reverse the direction of the plane if (dist > 0) { //swap the winding order of v1 and v2 swap = v1; v1 = v2; v2 = swap; //swap the winding order of v11 and v12 swap = v12; v12 = v11; v11 = swap; //swap the winding order of v11 and v12 swap = v22; v22 = v21; v21 = swap; //and swap the plane normal n = -n; } /// // Phase One: Identify a portal while (true) { // Obtain the support point in a direction perpendicular to the existing plane // Note: This point is guaranteed to lie off the plane Vector3 v31 = GetSupport(shape1, -n); Vector3 v32 = GetSupport(shape2, n); v3 = v32 - v31; if (v3.Dot(n) <= 0) { //can't enclose the origin within our tetrahedron //Debug.Log("Could not reach edge after portal?"); return Vector3.zero; } // If origin is outside (v1,v0,v3), then eliminate v2 and loop if (v1.Cross(v3).Dot(v0) < 0) { //failed to enclose the origin, adjust points; v2 = v3; v21 = v31; v22 = v32; n = (v1 - v0).Cross(v3 - v0); continue; } // If origin is outside (v3,v0,v2), then eliminate v1 and loop if (v3.Cross(v2).Dot(v0) < 0) { //failed to enclose the origin, adjust points; v1 = v3; v11 = v31; v12 = v32; n = (v3 - v0).Cross(v2 - v0); continue; } bool hit = false; /// // Phase Two: Refine the portal int phase2 = 0; // We are now inside of a wedge... while (phase2 < 20) { phase2++; // Compute normal of the wedge face n = (v2 - v1).Cross(v3 - v1); n.Normalize(); // Compute distance from origin to wedge face float d = n.Dot(v1); // If the origin is inside the wedge, we have a hit if (d > 0 ) { //Debug.Log("Do plane test here"); float T = n.Dot(v2) / n.Dot(dir); Vector3 pointInPlane = (dir * T); return pointInPlane; } // Find the support point in the direction of the wedge face Vector3 v41 = GetSupport(shape1, -n); Vector3 v42 = GetSupport(shape2, n); v4 = v42 - v41; float delta = (v4 - v3).Dot(n); float separation = -(v4.Dot(n)); if (delta <= kCollideEpsilon || separation >= 0) { //Debug.Log("Non-convergance detected"); //Debug.Log("Do plane test here"); return Vector3.zero; } // Compute the tetrahedron dividing face (v4,v0,v1) float d1 = v4.Cross(v1).Dot(v0); // Compute the tetrahedron dividing face (v4,v0,v2) float d2 = v4.Cross(v2).Dot(v0); // Compute the tetrahedron dividing face (v4,v0,v3) float d3 = v4.Cross(v3).Dot(v0); if (d1 < 0) { if (d2 < 0) { // Inside d1 & inside d2 ==> eliminate v1 v1 = v4; v11 = v41; v12 = v42; } else { // Inside d1 & outside d2 ==> eliminate v3 v3 = v4; v31 = v41; v32 = v42; } } else { if (d3 < 0) { // Outside d1 & inside d3 ==> eliminate v2 v2 = v4; v21 = v41; v22 = v42; } else { // Outside d1 & outside d3 ==> eliminate v1 v1 = v4; v11 = v41; v12 = v42; } } } return Vector3.zero; } }

  Read the article

• Selling Federal Enterprise Architecture (EA)

  - by TedMcLaughlan

  Selling Federal Enterprise Architecture A taxonomy of subject areas, from which to develop a prioritized marketing and communications plan to evangelize EA activities within and among US Federal Government organizations and constituents. Any and all feedback is appreciated, particularly in developing and extending this discussion as a tool for use – more information and details are also available. "Selling" the discipline of Enterprise Architecture (EA) in the Federal Government (particularly in non-DoD agencies) is difficult, notwithstanding the general availability and use of the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF) for some time now, and the relatively mature use of the reference models in the OMB Capital Planning and Investment (CPIC) cycles. EA in the Federal Government also tends to be a very esoteric and hard to decipher conversation – early apologies to those who agree to continue reading this somewhat lengthy article. Alignment to the FEAF and OMB compliance mandates is long underway across the Federal Departments and Agencies (and visible via tools like PortfolioStat and ITDashboard.gov – but there is still a gap between the top-down compliance directives and enablement programs, and the bottom-up awareness and effective use of EA for either IT investment management or actual mission effectiveness. "EA isn't getting deep enough penetration into programs, components, sub-agencies, etc.", verified a panelist at the most recent EA Government Conference in DC. Newer guidance from OMB may be especially difficult to handle, where bottom-up input can't be accurately aligned, analyzed and reported via standardized EA discipline at the Agency level – for example in addressing the new (for FY13) Exhibit 53D "Agency IT Reductions and Reinvestments" and the information required for "Cloud Computing Alternatives Evaluation" (supporting the new Exhibit 53C, "Agency Cloud Computing Portfolio"). Therefore, EA must be "sold" directly to the communities that matter, from a coordinated, proactive messaging perspective that takes BOTH the Program-level value drivers AND the broader Agency mission and IT maturity context into consideration. Selling EA means persuading others to take additional time and possibly assign additional resources, for a mix of direct and indirect benefits – many of which aren't likely to be realized in the short-term. This means there's probably little current, allocated budget to work with; ergo the challenge of trying to sell an "unfunded mandate". Also, the concept of "Enterprise" in large Departments like Homeland Security tends to cross all kinds of organizational boundaries – as Richard Spires recently indicated by commenting that "...organizational boundaries still trump functional similarities. Most people understand what we're trying to do internally, and at a high level they get it. The problem, of course, is when you get down to them and their system and the fact that you're going to be touching them...there's always that fear factor," Spires said. It is quite clear to the Federal IT Investment community that for EA to meet its objective, understandable, relevant value must be measured and reported using a repeatable method – as described by GAO's recent report "Enterprise Architecture Value Needs To Be Measured and Reported". What's not clear is the method or guidance to sell this value. In fact, the current GAO "Framework for Assessing and Improving Enterprise Architecture Management (Version 2.0)", a.k.a. the "EAMMF", does not include words like "sell", "persuade", "market", etc., except in reference ("within Core Element 19: Organization business owner and CXO representatives are actively engaged in architecture development") to a brief section in the CIO Council's 2001 "Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise Architecture", entitled "3.3.1. Develop an EA Marketing Strategy and Communications Plan." Furthermore, Core Element 19 of the EAMMF is advised to be applied in "Stage 3: Developing Initial EA Versions". This kind of EA sales campaign truly should start much earlier in the maturity progress, i.e. in Stages 0 or 1. So, what are the understandable, relevant benefits (or value) to sell, that can find an agreeable, participatory audience, and can pave the way towards success of a longer-term, funded set of EA mechanisms that can be methodically measured and reported? Pragmatic benefits from a useful EA that can help overcome the fear of change? And how should they be sold? Following is a brief taxonomy (it's a taxonomy, to help organize SME support) of benefit-related subjects that might make the most sense, in creating the messages and organizing an initial "engagement plan" for evangelizing EA "from within". An EA "Sales Taxonomy" of sorts. We're not boiling the ocean here; the subjects that are included are ones that currently appear to be urgently relevant to the current Federal IT Investment landscape. Note that successful dialogue in these topics is directly usable as input or guidance for actually developing early-stage, "Fit-for-Purpose" (a DoDAF term) Enterprise Architecture artifacts, as prescribed by common methods found in most EA methodologies, including FEAF, TOGAF, DoDAF and our own Oracle Enterprise Architecture Framework (OEAF). The taxonomy below is organized by (1) Target Community, (2) Benefit or Value, and (3) EA Program Facet - as in: "Let's talk to (1: Community Member) about how and why (3: EA Facet) the EA program can help with (2: Benefit/Value)". Once the initial discussion targets and subjects are approved (that can be measured and reported), a "marketing and communications plan" can be created. A working example follows the Taxonomy. Enterprise Architecture Sales Taxonomy Draft, Summary Version 1. Community 1.1. Budgeted Programs or Portfolios Communities of Purpose (CoPR) 1.1.1. Program/System Owners (Senior Execs) Creating or Executing Acquisition Plans 1.1.2. Program/System Owners Facing Strategic Change 1.1.2.1. Mandated 1.1.2.2. Expected/Anticipated 1.1.3. Program Managers - Creating Employee Performance Plans 1.1.4. CO/COTRs – Creating Contractor Performance Plans, or evaluating Value Engineering Change Proposals (VECP) 1.2. Governance & Communications Communities of Practice (CoP) 1.2.1. Policy Owners 1.2.1.1. OCFO 1.2.1.1.1. Budget/Procurement Office 1.2.1.1.2. Strategic Planning 1.2.1.2. OCIO 1.2.1.2.1. IT Management 1.2.1.2.2. IT Operations 1.2.1.2.3. Information Assurance (Cyber Security) 1.2.1.2.4. IT Innovation 1.2.1.3. Information-Sharing/ Process Collaboration (i.e. policies and procedures regarding Partners, Agreements) 1.2.2. Governing IT Council/SME Peers (i.e. an "Architects Council") 1.2.2.1. Enterprise Architects (assumes others exist; also assumes EA participants aren't buried solely within the CIO shop) 1.2.2.2. Domain, Enclave, Segment Architects – i.e. the right affinity group for a "shared services" EA structure (per the EAMMF), which may be classified as Federated, Segmented, Service-Oriented, or Extended 1.2.2.3. External Oversight/Constraints 1.2.2.3.1. GAO/OIG & Legal 1.2.2.3.2. Industry Standards 1.2.2.3.3. Official public notification, response 1.2.3. Mission Constituents Participant & Analyst Community of Interest (CoI) 1.2.3.1. Mission Operators/Users 1.2.3.2. Public Constituents 1.2.3.3. Industry Advisory Groups, Stakeholders 1.2.3.4. Media 2. Benefit/Value (Note the actual benefits may not be discretely attributable to EA alone; EA is a very collaborative, cross-cutting discipline.) 2.1. Program Costs – EA enables sound decisions regarding... 2.1.1. Cost Avoidance – a TCO theme 2.1.2. Sequencing – alignment of capability delivery 2.1.3. Budget Instability – a Federal reality 2.2. Investment Capital – EA illuminates new investment resources via... 2.2.1. Value Engineering – contractor-driven cost savings on existing budgets, direct or collateral 2.2.2. Reuse – reuse of investments between programs can result in savings, chargeback models; avoiding duplication 2.2.3. License Refactoring – IT license & support models may not reflect actual or intended usage 2.3. Contextual Knowledge – EA enables informed decisions by revealing... 2.3.1. Common Operating Picture (COP) – i.e. cross-program impacts and synergy, relative to context 2.3.2. Expertise & Skill – who truly should be involved in architectural decisions, both business and IT 2.3.3. Influence – the impact of politics and relationships can be examined 2.3.4. Disruptive Technologies – new technologies may reduce costs or mitigate risk in unanticipated ways 2.3.5. What-If Scenarios – can become much more refined, current, verifiable; basis for Target Architectures 2.4. Mission Performance – EA enables beneficial decision results regarding... 2.4.1. IT Performance and Optimization – towards 100% effective, available resource utilization 2.4.2. IT Stability – towards 100%, real-time uptime 2.4.3. Agility – responding to rapid changes in mission 2.4.4. Outcomes –measures of mission success, KPIs – vs. only "Outputs" 2.4.5. Constraints – appropriate response to constraints 2.4.6. Personnel Performance – better line-of-sight through performance plans to mission outcome 2.5. Mission Risk Mitigation – EA mitigates decision risks in terms of... 2.5.1. Compliance – all the right boxes are checked 2.5.2. Dependencies –cross-agency, segment, government 2.5.3. Transparency – risks, impact and resource utilization are illuminated quickly, comprehensively 2.5.4. Threats and Vulnerabilities – current, realistic awareness and profiles 2.5.5. Consequences – realization of risk can be mapped as a series of consequences, from earlier decisions or new decisions required for current issues 2.5.5.1. Unanticipated – illuminating signals of future or non-symmetric risk; helping to "future-proof" 2.5.5.2. Anticipated – discovering the level of impact that matters 3. EA Program Facet (What parts of the EA can and should be communicated, using business or mission terms?) 3.1. Architecture Models – the visual tools to be created and used 3.1.1. Operating Architecture – the Business Operating Model/Architecture elements of the EA truly drive all other elements, plus expose communication channels 3.1.2. Use Of – how can the EA models be used, and how are they populated, from a reasonable, pragmatic yet compliant perspective? What are the core/minimal models required? What's the relationship of these models, with existing system models? 3.1.3. Scope – what level of granularity within the models, and what level of abstraction across the models, is likely to be most effective and useful? 3.2. Traceability – the maturity, status, completeness of the tools 3.2.1. Status – what in fact is the degree of maturity across the integrated EA model and other relevant governance models, and who may already be benefiting from it? 3.2.2. Visibility – how does the EA visibly and effectively prove IT investment performance goals are being reached, with positive mission outcome? 3.3. Governance – what's the interaction, participation method; how are the tools used? 3.3.1. Contributions – how is the EA program informed, accept submissions, collect data? Who are the experts? 3.3.2. Review – how is the EA validated, against what criteria?  Taxonomy Usage Example:   1. To speak with: a. ...a particular set of System Owners Facing Strategic Change, via mandate (like the "Cloud First" mandate); about... b. ...how the EA program's visible and easily accessible Infrastructure Reference Model (i.e. "IRM" or "TRM"), if updated more completely with current system data, can... c. ...help shed light on ways to mitigate risks and avoid future costs associated with NOT leveraging potentially-available shared services across the enterprise... 2. ....the following Marketing & Communications (Sales) Plan can be constructed: a. Create an easy-to-read "Consequence Model" that illustrates how adoption of a cloud capability (like elastic operational storage) can enable rapid and durable compliance with the mandate – using EA traceability. Traceability might be from the IRM to the ARM (that identifies reusable services invoking the elastic storage), and then to the PRM with performance measures (such as % utilization of purchased storage allocation) included in the OMB Exhibits; and b. Schedule a meeting with the Program Owners, timed during their Acquisition Strategy meetings in response to the mandate, to use the "Consequence Model" for advising them to organize a rapid and relevant RFI solicitation for this cloud capability (regarding alternatives for sourcing elastic operational storage); and c. Schedule a series of short "Discovery" meetings with the system architecture leads (as agreed by the Program Owners), to further populate/validate the "As-Is" models and frame the "To Be" models (via scenarios), to better inform the RFI, obtain the best feedback from the vendor community, and provide potential value for and avoid impact to all other programs and systems. --end example -- Note that communications with the intended audience should take a page out of the standard "Search Engine Optimization" (SEO) playbook, using keywords and phrases relating to "value" and "outcome" vs. "compliance" and "output". Searches in email boxes, internal and external search engines for phrases like "cost avoidance strategies", "mission performance metrics" and "innovation funding" should yield messages and content from the EA team. This targeted, informed, practical sales approach should result in additional buy-in and participation, additional EA information contribution and model validation, development of more SMEs and quick "proof points" (with real-life testing) to bolster the case for EA. The proof point here is a successful, timely procurement that satisfies not only the external mandate and external oversight review, but also meets internal EA compliance/conformance goals and therefore is more transparently useful across the community. In short, if sold effectively, the EA will perform and be recognized. EA won’t therefore be used only for compliance, but also (according to a validated, stated purpose) to directly influence decisions and outcomes. The opinions, views and analysis expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Oracle.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2