my weblog

Everything You Thought You Knew About Learning Is Wrong

2012-02-01T23:36:00.000+08:00

Taking notes during class? Topic-focused study? A consistent learning environment? All are exactly opposite of the best strategies for learning.

I recently had the good fortune to interview Robert Bjork, the director of the UCLA Learning and Forgetting Lab, a distinguished professor of psychology, and a massively renowned expert on packing things in your brain in a way that keeps them from leaking out.

It turns out that everything I thought I knew about learning is wrong.

First, he told me, think about how you attack a pile of study material.

“People tend to try to learn in blocks,” Bjork said. “Mastering one thing before moving on to the next.”

Instead of doing that Bjork recommends interleaving. The strategy suggest that instead of spending an hour working on your tennis serve, you mix in a range of skills like backhands, volleys, overhead smashes, and footwork.

“This creates a sense of difficulty,” Bjork said. “And people tend not to notice the immediate effects of learning.”

Instead of making an appreciable leap forward with your serving ability after a session of focused practice, interleaving forces you to make nearly imperceptible steps forward with many skills. But over time, the sum of these small steps is much greater than the sum of the leaps you would have taken if you’d spent the same amount of time mastering each skill in its turn.

Bjork explains that successful interleaving allows you to “seat” each skill among the others. “If information is studied so that it can be interpreted in relation to other things in memory, learning is much more powerful,” he said. There’s one caveat: Make sure the mini skills you interleave are related in some higher-order way. If you’re trying to learn tennis, you’d want to interleave serves, backhands, volleys, smashes, and footwork — not serves, synchronized swimming, European capitals, and programming in Java.

Similarly, studying in only one location is great as long as you’ll only be required to recall the information in the same location. If you want information to be accessible outside your dorm room, or office, or nook on the second floor of the library, Bjork recommends varying your study location.

Interleaving and varying your study location will help whether you’re mastering math skills, learning French, or trying to become a better ballroom dancer. A somewhat related phenomenon — the spacing effect, which was first described by Hermann Ebbinghaus in 1885 — will also help.

“If you study and then you wait, tests show that the longer you wait, the more you will have forgotten,” Bjork said.

But here’s the cool part: If you study, wait, and then study again, the longer the wait, the more you’ll have learned after this second study session. Bjork explains it this way: “When we access things from our memory, we do more than reveal it’s there. It’s not like a playback. What we retrieve becomes more retrievable in the future. Provided the retrieval succeeds, the more difficult and involved the retrieval, the more beneficial it is.”

Note that there’s a trick implied by “provided the retrieval succeeds.” You should space your study sessions so that the information you learned in the first session remains just barely retrievable. Then, the more you have to work to pull it from the soup of your mind, the more this second study session will reinforce your learning. If you study again too soon, it’s too easy.

Along these lines, Bjork also recommends taking notes just after class, rather than during — forcing yourself to recall a lecture’s information is more effective than simply copying it from a blackboard. You have to work for it. The more you work, the more you learn, and the more you learn, the more awesome you can become.

“Forget about forgetting,” said Bjork. “People tend to think that learning is building up something in your memory and that forgetting is losing the things you built. But in some respects the opposite is true.”

See, once you learn something, you never actually forget it. Do you remember your childhood best friend’s phone number? No? Well, Bjork showed that if you were reminded, you would retain it much more quickly and strongly than if you were asked to memorize a fresh seven-digit number. So this old phone number is not forgotten — it lives somewhere in you — but recall can be a bit tricky. And while we count forgetting as the sworn enemy of learning, in some ways that’s wrong, too. The two live in a kind of symbiosis in which forgetting actually aids recall.

“Because humans have unlimited storage capacity, having total recall would be a mess,” said Bjork. “Imagine you remembered all the phone numbers of all the houses you had ever lived in. When someone asks you your current phone number, you would have to sort it from this long list.” Instead, we forget the old phone numbers, or at least bury them far beneath the ease of recall we gift to our current number. What you thought were sworn enemies are more like distant collaborators.

Source: http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2012/01/everything-about-learning/

Tamron and Tokina join Micro Four Thirds

2012-01-31T21:52:00.001+08:00

Tamron and Tokina have joined the Micro Four Thirds group, meaning all three major third-party lens makers are likely to produce optics for the system. No further details of their intentions have been given. The announcement comes just after Sigma announced its first lenses for both Sony's E-mount and Micro Four Thirds - both lenses that we think make more sense on APS-C than the Micro Four Thirds format. It will be interesting to see whether Tamron and Kenko Tokina develop lenses specifically for the smaller format. Meanwhile high-end video manufacturer Astrodesign has also joined the consortium, and released a Micro Four Thirds mount 4K video camera head.

Sony Tablet S (3G) now available in Singapore

2012-01-31T21:44:00.003+08:00

The 3G model of the Sony Tablet S is now available to consumers in Singapore after launching its wifi version last October. The 16GB 3G model of the Sony Tablet S will be retailing at S$798.

Some of the features of the tablet include:

Vibrant colours

Vivid image quality with Sony’s TruBlack display

Smooth and smart ergonomic design

Built-in infra-red Universal Remote lets you control your media devices with ease

You can “throw” your personal video, music clips or photos to your home entertainment devices with the Sony Tablet S

The 16GB and 32GB WiFi models of the Sony Tablet S were also lowered to S$618 and S$748 respectively. If you are a sony member, they are giving away a ($49.90 worth) casing for the tablet.

Lessons in Life

2012-01-31T21:17:00.001+08:00

Something that I received in my inbox today, and I would like to share with everyone.

My husband is an Engineer by profession, I love him for his steady nature, and I love the warm feeling when I lean against his broad shoulders.

Three years of courtship and now, two years into marriage, I would have to admit, that I am getting tired of it. The reasons of me loving him before, has now transformed into the cause of all my restlessness.

I am a sentimental woman and extremely sensitive when it comes to a relationship and my feelings, I yearn for the romantic moments, like a little girl yearning for candy. My husband, is my complete opposite, his lack of sensitivity, and the inability of bringing romantic moments into our marriage has disheartened me about love.

One day, I finally decided to tell him my decision, that I wanted a divorce.

“Why?” he asked, shocked. “I am tired, there are no reasons for everything in the world!” I answered. He kept silent the whole night, seems to be in deep thought with a lighted cigarette at all times. My feeling of disappointment only increased, here was a man who can’t even express his predicament, what else can I hope from him? And finally he asked me:” What can I do to change your mind?”

Somebody said it right, it’s hard to change a person’s personality, and I guess, I have started losing faith in him. Looking deep into his eyes I slowly answered : “Here is the question, if you can answer and convince my heart, I will change my mind, Let’s say, I want a flower located on the face of a mountain cliff, and we both are sure that picking the flower will cause your death, will you do it for me?” He said :” I will give you your answer tomorrow….” My hopes just sank by listening to his response.

I woke up the next morning to find him gone, and saw a piece of paper with his scratchy handwriting, underneath a milk glass, on the dining table near the front door, that goes…. My dear, “I would not pick that flower for you, but please allow me to explain the reasons further..” This first line was already breaking my heart. I continued reading.

“When you use the computer you always mess up the Software programs, and you cry in front of the screen, I have to save my fingers so that I can help to restore the programs. You always leave the house keys behind, thus I have to save my legs to rush home to open the door for you. You love traveling but always lose your way in a new city, I have to save my eyes to show you the way. You always have the cramps whenever your “good friend” approaches every month, I have to save my palms so that I can calm the cramps in your tummy.

You like to stay indoors, and I worry that you will be infected by infantile autism. I have to save my mouth to tell you jokes and stories to cure your boredom. You always stare at the computer, and that will do nothing good for your eyes, I have to save my eyes so that when we grow old, I can help to clip your nails, and help to remove those annoying white hairs. So I can also hold your hand while strolling down the beach, as you enjoy the sunshine and the beautiful sand… and tell you the color of flowers, just like the color of the glow on your young face… Thus, my dear, unless I am sure that there is someone who loves you more than I do… I could not pick that flower yet, and die.. ”

My tears fell on the letter, and blurred the ink of his handwriting… and as I continue on reading… “Now, that you have finished reading my answer, if you are satisfied, please open the front door for I am standing outside bringing your favorite bread and fresh milk… I rush to pull open the door, and saw his anxious face, clutching tightly with his hands, the milk bottle and loaf of bread….

Now I am very sure that no one will ever love me as much as he does, and I have decided to leave the flower alone…

MORAL LESSON: That’s life, and love. When one is surrounded by love, the feeling of excitement fades away, and one tends to ignore the true love that lies in between the peace and dullness.

Love shows up in all forms, even very small and cheeky forms, it has never been a model, it could be the most dull and boring form.. . flowers, and romantic moments are only used and appear on the surface of the relationship. Under all this, the pillar of true love stands… and that’s our life… Love, not words win arguments.

A Comparison of the Top Four Enterprise-Architecture Methodologies

2012-01-30T23:47:00.002+08:00

Roger Sessions

ObjectWatch, Inc.

Twenty years ago, a new field was born that soon came to be known as enterprise architecture. The field initially began to address two problems:

System complexity—Organizations were spending more and more money building IT systems; and
Poor business alignment—Organizations were finding it more and more difficult to keep those increasingly expensive IT systems aligned with business need.

The bottom line: more cost, less value. These problems, first recognized 20 years ago, have today reached a crisis point. The cost and complexity of IT systems have exponentially increased, while the chances of deriving real value from those systems have dramatically decreased.

Today's bottom line: even more cost, even less value. Large organizations can no longer afford to ignore these problems. The field of enterprise architecture that 20 years ago seemed quaintly quixotic today seems powerfully prophetic.

Many enterprise-architectural methodologies have come and gone in the last 20 years. At this point, perhaps 90 percent of the field use one of these four methodologies:

The Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architectures—Although self-described as a framework, is actually more accurately defined as a taxonomy
The Open Group Architectural Framework (TOGAF)—Although called a framework, is actually more accurately defined as a process
The Federal Enterprise Architecture—Can be viewed as either an implemented enterprise architecture or a proscriptive methodology for creating an enterprise architecture
The Gartner Methodology—Can be best described as an enterprise architectural practice

This white paper discusses these four approaches to enterprise architecture. It does so within the context of a fictional company that is facing some very nonfictional operations problems. These problems include:

IT systems that have become unmanageably complex and increasingly costly to maintain.
IT systems that are hindering the organization's ability to respond to current, and future, market conditions in a timely and cost-effective manner.
Mission-critical information that is consistently out-of-date and/or just plain wrong.
A culture of distrust between the business and technology sides of the organization.

How should this company choose from among these four very different approaches to enterprise architecture? This white paper traces the journey the company is likely to face in using any one of these methodologies.

When examining each of these methodologies in depth, one is struck by the fact that none of these approaches is really complete. Each has strengths in some areas and weaknesses in others.

For many enterprises, none of these methodologies will therefore be a complete solution. For such organizations, this white paper proposes another approach, one that might be called a blended methodology. Choose bits and pieces from each of these methodologies, and modify and merge them according to the specific needs of your organization. This white paper gives an approach to creating such a blended methodology that is a best fit for your organization's needs.

But even a blended methodology will only be as good as an organization's commitment to making changes. This commitment must be driven by the highest level of the organization. The good news is that, with a real commitment to change and a tailored methodology for guiding that change, the 20-year-old promise of enterprise architecture is within reach.

That promise hasn't changed: reducing IT cost and complexity, while increasing business value and effectiveness—or, to put it even more simply, improving your competitiveness in an increasingly competitive world.

Introduction

The year 2007 marks the 20-year anniversary of enterprise architecture. In that time, a number of enterprise-architectural methodologies have come and gone. Today, four dominate the field: the Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architectures, The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF), the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA), and Gartner (formerly, the Meta Framework).

Should you care about a field that is 20 years old? It depends. This field was inaugurated to address two major problems in information technology (IT) that were then already becoming apparent. The first problem was managing the increasing complexity of information-technology systems. The second problem was the increasing difficulty in delivering real business value with those systems.

As you can imagine, these problems are related. The more complex a system, the less likely it is that it will deliver maximum business value. As you better manage complexity, you improve your chances of delivering real business value.

So, should you care about this field? It depends on how you feel about positively affecting your organization's bottom line. If managing system complexity and delivering business value are key priorities for you, you should care about enterprise-architecture methodologies. If you are focused on maintaining, or rebuilding, IT's credibility in your organization, or if you strive to promote the use of IT to maintain a competitive position in your industry, you should continue reading this white paper. If these issues don't concern you, these methodologies have little to offer.

As systems become more complex, they generally require more planning. It is easy to see this in buildings. When Henry David Thoreau built his little cabin on Walden Pond (shown in Figure 1), he embraced simplicity and needed no architects. If you are building New York City (shown in Figure 2), simplicity is out of the question, and you will need many architects.

Figure 1. Thoreau's cabin at Walden Pond, as drawn by Thoreau's sister, Sophia Thoreau

Figure 2. New York City

The relationship between complexity and planning for buildings and cities is similar for information systems. If you are building a simple, single-user, nondistributed system, you might need no architects at all. If you are building an enterprise-wide, mission critical, highly distributed system, you might need a database architect, a solutions architect, an infrastructure architect, a business architect, and an enterprise architect.

This paper is about the methodologies needed to develop the overall architectural vision for an organization. This is the responsibility of theenterprise architect. This is the architect who specializes in the broadest possible view of architecture within the enterprise. This is the architect's architect, the architect who is responsible for coordinating the work of all of the other architects. Do you need such an architect? It all depends on what you are building: Thoreau's cabin or New York City.

Building a large, complex, enterprise-wide information system without an enterprise architect is like trying to build a city without a city planner. Can you build a city without a city planner? Probably. Would you want to live in such a city? Probably not.

Of course, hiring a city planner does not guarantee a livable city; it merely improves your chances. Similarly, having an enterprise architect does not guarantee a successful enterprise architecture. There are many examples of failed enterprise architectures in the world today, and all of them had enterprise architects (probably dozens!). Architectural methodologies can help, but they go only so far. I'll discuss some of the reasons for these failures, and how to avoid them, also in this paper.

Before I get too far into comparing the methodologies that make up the enterprise architect's toolkit, I need to define some terms. This is especially important in an article that is comparing methodologies, because the different methodologies sometimes use similar terms to mean different things.

For example, we have two methodologies that describe themselves as enterprise-architectural frameworks: the Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architectures and The Open Group Architectural Framework (TOGAF). Yet these two methodologies share little in common other than the words enterprise, architecture, and framework.

So, I will start by defining the terms as I will use them in this white paper. Those definitions marked with an asterisk (*) are taken mostly from IEEE-1471-2000 [01], whose definitions I use where they exist and make sense.

architect—One whose responsibility is the design of an architecture and the creation of an architectural description

architectural artifact—A specific document, report, analysis, model, or other tangible that contributes to an architectural description

architectural description*—A collection of products (artifacts) to document an architecture

architectural framework—A skeletal structure that defines suggested architectural artifacts, describes how those artifacts are related to each other, and provides generic definitions for what those artifacts might look like

architectural methodology—A generic term that can describe any structured approach to solving some or all of the problems related to architecture

architectural process—A defined series of actions directed to the goal of producing either an architecture or an architectural description

architectural taxonomy—A methodology for organizing and categorizing architectural artifacts

architecture*—The fundamental organization of a system embodied in its components, their relationships to each other, and to the environment, and the principles guiding its design and evolution

enterprise architecture—An architecture in which the system in question is the whole enterprise, especially the business processes, technologies, and information systems of the enterprise

Now that we have a common understanding of these key terms, I can take you through the history of enterprise-architecture methodologies, discuss the problems these methodologies are trying to solve, and compare the top four methodologies in terms of their approach and their relationship to each other.

A Brief History of Enterprise Architecture

The field of enterprise architecture essentially started in 1987, with the publication in the IBM Systems Journal of an article titled "A Framework for Information Systems Architecture," by J.A. Zachman. In that paper, Zachman laid out both the challenge and the vision of enterprise architectures that would guide the field for the next 20 years. The challenge was to manage the complexity of increasingly distributed systems. As Zachman said:

The cost involved and the success of the business depending increasingly on its information systems require a disciplined approach to the management of those systems. [02]

Zachman's vision was that business value and agility could best be realized by a holistic approach to systems architecture that explicitly looked at every important issue from every important perspective. His multiperspective approach to architecting systems is what Zachman originally described as an information systems architectural framework and soon renamed to be an enterprise-architecture framework.

Zachman was a major influence on one of the earliest attempts by a branch of the U.S. Government, the Department of Defense, to create an enterprise architecture. This attempt was known as the Technical Architecture Framework for Information Management (TAFIM) [03] and was introduced in 1994.

The promise of enterprise architectures, such as TAFIM, to better align technical projects with business need was noticed by no less a body than the U.S. Congress. Most likely influenced by the promised benefits of TAFIM, Congress in 1996 passed a bill known as the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 [04], also known as the Information Technology Management Reform Act, which mandated that all federal agencies take steps to improve the effectiveness of their IT investments. A CIO Council, consisting of CIOs from all major governmental bodies, was created to oversee this effort.

In April 1998, the CIO Council began work on its first major project, the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF). Version 1.1 [05] of this framework was released in September of 1999. This document contained some innovate ideas, such as "segmented architectures"—that is, architectural focus on segmented subsets of the larger enterprise.

Over time, responsibility for federal enterprise architecture moved from the CIO Council to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In 2002, the OMB evolved and renamed the FEAF methodology as the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA). I will describe FEA in greater detail, in the section dedicated to it.

Despite the very significant enterprise-architectural activity in the Federal Government (one could argue that no organization has spent more money attempting to develop an enterprise architecture than the U.S. Government), progress has been slow and success stories are overshadowed by higher-profile failures. In 2004, a full eight years after the Clinger-Cohen Act mandated the use of effective IT planning processes, the General Accounting Office (GAO) reported the following:

Only 20 of 96 agencies examined had established at least the foundation for effective architecture management. Further, while 22 agencies increased in maturity since 2001, 24 agencies decreased in maturity and 47 agencies remained the same. [06]

Since January of 2005, the General Accounting Office (GAO, not to be confused with the OMB) has severely chastised a number of U.S. agencies for failures in their adoption or use of enterprise architecture. A few examples include the FBI [07], the Department of Defense [08], the Department of Homeland Security [09], and NASA [10].

In 1998, four years after TAFIM (remember TAFIM?) was introduced and two years after it became codified as Clinger-Cohen, TAFIM was officially retired by the Department of Defense.

The work done on TAFIM was turned over to The Open Group. They morphed it into a new standard that is today known as The Open Group Architectural Framework—better known by its acronym, TOGAF. I will discuss the TOGAF work in the section dedicated to that topic.

In 2005, about the same time that OMB was becoming the dominant EA force in the public sector, another organization was taking steps to become a dominant force in the private sector. This group was Gartner.

By 2005, Gartner was already one of the most influential organizations specializing in CIO-level consulting. However, in the specific area of enterprise architecture, the best known IT research and advisory group was not Gartner, but Meta Group.

Gartner had struggled to build an enterprise-architecture practice, but never achieved the status of the Meta Group. In 2005, Gartner decided that if they couldn't compete with Meta Group, they would do the next best thing: They would buy it.

Following the purchase of Meta Group, Gartner/Meta spent a year looking at what each company brought to the table as far as enterprise-architecture experience and methodologies. The two companies discussed how best to reconcile their often quite different approaches.

In the end, a fairly simple algorithm was applied: If Meta Group liked it, it was in; if Meta Group didn't like it, it was out. Gartner liked architectural frameworks. The Meta Group liked architectural process. So, frameworks were out; processes were in. I'll discuss this Gartner/Meta process in detail, in the section devoted to Gartner.

Figure 3 summarizes this history with an enterprise-architecture timeline. This brings us up to date in the history of enterprise architecture. Now, let's look more closely at today's main methodologies and introduce a case study that will be used in this white paper.

Figure 3. Enterprise-architecture timeline

Case Study

So that we can compare and contrast the four major approaches to enterprise architectures, I am going to illustrate how each would approach a similar scenario. This fictitious scenario is a composite of several enterprises with which I have worked over the past several years. So, while it is fictitious, it is very realistic. I'll first describe the scenario.

MedAMore is a chain of drug stores. It started as a regional chain in 1960. In 1995, it developed an innovative software system that enabled it to run drug stores very efficiently. It called this system MedAManage, or MAM. MAM incorporated some innovate business ideas, such as patient-relationship management, inventory management, automated insurance billing, and even utility optimization.

MAM consisted of three programs: MAM/Store, which ran on a small computer at a drug store; MAM/Warehouse, which ran on a server in a regional warehouse; and MAM/Home, which ran on a large server at the home office.

These three programs communicated through files that were transferred from one location (for example, a store) to another (for example, a regional warehouse). When reliable communications lines existed, file transfers could occur through FTP. The system was also flexible enough to accommodate transfers through courier, where necessary.

By 2000, MedAMore was doing quite well—in part, because of the cost-cutting moves enabled by the MAM system. MedAMore decided to begin expansion. To do this, it purchased three regional chains. With these purchases, MedAMore extended its reach through the southeast quadrant of the U.S.

By 2002, it was clear that the same software systems that had initially fueled MedAMore's success were now hampering its future. Some of the problems MedAMore was running into were the following:

MAM/Store required regional specializations. For example, different insurance plans needed to be supported in different regions, and these all required changes to the MAM/Store module.
The regional warehouses that had been acquired through acquisition each had different ways of receiving orders from the retail stores and different procedures from ordering supplies from the wholesalers. Each of these differences required changes to the MAM/Warehouse module.
The file-transfer approach to information sharing that had worked so well when MedAMore consisted of 30 drugstores, one regional warehouse, and one home office were turning out to be difficult to coordinate among 200 drugstores, four regional warehouses, two geographic offices, and one home office. Files were often delivered late, sometimes not at all, and occasionally multiple times. This made it difficult for the home office to access reliable, up-to-date financial information, especially in the areas of sales and inventory.

It was clear to MedAMore management that the MAM system needed many enhancements. However, upgrading this system was difficult. Each of the three modules (store, warehouse, and home office) was huge, inefficient, and cumbersome, and each included functionality for everything that each entity might need.

The modules had grown to over 1 million lines of code each. It was difficult to change one function without affecting others. All of the functions accessed a single database, and changes to one record definition could ripple through the system in an unpredictable fashion. Changing even a single line of code required a rebuild of the entire multimillion-line module.

MedAManage had become MedANightmare. Debugging was difficult. Software builds were torturous. Installing new systems was hugely disruptive.

These technical problems soon created internal conflicts within the home office of MedAMore. The business side of MedAMore wanted to acquire two more regional chains, but IT was still struggling to bring the existing acquisitions online.

This resulted in a rapidly growing divide between the business and the technical sides of MedAMore. The business side saw IT as reducing business agility. The technical side saw the business side as making impossible demands and blamed it for refusing to consult IT before entering into acquisition discussions.

The distrust had reached such a point that, by 2005, the CIO was no longer considered part of the executive team of MedAMore. The business side distrusted IT and tried to circumvent it at every opportunity. The technical side built its IT systems with little input from the business folks. Several large and expensive IT initiatives were ignored by the business side and were eventually abandoned.

By 2006, MedAMore was in crisis. It clearly needed to revamp its technical systems to make them easier to specialize for regional requirements. This was going to be an expensive proposition, and MedAMore couldn't afford for the effort to fail.

Just as importantly, MedAMore also had to rebuild its internal relationships. The constant bickering and distrust between business and IT was affecting morale, efficiency, and profitability. A company that only five years earlier was an industry leader in profitability—in large part, because of its innovative use of IT—was now struggling to stay out of the red—in large part, because of the inflexibility of those same IT systems.

Cath, the CEO of MedAMore, desperately needed a solution. At a CEO conference, she heard how many of her peers were using enterprise architectures to build stronger partnerships between their technical and business groups and deliver more cost-effective IT systems that enabled business agility.

Cath decided that this approach merited further investigation. She asked Irma, her CIO, to prepare a recommendation on the use of an enterprise architecture within MedAMore. Irma was impressed with the approach, but recognized that any such initiative needed to be driven from the top and needed to involve the business side from the start.

On Irma's recommendation, Cath called a meeting with Bret, the Vice-President of Business, and Irma. Cath announced that she had decided to create a common enterprise architecture for MedAMore that would unite its technical and business people. This common enterprise architecture would be named MedAMore-Enterprise Architecture, or MAM-EA. After it was completed, MAM-EA would drive all new IT investment and ensure that every dollar invested in IT was delivering the maximum value to the business.

Cath knew that MAM-EA was a bet-the-company decision for MedAMore. The MAM-EA vision had to work. Cath was depending on Bret (the business side) and Irma (the IT side) to make it work.

So, that is the problem. Now, let's see how each of the EA approaches might provide a solution for MedAMore.

The Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architectures

The first thing we need to understand about the Zachman Framework is that it isn't a framework—at least, by my definition of a framework. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, a framework is defined as:

A structure for supporting or enclosing something else, especially a skeletal support used as the basis for something being constructed; An external work platform; a scaffold; A fundamental structure, as for a written work; A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality. [11].

A taxonomy, on the other hand, is defined as:

The classification of organisms in an ordered system that indicates natural relationships; The science, laws, or principles of classification; systematics; Division into ordered groups or categories [12]

The Zachman "Framework" is actually a taxonomy for organizing architectural artifacts (in other words, design documents, specifications, and models) that takes into account both who the artifact targets (for example, business owner and builder) and what particular issue (for example, data and functionality) is being addressed.

As John Zachman retrospectively described his work:

The [Enterprise Architecture] Framework as it applies to Enterprises is simply a logical structure for classifying and organizing the descriptive representations of an Enterprise that are significant to the management of the Enterprise, as well as to the development of the Enterprise's systems. [13]

Many proponents of the Zachman Framework see it as cross-disciplinary, with influence extending far beyond IT. One popular book on Zachman, for example, says:

...in due course, you will discover that the Framework exists in everything you do, not only IT projects. When you thoroughly understand the Framework, you can become more effective in everything you do. This means everything. This statement is not made lightly. [14]

John Zachman himself told me, in an interview that I recently conducted with him:

...the Framework schema has been around for thousands of years and I am sure it will be around for a few more thousands of years. What changes is our understanding of it and how to use it for Enterprise engineering and manufacturing. [15]

Zachman originally explained his IT taxonomy using the building industry as an analogy. In that industry, architectural artifacts are implicitly organized using a two-dimensional organization. One dimension is the various "players in the game." For a physical building, some of these players are the owner (who is paying for the project), the builder (who is coordinating the overall construction), and a zoning board (who is ensuring that construction follows local building regulations).

A building architect prepares different artifacts for each of these players. Every player demands complete information, but what constitutes completeness differs for the different players. The owner is interested in a complete description of the functionality and aesthetics of the building. The builder is interested in a complete description of the materials and construction process. The owner doesn't care about the placement of studs in the walls. The builder doesn't care how the bedroom windows line up with the morning sun.

As Zachman said in his original article:

...each of the architectural representations differs from the others in essence, not merely in level of detail. [16]

The second dimension for architectural artifact organization is the descriptive focus of the artifact: the what, how, where, who, when, and why of the project. This dimension is independent of the first. Both the builder and the owner need to know what, but the owner's need to know what is different from the builder's need to know what. What what is what depends on who is asking the question.

In his first paper and Zachman's subsequent elaboration in 1992 [17], Zachman proposed that there are six descriptive foci (data, function, network, people, time, and motivation) and six player perspectives (planner, owner, designer, builder, subcontractor, and enterprise.) These two dimensions can be arranged in a grid, as shown in Figure 4.

From the business owner's perspective, "data" means business entities. This can include information about the entities themselves, such as customers and products, or information about relationships between those entities, such as demographic groups and inventories. If you are talking to a business owner about data, this is the language you should use.

From the perspective of the person implementing the database, "data" does not mean business entities, but rows and columns organized into tables and linked together by mathematical joins and projections. If you are talking to a database designer about data, don't talk about customer demographic groups, but talk about third-normal relational tables.

It's not that one of these perspectives is better than the other or more detailed than the other or of a higher priority than the other. Both of these perspectives on data are critical to a holistic understanding of the system's architecture. As Zachman said:

We are having difficulties communicating with one another about information systems architecture, because a set of architectural representations exists, instead of a single architecture. One is not right and another wrong. The architectures are different. They are additive and complementary. There are reasons for electing to expend the resources for developing each architectural representation. And there are risks associated with not developing any one of the architectural representations. [18]

I discussed the historical importance of the Zachman Framework in the history section. Here, I will discuss the actual framework itself and how it could be used to help build MAM-EA, the problem proposed in the case-study section.

As I mentioned earlier, the Zachman Framework consists of six functional foci, each considered from the perspective of a major player. The Zachman Framework as it is portrayed today is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Zachman grid

As you can see from Figure 4, there are 36 intersecting cells in a Zachman grid—one for each meeting point between a player's perspective (for example, business owner) and a descriptive focus (for example, data.). As we move horizontally (for example, left to right) in the grid, we see different descriptions of the system—all from the same player's perspective. As we move vertically in the grid (for example, top to bottom), we see a single focus, but change the player from whose perspective we are viewing that focus.

There are three suggestions of the Zachman grid that can help MedAMore in the development of MAM-EA.

The first suggestion of the Zachman taxonomy is that every architectural artifact should live in one and only one cell. There should be no ambiguity about where a particular artifact lives. If it is not clear in which cell a particular artifact lives, there is most likely a problem with the artifact itself.

As MedAMore begins accumulating artifacts in the development of MAM-EA, it can use the Zachman grid to clarify the focus of each of these artifacts. For example, artifacts relating to a service-oriented architecture live mostly in the third row (designer's perspective). They generally will not be of interest to the business owner (Bret, in the MedAMore case study).

The second suggestion of the Zachman taxonomy is that an architecture can be considered a complete architecture only when every cell in that architecture is complete. A cell is complete when it contains sufficient artifacts to fully define the system for one specific player looking at one specific descriptive focus.

When every cell is populated with appropriate artifacts, there is a sufficient amount of detail to fully describe the system from the perspective of every player (what we might today call a stakeholder) looking at the system from every possible angle (descriptive focus). So, MedAMore can use the Zachman grid to ensure that appropriate discussions are occurring between all of the important stakeholders of MAM-EA.

The third suggestion of the Zachman grid is that cells in columns should be related to each other. Consider, for example, the data column (the first column) of the Zachman grid. From the business owner's (Bret's) perspective, data is information about the business. From the database administrator's perspective, data is rows and columns in the database.

While the business owner thinks about data quite differently from the database administrator, there should be some relationship between these perspectives. Somebody should be able to follow Bret's business requirements and show that the database design is, in fact, being driven by those requirements. If Bret has requirements that are not traceable down to the database design, we must ask if the business needs will be met by this architecture. On the other hand, it there are database-design elements that do not trace back to business requirements, we might ask if we have included unnecessary design at the database level.

So, we can see five ways in which the Zachman grid can help in the development of MAM-EA. It can help:

Ensure that every stakeholder's perspective has been considered for every descriptive focal point.
Improve the MAM-EA artifacts themselves by sharpening each of their focus points to one particular concern for one particular audience.
Ensure that all of Bret's business requirements can be traced down to some technical implementation.
Convince Bret that Irma's technical team isn't planning on building a bunch of useless functionality.
Convince Irma that the business folks are including her IT folks in their planning.

But Zachman by itself is not a complete solution for MedAMore. There are far too many issues that will be critical to MAM-EA's success that Zachman does not address. Zachman does not give us a step-by-step process for creating a new architecture. Zachman doesn't even give us much help in deciding if the future architecture we are creating is the best architecture possible. For that matter, Zachman doesn't even give us an approach to show a need for a future architecture. For these and other issues, we are going to need to look at other methodologies.

The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF)

The Open Group Architecture Framework is best known by its acronym, TOGAF. TOGAF is owned by The Open Group [19]. TOGAF's view of an enterprise architecture is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5. TOGAF's enterprise architecture

As shown in the figure, TOGAF divides an enterprise architecture into four categories, as follows:

Business architecture—Describes the processes the business uses to meet its goals
Application architecture—Describes how specific applications are designed and how they interact with each other
Data architecture—Describes how the enterprise datastores are organized and accessed
Technical architecture—Describes the hardware and software infrastructure that supports applications and their interactions

TOGAF describes itself as a "framework," but the most important part of TOGAF is the Architecture Development Method, better known as ADM. ADM is a recipe for creating architecture. A recipe can be categorized as a process. Given that ADM is the most visible part of TOGAF, I categorize TOGAF overall as an architectural process, instead of either an architectural framework (as The Open Group describes TOGAF) or amethodology (as it describes ADM).

Viewed as an architectural process, TOGAF complements Zachman—which, recall, I categorized as an architectural taxonomy. Zachman tells you how to categorize your artifacts. TOGAF gives you a process for creating them.

TOGAF views the world of enterprise architecture as a continuum of architectures, ranging from highly generic to highly specific. It calls this continuum the Enterprise Continuum. It views the process of creating a specific enterprise architecture, such as MAM-EA, as moving from the generic to the specific. TOGAF's ADM provides a process for driving this movement from the generic to the specific.

TOGAF calls most generic architectures Foundation Architectures. These are architectural principles that can, theoretically, be used by any IT organization in the universe.

TOGAF calls the next level of specificity Common Systems Architectures. These are principles that one would expect to see in many—but, perhaps, not all—types of enterprises.

TOGAF calls the next level of specificity Industry Architectures. These are principles that are specific across many enterprises that are part of the same domain—such as, in our MedAMore case study, all pharmaceutical enterprises.

TOGAF calls the most specific level the Organizational Architectures. These are the architectures that are specific to a given enterprise, such as MedAMore.

Figure 6 shows the relationship between the Enterprise Continuum and the Architecture Development Method (ADM).

Figure 6. The TOGAF Enterprise Continuum

TOGAF defines the various knowledge bases that live in the Foundation Architecture. Two that you might run into are the Technical Reference Model (TRM) and the Standards Information Base (SIB). The TRM is a suggested description of a generic IT architecture. The SIB is a collection of standards and pseudo-standards that The Open Group recommends that you consider in building an IT architecture.

TOGAF presents both the TRM and the SIB as suggestions; neither is required. In my view, both the TRM and the SIB are flawed for the same reason: They are biased toward application portability, at the expense of application interoperability and application autonomy. I consider this an outdated view of technical architectures.

For an organization such as MedAMore, TOGAF largely boils down to the Architecture Development Method (ADM). Individuals within MedAMore will be exposed to the Enterprise Continuum, the SIB, and the TRM (as well as a few other TOGAF features), which is why I discussed them. But the day-to-day experience of creating an enterprise architecture will be driven by the ADM, a high-level view of which is shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7. The TOGAF Architecture Development Method (ADM)

As shown in Figure 7, the TOGAF ADM consists of eight phases that are cycled through after an initial "priming of the pump." I'll take you through these phases as they could be applied to the MedAMore case study. But, before MedAMore can start the ADM, it needs to gain some experience with TOGAF. MedAMore will have two choices on how it can get this experience.

First, MedAMore can train itself in TOGAF. MedAMore can download the TOGAF documentation [20]—which describes all of TOGAF, including the ADM, in considerable detail. It can purchase books on TOGAF [21]. There is probably more free and inexpensive available information about TOGAF than about all other architectural methodologies combined.

Second, MedAMore can buy expertise in TOGAF. There are consultants who specialize in TOGAF and have earned Open Group certification [22]. Because MedAMore wants to minimize any chances of failure, it has chosen to call in a TOGAF consultant. MedAMore has brought in Teri, an Open Group–certified TOGAF architect. Remember that the other players at MedAMore are Cath, the CEO of MedAMore; Bret, the Business VP; and Irma, the CIO.

In the Preliminary Phase, Teri meets with the major players at MedAMore to introduce the TOGAF process. Her three goals in the preliminary phase are to:

Make sure everybody is comfortable with the process.
Modify the TOGAF process, as necessary, to fit within the MedAMore culture.
Set up the governance system that will oversee future architectural work at MedAMore.

Teri will work closely with Bret to understand the business philosophy, business models, and strategic drivers of MedAMore. She will work closely with Irma to define the architectural principles that drive technological architectures at MedAMore and document those principles using the TOGAF-recommended format.

In some organizations, achieving buy-in on the need for an enterprise architecture could be very difficult. This is especially true when the effort is driven from the IT organization, and even more so when there is a history of discord between the business and the technical sides of the organization. MedAMore does have this history of animosity. However, it has another fact going for it from which Teri should take heart: The effort is not driven by IT, but is driven by Cath, the CEO. This gives the project high visibility and creates a positive incentive for cooperation from all sides.

As soon as Teri and MedAMore have completed the Preliminary Phase, they are ready to start Phase A. Phase A begins, at least in theory, with a Request for Architecture Work from some organization within MedAMore. This document includes the business reasons for the request, budget and personnel information, and any constraints that need to be considered. Because MedAMore has never done a Request for Architecture Work, Teri will probably need to work with the sponsoring organization in creating such a request.

As soon as the Request for Architecture Work (or some equivalent) has been received, Teri (the TOGAF consultant) starts MedAMore on Phase A. In Phase A, Teri will ensure that the project has the necessary support within MedAMore, define the scope of the project, identify constraints, document the business requirements, and establish high-level definitions for both the baseline (starting) architecture and target (desired) architecture.

These baseline and target definitions will include high-level definitions on all four of the EA sub-architectures shown back in Figure 5—namely, business, technology, data, and application architectures.

The culmination of Phase A will be a Statement of Architecture Work, which must be approved by the various stakeholders before the next phase of the ADM begins. The output of this phase is to create an architectural vision for the first pass through the ADM cycle. Teri will guide MedAMore into choosing the project, validating the project against the architectural principles established in the Preliminary Phase, and ensure that the appropriate stakeholders have been identified and their issues have been addressed.

The Architectural Vision created in Phase A will be the main input into Phase B. Teri's goal in Phase B is to create a detailed baseline and target business architecture and perform a full analysis of the gaps between them. She will work primarily with Bret (or Bret's team) to achieve this.

Phase B is quite involved—involving business modeling, highly detailed business analysis, and technical-requirements documentation. A successful Phase B requires input from many stakeholders. The major outputs will be a detailed description of the baseline and target business objectives, and gap descriptions of the business architecture.

Phase C does for the information-systems architecture what Phase B does for the business architecture. In this phase, Teri works primarily with Irma (or her team). TOGAF defines nine specific steps, each with multiple sub-steps:

Develop baseline data-architecture description
Review and validate principles, reference models, viewpoints, and tools
Create architecture models, including logical data models, data-management process models, and relationship models that map business functions to CRUD (Create, Read, Update, Delete) data operations
Select data-architecture building blocks
Conduct formal checkpoint reviews of the architecture model and building blocks with stakeholders
Review qualitative criteria (for example, performance, reliability, security, integrity)
Complete data architecture
Conduct checkpoint/impact analysis
Perform gap analysis

The most important deliverable from this phase will be the Target Information and Applications Architecture.

Phase D completes the technical architecture—the infrastructure necessary to support the proposed new architecture. This phase is completed mostly by engaging with Irma's technical team.

Phase E evaluates the various implementation possibilities, identifies the major implementation projects that might be undertaken, and evaluates the business opportunity associated with each. The TOGAF standard recommends that Teri's first pass at Phase E "focus on projects that will deliver short-term payoffs and so create an impetus for proceeding with longer-term projects."

This is good advice in any architectural methodology. Therefore, Teri should be looking for projects that can be completed as cheaply as possible, while delivering the highest perceived value. A good starting place to look for such projects is the organizational pain-points that initially convinced Cath (the MedAMore CEO) to adopt an enterprise architectural-based strategy in the first place. These pain-points, described earlier, included difficulties in completing regional/warehouse specialization and unreliability in data sharing.

Phase F is closely related to Phase E. In this phase, Teri works with MedAMore's governance body to sort the projects identified in Phase E into priority order that include not only the cost and benefits (identified in Phase E), but also the risk factors.

In Phase G, Teri takes the prioritized list of projects and creates architectural specifications for the implementation projects. These specifications will include acceptance criteria and lists of risks and issues.

The final phase is H. In this phase, Teri modifies the architectural change-management process with any new artifacts created in this last iteration and with new information that becomes available.

Teri is then ready to start the cycle again. One of the goals from the first cycle should be information transfer, so that Teri's services are required less and less as more and more iterations of the cycle are completed.

Much of the results of the TOGAF process will be determined as much by the Teri/MedAMore relationship as it will by the TOGAF specification itself. TOGAF is meant to be highly adaptable, and details for the various architectural artifacts is sparse. As one book on TOGAF says:

TOGAF is not wholly specific with respect to generated documents; in fact, it provides very little in the way of prescriptive document templates—merely guidelines for inputs and outputs. [23]

The TOGAF specification is also flexible with respect to the phases. As the specification itself says:

One of the tasks before applying the ADM is to review its components for applicability, and then tailor them as appropriate to the circumstances of the individual enterprise. This activity might well produce an "enterprise-specific" ADM. [24]

TOGAF allows phases to be done incompletely, skipped, combined, reordered, or reshaped to fit the needs of the situation. So, it should be no surprise if two different TOGAF-certified consultants end up using two very different processes—even when working with the same organization.

TOGAF is even more flexible about the actual generated architecture. In fact, TOGAF is, to a surprising degree, "architecture-agnostic". The final architecture might be good, bad, or indifferent. TOGAF merely describes how to generate an enterprise architecture, not necessarily how to generate a good enterprise architecture. For this, you are dependent on the experience of your staff and/or TOGAF consultant. People adopting TOGAF in the hopes of acquiring a magic bullet will be sorely disappointed (as they will be with any of the methodologies).

Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA)

The Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) is the latest attempt by the federal government to unite its myriad agencies and functions under a single common and ubiquitous enterprise architecture. FEA is still in its infancy, as most of the major pieces have been available only since 2006. However, as I discussed in the history section, it has a long tradition behind it and, if nothing else, has many failures from which it has hopefully learned some valuable lessons.

FEA is the most complete of all the methodologies discussed so far. It has both a comprehensive taxonomy, like Zachman, and an architectural process, like TOGAF. FEA can be viewed as either a methodology for creating an enterprise architecture or the result of applying that process to a particular enterprise—namely, the U.S. Government. I will be looking at FEA from the methodology perspective. My particular interest here is how we can apply the FEA methodology to private enterprises.

Most writers describe FEA as simply consisting of five reference models, one each for performance: business, service, components, technical, and data. It is true that FEA has these five references models, but there is much more to FEA than just the reference models. A full treatment of FEA needs to include all of the following:

A perspective on how enterprise architectures should be viewed (the segment model, that I will describe shortly)
A set of reference models for describing different perspectives of the enterprise architecture (the five models, mentioned earlier)
A process for creating an enterprise architecture
A transitional process for migrating from a pre-EA to a post-EA paradigm
A taxonomy for cataloging assets that fall within the purview of the enterprise architecture
An approach to measuring the success of using the enterprise architecture to drive business value

You can see that the FEA is about much more than models. It includes everything necessary to build an enterprise architecture for probably the most complex organization on earth: the U.S. Government. As the FEA-Program Management Office (FEAPMO) says, FEA, taken in toto, provides:

...a common language and framework to describe and analyze IT investments, enhance collaboration and ultimately transform the Federal government into a citizen-centered, results-oriented, and market-based organization as set forth in the President's Management Agenda. [25].

While it might be a stretch to imagine that anything short of divine intervention could "transform the Federal government into a citizen-centered, results-oriented, and market-based organization," there is at least hope that some of the FEA methodology could help our beleaguered MedAMore corporation deal with its much more mundane problems. So, let's take a look at what FEA has to offer.

The FEA Perspective on EA

The FEA Perspective on EA is that an enterprise is built of segments, an idea first introduced by FEAF [26]. A segment is a major line-of-business functionality, such as human resources. There are two types of segments: core mission-area segments and business-services segments.

A core mission-area segment is one that is central to the mission or purpose of a particular political boundary within the enterprise. For example, in the Health and Human Services (HHS) agency of the federal government, health is a core mission-area segment.

A business-services segment is one that is foundational to most, if not all, political organizations. For example, financial management is a business-services segment that is required by all federal agencies.

Another type of enterprise-architecture asset is an enterprise service. An enterprise service is a well-defined function that spans political boundaries. An example of an enterprise service is security management. Security management is a service that works in a unified manner across the whole swath of the enterprise.

The difference between enterprise services and segments, especially business-service segments, is confusing. Both are shared across the entire enterprise. The difference is that business-service segments have a scope that encompasses only a single political organization. Enterprise services have a scope that encompasses the entire enterprise.

In the federal government, for example, both HHS and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) use the human resources business-service segment. However, the people who are managed by human resources are a different group for HHS from what they are for the EPA.

Both HHS and the EPA also use the security management enterprise service. But the security credentials that are managed by the security-management service are not specific to either of those agencies. Security credentials are managed effectively only when they are managed at the scope of the enterprise.

Resist the temptation to equate either segments or services with services, as in service-oriented architectures. There are two reasons such a comparison would be flawed. Firstly, enterprise services, business-service segments, and core mission-area segments are all much broader in focus than services found in service-oriented architectures. Secondly, segments are an organizational unit for an enterprise architecture, whereas services are an organizational unit for technical implementations. As organizational units for an enterprise architecture, their depth includes not just the technical, but also the business and the data architectures.

One final note about segments: Although segments function at the political (that is, agency) level, they are defined at the enterprise (that is, government) level. Enterprise services, of course, both function and are defined at the enterprise level.

The fact that segments are defined globally facilitates their reuse across political boundaries. One can map out the usage of segments across the political boundaries of the enterprise, then use that map to seek opportunities for architectural reuse. Figure 8, for example, shows a segment map of the federal government from the FEA Practice Guide [27]. As you can see, there are many segments (the vertical columns) that are used in multiple agencies, and any or all of these are good candidates for sharing.

Figure 8. Segment map of the federal government

FEA Reference Models

The five FEA reference models are all about establishing common languages. The goal here is to facilitate communication, cooperation, and collaboration across political boundaries. According to the FEAPMO:

The FEA consists of a set of interrelated "reference models" designed to facilitate cross-agency analysis and the identification of duplicative investments, gaps, and opportunities for collaboration within and across agencies. Collectively, the reference models [compose] a framework for describing important elements of the FEA in a common and consistent way. [28]

Why do we need a common language? Consider this exchange:

James: Do you have a torch I can borrow?

Roger: No, I'm afraid not.

James: Do you know where I can get one?

Roger: The hardware store in town should have one.

So, James goes out to the hardware store and buys himself a torch. He returns.

Roger: Did you get your torch?

James: Yes, here it is.

Roger: That's not a torch! That's a flashlight. Why didn't you say so? I have one you could have borrowed.

James: Well, why didn't you say so?

The problem, of course, is that James comes from England, where what I call a flashlight they call a torch. And when I hear torch, I think of a blowtorch. Although we both speak English, we don't necessarily speak the same English. The result is that James goes out and unnecessarily spends money on something that I could have lent him.

This is exactly the problem that the FEA Reference Models are trying to solve on a much larger scale. Suppose the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) decides it needs a demographics system to track taxpayer data. They ask around to see if anybody has one they can modify for their purposes. Nobody does.

Little do they know that, right next door, the Government Printing Office (GPO) has a perfectly good demographics system that is almost exactly what the IRS needs. They just happen to call it a customer-analytics system.

So, the IRS goes out and builds its system from scratch, instead of just modifying the one already built (and paid for) by the GPO. And, in doing so, the IRS will waste considerably more money than James spent on his unnecessary flashlight.

This, in a nutshell, is the goal of the five FEA reference models: to give standard terms and definitions for the domains of enterprise architecture and, thereby, facilitate collaboration and sharing across the federal government. The five reference models are as follows:

The Business Reference Model (BRM) gives a business view of the various functions of the federal government. For example, the BRM defines a standard business capability called water resource management that is a subfunction of natural resources that is considered aline-of-business of the broader services for citizens business area. [29]
The Components Reference Model (CRM) gives a more IT view of systems that can support business functionality. For example, the CRM defines a customer-analytics system that I described earlier in the hypothetical interchange between the IRS and the GPO. [30]
The Technical Reference Model (TRM) defines the various technologies and standards that can be used in building IT systems. For example, the TRM defines HTTP as a protocol that is a subset of a service transport that is a subset of service access and delivery. [31]
The Data Reference Model (DRM) defines standard ways of describing data. For example, the DRM defines an entity as something thatcontains attributes and participates in relationships. [32]
The Performance Reference Model (PRM) defines standard ways of describing the value delivered by enterprise architectures. For example, the PRM describes quality as a technology measurement area that is defined as "the extent to which technology satisfies functionality or capability requirements." [33]

FEA Process

The FEA Process is primarily focused on creating a segment architecture for a subset of the overall enterprise (in FEA's case, the enterprise is the federal government and the subset is a governmental agency) and is described in the FEA Practice Guidance [34]. I discussed the FEA vision on enterprise segments earlier. The overall segment-architecture development process is (at a very high level) as follows:

Step 1: Architectural Analysis—Define a simple and concise vision for the segment, and relate it back to the organizational plan.
Step 2: Architectural Definition—Define the desired architectural state of the segment, document the performance goals, consider design alternatives, and develop an enterprise architecture for the segment, including business, data, services, and technology architectures.
Step 3: Investment and Funding Strategy—Consider how the project will be funded.
Step 4: Program-Management Plan and Execute Projects—Create a plan for managing and executing the project, including milestones and performance measures that will assess project success.

FEA Success Measurement

The FEA framework for measuring organizational success in using enterprise architecture is defined in the Federal Enterprise Architecture Program EA Assessment Framework 2.1 [35]. Federal agencies are rated on their overall maturity levels in three main categories:

Architectural completion—Maturity level of the architecture itself
Architectural use—How effectively the agency uses its architecture to drive decision-making
Architectural results—The benefits being realized by the use of the architecture

OMB assigns each agency a success rating, based on its scores in each category and a cumulative score, as follows:

Green—The agency rates quite well in the completion area (it has a quite mature enterprise architecture). It also rates well in both theuse area (it is effectively using that enterprise architecture to drive ongoing strategy) and the results area (the usage of that architecture is driving business value).
Yellow—The agency rates quite well in the completion area. It also rates well in either the use area or the results area.
Red—The agency either does not have a completed architecture and/or is not effectively using that architecture.

The framework is interesting beyond the confines of the public sector. The category ratings can be fruitfully adapted by many enterprises to assess the maturity level of their own architectural efforts. Figure 9, for example, shows my own interpretation of the OMB maturity rankings for architectural completion, as I adapt them for the private sector. Similar adaptations can be created for architectural usage andarchitectural results.

Figure 9. OMB ranking of architectural completion, adapted for private sector by author (Roger Sessions)

FEA Applied to MedAMore

Now that I have taken you through the FEA approach, let's see what this might mean to MedAMore. Let's assume that Cath (MedAMore's CEO) has heard about FEA and how it is promising to streamline the federal government. If it can do this for the federal government, she reasons, surely it can do this for her company.

Cath hires a consultant, Fred, who is an expert on FEA (if such a thing can be said to exist for a methodology that is, at the time of this writing, less than a year old!). Fred's job is to show MedAMore how to do FEA—of course, not the real FEA, but FEA as it might be applied to the private sector. Cath introduces Fred to Bret (the business VP) and Irma (the CIO), and tells them to build her anMEA—FEA adapted for MedAMore.

Keep in mind that Cath has taken quite a risk. No other company to date has attempted to apply FEA to the private sector; and even the experience of using FEA within the public sector is nominal, at best.

The first thing that Fred will want to do is build enthusiasm for MEA. Keep in mind that he is coming into an organization in which the business folks barely speak to IT folks. If MEA is going to succeed, it needs to transform not only processes, but people. He will want to create a series of seminars explaining the value of the soon-to-be-defined MEA and how MEA will benefit not only MedAMore as a whole, but the individual units specifically.

Fred will next build a governance structure—MedAMore's equivalent to FEAPMO. I'll call this group MEAPMO. MEAPMO will own MEA, including the processes, the models, and the architecture itself.

The next thing that Fred will likely do is create reference models that can be used by all of the organizations across MedAMore. The five reference models from FEA can serve as a starting point. Some, such as the Technical Reference Model, might be usable with few modifications. Others, such as the Business Reference Model, will require extensive renovation. He shouldn't do these in excruciating detail, but create starting points and build them up as MEA evolves.

Next, Fred will probably want to create a description of the segment architecture as it applies to MedAMore. Note that he will not be doing a complete segment architecture—just a high-level description. The actual process of completing the architecture will be a constantly evolving project.

By this point, a lot of work will have been done with few results. Fred will probably want to take a first pass at a segment-architecture process. FEA's process will be a good starting point, but will require specialization to MedAMore at the detail level (such as who the team members are and what form the generated artifacts should take).

Now, Fred will test-drive the process with the first segment delivery. He will need to build a team, and then lead this team in analyzing and prioritizing the segments—mapping them to business value, determining their architectural options, delivering the work, and, perhaps most importantly, measuring the results. These measurements will be critical in building momentum for future work.

Soon after completing the first segment, Fred might decide that it is time to measure the progress of the different groups in MedAMore in using MEA effectively. To do so, Fred needs a yardstick to measure the success of the different groups within MedAMore in driving business value with MEA. Fred thus leads MEAPMO in building a MedAMore equivalent to the Federal Enterprise Architecture Program EA Assessment Framework [35]. This yardstick will be Cath's main tool for ensuring that both the different groups are taking MEA seriously and her investment is paying off.

And, finally, after Fred has completed this process, he will start the process again. Each iteration will result in new segments being delivered, more business value being generated, and more substance being added to the MEA methodology. At least, this is the theory. As I said earlier, with MEA, we are working at the bleeding edge.

Gartner

So far, I have written about three different methodologies that come together under the banner of enterprise architectures. This last methodology is a little different. It isn't a taxonomy (like Zachman), a process (like TOGAF), or a complete methodology (like FEA). Instead, it is what I define as a practice. It is the enterprise-architecture practice of one of the best known IT research and consulting organizations in the world: Gartner.

Let me spend a moment exploring my use of the word practice. I use the word "practice" much like I would to describe a physician's practice. A physician—say, Dr. Pérez—does not diagnose a disease by studying taxonomies, although taxonomies do help him communicate to other healthcare providers. He does not diagnose a disease by following a process, although he might go through an informal process in his head. He diagnoses a disease by applying his practice skills. These practice skills include his experience, training, and ongoing relationships with his colleagues.

How do you choose a physician? Do you grill candidates on how well they know the taxonomy of medicine? Do you sit candidates down and ask for a detailed description of the methodology each follows to diagnose illness? Probably not. You might ask your friends, but they probably only know a limited pool of candidates.

One approach to choosing a physician is to go to a well-known institution (a hospital or medical school) and choose from among their staff. In this approach, you are counting on the institution to choose highly qualified physicians and to have developed a community that encourages collaboration and best practices.

Does that institution insist on a rigid methodology for its physicians to follow? Probably not. Even if it does, it is not your primary concern. You are not even concerned with who the physicians in the institution are—although, in time, that will be of more interest to you. Your initial concern is only the reputation of the institution.

This is very similar to the Gartner approach to enterprise architecture. You don't bring in Gartner because they do or don't use TOGAF. You don't go to Gartner because they do or don't follow Zachman's taxonomy. You go to Gartner because they are well-known in their field. You assume both that they hire well-qualified specialists and that they have developed a community that encourages collaboration and best practice.

If you are a Gartner customer and you check the Garner library for research notes describing their enterprise-architecture practice, you can find many such documents. For example, there is "Gartner Enterprise Architecture Process: Evolution 2005" [36] and "Gartner Enterprise Architecture Framework: Evolution 2005" [37]. However, these documents contain little descriptive information and, in any case, are dated in the late-2005 timeframe. Gartner contends that these best practices are timeless, and they continue to augment them as appropriate. The current Gartner methodology was not solidified until probably April of 2006, after the Gartner/Meta merger that I described in the history section.

The best summation of the Gartner practice that I have heard is the following:

Architecture is a verb, not a noun.

What does it mean to say that architecture is a verb, not a noun? It means that it is the ongoing process of creating, maintaining, and, especially, leveraging an enterprise architecture that gives an enterprise architecture its vitality. An architecture that is just a bunch of stiff artifacts that sit in a corner gathering dust is useless, regardless of how sophisticated your taxonomy is for categorizing those artifacts or how brilliant your process is that guided their development.

Gartner believes that enterprise architecture is about bringing together three constituents: business owners, information specialists, the technology implementers. If you can bring these three groups together and unify them behind a common vision that drives business value, you have succeeded; if not, you have failed. Success is measured in pragmatic terms, such as driving profitability, not by checking off items on a process matrix.

Gartner believes that the enterprise architectures must start with where an organization is going, not with where it is. If we are going to clean house, we don't need to exhaustively document everything we are throwing out. Let's focus our energy on what we want to end up with. As soon as we know our goal, we can see how what we have relates to that goal.

Gartner recommends that an organization begin by telling the story of where its strategic direction is heading and what the business drivers are to which it is responding. Gartner will want this story in plain language, without worrying about prescribed documentation standards, acronyms, or techno-babble. The only goal is making sure that everybody understands and shares a single vision.

Most organizations are facing major changes in their business processes. The process of creating an enterprise-architecture vision is the organization's opportunity to sit down, take a collective breath, and ensure that everybody understands the nature, the scope, and the impact of those changes.

As soon as an organization has this single shared vision of the future, it can consider the implications of this vision on the business, technical, information, and solutions architectures of the enterprise. The shared vision of the future will dictate changes in all of these architectures, assign priorities to those changes, and keep those changes grounded in business value.

Enterprise architecture, in the Gartner view, is about strategy, not about engineering. It is focused on the destination. The two things that are most important to Gartner are where an organization is going and how it will get there. Any architectural activity that is extraneous to these questions is irrelevant. "Just enough enterprise architecture, just in time," is another saying you will hear from the Gartner analyst.

Let's say Cath (MedAMore's CEO) likes what she hears. How is a Gartner engagement likely to proceed? With FEA, TOGAF, or Zachman, Cath needs to start by finding a qualified consultant who understands the methodology. With Gartner, this step is much easier: She merely calls Gartner.

Let's say Gartner sends Greg, the Gartner EA consultant. The first thing Greg will want to do is make sure the architecture is driven from the highest levels of the corporation. The fact that he is being called by MedAMore's CEO will be very reassuring.

Exactly how Greg will proceed is difficult to predict, because Gartner does not have a firm, step-by-step process. However, it is likely that he will start by focusing on Cath's strategic vision for MedAMore. He will want her to specify her vision in business terms and resist any temptation to discuss technology. Here are some possible business-vision statements Greg might elicit:

MedAMore will have stores in at least 30 states, spread out over 8 geographic regions, by the year 2010. It will accomplish this mainly through acquisition of regional pharmacies.
MedAMore will be able to assimilate new regional systems within 120 days of finalization of purchase.
MedAMore will reduce its purchasing costs by 10 percent, by consolidating all regional purchasing into a central system.
MedAMore's central office will be able to view consolidated sales and inventory reports from all stores that include data up to and including the previous day.
MedAMore will be able to reduce its inventory on-hand to no more than a five-day supply.
MedAMore will be able to invoice insurance companies by the end of the day on which the prescription was delivered to the patient.
Patients will be able to transfer prescriptions from any MedAMore pharmacy to any other.
Patients will be able to request prescription refills though a Web interface and receive e-mail notification of their availability for pick-up.

Notice that none of these visionary statements mentions technology (except as a delivery mechanism, in the last statement). Greg is purposely keeping these early discussions focused on business strategy.

Any one of Cath's vision "bullets" will have major ramifications across the business, information, and technical architectures. Part of Greg's job will be to prioritize the bulleted items. Let's say Cath decides that her highest priority is consolidating purchasing, because this will improve profitability in the near term.

Greg will soon work to turn Cath's idea about consolidated purchasing into a common-requirements vision (CRV). The CRV is where we will see some of the changes that will be required to drive Cath's vision for MedAMore. Greg will be going over the business changes with Bret and the technical and information changes with Irma, but he will also be working to bring everybody together as a unified team.

Greg will work with Bret (the business VP) to develop a target business architecture that supports consolidated purchasing. As soon as they have spec'd out the future system, they will also look at their current architecture to see what can be recycled.

Greg will work with Irma (the CIO) to develop a target information architecture that allows the home office to track regional inventories and consolidate procurement. They will also work on the technical architecture for the IT systems that will support the new business architecture. After they understand the future, they will look at current architectures for opportunities to reuse existing technology assets.

After Greg has completed the broad-brush architecture for their strategic vision, he will probably step back from the picture until the consolidated purchasing system has been implemented. If Cath needs help with the implementation of the architecture, she will likely look outside of Gartner, because Gartner does not do implementations.

As soon as the implementation of consolidated purchasing has been completed, Greg will step back in to help with the next iteration. His approach will be to keep the architecture at a high level, business-focused, and hone in on details only when and where necessary. He will continue to see his role not as creating an enterprise architecture for MedAMore, but helping them institute a process for allowing an enterprise architecture to emerge and evolve from the business strategy.

Comparison

As you can see, the leading enterprise-architecture methodologies are very different in their approaches. Which one is best for your organization? There is no one answer to this question. I'll take you through the 12 criteria that I most often use for comparing and evaluating enterprise-architectural methodologies. Not all of these criteria might be relevant to your organization, and some might be more important than others. But, at least, this section can serve as a starting point for your own evaluation.

I'll rank each methodology in each criteria. The ratings will be assigned as follows:

1: Does a very poor job in this area
2: Does an inadequate job in this area
3: Does an acceptable job in this area
4: Does a very good job in this area

Keep in mind that these ratings are subjective. I'm sure most people would disagree with at least one of my ratings.

Taxonomy completeness refers to how well you can use the methodology to classify the various architectural artifacts. This is almost the entire focus of Zachman. None of the other methodologies focuses as much on this area. Ratings:

Zachman: 4
TOGAF: 2
FEA: 2
Gartner: 1

Process completeness refers to how fully the methodology guides you through a step-by-step process for creating an enterprise architecture. This is almost the entire focus of TOGAF, with its Architecture Development Method (ADM). Ratings:

Zachman: 1
TOGAF: 4
FEA: 2
Gartner: 3

Reference-model guidance refers to how useful the methodology is in helping you build a relevant set of reference models. This is almost the entire focus of FEA. TOGAF also provides support; however, I am less impressed with the TOGAF reference models. Ratings:

Zachman: 1
TOGAF: 3
FEA: 4
Gartner: 1

Practice guidance refers to how much the methodology helps you assimilate the mindset of enterprise architecture into your organization and develop a culture in which it is valued and used. This is a primary focus of Gartner's architectural practice. Ratings:

Zachman: 1
TOGAF: 2
FEA: 2
Gartner: 4

Maturity model refers to how much guidance the methodology gives you in assessing the effectiveness and maturity of different organizations within your enterprise in using enterprise architecture. Ratings:

Zachman: 1
TOGAF: 1
FEA: 3
Gartner: 2

Business focus refers to whether the methodology will focus on using technology to drive business value, in which business value is specifically defined as either reduced expenses and/or increased income. Ratings:

Zachman: 1
TOGAF: 2
FEA: 1
Gartner: 4

Governance guidance refers to how much help the methodology will be in understanding and creating an effective governance model for enterprise architecture. Ratings:

Zachman: 1
TOGAF: 2
FEA: 3
Gartner: 3

Partitioning guidance refers to how well the methodology will guide you into effective autonomous partitions of the enterprise, which is an important approach to managing complexity. Ratings:

Zachman: 1
TOGAF: 2
FEA: 4
Gartner: 3

Prescriptive catalog refers to how well the methodology guides you in setting up a catalogue of architectural assets that can be reused in future activities. Ratings

Zachman: 1
TOGAF: 2
FEA: 4
Gartner: 2

Vendor neutrality refers to how likely you are to get locked-in to a specific consulting organization by adopting this methodology. A high rating here indicates low vendor lock-in. Ratings:

Zachman: 2
TOGAF: 4
FEA: 3
Gartner: 1

Information availability refers to the amount and quality of free or inexpensive information about this methodology. Ratings:

Zachman: 2
TOGAF: 4
FEA: 2
Gartner: 1

Time to value refers to the length of time you will likely be using this methodology before you start using it to build solutions that deliver high business value. Ratings:

Zachman: 1
TOGAF: 3
FEA: 1
Gartner: 4

The criteria and ratings are summarized in Figure 10.

Figure 10. Criteria and ratings for each methodology

One of the important points of Figure 10 is that none of the enterprise-architecture methodologies is really complete. Each has its strengths and weaknesses.

How do you choose which methodology is best for you? Here is my recommended approach:

Go through the rows (criteria) in Figure 10, eliminating any that you feel are not important to your organization.
Add any additional rows (criteria) that you feel are important, and rate each of the methodologies in that area.
Change any of my ratings with which you disagree.

At the end of this exercise, you should have a good idea about the strengths and weaknesses of each methodology with respect to your enterprise's needs. If a clear winner emerges, count yourself lucky. Find a consultant who specializes in helping enterprises implement that methodology, and go for it.

For many organizations, there will be no clear winner. For such organizations, I recommend you use a blended approach, in which you create your own enterprise-architectural methodology consisting of bits and pieces of each of the methodologies that provide the highest value in your specific areas of concern.

You will want a different kind of consultant—one who has a broad perspective of all of these methodologies and specializes in helping enterprises create a methodology that works best, given the specific needs and political realities of that enterprise.

Conclusion

This paper has covered a broad introduction to the field of enterprise architecture. The history of the field goes back 20 years, but the field is still evolving—and rapidly so. Two of the four major methodologies (Gartner and FEA) have undergone major changes in the last two years alone.

As I have shown, these methodologies are quite different from each other, both in goals and in approach. This is good news and bad. It is bad news, in that it increases the difficulty for many organizations in choosing one single enterprise-architectural methodology. How do you choose between methodologies that have so little in common? Choosing between Zachman and TOGAF, for example, is like choosing between spinach and hammers.

But the good news is that these methodologies can be seen as complementing each other. For many organizations, the best choice is all of these methodologies, blended together in a way that works well within that organization's constraints. This white paper should provide a good starting place for understanding the value of each of these methodologies and how they can complement each other.

Whichever route you choose, remember that enterprise architecture is a path, not a destination. An enterprise architecture has no value unless it delivers real business value as quickly as possible. One of the most important goals of any enterprise architecture is to bring the business side and the technology sides together, so that both are working effectively toward the same goals.

In many organizations, there is a culture of distrust between the technology and business folks. No enterprise-architecture methodology can bridge this divide unless there is a genuine commitment to change. That commitment must come from the highest level of the organization.Methodologies cannot solve people problems; they can only provide a framework in which those problems can be solved.

But, as soon as you have that commitment to change, an enterprise-architecture methodology can be a valuable tool for guiding that change. This change can manifest itself in many ways. Some of the predicted benefits from a successfully implemented enterprise architectural include:

Improvements in using IT to drive business adaptability.
Closer partnership between business and IT groups.
Improved focus on organizational goals.
Improved morale, as more individuals see a direct correlation between their work and the organization's success.
Reduced numbers of failed IT systems.
Reduced complexity of existing IT systems.
Improved agility of new IT systems.
Closer alignment between IT deliverables and business requirements.

It is obvious that an organization that does well in these key areas will be more successful than one that doesn't. This is true regardless of whether success is measured with tangibles, such as profitability and return on investment, or intangibles, such as customer satisfaction and employee turnover.

The starting point for any enterprise architecture is some critical self-analysis. Does your organization spend too much money building IT systems that deliver inadequate business value? Is IT seen as improving or hampering business agility? Is there a growing divide between your business and IT folks? And, finally, perhaps the most important question of all: Is your organization truly committed to solving these problems, and does that commitment come from the highest levels of the organization? If the answer to all of these questions is "yes," enterprise architecture is your path. It's up to you to take that next step.

Source

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb466232.aspx

iPhone Video Cage Rig - Project Overkill

2012-01-30T23:43:00.002+08:00

What an overkill project. :D I like it!

How To: Build A NAS Box

2012-01-29T21:18:00.000+08:00

Crush the performance of consumer network-attached storage devices by building your own! And you can use a number of legacy parts to do this on the cheap!

Time: 3 Hours

What You Need

FreeNAS
Free, www.freenas.com
ISO Recorder
Free, http://isorecorder.alexfeinman.com/isorecorder.htm
USB Thumb Drive
Motherboard
CPU
Case
Memory
Videocard
Optical Drive
Power Supply
One or More Hard Drives

A network-attached storage (NAS) device is the Robin to a LAN’s Batman. The two should be inseparable, and for good reason. A NAS box gives you a guaranteed way to store all of your files and stream your media. Running a NAS box also means that you don’t have to boot your power-leeching desktop rig every time you want to access your files from another device.

But you don’t have to go out and purchase a NAS device. You can build a superior alternative using spare parts left over after upgrading your PC.

We recently gathered a bunch of components that had been gathering dust in the Lab and built a FrankenNAS that absolutely pulverized its admittedly budget retail competitor, the $135 Linksys NAS200. Using an Asus A8N32 SLI Deluxe motherboard and a dual-core 2.6GHz AMD Athlon 64 FX-60 CPU, we were able to shorten our transfer speeds to one-sixth of the NAS200’s on small transfers and around one-seventh on larger file moves. Note that you don’t even need top-of-the-line hardware for your device. Our open-source operating system, FreeNAS, will run on almost anything.

But just because it’s free doesn’t mean it’s simple. So we’re going to walk you through the finer points of setting up a FreeNAS-based network storage device of your very own. You’ll be streaming your favorite movies in no time!

1.Burn the FreeNAS ISO to CD

The first step in the process is building the physical NAS box, but since it’s no different from assembling a PC, we’re skipping ahead to the installation of the operating system. In order to do that, you’ll first want to set your NAS motherboard’s BIOS to boot from an optical drive.

FreeNAS is based on FreeBSD, a Unix-like open-source OS developed in the early 1990s. It’s not Linux and it’s definitely not Windows, so you should be aware that using the OS as the backbone of your file storage is going to first wipe out anything that might be on the hard drives you use. On the upside, FreeNAS itself requires no hard drive space for installation. It’s so compact, we’ll be using an embedded version that can run off a USB thumb drive or a CompactFlash card as small as 32MB.

Download the FreeNAS ISO and drop a CD in your burner. If you don’t already have software capable of burning an ISO image to a CD, download and install the free utility ISO Recorder. If you’re using ISO Recorder, right-click the file you just downloaded and choose the option “Copy image to CD.”

Once you’ve burned the image, put the CD in your NAS box’s optical drive, restart your computer, and boot FreeNAS from the CD. One caveat: Make sure your motherboard’s BIOS is configured to boot from a USB device, as we’ll be installing the operating system to a thumb drive.

2. Install FreeNAS on a USB Thumb Drive

We’re going to set up our NAS to boot from a USB thumb drive so we don’t limit our upgrade options. If you didn’t listen to us in the last step and are using an old mobo that just won’t boot from a removable device, you have two options. You can boot from the CD and store your configuration file on a USB thumb drive or CompactFlash card or you can partition your hard drive, copy the OS to that partition, and boot from there. Be aware, however, that you cannot use the resulting storage partition for RAID: FreeNAS allows only whole drives in an array.

Quick Tip: Double-check whether FreeNAS offers support for your hardware by checking the compatibility lists at http://www.freenas.org/index.php?option=com_openwiki&Itemid=30.

When the FreeNAS Console Setup menu appears (tap the Escape key if the FreeNAS splash screen doesn’t disappear on its own), plug a thumb drive into the NAS box’s USB port and choose the menu item “Install/Upgrade to a hard drive/flash device, etc.” At the next prompt, choose the first option: “Install ‘embedded’ OS on HDD/Flash/USB.” Choose the optical drive containing the FreeNAS ISO image and hit Enter. Next, select the USB thumb drive on which you want to install the OS. Note that the installation process’s default choice is the hard drive, so make sure you’ve changed it to your thumb drive before you hit the Enter key.

After you’ve installed the operating system on the thumb drive, remove the CD and reboot your NAS box.

3 Configure Your Network Settings

When your NAS box has rebooted, choose item 1 from the Console Setup menu: Assign Interface. Unplug the NAS box’s Ethernet cable and choose the OS’s Auto Detection option. When prompted, plug the Ethernet cable back in and hit the Enter key. You should get a message that reads “Detected link-up on interface XX,” where “XX” is the name of your Ethernet interface (in our example, the name was “nve0”). Hit the Enter key again.

The next screen will read “Configure OPT interface.” This enables you to configure a second Ethernet port, assuming your motherboard has one. For now, choose the option that reads “Finish and exit configuration” and hit the Enter key. Accept the naming scheme presented in the next screen and hit Enter.

Next, type the number 7 and hit Enter to reboot the computer. When the machine has finished rebooting, choose item 2 from the Console Setup menu: Set LAN IP Address. The OS will ask if you want to use DHCP. Choose Yes unless your network is set up with static IP addresses. At the next prompt, select “AutoConfiguration for IPv6.”

The OS will then give you the IP address that’s been assigned to the NAS box. You can now ping your NAS box to verify that it has joined your network and you can manage its settings using your web browser. Just type the NAS box’s IP address into your browser’s address bar. The default user name is “admin” and the password is “freenas.”

4. Configure Your Drive

Once you’ve logged into the web GUI, you’ll want to take a whack at a few important configuration steps: Change the name of the NAS; set the correct date, time, and time zone; and create a unique username and password. Start by clicking General (in the left-hand menu stack, under the System heading) and change the desired information in the large pane on the right.

Click the Password tab, type in the existing password (“freenas”), and enter your new password in the two boxes provided.
You’re now ready to prepare your hard drive. Go back to the left-hand menu and choose Management under the Disks heading. The plus sign inside the circle on the right-hand pane indicates that you can add an element to the NAS. In this case, we’re going to add a hard drive. Click the plus symbol and all the drives in your system (including the optical and USB thumb drive) will appear in the window next to the Disk heading. Be sure to choose your hard drive.

You might want to experiment with some of the options on this page (especially “hard disk standby time,” “advanced power management,” and “acoustic level”), but leave them at their default values for now. Do make sure that the value for “Preformatted file system” is set to “unformatted” before you click the Add button; then click Apply Changes.

5. Format and Mount the Hard Drive

Ready to wipe your drive? Return to the Disks heading in the left-hand column of the NAS box’s administrative options and click Format. Make sure you’re ready to proceed, as the option will erase any information previously stored on the drive. Choose your hard drive from the drop-down menu, enter a volume label, and accept the remaining default choices: “File System: UFS (GPT and Soft Updates),” “Minimum Free Space (8),” and “Don’t Erase MBR (unchecked).” Click the Format Disk button.

A drive must be mounted before it can be accessed, so go back to the left-hand Disks menu and click Mount Point. Click the circled plus sign, select Disk from the drop-down Type menu, and choose your hard drive from the drop-down Disk menu. Choose EFI GPT from the Partition menu and UFS for the File System value. Click the Add button when you’re finished. An OK message in the Status window indicates that the drive was successfully mounted.

6. Enable Services and Create Shares

We need to access our NAS box using computers running Windows, so it’s essential that we enable the SAMBA networking protocol on our NAS box. Look in the left-hand column for the heading labeled Services and click the CIFS/SMB menu item. Place a check mark next to Enable in the main window but leave all the values at their default settings. Click the Save and Restart button.

Now that SAMBA’s up and running, you’ll need to create one or more network shares that allow your remote computers to treat the NAS box’s hard drive(s) as though they’re a local resource. Click the Shares tab in the “Services: CIFS/SMB: Settings” window and click the circled plus button. In the screen that appears next, give the share a name, add a comment describing the purpose of the share, set the path, and click the Add button. Click the Apply Changes button on the next screen.

When you’ve finished configuring FreeNAS, click the Backup/Restore button to create a backup of your configuration. You should now be able to find your NAS and your newly created shared folders listed in Windows XP’s “My Network Places” (or Vista’s “Network”).

How to Stream from Your NAS Box

Now that your new NAS box is ready to go, getting all your movies and photos to stream to your media device of choice is extraordinarily easy. Here’s how you do it. Pull up your FreeNAS administrative options page and click UPnP under the Services menu. Click the Enable check box and assign a name to your device. Then select the NIC you’ll be using. Add the directories you want to share and pick a component profile that best matches your UPnP device—like your Xbox 360, for instance. Click Save and Restart, and you’ll be ready for some movie-watching!

by Michael Brown

Source: http://www.maximumpc.com/article/howtos/how_to_build_a_nas_box?page=0,0

UML vs IDEF

2012-01-28T22:17:00.002+08:00

The process of business modelling is employed in order to create an abstraction of an otherwise complex business. This will enable business stakeholders (owners, customers, management, etc) to gain a better understanding of the business functions and also promote business improvements and/or innovation.

What is the connection between business and software modelling ?

In order to survive in today's competitive world, businesses have to continuously review their products, services, and relations with the environment (suppliers, competitors, clients, laws, etc). To assess the quality of their products and effectiveness of their services, businesses rely on the information systems. Initially only a support component, the information systems have now become an integral part of the businesses. The business itself must define the requirements for the information system.

Unfortunately, very often the software system does not properly support the business. The causes may be: lack of accurate requirements definition, deficiencies in proper business understanding by the software design team, or even the nature of the business (which may change so often that the software simply cannot follow).

Software modelling is an accepted way of designing software systems. By applying the modelling approach to the business itself, accurate requirements may be achieved for the subsequent software design activity. This concept was taken even further by the idea of using the same modelling language for both software and business modelling.

One example of a language that could model both the business and the software system belonging to the business is the Unified Modelling Language, the UML. Many developers are already familiar with UML from modelling software systems. Using one single language across the business and software modelling would promote consistency and communication among modellers and also take advantage of a whole range of modelling tools that support the UML.

Translating the business model into a software model is not a straightforward process. Not all the classes and objects defined in a business architecture may be mapped directly to a software model

Here’s a mapping of the IDEF to the UML

IDEF	UML
· IDEF0 : Function modeling · IDEF1 : Information Modeling · IDEF1X : Data Modeling · IDEF2 : Simulation Model Design · IDEF3 : Process Description Capture · IDEF4 : Object-Oriented Design · IDEF5 : Ontology Description Capture	· Activity Diagram · Class Diagram · Object Diagram · Collaboration Diagram · Activity/ State/ Use Case Diagram · Class/ Object/ Activity/ State Diagram · Meta Object Facility

UML has primarily been conceived with software design in mind, while IDEF have their origins in Computer Assisted Manufacturing. The interesting fact is that each of these methodologies is being extended to cover the other's domain. While UML is being extended now to cover business modelling, the IDEF family is added new components that enable it to address software (and information systems in general) development.

IDEF is coming from the manufacturing / information environment and aims to cover object orientation, knowledge representation and software development.

UML is still in its infancy; it comes from the domain of object-oriented software development but there are increasing efforts to extend it towards business process modelling.

Which method ? It is up to the user: the task, background, resources, patterns… will all play a role in selecting the right tool for the job.

reference:

Business Modelling: UML vs. IDEF

www.ict.griffith.edu.au/noran/Docs/UMLvsIDEF.pdf

Citizen - Eco Drive Satellite Wave

2012-01-26T22:25:00.001+08:00

30 Seconds Speech by Bryan Dyson

2012-01-25T23:24:00.001+08:00

“Imagine life as a game in which you are juggling some five balls in the air.
You name them – Work, Family, Health, Friends and Spirit and you’re keeping all of these in the air.

You will soon understand that work is a rubber ball. If you drop it, it will bounce back. But the other four balls – Family, Health, Friends and Spirit– are made of glass. If you drop one of these; they will be irrevocably scuffed, marked, nicked, damaged or even shattered. They will never be the same. You must understand that and strive for it.

Work efficiently during office hours and leave on time.
Give the required time to your family, friends and have proper rest.
Value has a value only if its value is valued.”

Bryan Dyson – Former CEO of Coca Cola

A quarrel between several China tourists and local Hong Kong residents on a subway train

2012-01-23T22:33:00.001+08:00

A video clip which shows a quarrel between several China tourists and local Hong Kong residents on a subway train has unexpectedly became an Internet hit recently. A Beijing University professor does not like the bitchfight and has commented online with harsh words. The professor thinks that Hong Kong people are mostly running dogs of the British, and they are bastards for not speaking Mandarin language. The incident has became a serious ‘culture clash’ between Hong Kong and the mainland China …

A video of a quarrel between China tourists caught snacking on the Hong Kong subway train with local passengers has burnt up the internet. The video was uploaded to Youtube several days ago and it has racked up half a million views, and a few hundred thousand more on various video sites in China. The video records a war of words between two groups after some angry Hongkongers tried to stop a Chinese kid for eating snack on the train, speaking in Cantonese. Eating in the carriage is not allowed in Hong Kong, but the mother of the kid has ignored the regulations and quarrel with the passenger with Mandarin. The dispute ended after a subway employee intervened.

A Beijing University professor, who is the 73rd generation descendant of Confucius and a member of Communist Party, has criticized the quarrel. Hongkonger has insulted by the professor, been accused of not a humane but dogs. He insists Chinese people who speak different dialects should speak in Mandarin instead, those who refuse to speak are bastards. He even said many Hongkongers are thieves, lack of moral and use whatever they can to cheat money from the mainlander. The harsh words have increased the anger of Hong Kongers. Fury starts to build up on facebook and a protest will be organized soon to demand an apology from the Confucius’ professor.

Meanwhile, youtube has started to pull down the video with English translation, the original Chinese version still widespread in China. Obviously, the “culture clash” between Hong Kong and China is based on the level of civilization and language communication. There is no denying that the manners and etiquette of some China tourists do not meet the standards of many modern cities. But poor manners are considered only a nuisance. Their real gripe comes from the fact that greater spending power enjoyed by many China people has touched the Hong Konger’s self-esteem in some way and affect their quality of life. It was a loss of pride that prompted Hong Kong people to take on the street to protest against D&G for not allowing the locals to take photos of its shop front. The latest harsh comments from the China professor will certainly level-up the racial disputes between Hong Kong and China.

Destress your life in 10 easy steps

2012-01-19T23:53:00.002+08:00

By Danny Penman and Mark Williams, Special to CNN

(CNN) -- The gloomy days of January can be the most miserable and stressful of the year, but it doesn't have to be this way. If you follow this ten step guide to destressing your life, then the next few weeks just might become the most serene and fulfilling ones of the year.

One step should be carried out on each of the next 10 days. They're based on the ideas found in the international best-seller "Mindfulness: An Eight Week Plan for Finding Peace in a Frantic World."

The book uses a program based on mindfulness meditation developed by us at Oxford University in the United Kingdom to relieve anxiety, stress, exhaustion and depression. Mindfulness has proved in some clinical trials to be at least as effective as drugs or counseling for dealing with these conditions.

So what is this mindfulness?

It is quite simply paying full, whole-hearted attention. A typical meditation involves paying full attention to the breath as it flows in and out of the body. Focusing on each breath in this way allows you to observe your thoughts as they arise in your mind and, little by little, to let go of struggling with them. You come to the profound understanding that thoughts and feelings (including negative ones) are transient. They come and they go, and ultimately, you have a choice about whether to act on them.

Mindfulness is about observation without criticism and being compassionate with yourself. When unhappiness or stress hovers overhead, rather than taking it all personally, you learn to treat it as if it was a black cloud in the sky, and to observe it with friendly curiosity as it drifts past.

Scientific studies have shown that mindfulness not only prevents depression, but it also positively affects the brain patterns underlying day-to-day anxiety, stress, depression and irritability. When these negative thoughts arise, they dissolve away again more easily. Other studies have shown that people who regularly meditate see their doctors less often and spend fewer days in hospital. Memory improves, creativity increases and reaction times become faster.

Here are 10 ways to decrease stress and increase mindful meditation in your life:

Day 1: Eat some chocolate

At this time of year, it's easy to eat too much chocolate and other high-carb "comfort foods." At first, all that lovely rich food is packed with flavor and totally irresistible. but after a while, you hardly notice it at all. And if you are in a rush, it tends to be wolfed down by the handful.

When you eat without thinking you miss out on so many wonderful flavors, textures and aromas. A single bar of chocolate, for example, has more than 300 flavors. How many of them do you normally taste?

Reconnecting with your senses is the heart of mindfulness, so why not try this chocolate meditation to help you enjoy your food again?

You can listen to it here

Day 2: Go for a short walk

Walking is one of the finest exercises and a brilliant stress reliever. A good walk can put the world in perspective and soothe your frayed nerves. It's the ideal way of taking a break from all of that work that built up during the holidays.

So today, why not go for a 15- to 30-minute walk? You don't have to go anywhere special. A walk around your neighborhood, taken in an open frame of mind, can be just as interesting as a hike through the mountains.

There's no need to feel that you have to rush anywhere; the aim is to walk as mindfully as you can, focusing your awareness on your feet as they land on the ground and feeling the fluid movements of all the muscles and tendons in your feet and legs.

Pay attention to all of the sights, sounds and smells. You might see the deep red color of the berries on the trees and bushes or perhaps the inky grayness of slushy ice and snow. See if it is possible to be open to all your senses: Smell the mustiness of the winter leaves; feel the rain on your head; the breeze on your face; watch how the patterns of light and shade shift unexpectedly.

Day 3: Take a three-minute breathing space

When you're becoming angry, exhausted, anxious or stressed, it's difficult to remember why you should remain calm. And at such times, it can feel as if the whole world was created just to bait you.

The three-minute breathing space was created to deal with such feelings. Its impact is twofold.

First, it's a meditation that's used to punctuate the day, so that it dissolves negative thought patterns before they gain control over your life. Secondly, it's an emergency meditation that helps ground you when your thoughts threaten to spiral out of control.

When you are carrying out the meditation, you may find that your mind repeatedly runs away with itself. This is entirely natural. It's what minds do. They leap around and offer up thoughts to your conscious self, much as a child hold's up his or her toys to an approving adult. When you find that your mind has wandered, gently escort it back to full awareness and continue following the instructions on the track as best you can.

You can listen to the meditation here

Day 4: Do something pleasurable

At this time of year, exhaustion, stress and unhappiness can easily dominate. You can start to experience "anhedonia" -- that is, you can't find pleasure in life. The things you used to enjoy now leave you cold -- you feel as if a thick fog has put a barrier between you and simple pleasures, and few things seem rewarding any more.

You can counteract this by taking baby steps toward the things that you used to like doing but have since forgotten about. You can make a start by choosing one or two of the following things to do (or perhaps come up with your own ideas):

-- Be kind to your body. Have a hot bath; have a nap; treat yourself to your favorite food without feeling guilty; have your favorite hot drink.

-- Do something you enjoy. Visit or phone a friend (particularly if you've been out of contact for a while), get together what you need so you can do your favorite hobby, get some exercise, bake a cake, read something that gives you pleasure, listen to some music that you have not listened to in a long while.

Day 5: The intensely frustrating line meditation

Sometimes life can seem like one big long line. You have to line up to buy gas, to pay for the food in the supermarket and all of the bars and restaurants are crammed with people waiting to order.

Next time you feel like screaming "why don't they just get on with it!", try carrying out our Intensely Frustrating Line Meditation instead.

When you are in a line, see if you can become aware of your reactions when something holds up your progress. Perhaps you joined the "wrong" line, and are obsessing about whether to make a dash for another one that seems shorter? At such times, it is helpful to check in with what's going on in your mind. Taking a moment to ask yourself:

-- What is going through my mind?

-- What sensations are there in my body?

-- What emotions and impulses am I aware of?

Mindfulness accepts that some experiences are unpleasant. Mindfulness will, however, help by allowing you to tease apart the two major flavors of suffering -- primary and secondary.

Primary suffering is the initial stressor, such as the frustration of being in a long line. You can acknowledge that it is not pleasant; it's OK not to like it. Secondary suffering is all of the emotional turbulence that follows in its wake, such as anger and frustration, as well as any ensuing thoughts and feelings that often arise in tandem. See if you can see these clearly as well. See if it's possible to allow the frustration to be here without trying to make it go away.

Day 6: Set up a mindfulness bell

Pick a few ordinary activities from daily life that you can turn into "mindfulness bells," that is, reminders to stop and pay attention to things in great detail. There's a list below of things you might like to turn into bells. You don't have to turn them all into mindfulness bells -- they are just suggestions.

-- Preparing food: Food offers a host of opportunities to become more mindful. If you're preparing food, particularly if they are rich in flavors, smells and textures, then try and pay full mindful attention to all that you are doing.

-- Washing the dishes: This is a great opportunity for exploring physical sensations. If you normally use a dishwasher, do them by hand for a change. When your mind wanders, shepherd it back to the present moment. Pay attention to the texture of the dishes, the temperature of the water, the smell of the detergent, etc.

-- Listening to friends: If you are planning to meet a friend, or bump into one unexpectedly, it's easy to lapse into the same tired-old conversations. So why not turn a friend's voice into a "bell" that's a signal to pay full attention to what they are saying? Notice when you are not listening -- when you start to think of something else, what you are going to say in response etc. Come back to actually listening.

Day 7: The ten-finger gratitude exercise

To come to a positive appreciation for the small things in your life, you can try the gratitude exercise. It simply means that once a day you should bring to mind 10 things that you are grateful for, counting them on your fingers. It is important to get to 10 things, even when it becomes increasingly harder after three or four. This is exactly what the exercise is for -- intentionally bringing into awareness the tiny, previously unnoticed elements of the day.

Day 8: Do the sounds and thoughts meditation

Sounds are as compelling as thoughts and just as immaterial and open to interpretation. Certain songs might cheer you up -- or send you into an emotional tailspin. Sensing the power of sound -- and its relationship to thoughts and emotion -- is central to mindfulness and to becoming a happier, more relaxed and centered person.

Today, why not try our sounds and thoughts meditation? This elegantly reveals how the mind conjures up thoughts that can so easily lead us astray. Once you realize this -- deep in your heart -- then a great many of your stresses and troubles will simply evaporate before your eyes.

This meditation gradually reveals the similarities between sound and thought. Both appear as if from nowhere, and we have no control over their arising. They can easily trigger powerful emotions that run away with us leaving us feeling fragile and broken.

You can download the meditation here

Day 9: Reclaim your life

Think back to a time in your life when things seemed less frantic, before the time when some tragedy or increase in workload took over your daily existence. Or it might be more recent than that, before the run-up to Christmas say, or perhaps a relaxing break in the summer.

Recall in as much detail as you can some of the activities that you used to do at that time. These may be things you did by yourself (reading your favorite magazines or taking time to listen to a track from a favorite piece of music, going out for walks or bike rides) or together with friends or family (from playing board games to going to the theater).

Choose one of these activities and plan to do it today or over this weekend. It may take five minutes or five hours, it might be important or trivial, it might involve others or it could be by yourself.

It is only important that it should be something that puts you back in touch with a part of your life that you had forgotten -- a part of you that you may have been telling yourself was lost somehow, that you could not get back to. Don't wait until you feel like doing it; do it anyway and see what happens. It's time to reclaim your life!

Day 10: Go to the movies

Ask a friend or family member to go with you to the movies -- but this time, with a difference. Go at a set time (say 7 p.m.) and choose whatever film takes your fancy only when you get there. Often, what makes us happiest in life is the unexpected -- the chance encounter or the unpredicted event. Movies are great for all these.

Before you go, notice any thoughts that may arise such as, 'I haven't got time for pleasure', or, 'What if there is nothing on that I'll enjoy?'

They undermine your enthusiasm for taking action and discourage your intention to do something that might nourish your life in important ways. Once you're inside the cinema, just forget about all this and be consumed by the film.

Source

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/17/health/destressing-life-tips/index.html

Cold vs Flu

2012-01-19T23:31:00.000+08:00

Relieving Symptoms: Self-Care for a Stuffy or Runny Nose

2012-01-19T23:26:00.001+08:00

For most cases of a stuffy or runny nose, symptom relief is the main treatment. Here's how to keep your nose healthy, and how to get relief when it's not:

Use a saline nasal spray or rinse to keep your nose moist. They've been shown to significantly reduce nasal symptoms and may help make your nose more resistant to irritants and bacteria. Read this tip for more on nasal irrigation.

Drink plenty of fluids. Staying well hydrated will help keep the lining of your nose and sinuses moist, in good working order, and less susceptible to infection.

Use a humidifier to keep the air -- and your nose -- moist. But make sure your humidifier stays clean and free of fungus, which can aggravate a stuffy or runny nose.

Avoid irritants or triggers and stop a runny nose before it starts. Smoke, dust, pollen, and animal dander are some of the most common culprits.

Consider using vitamins, minerals, and herbal remedies to help prevent or shorten colds. Find out what works and what doesn't.

Relief for a Stuffy Nose (Congestion)

Steam away stuffiness. For temporary relief of a stuffy nose, take a hot shower, or put the kettle on for an old-fashioned steam inhalation. Steam helps shrink the swollen mucous membrane and promotes drainage. Add menthol or eucalyptus if you like, but the jury's still out on whether they help. Some studies suggest the cooling sensation of menthol creates the feeling of breathing more easily, even if it doesn't reduce congestion.

Get a little exercise if you feel up to it. Exercise acts as a natural decongestant by triggering the release of adrenaline, which narrows swollen blood vessels, including the ones blocking your nose.

Try a decongestant medication. Over-the-counter oral decongestants may help relieve a stuffy nose. Nasal decongestant sprays may also provide temporary relief, but if they're used for 3 days or more, they can actually increase stuffiness, so don't overdo it.

Consider a decongestant/antihistamine combination. Some studies suggest these combo medications may relieve congestion, but other studies report no evidence that the medications are effective. Talk with your doctor about whether a decongestant/antihistamine combination is right for you.

Relief for a Runny Nose (Rhinorrhea)

Blow gently and frequently to help your nose remove excess mucus. If your nostrils get chapped and sore, apply a little petroleum jelly.

Try an antihistamine, but only if your symptoms are caused by allergies. Studies show that antihistamines on their own do little, if anything, to stop a runny nose caused by a cold, nonallergic rhinitis, or sinusitis.

Consider a decongestant/antihistamine combo if your symptoms are making you very uncomfortable. These combination medications tend to be more effective at relieving a runny nose than antihistamines alone, and some are available over the counter. Talk to your doctor about whether a decongestant/antihistamine combination is right for you.

Finally, to avoid spreading or picking up germs, wash your hands thoroughly and frequently, and use tissues instead of a handkerchief.

Check out these other natural allergy remedies to help relieve your seasonal allergy symptoms.

Photographers’ Need For Speed – Mini Review Promise Pegasus R6

2012-01-18T22:50:00.000+08:00

JANUARY 16, 2012

by scottbourne

I have more than 100 hard disk drives and arrays laying around. It’s the bane of my existence. Everywhere I step there are hard drives and cables. I’ve tried, used and owned just about every brand of hard drive system in use. I like many of them. I just need to get rid of the rest, but I LOVE the PROMISE Pegasus R6. Here’s why…

The LightPeak technology that provides the underpinnings of Thunderbolt is amazing. Thunderbolt isn’t widely adopted and it’s expensive, but there’s no chance anyone would deny it’s very, very fast. It’s faster than USB 3.0 or Firewire 800.

The R6 supports multiple RAID configurations. It comes RAID 5 right out of the box and ready to connect to your Mac. There are a few things you should know right off the bat. The drive doesn’t come with a cable. At this price, that’s almost criminal. So have a Thunderbolt cable ready if you want to use the R6 on arrival. The next thing you should know is that it takes about 10 hours for the drive to self-configure once you plug it in. After the lights stop flashing, the unit will show up on your Mac like any other drive.

I bought my Pegasus with 12TB of storage – two of that reserved for data redundancy. The unit houses six, two-TB 3.5-inch hard drives. They spin at 7200 RPM and are fast enough for video, audio, you name it. The R6 has that brushed aluminum Mac look that most Mac peripherals use and it’s quite handsome – not that it matters. The footprint is similar to other drive bays on the market which hold 12TB of data.

As a photographer, my main concern with one of these drives is that they are safe and fast. While I’ve only had a week to test the R6 so far, I feel like it’s both. There’s absolutely no denying the fact it’s fast. How fast? REAL fast. As in so fast that you don’t need a fancy software benchmarking tool to know it. I used to chuckle when I’d read posts from the pixel peepers bragging that their hard drive was x milliseconds faster than their pal’s hard drive. This isn’t one of those kinds of things. This drive is many times faster than most drives I’ve tested.

I have some fast SATA3 drives and the Pegasus R6 is AT LEAST four times faster. You read that right four times. I should mention these are internal drives. To further put this in perspective, all my new computers shipped with SSD drives. The R6 is almost twice as fast!!!

I tried to do some real world tests using the software and files I’d normally work with to establish how the R6 worked. I finished up with one of my favorite tests. I transferred the equivalent of a CD full of data in less than four seconds.

We ended up buying six of these R6 units so I was able to test their ability to daisy chain. I only tried it with two units but it worked flawlessly and didn’t appear to slow down transfer rates.

I didn’t test the software that came with the R6 nor did I change the RAID configuration to RAID 0 which should make the drive even faster. While I didn’t quite get 800 MB/s performance promised by Promise’s marketing department, I got close.

There are a few caveats. This unit only works with Macs. The drive is noisy – not that much more than other drives I’ve tested, but too noisy for those in a pro-audio environment to use this without additional sound protection. The other thing to note is the high price. Like the old guy at the race shop used to tell me when I was building hot rods, “Speed cost money son – how fast can you afford to go?” In this case I think it’s worth it.

If you’re a photographer or film maker looking for the fastest data transfer rates available in a device that just plugs into the Mac without the addition of a special card, I believe the Pegasus is the drive you are looking for.

Highly recommended.
_______
This Post Sponsored by:
Viewbug - Fun Photo Contests - Animoto – Great animated
slide shows from your photos / BorrowLenses.com – Renting
Canon, Nikon, Olympus & Sony, bodies, lenses, etc. / SmugMug – Professional
Photo Sharing / Digital SLR Store - Cameras, lenses, accessories
and everything else.

Future Weapons - Metal Storm

2012-01-17T23:04:00.000+08:00

This is insane.

SanDisk on new XQD memory card format

2012-01-16T22:16:00.000+08:00

Sony's new 32GB XQD flash memory card has a retail price of $229.99.

(Credit: Sony)

In a decision inauspicious for XQD, SanDisk is skipping over the new memory card format for high-end cameras.

"At this time, SanDisk has chosen not to productize the XQD format," SanDisk spokeswoman Wendy Vlieks told CNET News late yesterday.

The ringing non-endorsement is particularly notable since SanDisk helped create the format in the first place.

The comment also means that XQD--developed by the CompactFlash Association (CFA) as a successor to CF cards--currently lacks support from the two top-tier flash card makers. The other, Lexar, was noncommittal about XQD last week: "As a leading CFA member, Lexar has been evaluating this technology, and will continue to do so as the market develops to determine if we will offer XQD cards in the future," said Manisha Sharma, Lexar's director of product marketing for cards.

That leaves Sony as the sole XQD card supplier for now.

Sony, Nikon, and SanDisk developed XQD. "SanDisk participates in many standards bodies and has contributed to a variety of new standards that allow for options in the marketplace," SanDisk said in its statement.

This shot shows the dual CompactFlash and XQD slots of Nikon's D4 SLR. The XQD slot toward the left is significantly smaller.

(Credit: Nikon USA)

So far the sole product that uses XQD cards is Nikon's flagship D4 SLR, a $6,000 camera body that starts shipping next month. It's a high-profile camera. But even if wildly successful, the D4 will ship in tiny volumes compared with mainstream cameras that nearly universally use SD memory cards today. Plenty of new SD cards have emerged from Lexar and SanDisk at CES this week.

There are other options beyond the D4 for XQD, whose PCI Express interface offers high-speed data writing abilities. Digital video is advancing rapidly, and demanding videographers want to record high-resolution imagery with as high a bit rate as possible. Red Digital Cinema, Canon, Sony, Nikon, and others are headed down this path.

And for more conventional cameras--successors to Canon's 5D Mark II and Nikon's D700 that are expected in coming months, for example--XQD could well make an appearance. The D4 has dual XQD and CompactFlash slots, and the XQD one is smaller and can sustain somewhat longer shooting bursts. It's hard to compete against the market dominance of SD, but it's still early days for XQD.

by Stephen Shankland

4moms Origami Power Folding Stroller

2012-01-16T21:31:00.000+08:00

Strollers are all the same and haven't changed for decades. That's why 4moms developed the Origami power-folding stroller. At the touch of a button, it folds itself. It's also a cell phone-charging, mileage-counting, LCD-sporting stroller, with generators in the rear wheels that charge it as you walk. Plus, the Origami has daytime running lights, pathway lights for low-light conditions, and sensors that detect when a child's in the seat (so it'll never fold by accident).

From power folding to cell phone charging, the Origami is what strollers should be.

Lucky for me is that my kids no longer sit on the stroller. Otherwise, this would be in my shopping list. :P This is so cool!

CES 2012: All the hot photographic news from Vegas

2012-01-15T16:14:00.000+08:00

By Amy Davies

It's been a bumper week for camera news, thanks to CES in Vegas

This week saw the mania that is CES take place in fabulous Las Vegas. It's the week when all the big electronic companies get together to show off the latest and greatest tech they have in their arsenals... and camera manufacturers are no different. Here's what they all had to offer this week.

Fujifilm news

It's probably the camera that's been talked about the most this week. After several weeks of speculation and leaks, the X Pro1 has finally been unveiled. The retro styled camera is the latest in Fuji's incredibly popular "X" series and features an APS-C sized sensor which the company claims can outperform a full-frame sensor. Bold claims indeed.

Read our Hands on: Fuji X Pro1 review to see what we think so far, and check out our interview with the Fuji X Pro1 designer to learn more about the development of the camera.

If that's not enough, discover more about the camera in our 10 things you need to know about the Fujifilm X Pro1 article, and read about the X Pro1 accessories that will be launching soon.

Nikon news

It wasn't strictly launched at CES, but the Nikon D4 was still big news at the show. We spoke to the company to discover the reasoning behind the 16 million pixel sensor on its latest professional level DSLR.

Canon news

Canon has also announced a new beauty this week in the form of the G1X. It's the company's new top-of-the-line compact camera, featuring a sensor that is similar in height to APS-C and promises superior image quality. Read ourHands on: Canon G1 X review with video to learn more about it.

Not content with launching that, Canon also introduced two new IXUS compacts to sit in its line-up too.

Olympus, Samsung, Sony and Panasonic news

It seemed like everyone was in the mood for announcing compact cameras, as new models were unveiled from Olympus, Samsung, Sony and Panasonic.

Highlights include a new superzoom bridge duo from Olympus, a budget trio from Sony, and long-zooms from both Panasonic and Samsung.

Polaroid news

This was also the week that Polaroid also revealed its Android powered "smart camera". It's supposed to combine the best of digital compacts with the best of smart phone convenience - albeit without the ability to er, phone anybody. Maybe that's the next step though?

Sigma news

Users of compact system cameras can rejoice at the news that Sigma has finally introduced a couple of CSC compatible third party lenses. The new duo includes a 30mm f/2.8 lens and a 18mm f/2.8 lens, both available in Micro Four Thirds and E-Mounts for Panasonic/Olympus and Sony respectively.

Sigma also introduced a new 180mm macro lens for full-frame DSLR users, which the company claims is the first of its kind to feature 1:1 reproduction with an f/2.8 maximum aperture.

That's all for this week. Although CES hasn't seen a host of huge announcements, we're holding out hope that the upcoming CP+ show in Japan will see big hitters being unveiled from the country's big names, including Sony, Nikon and Canon. Now - we're off for a big lie down.

SanDisk's 128GB SD card

2012-01-15T16:06:00.001+08:00

Need room for 4,000 photos? Try SanDisk's 128GB SD card

It's flash card season at CES (especially given the shutterbug boost by the conjoined Photo Marketing Association show), and SanDisk has a contribution with high-capacity mid-range SDXC cards.

The two SanDisk Extreme models, 64GB and 128GB, can transfer data at 45MBps. That's less than half the speed of the company's top-end Extreme Pro line of SD cards at 95MBps, but it should be good enough for many photographers and videographers.

The high capacity comes with a price premium--prices for the cards are $200 and $400--but could be useful for those shooting lots of video or traveling away from a computer. And if you're shooting raw photos--my camera's weigh in at 30MB apiece, typically--this card will hold more than 4,000 still images.

The cards are available now, SanDisk said (flying in the face of the CES vaporware trend).

The cards, with the UHS-I interface, are up to the chore of capturing 3D video in high-definition 1080p video, Sandisk said.

Also at CES, SanDisk rival Lexar announced faster but more expensive UHS-I cards, including a 64GB model that reaches 90MB/sec and a 128GB model that reaches 60MB/sec.

And on a more ethereal plane, Sony announced the first examples of a new flash card format called XQD. It offered 16GB and 32GB models of the cards, which so far work only in Nikon's new flagship D4 SLR.

The CompactFlash Association developed the new format as a sequel to CF. XQD offers faster data transfer speeds--125MBps in Sony's case--with faster speeds to come.

by Stephen Shankland

CES 2012 - Samsung's Smart Window

2012-01-14T23:52:00.000+08:00

Soon, we shall be living in the world of Minority Report, and this "Smart Window" technology Samsung has at CES 2012 is going to help us get there. Ashley Esqueda checks out what's happening over at the Samsung booth and gives a little demo of the window.

Anyone over the age of 35 should read this, as I copied this from a friends status ..

2012-01-14T23:49:00.000+08:00

Checking out at the supermarket recently, the young cashier suggested I should bring my own bags because plastic bags weren’t good for the environment. I apologized and explained, “We didn’t have this green thing back in my earlier days“.

The clerk responded, “That’s our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations“.

She was right about one thing–our generation didn’t have the green thing in “Our” day. So what did we have back then? After some reflection and soul-searching on “Our” day, here’s what I remembered we did have….

Back then, we returned milk bottles, pop bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles repeatedly. So they really were recycled. But we didn’t have the green thing back in our day.

We walked up stairs, because we didn’t have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn’t climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks. But she was right. We didn’t have the green thing in our day.

Back then, we washed the baby’s nappies because we didn’t have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 240 volts — wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that young lady is right. We didn’t have the green thing back in our day.

Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house — not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of Wales. In the kitchen, we blended & stirred by hand because we didn’t have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.

Back then, we didn’t fire up an engine and burn petrol just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn’t need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. But she’s right. We didn’t have the green thing back then.

We drank from a water fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull. But we didn’t have the green thing back then.

Back then, people took the bus, and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their mums into a 24-hour taxi service. We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn’t need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint.

But isn’t it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn’t have the green thing back then?

Please post this on your Facebook profile so another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smarty-pants young person can add to this

Read more: http://gaasedal.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/anyone-over-the-age-of-35-should-read-this-as-i-copied-this-from-a-friends-status/

10 best Ultrabooks at CES 2012

2012-01-13T22:38:00.001+08:00

CES 2012: Thin and light laptops as far as the eye can see

By Dean Evans

The LG Z330 Super Ultrabook has a 13.3-inch display and runs Windows 7

Is 2012 going to be the year of theUltrabook?

At this year's subdued CES, these MacBook Air-a-likes are everywhere. But there's more to this new category than a super-skinny chassis.

According to Intel, Ultrabooks also have "ultra-capabilities" - security features, battery power, instant-on and standby. They'll provide a lightweight alternative to tablet devices for people who just can't work without a full QWERTY keyboard.

But what's the best Ultrabook to buy? Check out the best Ultrabooks that were on show at CES 2012...

LG Z330 Super Ultrabook

Rather than a tapered design, the chassis on the 13.3-inch LG Z330 Super Ultrabook is 14.7mm thick from front to back. It runs Windows 7 (for now) and has a bigger brother, the LG Z430, which comes with a 14-inch display. Why is it 'Super'? Because LG says so.

Samsung Series 5 Ultra

Packing an Intel Core i5 processor, the Samsung Series 5 Ultra is small but perfectly formed. Available in 14-inch or 13-inch models, the 13 incher is 17.6mm at its fattest point, narrowing to 14mm.

It comes with a 128GB/256GB SSD or a 500GB hard drive and incorporates an LED SuperBright screen. The only worry? Battery life is pegged at around 6.5 hours, which is about 2 hours too short in our book.

Samsung Series 9

While the original Series 9 was one of the world's thinnest laptops, the newSamsung Series 9 Ultrabook is even thinner.

The design team has shaved off another 4mm, giving this 13-inch (1600 x 1200) laptop a waistline of only 12.9mm. Inside, a 1.7GHz Core i7 chip does all the hard work, ably assisted by up to 8GB of memory and SSD storage.

HP Folio 13

As the moniker suggests, the HP Folio 13 is yet another 13-inch Ultrabook. It's not much of a looker and, at 18mm around the middle, it's not the slimmest Ultrabook at CES.

But HP is claiming a 9-hour battery life for the Folio 13, which will be ideal for regular mobile workers who value staying power over pretty design.

HP Envy 14 Spectre

The HP Envy 14 Spectre is a little bigger than your average Ultrabook and a little fatter because of it. Intel specifies a sub- 18mm chassis for 13-inch models, but 14-inchers like this can bulk up to 21mm.

With a Core i5 (or i7) processor and 128GB HDD inside, HP claims a 9 hour battery life for the Spectre. And... that's really the only appeal.

Dell XPS 13

The Dell XPS 13 might be a little late to the Ultrabook party, but it's one of the prettiest portables we've seen.

Amazingly, Dell will squeeze an Intel Core i5 or i7 inside the trim chassis, along with 4GB of memory and a 128/256GB SSD. How thin is it? 6mm at its slimmest point.

Lenovo IdeaPad U310

The Lenovo IdeaPad U310 has a distinctly MacBook Pro vibe to it. Packing a 13-inch display, the U310 tips the scales at 1.7kg and is squeezed into an aluminium chassis that's 18mm thick.

A Core i5 chip is expected to provide the processing grunt, with the choice of a 64GB SSD or 500GB hard disk for storage.

Lenovo IdeaPad Yoga

We're loving the Lenovo IdeaPad Yoga. This flexible, foldable Ultrabook also converts into a 16.9mm thick tablet with a 13.1-inch (1600x900 pixel) touchscreen.

Running Windows 8 you get the best of all worlds - a QWERTY keyboard for heavy duty working and a tablet experience for after hours net sessions on the sofa. The downside? It probably won't be cheap.

Acer Aspire S5

Thin (15mm) and light (1.35kg), the new Acer Aspire S5 isn't much of a design departure from the older Acer Aspire S3.

But it takes advantage of its Ultrabook DNA with a 13.3-inch display, Thunderbolt technology, SSD storage and a fast (but as yet unspecified) Intel CPU. Are we excited? Meh.

The Intel Nikiski concept

While not technically an Ultrabook, Intel tells us that a Ultrabook version of the oddball Nikiski is on the cards for later this year.

What makes it stand out is the glass touch pad that turns into a touchscreen layer to enable you to browse a slimline view of key information such as new emails.

Sources: http://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/roundup/10-best-ultrabooks-at-ces-2012-1054355

NIKON AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8G

2012-01-13T22:20:00.000+08:00

THE NEW NIKON AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8G PRIME LENS COMBINES PRACTICALITY WITH PORTABILITY RESULTING IN A VERSATILE PORTRAIT LENS

New NIKKOR Lens is Ideal for Low-Light, Portraiture and Adding Dramatic Background Blur to Both Photo and Video

MELVILLE, N.Y. (January 5, 2012) – Today, Nikon Inc. announced the addition of the new AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8G FX-format lens to its legendary line of NIKKOR lenses. The new 85mm is a fast, fixed focal-length lens with medium telephoto capabilities and a large maximum aperture of f/1.8 that is capable of performing a wide variety of imaging tasks with amazing sharpness and clarity. “Whether a professional photographer who needs extreme sharpness or a photo enthusiast looking for an affordable, lightweight lens with amazing clarity, Nikon photographers appreciate and rely on the vast selection and dependability of NIKKOR lenses for their imaging needs,” said Lisa Osorio, general manager of marketing at Nikon Inc. “The new 85mm f/1.8 is fully optimized for capturing amazing photos and videos, while providing the ability to utilize background blur to compliment the subject of their photo.” A welcome addition to Nikon’s growing line of versatile prime lenses, the new AF- NIKKOR 85mm is ideal for travel, general photography, low-light, landscape, portraiture and capturing movies with extreme depth of field. The 85mm is designed to capture photos utilizing beautiful image blur achieved due to its large maximum aperture.

Furthermore, the lens is lightweight, easy to carry, and provides an equivalent focal length of 127mm when attached to a Nikon DX-format D-SLR camera body. The construction of the 85mm f/1.8 consists of nine optical elements, with a seven-blade diaphragm which contributes to a substantially more circular bokeh for a natural appearance to out-of-focus background elements. Additionally, instances of lens flare and chromatic aberration are suppressed using Nikon’s exclusive Super Integrated Coatings, which also help ensure vividly accurate color balance. The new lens also comes equipped with a carefully engineered optical system optimized to deliver superior image quality. The integration of an ultra-compact Silent Wave Motor (SWM) ensures fast, whisper-quiet AF operation, which is essential when recording movies. The 85mm also features two focus modes, M/A (manual-priority autofocus) and M (manual) to further enhance versatility and adapt to a shooters needs. Additionally, Internal Focus (IF) design prevents the front element from rotating, allowing for the use of filters and attachments.

Price and Availability

The lightweight AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8G will be available in March 2012 for a SRP* of $499.95. For more information, please visit www.nikonusa.com. To see the new AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8G lens and other new Nikon products, visit Nikon at the 2012 International Consumer Electronics Show (CES) at booth # 11039 from January 10-13th, 2012 in Las Vegas, NV.

* Suggested retail price listed only as a suggestion. Actual prices are set by dealers and are subject to change at any time.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 G specifications

Focal length	85 mm
Maximum aperture	f/1.8
Minimum aperture	f/16
Lens construction	9 elements in 9 groups
Angle of view	28°30' (18°50' with Nikon DX format)
Minimum focus distance	0.8 m/2.62 ft (from focal plane)
Maximum reproduction ratio	0.124x
No. of diaphragm blades	7 (rounded)
Filter-attachment size	67 mm
Diameter x length (extension from lens mount)	Approximately 80 x 73 mm/3.1 x 2.9 in.
Weight	Approximately 350 g/12.4 oz
Supplied accessories	67 mm Snap-on Front Lens Cap LC-67 Rear Lens Cap LF-4 Bayonet Hood HB-62 Flexible Lens Pouch CL-1015

Motorola Droid 4 review

2012-01-12T17:23:00.000+08:00

I always like a QWERTY phone, and Motorola never fail to deliver. Would this be replacing my Atrix? :P Read more below from the Hand Ons by Tech Radar.

CES 2012: The thinnest LTE QWERTY phone in the world

By Nic Vargus

Motorola recently announced the Droid 4, a 4G LTE-compatible QWERTY phone that will hit retailers in coming weeks.

The first thing anyone will notice about the phone is how sleek and Razr-esque it feels in your hand.

It's a QWERTY phone with a slide-out keyboard, but upon first handle it felt a bit like a slightly chunky touch phone.

That's because at .5-inches it's surprisingly thin - thin enough for Motorola to bill it as the world's thinnest LTE QWERTY phone.

But all that wouldn't much matter if the keyboard was garbage, and we're happy to report that we were able to quickly type on it, without having to relearning much of anything.

The keyboard is edge lit so you type in the dark with rounded keys that help you find the tiny buttons you're looking to type.

The Droid 4 is currently running Android 2.3.5, but should get a bump to Android 4.0 in the first half of the year.

It's slightly more powerful than its predecessor as well. It has a 1.2 GHz dual-core processor and 1GB of RAM, and we tested a variety of intensive apps and each were smooth and fast.

The Droid 4 also has an 8MP rear-facing camera capable of 1080p HD video capture. Our test pictures looked mediocre at best, but we'll wait to pass final judgment for when we have a bit more ideal lighting circumstances (Motorola's booth was exceptionally dark).

Other than that, many of the specs should look familiar. There's the same sized scratch resistant 4-inch display, 16GB internal memory (which can be expanded with up to a 32GB microSD), and LTE Hotspot capabilities.

So how much will this slider cost you? No firm price has been released, but rumors suggest the phone will release for $249 with a two-year contract.

But wait, there's more

Motorola also announced the Droid Razr Maxx, which adds a slight bulk to its wonderfully thin Droid Razr but adds a gargantuan 3300 mAh battery.

We'll let you know when official details surface for either of these phones.

Source: http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/mobile-phones/hands-on-motorola-droid-4-review-1054069