Here’s a quick update on the LFEdge AIOps for Distributed Environments project:
https://medium.com/@andreas.spanner/towards-self-adjusting-aiops-systems-an-update-33e523d9686a

Organisational Capabilities, Edge, AI, Cloud, Roadmaps, Apps or Integration – Everything an Architect's Heart Desires
Here’s a quick update on the LFEdge AIOps for Distributed Environments project:
https://medium.com/@andreas.spanner/towards-self-adjusting-aiops-systems-an-update-33e523d9686a
Based on the discussions around the NRF – The Retail Big Show in Singapore this latest blog describes the future of Retail being Headless Retail and links also my two earlier blog posts to give the reader a cohesive and comprehensive view across technology, humans and the resulting user (UX) or better AI Agent Experience (AAX).
Based on the conversations during NRF and dedicated Retail dinners with startups and partners this is not a comprehensive list – there are more things coming, but Headless Retail is right in the center of it.
In this demo and associated blog post, I show how agentic Retail will change our shopping experience.
It covers things like:
All experiments are tracked via MLFlow.
Please reach out and let me know what you think! Your feedback is a much appreciated gift.

In this article I am describing an Chaos Engineering way to test AIOps agents via an evaluation harnesses:
In this blog post I cover the current open source available storage backends for data ingestion and retrieval to support organisations toward AIOps for inference and training across anomaly detection, signal correlation, root-cause analysis and remediation as part of a codified bechmark harness under LFEdge/InfiniEdgeAI/AIOps: https://github.com/lfedgeai/AIOps
I am examing data ingestion performance

and data query performance:

In this article at redhat.com Yan Meng and I go through how kubernetes CRDs of the open source project Open Cluster Management (OCM) help to create, deploy and manage distributed and federated learning (AI) environments:

Let me know which FL use cases you are currently working on or would like to explore!
Thanks!
Andreas
In this article I cover some pitfalls you need to be aware of if you want to ‘free’ your NVIDIA (or any other really) GPU from your HDMI port, because you want to use it for AI model work:
https://medium.com/@andreas.spanner/openshift-with-gpu-support-on-your-laptop-6552c3932b34
In this post I showcase in collaboration with Michael Cawte (Principal at Section6) how to utilize geospatial AI capabilities based on the Granite Prithvi Model family.
Use cases based on IBM use cases are:
https://medium.com/@andreas.spanner/geospatial-granite-models-on-openshift-4119e7c1b04d
All this is deployed on Red Hat OpenShift and was developed as a demo for a Fire & Emergency department.
I recently caught up with John Willis (co-author of the DevOps handbook). We were both on a call with a client and after that hosting the CNCF & DevOps Meetup in Wellington with our good friend BMK. On that day the good old question “Do organisations need Enterprise Architecture (EA) in times of Agile & DevOps?” came up again.
The timing for this question was perfect, because I spent many years in Enterprise Architecture and Agile, while Johns background is obviously DevOps and Agile, but we both have the same view: Yes, absolutely! And here’s why.
This question is fundamental, because once you understand what Enterprise Architecture is you can derive the answer. The problem with the original question is really homemade.
Because many organisations call some of their architects Enterprise Architects, when they are really not, causes confusion. If you are looking after an Enterprise wide virtualisation platform for example you are NOT an Enterprise Architect in an Enteprise Architecture sense. I’ve written a more detailed piece on the different types of architects here.
Simply put, an Enterprise Architect helps define mission, vision, goals and the strategies to accomplish those goals. Mr & Mrs EA then help determine which capabilities (people, process & technology) the organisation needs to build in order to be able to execute the strategies that help accomplish the goals. A great framework depicting how this fits together is the means-to-end framework:

The ‘Tactical’ layer defines the programs, projects, products and services (i.e. initiatives) that build or uplift the desired capabilities. You can of course also find more scientific definitions of EA on the internet, but this is a simple and practical explanation of what EA is which works well for me.
And that’s the moment where Agile and DevOps comes into play.
DevOps principles and the Agile way of working are methodology options (just like manual & waterfall) how you prioritise, define, build, test and deliver capabilities or capability uplifts. You could call Agile and DevOps also ‘enabling capabilities’ if you like.
And that’s really it. Simples.
Now, it’s easy to see how things get confusing when people who write Java Enterprise Edition (J2EE) based software get referred to as Enterprise Architects. But the problem is not with Enterprise Architecture, the problem is that those people are simply not Enterprise Architects.
If such a confusion exists in your organisation or with your customers, it might be worth running a workshop and getting the categorisation and scope of all the architects in your organisation examined and clarified. Examples of different types of architects are: systems, software, technical, infrastructure, operations, presales, delivery, business and enterprise architects.
Get them in a room to land on a common definition and understanding. It might get heated, but that’s OK. Terminally nice is way worse than passionate, respectful exchanges.
Keen to get your thoughts,
Andreas
IDC defines Progressive Transformation as the modernisation of systems through gradual replacement of technology through a prioritised catalogue of business functionality. It leverages open APIs, agile development and cloud architectures.
I think IDC’s definition is a good start, but it needs to go further. It needs to extend into capabilities not just functionality. Successful transformation considers the evolution of people (incl. skills & culture) as well as the process dimension. Let me share what I’ve witnessed over the past few years across different industries.
This reference architecture brings together several concepts:
Over the last 4 years, while working across different industries in the ‘digital’ space I have witnessed the necessity to compete at speed while retaining a high level of quality. The learnings and observations are compiled into this reference architecture. It addresses the need for incumbent organisations to step up as nimble digital disrupters enter industries with the aim to compete with specific products or services of the incumbent’s value chain. Being small, nimble and fast and without slow-to-change legacy environments, slowly but surely those disrupters are reducing the customer value proposition and share of wallet of existing players.
This reference architecture helps established industry players to compete against new nimble entrants.
‘Digitally Infused Business Transformation’ is going on already for quite a while. Progressive means continually and ongoing, not big bang. Interestingly, 10 to 15 years ago we weren’t really talking about ‘Digital Transformation’ that much – just projects really – but whenever I see technology used to alter (and hopefully improve) customer or employee experience – meaning it changes people, process AND technology then I deem it Digital Transformation.
What has changed though the most is
a) Of course the technologies used but also
b) The expected outcomes in terms of user experience and speed of delivery of new features.
The reason this is important is because it directly alters the solution architectures, designs and impacts the way of working of delivery teams. Less and less are people willing to wait months for an important new feature.
A quick history detour
Around the year 2000 we developed web portals in ASP/PHP and a database running on clustered servers, business applications were written in J2EE using EJBs/JPA and hibernate. In 2005, I developed mobile applications using the .NET compact framework. Even though high cohesion and loose coupling has always been a design principle, back then we didn’t really talk about APIs, distributed integration, and microservices. Gantt charts and project plans were a must. The Agile Manifesto was born 2001. Domain Driven Design just came to live around 2003 and Linux Containers around 2008. In 2004, my team implemented for the first time ‘daily build and smoke tests’ which I consider the predecessor of today’s CI/CD.
All those individual evolutions in combination with recognising organisation culture as a key enabler to create high performing organisations have led to a perfect storm which today drives Digital Transformation.
Enough reminiscing.
I am now introducing a conceptual reference architecture to enable IDC’s Progressive Transformation which my colleagues and I have applied and used as a starting point within successful customer engagements. This reference architecture has even found its way into strategy documents in our client base.
Before I start I’d like to recognise different architectural layers. From top to bottom these are:

I leave the topic of Day 2 operational concerns, Agile DevOps teams and Service Reliability Engineering for core platforms and systems out for this post, but they are nevertheless important. That’s essentially what the yellow box on the right is for.
The 3 red bars are part of the fast cadence, fast rate of change paradigm, where Agile and DevOps enabled teams work with the customers to drive the desired features and functions through fast feedback loops. Those feature teams are responsible for the development as well as the running of those services (DevOps) teams. There is no throwing over the fence on Friday afternoon. Organisations often prefer a microservices architecture, although it’s not mandatory.
Most importantly is that those different architectural components are hosted on a platform which abstracts low level concerns such as storage, networking, compute, O/S away for the feature teams to focus on customer requirements with a starting point as close as possible to the customer aka as high as possible up the value chain.
Underneath we have the Mode 1 layer. This is made up of mostly existing monolithic middleware components and core systems which feed the mode 2 layer above. That said, it can also be your Salesforce CRM system that contains important data that service/product teams need to draw upon. Those systems are generally maintained by traditional ops teams. Upgrades and migrations are often executed in a traditional waterfall plan-do Both systems and ops teams are commissioned to keep the lights on, not for speed of change. Business critical information assets need to be backup-ed and restored, batch processes and maintenance routines run (processes). This Mode 1 paradigm is also important to not have all people at once change the way they work. Agile is less frequent in those teams, although in progressive organisations I see Mode 1 teams generate upward pressure to their managers as they too want to use new tools, technologies and ways of working. This is where automation and a road map towards service reliability engineering (SRE) can become important to keep growth mindset staff engaged and progressing.
To summarise, those concepts marry new modern ways of application design (microservices, Domain Driven Design) and modern ways of working (DevOps & Agile) with existing legacy systems and mode 1 operations. This combination allows incumbent industry players to compete with digital disrupters in their own or even adjacent industries.
Keen to get your thoughts,
Andreas