Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Software Engineering for Business Information Systems (sebis) Department of InformaticsTechnische Universität München, Germany
wwwmatthes.in.tum.de
Final Presentation Master’s Thesis:Tool Support for Capability-Based Application Portfolio Management- Conceptualization, Prototype Implementation, and EvaluationNovember 28th, 2016Fatih YilmazSupervisor: Pouya Aleatrati Khosroshahi, M.Sc.
Prof. Dr. Florian Matthes
Agenda
2
1
RESEARCH QUESTIONS &APPROACH
2
RELATED WORK
3
APPLICATIONLANDSCAPEEVALUATION
4
VISUALIZATION &PROTOTYPING
5
RESULTS
Final Presentation Master’s Thesis – Fatih Yilmaz
Motivation
3Final Presentation Master’s Thesis – Fatih Yilmaz
We had perhaps more than 80 [KPIs] throughout the business. Our objective was to achieve a increase in KPI visibility across our group, and understand what drives us.
- Statement of a German insurance company [Georges 2013]
You can’t manage what you can’t measure.- Peter Drucker (1909 - 2005)
”What gets measured gets done.- William Thomson (1824 - 1907)
Ever since the beginning of computing there has also been an interest in performance measurement.
- Wiggers (2004)
Measurement important for productivity
Performance measurement crucial in IT
Missing holistic view due to many Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
”” ”
” ”
””
Research Questions
4
?
?
?
What kind of application attributes can be used to evaluatethe status of application landscapes (AL)?
What kind of operational actions can be derived from the application landscape’s status?
How can the business capability map be used to visualize the application landscape’s status?
Final Presentation Master’s Thesis – Fatih Yilmaz
Agenda
5
1
RESEARCH QUESTIONS &APPROACH
2
RELATED WORK
3
APPLICATIONLANDSCAPEEVALUATION
4
VISUALIZATION &PROTOTYPING
5
RESULTS
Final Presentation Master’s Thesis – Fatih Yilmaz
Related Work
6
AL evaluation Aggregated status view
Capability-basedAPM
Aleatrati Khosroshahi (2016) (✓) complexity ✕ ✕
Schneider (2016) ✓ ✕ ✕
Schneider (2015) (✓) complexity ✕ ✕
Podgórski (2014) ✕ ✓ ✕
Schütz (2013) (✓) complexity ✕ ✕
Lagerström (2013) ✓ ✕ ✕
Kandjani (2012) (✓) complexity ✕ ✕
Freitag (2011) ✕ ✕ ✓
Ulrich (2011) ✕ ✕ ✓
Mocker (2009) (✓) complexity ✕ ✕
Saqib (2008) ✕ ✓ ✕
Jollands (2003) ✕ ✓ ✕
Weill (1999) ✓ ✓ ✕
Final Presentation Master’s Thesis – Fatih Yilmaz
Lack of research onholistic status evaluation of ALs by means of business capabilities
Agenda
7
1
RESEARCH QUESTIONS &APPROACH
2
RELATED WORK
3
APPLICATIONLANDSCAPEEVALUATION
4
VISUALIZATION &PROTOTYPING
5
RESULTS
Final Presentation Master’s Thesis – Fatih Yilmaz
KPI Aggregation Framework
8
“Subindices” Stated relevance
Number of interfaces [Mo09] [La08] [Schn15] [Schm13] [Re15] [Ki03] [Al16]
Operational costs [me12] [La08] [Industry partner]
Number of incidents [me12] [cap14] [La08]
Capability coverage [Mor02] [Mo09] [Schm13] [Re15]
Strategic relevance [Industry partner]
Application failure [Mor02] [cap14] [Va05]
Incident processing time [Industry partner]
Business impact [Industry partner]
Application age [Mo09] [Be13] [Ro06] [Sc04] [Al16]
Number of users [La08] [Al16]
Number of technological components
[Mo09] [Schn15] [Schm13] [Re15]
Deviation from standard [Mo09] [Bo09] [Schn15]
Weighting schemes:• Direct
monetization• Expert assessment• Public opinion
polls• Distance to target• Distance to policy
target• Cost of distance to
target• Implicit weighting• Statistical
methods
Select weighting scheme
Calculate weights
Calculate subindices
Select subindicesfor inclusion in
aggregation function
Select appropriate aggregation
function
Weights needed
?
Calculate aggregation
function
Report aggregate indices
No
Yes
Final Presentation Master’s Thesis – Fatih Yilmaz
Based on [Jo03]
9
“Subindices” Stated relevance
Number of interfaces [Mo09] [La08] [Schn15] [Schm13] [Re15] [Ki03] [Al16]
Operational costs [me12] [La08] [Industry partner]
Number of incidents [me12] [cap14] [La08]
Capability coverage [Mor02] [Mo09] [Schm13] [Re15]
Strategic relevance [Industry partner]
Application failure [Mor02] [cap14] [Va05]
Incident processing time [Industry partner]
Business impact [Industry partner]
Application age [Mo09] [Be13] [Ro06] [Sc04] [Al16]
Number of users [La08] [Al16]
Number of technological components [Mo09] [Schn15] [Schm13] [Re15]
Deviation from standard [Mo09] [Bo09] [Schn15]
COMPLEXITY QUALITY IMPACT
Initial objective:One distinct KPI representing the general AL status of the business capabilitiesProblem:Ambiguous statement of the KPISolution:Multiple KPI categories
Weighting schemes:• Direct
monetization• Expert assessment• Public opinion
polls• Distance to target• Distance to policy
target• Cost of distance to
target• Implicit weighting• Statistical
methods
Select weighting scheme
Calculate weights
Calculate subindices
Select subindicesfor inclusion in
aggregation function
Select appropriate aggregation
function
Weights needed
?
Calculate aggregation
function
Report aggregate indices
No
Yes
KPI Aggregation Framework
Final Presentation Master’s Thesis – Fatih Yilmaz
Based on [Jo03]
10
Requirements [Industrial partner]
- TraceabilityTraceable function
- RobustnessAdaptable to different use cases
- ComparabilityDifferent market KPIs are comparable
Weighting schemes:• Direct
monetization• Expert assessment• Public opinion
polls• Distance to target• Distance to policy
target• Cost of distance to
target• Implicit weighting• Statistical
methods
Select weighting scheme
Calculate weights
Calculate subindices
Select subindicesfor inclusion in
aggregation function
Select appropriate aggregation
function
Weights needed
?
Calculate aggregation
function
Report aggregate indices
No
Yes
KPI Aggregation Framework
Final Presentation Master’s Thesis – Fatih Yilmaz
Based on [Jo03]
11
𝑪𝒐𝒎𝒑𝒍𝒆𝒙𝒊𝒕𝒚+,- =1
𝐴+,-1 (
𝑖_𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒_𝑖𝑛; + 𝑖_𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒_𝑜𝑢𝑡; ∗ 𝑃 + 𝑒_𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒_𝑖𝑛; + 𝑒_𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒_𝑜𝑢𝑡;⋃ 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙_𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑠_𝐼𝑁- + ⋃ 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙_𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑠_𝑂𝑈𝑇-�
-∈K�-∈K
�
;∈MN,O
+
PQ-RST_UV_+UWSTSX_+;Y;RZ[Z\ZS]^⋃ \U\;[_PQ-RST_UV_+;Y;RZ[\ZS]O�O∈_
+;`S^
abc(⋃ {;`S^,O})O∈_
+
PQ-RST_UV_\S+gPU[U`h_+U-YUPSP\]^⋃ \U\;[_PQ-RST_UV_\S+gPU[U`h_+U-YUPSP\]�O∈_ O
+
(1 − PQ-RST_UV_]\;PX;TX_+U-Y[Z;P\_\S+gPU[U`h_+U-YUPSP\]^PQ-RST_UV_\S+gPU[U`h_+U-YUPSP\]^
))
A denotes the set of all applicationsa denotes the observed applicationc denotes the observed business capabilitiesm denotes the observed marketsAc,mdenotes the set of all applications used in the capability c of the market mP denotes the „Penalty“ value for capability internal interfaces (e.g. 0,5)
𝐴+,-:= 𝑎|𝑎 ∈ 𝐴 ∧ 𝑐 ∈ 𝐶 ∧ 𝑚 ∈ 𝑀 ∧ 𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑠(𝑐, 𝑎) ∧ 𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑(𝑐,𝑚)𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑠 ⊆ 𝐶×𝐴
𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 ⊆ 𝐶×𝑀
Weighting schemes:• Direct
monetization• Expert assessment• Public opinion
polls• Distance to target• Distance to policy
target• Cost of distance to
target• Implicit weighting• Statistical
methods
Select weighting scheme
Calculate weights
Calculate subindices
Select subindicesfor inclusion in
aggregation function
Select appropriate aggregation
function
Weights needed
?
Calculate aggregation
function
Report aggregate indices
No
Yes
KPI Aggregation Framework
Final Presentation Master’s Thesis – Fatih Yilmaz
Based on [Jo03]
12
𝑸𝒖𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚+,-,\ =1
𝐴+,-1 �
;∈MN,O
(1 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟_𝑜𝑓_𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠;,},\ ∗ 𝑎𝑣𝑔_𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔_𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒;,},\ ∗ 𝑃)�
}∈�
+𝑠𝑢𝑚_𝑜𝑓_𝑑𝑜𝑤𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑠;,\)
𝑰𝒎𝒑𝒂𝒄𝒕+,-,\ =1
𝐴+,-1 (�
;∈MN,O
𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔_𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠;,\max(⋃ {𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔_𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠;,-,\})
-∈K +
𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟_𝑜𝑓_𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑟;,\
𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟_𝑜𝑓_𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑦𝑒𝑒𝑠-,\+
𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙_𝑏𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠_𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡;)+𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑐_𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒+
𝑃 =
0,1𝑖𝑓𝑘𝜖𝐼𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡[U�0,2𝑖𝑓𝑘𝜖𝐼𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡-SXZQ-0,5𝑖𝑓𝑘𝜖𝐼𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡gZ`g1𝑖𝑓𝑘𝜖𝐼𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡+TZ\Z+;[
Exemplary values. Can be adjusted by the expert.
t denotes observed timer periodk denotes incident categoryP denotes the ”penalty” value
𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙_𝑏𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠_𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡;:= 1,0𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑐_𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒+:= 1,0
Weighting schemes:• Direct
monetization• Expert assessment• Public opinion
polls• Distance to target• Distance to policy
target• Cost of distance to
target• Implicit weighting• Statistical
methods
Select weighting scheme
Calculate weights
Calculate subindices
Select subindicesfor inclusion in
aggregation function
Select appropriate aggregation
function
Weights needed
?
Calculate aggregation
function
Report aggregate indices
No
Yes
KPI Aggregation Framework
Final Presentation Master’s Thesis – Fatih Yilmaz
Based on [Jo03]
13
“Subindices” Weight
Number of interfaces 0,47
Capability coverage 0,3
Number of technological components
0,1
Deviation from standard 0,1
Application age 0,03
“Subindices” Weight
Application failure 0,53
Number of incidents 0,33
Incident processing time 0,13
“Subindices” Weight
Operational costs 0,33
Strategic relevance 0,27
Business impact 0,3
Number of users 0,1
COMPLEXITY
QUALITY
IMPACT
Weighting schemes:• Direct
monetization• Expert assessment• Public opinion
polls• Distance to target• Distance to policy
target• Cost of distance to
target• Implicit weighting• Statistical
methods
Select weighting scheme
Calculate weights
Calculate subindices
Select subindicesfor inclusion in
aggregation function
Select appropriate aggregation
function
Weights needed
?
Calculate aggregation
function
Report aggregate indices
No
Yes
KPI Aggregation Framework
Final Presentation Master’s Thesis – Fatih Yilmaz
Based on [Jo03]
𝑰𝒎𝒑𝒂𝒄𝒕+,-,\ =1
𝐴+,-1 (�
;∈MN,O
𝑔 𝑖 ∗𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔_𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠;,\
max(⋃ {𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔_𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠;,-,\})-∈K
+
𝑔 𝑢 ∗𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟_𝑜𝑓_𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑟;,\
𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟_𝑜𝑓_𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑦𝑒𝑒𝑠-,\+
𝑔 𝑏𝑖 ∗ 𝑏𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠_𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡;)+𝑔 𝑠 ∗ 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑐_𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒+
14
𝑪𝒐𝒎𝒑𝒍𝒆𝒙𝒊𝒕𝒚+,- =1
𝐴+,-1 (𝑔 𝑖𝑛𝑡 ∗
𝑖_𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒_𝑖𝑛; + 𝑖_𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒_𝑜𝑢𝑡; ∗ 𝑃 + 𝑒_𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒_𝑖𝑛; + 𝑒_𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒_𝑜𝑢𝑡;⋃ 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙_𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑠_𝐼𝑁- + ⋃ 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙_𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑠_𝑂𝑈𝑇-�
-∈K�-∈K
�
;∈MN,O
+
𝑔 𝑐𝑜𝑣 ∗ PQ-RST_UV_+UWSTSX_+;Y;RZ[Z\ZS]^⋃ \U\;[_PQ-RST_UV_+;Y;RZ[\ZS]O�O∈_
+
𝑔 𝑎𝑔𝑒 ∗ ;`S^abc(⋃ {;`S^,O})
O∈_+
𝑔 𝑡𝑒𝑐 ∗ PQ-RST_UV_\S+gPU[U`h_+U-YUPSP\]^⋃ \U\;[_PQ-RST_UV_\S+gPU[U`h_+U-YUPSP\]�O∈_ O
+
𝑔 𝑑𝑒𝑣 ∗ (1 − PQ-RST_UV_]\;PX;TX_+U-Y[Z;P\_\S+gPU[U`h_+U-YUPSP\]^PQ-RST_UV_\S+gPU[U`h_+U-YUPSP\]^
)
𝑸𝒖𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚+,-,\ =1
𝐴+,-1 �
;∈MN,O
( 𝑔 𝑖𝑛𝑐 + 𝑔 𝑡 ∗ (1 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟_𝑜𝑓_𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠;,},\ ∗ 𝑎𝑣𝑔_𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔_𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒;,},\ ∗ 𝑃)�
}∈�
+𝑔 𝑑 ∗ 𝑠𝑢𝑚_𝑜𝑓_𝑑𝑜𝑤𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑠;,\)
1𝑔(𝑥)�
�
= 1
1𝑔(𝑥)�
�
= 1
1𝑔(𝑥)�
�
= 1
Weighting schemes:• Direct
monetization• Expert assessment• Public opinion
polls• Distance to target• Distance to policy
target• Cost of distance to
target• Implicit weighting• Statistical
methods
Select weighting scheme
Calculate weights
Calculate subindices
Select subindicesfor inclusion in
aggregation function
Select appropriate aggregation
function
Weights needed
?
Calculate aggregation
function
Report aggregate indices
No
Yes
KPI Aggregation Framework
Final Presentation Master’s Thesis – Fatih Yilmaz
Based on [Jo03]
Agenda
15
1
RESEARCH QUESTIONS &APPROACH
2
RELATED WORK
3
APPLICATIONLANDSCAPEEVALUATION
4
VISUALIZATION &PROTOTYPING
5
RESULTS
Final Presentation Master’s Thesis – Fatih Yilmaz
Mock-Up
5.5.2014Discussion of Deliverable for Milestone 1 16
CAT
1 Cap 1
Cap 1.1 Cap 1.2
Cap 2
Cap 2.1 Cap 2.2
Cap 2.3
Cap 3
Cap 3.1 Cap 3.2
CAT
2
BUSINESS CAPABILITY MAP – APPLICATION COMPLEXITY STATUS 2016Germany
Cap 2.1
Cap 2.3
Cap 2.2
Cap 2.1
5.5.2014Discussion of Deliverable for Milestone 1 17
LIVE DEMO
Agenda
18
1
RESEARCH QUESTIONS &APPROACH
2
RELATED WORK
3
APPLICATIONLANDSCAPEEVALUATION
4
VISUALIZATION &PROTOTYPING
5
RESULTS
Final Presentation Master’s Thesis – Fatih Yilmaz
Results
19Final Presentation Master’s Thesis – Fatih Yilmaz
Future workKPI Aggregation Visualization
Robustness:• Use a larger data set for reliable multicollinearity
and outliers tests
Flexibility:• Adaptable layout of the business capability map• Colour scale adjustment in the front end
Maturity:• Widen expert evaluation for more precise weighting
Automatization:• EAM tool connection for automatic data transfer
Main contributionKPI Aggregation Visualization
Identification, filtering and categorization of application status evaluating characteristics Continuous requirements elicitation
Development and continuous improvement ofaggregated KPIs Conceptual design of the prototype
Expert evaluation
THANK YOU!ANY QUESTIONS?
Fatih Yilmaz (B.Sc.)
Technische Universität München Department of InformaticsChair of Software Engineering forBusiness Information Systems
Boltzmannstraße 385748 Garching bei München
References
21
[Al16]Aleatrati Khosroshahi, P., Beese, J., & Aier, S. (2016). What drives application portfolio complexity? An empirical analysis of application portfolio cost drivers at a global automotive company. In 18th IEEE Conference on Business Informatics (CBI 2016), Paris.[Be13]Beetz, “Wirkung von IT-Governance auf IT-Komplexitat in Unternehmen, Beeinflussung der IT-Redundanz durch Verantwortungsteilung im T-Projektportfolio,” Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer Fachmedien, 2013.[Bo06]E. Bouwers, J. Visser and A. van Deursen, "Criteria for the evaluation of implemented architectures," Software Maintenance, 2009. ICSM 2009.IEEE International Conference on, Edmonton, AB, 2009, pp. 73-82.[Fr11]Freitag, A., Matthes, F., Schulz, C., & Nowobilska, A. (2011). A method for business capability dependency analysis.In International Conference on IT-enabled Innovation in Enterprise (ICITIE2011), Sofia.[Geo13]Georges, P. M., & Hus, J. (2013). Six figure management method: How to grow your business with the only 6 KPIs you'll ever need. Kogan Page Publishers.[Jo03]Jollands, N. (2003). The usefulness of aggregate indicators in policy making and evaluation:a discussion with application to eco-efficiency indicatorsin New Zealand.[Ka13]Kandjani, H., Bernus, P., & Nielsen, S. (2013, January). Enterprise architecture cybernetics and the edge of chaos: Sustaining enterprises ascomplex systems in complex business environments. In System Sciences (HICSS), 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 3858-3867). IEEE.[Ki03]Kirchhof, “Ganzheitliches Komplexitatsmanagement,” Wiesbaden, Germany, Springer Fachmedien, 2003.[Lag13]Lagerstro m, C. Y. Baldwin, A. D. Maccormack, and S. Aier, “Visualizing and Measuring Enterprise Application Architecture: An Exploratory Telecom Case,”Harvard Business School Working Paper, no. 13-103, 2013.[La08]Lankes. Metrics for Application Landscapes: Status Quo, Development, and a Case Study: Dissertation. PhD thesis,Technische Universität München, München, 2008.[me12]mega, "Keys to Get a Simple, Organized View of your Application Landscape", 2012
Final Presentation Master’s Thesis – Fatih Yilmaz
References
22
[Mo09]Mocker, "What Is Complex About 273 Applications? Untangling Application Architecture Complexity in a Case of European Investment Banking,”System Sciences, 2009. HICSS '09. 42nd Hawaii International Conference on, Big Island, HI, 2009, pp. 1-14.[Mor02]Morisio, Maurizio and Stamelos, Ioannis and Tsoukias, Alexis, "A New Method to Evaluate Software Artifacts Against Predefined Profiles",SEKE '02 Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Software engineering and knowledge engineering, Pages 811-818[Po15]Podgórski, D. (2015). Measuring operational performance of OSH management system–A demonstration of AHP-based selection of leadingkey performance indicators. Safety science, 73, 146-166.[Re15]Rennenkampff, Management von IT-Agilitat, Entwicklung eines Kennzahlensystems zur Messung der Agilitat von Anwendungslandschaften,Dissertation. PhD thesis, Technische Universität Illmeanu, Illmenau, 2015[Ro03]Ross, J. W.: Creating a strategic IT Architecture Compentency: Learning in Stages. MIS Quarterly Executive, Vol. 2(1), 2003.[Ro06]Ross, P. Weill, and D.C. Robertson, “Enterprise Architecture As Strategy,” Boston, USA: Harvard Business School Press, 2006.[Sa08]Saqib, N., Siddiqi, M.T., 2008. Aggregation of safety performance indicators to higher-level indicators. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 93, 307–315. [Sc04]Scantlebury, W. Thiel, A. Datel, and S. Kimmel, “From IT Complexity to Commonality: Making Your Business More Nimble”,The Boston Consulting Group, 2004.[Schm13]Schmidt, C.; Widjaja, T.; Schutz, A.: Messung der Komplexitat von IT-Landschaften auf der Basis von Architektur-Metamodellen:Ein generischer Ansatz und dessen Anwendung im Rahmen der Architektur- Transformation. Informatik 2013 –Beitrage der 43. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft fur Informatik. Kollen Verlag, Bonn.[Schn15]Schneider, A.W.; Reschenhofer, T.; Schütz, A. and Matthes, F.: Empirical Results for Application Landscape Complexity,48th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS), Kauai, USA, 2015[Schn16]Schneider, A. W. (2016): Decisions Support for Application Landscape Diversity Management (Doctoral dissertation, Technische Universität München)
Final Presentation Master’s Thesis – Fatih Yilmaz
References
23
[Ul11]Ulrich, W., & Rosen, M. (2011). The business capability map: the" rosetta stone" of business/it alignment. Cutter Consortium,Enterprise Architecture, 24(4).[Va05]Vasconcelos, A., Sousa, P., & Tribolet, J. (2005). Information System Architecture Evaluation: From Software to Enterprise Level Approaches.Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on IT Evaluation (ECITE 2005).[We99]Weill, P., & Vitale, M. (1999). Assessing the health of an information systems applications portfolio: An example from process manufacturing.MIS quarterly, 601-624.
Final Presentation Master’s Thesis – Fatih Yilmaz
Application Landscape Evaluation Process
24
2
3
Identify Application Characteristics
Filter for relevant application characteristics
Screen relevant Application Characteristics
4
5
6
Develop aggregated KPIs to evaluate the AL of business capabilities based on the application characteristics
Conceptualization of AL evaluating KPIs
Evaluation of the developed KPIs by researcher and industrial experts
KPI evaluation
Gathering, Cleansing and Analysis of the Cooperation Partner’s Data
Data Collection and Cleansing
Individual AL assessment of each business capability by evaluating the included applications
AL Evaluation
1 Literature reviewIdentification of needed application characteristics to evaluate the application
Literature reviewExpert interview
USE
CAS
E
Expert interview
Literature reviewExperiments
7 Determine Recommendations for Action
Final Presentation Master’s Thesis – Fatih Yilmaz
Based on[We99, Sa06, Fa07, Kr09, Si10]
Research Approach
25
Identify problemand motivate
Define objectivesof a solution
Design &Development
Demonstration &Evaluation Discussion
Missing holistic view of AL status
Missing linkage between BCs and APM
Create a holistic view of AL status
Create a appropriate linkage of AL status and BCs
Developaggregated KPIs
Use business capability map to visualize AL status
Prototyping
Expert interviews
Design Science Approach
Process iteration
Final Presentation Master’s Thesis – Fatih Yilmaz
Based on [Peffers 2008, Hevner 2004]
Visualization Requirements
26
General requirements
Dashboard Time period Market KPI type Market comparability
Selection information
PowerPoint export
Capability visualization requirementsLayout Easy interpretation High-level perspective Strategic relevance
Application landscape visualization requirementsComplexity Quality Impact Application information
Application visualization requirementsApplication name Components information Transparency
Non-functional requirementsUsability Performance Maintainability
Final Presentation Master’s Thesis – Fatih Yilmaz
Visualization Logic
27
AL Complexity
Production
CapabilityMap APP 002
Product Design
Product Marketing
APP 019
APP 742
APP 867
APP 900
APP 019
APP 542
APP 003
Interface to 50 other applications- 5 within the same capability- 45 not in the same capability
Used in 7 Capabilities
5 years since go-live
10 underlying technology components
Final Presentation Master’s Thesis – Fatih Yilmaz
Data Model
28Final Presentation Master’s Thesis – Fatih Yilmaz