l phillips apm
Post on 29-Nov-2014
520 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Application Portfolio Management
at the Manitoba Government
Larry Phillips
Director Applications Management Services
Business Transformation and Technology
Government of Manitoba
October 17, 2011
APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC
Agenda
• Background
• Work completed
• Analysis of Manitoba’s application inventory
• Manitoba’s APM model
• Pilot results
• Top 50 applications analysis
• Lesson learned & next steps
• Questions
2
APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC
APM: A Definition
• Using concepts from investment portfolio
management gather and analyze:
– the cost to build and maintain the application,
– the business value produced
– the technical quality of the application
– and the expected lifespan
3
APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC
APM Objectives
• Identify and eliminate partially and wholly redundant
applications
• Quantify the condition of applications in terms of stability,
quality, and maintainability
• Quantify the business value / impact of applications and
the relative importance of each application to the
business
• Allocate resources according to the applications'
condition and importance in the context of business
priorities
4
APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC
APM Principles
• Treat applications as assets
• Manage assets as a portfolio
• Perform ongoing health assessments of
applications
• Use the information to strategically
determine future application investment
decisions
“Gartner research has shown that, on average, the cost to go live is
only 8% of the 15-year TCO of an application”
5
APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC
IT Investment Lifecycle
6
I. Strategic Planning,
Investment Selection, and
Planning – IPM Determine which assets to acquire.
II. Project Implementation – PPM Buy, build and implement assets in the right manner.
III. Operation,
Maintenance, and
Renewal/Retirement/
Replacement – APM Maintain and operate assets in the right
ways and renew, retire, or replace them at
the right times.
Source: State Government of North Carolina
APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC
How Did We get Here?
• Right technology then but wrong technology
today
• Too many technologies
• Total life cycle costs not considered
• Applications stretched beyond original intent
• Growing backlog of application vitality needs
• Expired warranties and support agreements
• Inability to run on modern infrastructure
7
APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC
What Are The Impacts?
• Impedes new service delivery models
• Inability to meet regulatory requirements
• Cannot handle increased usage or data volumes
• Inefficient ICT resource utilization
• Unable to meet security, privacy, confidentiality
requirements
• Overlapping and duplicate application functionality
• Makes disaster recovery and business continuity efforts
difficult and expensive
• Leads to data quality issues
• Dependency on individuals, ―heroic‖ support efforts
8
APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC
APMI Work Completed To Date
• Scope is all applications that BTT is directly responsible for
supporting
• Developed inventory of 550 Manitoba applications including
information on:
– Deployment date
– Business owner
– Primary, secondary and database technologies
– Line of business category
– Application support costs
• Completed high level analysis of portfolio inventory data
• Developed Manitoba tool kit to capture APM data
• Worked with departments on APM pilot of six applications
• Completed APM assessment and analysis of top 50 applications
9
APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC
Application Inventory Analysis
I. General statistical
A. What apps consume our time?
B. How many apps do we have by Technology?
C. How many apps do we have by Technology Type?
D. How many apps do we have by Department?
II. Age based
E. Most apps deployed since 1999.
F. Most time spent on apps <= 11 years old.
G. What is the average age of apps?
H. When did departments deploy apps?
III. Cost based
I. Where do we invest?
J. How much time is spent on old technologies?
IV. Risk based
K. What services have most technical risk?
10
APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC
General Statistical
A - Current Situation
• 550 applications in portfolio
– Applications defined as those requiring a server to
operate
– Does not include desktop/minor COTS applications
• Some key findings...
– Top 15 (3%) consume 50% of support resources
– Top 45 (8%) consume 75% of support resources
– Top 90 (16%) consume 90% of support resources
– Only 20 (4%) applications consume more than 1 FTE
– 239 (43%) either required or received no AMS
support in period from April 1 to December 31, 2010.
11
APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC
General Statistical
B – How Many Apps By Technology?
12
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Nu
mb
er
of
Ap
pli
cati
on
s
APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 13
General Statistical
C – How Many Apps By Tech Type?
Technology Type
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Nu
mb
er
of
Ap
pli
cati
on
s
APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 14
General Statistical
D – How Many Apps By Department?
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Nu
mb
er
of
Ap
pli
cati
on
s
APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 15
Age Based
E - Most Apps Have Been Deployed Since 1999
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
198
5
198
7
198
9
199
0
199
1
199
2
199
3
199
4
199
5
199
6
199
7
199
8
19
99
200
0
200
1
200
2
200
3
200
4
200
5
200
6
200
7
200
8
200
9
201
0
201
1
Cu
mu
lati
ve N
um
ber
of
Ap
ps
Dep
loyed
Ap
ps D
ep
loyed
Per
Year
APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC
Age Based
F - Most Time Spent on Apps <= 11 Years Old AMS Hours : April – December 2010
16
Year Application Was Deployed
Perc
en
t o
f T
ime
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
198
5
198
7
198
9
199
0
199
1
199
2
199
3
199
4
199
5
199
6
199
7
199
8
19
99
200
0
200
1
200
2
200
3
200
4
200
5
20
06
200
7
200
8
200
9
201
0
201
1
82% of time spent on
apps deployed since 1999
APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 17
Age Based
G – What Is Average Age of Apps?
-
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Years
APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC
Age Based
H – When Did Departments Deploy Apps?
18
0
10
20
30
40
50
60A
EL
BT
T
CH
T
CO
N
CO
R
CS
C
ED
U
ET
T
FIN
FS
CA
HC
D
HLY
S
IEM
JU
S
LIM
MA
FR
I
MH
MIT
SA
P
WS
D
MLG
AN
A
Nu
mb
er
of
Ap
pli
cati
on
s
Less Than 5 Years
5 - 10 Years
10 - 15 Years
15 - 20 years
More than 20 years
APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC
Cost Based
I – Where Do we Invest? AMS Hours : April – December 2010
19
51% in preferred technologies
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC
Cost Based
J - Half of Time Spent in Old Technologies AMS Hours : April – December 2010
20
51% in Standard Technologies
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 21
Risk Based
K - What Services Have Most Technical Risk? AMS Hours : April – December 2010
Pe
rce
nt
of
Tim
e
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Current Standard
Containment
Retire
Unclassified
APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC
From Inventory to Portfolio Management
• Assess applications using balanced scorecard
approach:
– Business Value
– Risk (Technical Integrity)
– Cost (AMS support hours today, holistic application
TCO in future)
• Application Scorecard
– Complete in collaboration with departments
– Measures value of application—not value of program
area
22
APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC
APM Model
Performance
Aspect Indicators
Business Business Process Support
Business Value
Data and Information Quality/Timeliness
Business Robustness
Life Cycle Position
Operational Complexity
Reliance on Subject Matter Experts
Maintenance Factors
Supportability
Availability and Cost of Support Skills
Technical Architectural Alignment
Foundational Technology Quality
Extensibility
Technical Performance Vendor Capability
23
APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC
Technical Integrity
High
Tolerate (Re-evaluate/
Reposition Asset)
Innovate/Invest (Maintain/
Evolve Asset)
Low
Eliminate (Retire/Replace)
Migrate (Re-engineer/
Modernize Asset)
Low High
Business Value
APM Analysis Framework (TIME)
24
?
APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC
Pilot Methodology
• Indicators rated zero to two for each app:
2 – Fully meets requirement
1 – Mostly meets requirement
0 – Fails to meet requirement
• Business Indicators scored jointly with
business area responsible
• Operational and Technical indicators
scored by BTT staff
25
APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC
Pilot Ratings
26
3.3 Extensibility The design, construction, integration and implementation of
the application ease changes. Indicators include:
• Addition of business functionality.
• Growth in number of users or volume of data.
• Addition, deletion or modification of interfaces and
integration to/from other applications.
• Adaptation to infrastructure changes.
• Collaborative interaction with external applications
or services.
• Evolution to new development languages and
methods.
• Gather data through discussions with key experts
in each area (design, construction, integration and
implementation) for each bulleted item.
• 2 (Good) — The application
is adaptive in all aspects of
extensibility and scalability.
• 1 (Fair) — The application
is adaptive in the most-
frequent changes (add
business function, growth,
interfaces and integration).
• 0 (Poor) — The application
is generally difficult to extend
or scale.
• Scorecard utilizes comprehensive, objective
framework for each criteria to aid in quality and
consistency of application ratings
APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC
Pilot Ratings
27
Business Process Support 0 0 0 0 0 1Business Importance 2 2 2 1 2 2Data and Information Quality/Timeliness 0 1 0 0 2 0Business Robustness 0 2 0 0 2 0Life Cycle Position 0 1 1 0 0 2
2 6 3 1 6 5Complexity 1 2 1 0 1 1Reliance on Subject Matter Experts 1 1 1 0 0 0Maintenance Factors 2 1 2 2 1 1Supportability 0 2 2 0 2 2Availability and Cost of Support Skills 0 2 2 0 0 0
Architectural Alignment 0 1 1 0 0 0Foundational Technology Quality 0 2 1 0 0 1Extensibility 0 2 1 0 1 1Technical Performance 1 2 1 1 2 1Vendor Capability 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 15 12 3 7 7TECHNICAL INTEGRITY
Ap
p 5
Ap
p 6
Business
BUSINESS VALUE
Operational
Technical
Performance
Aspect
Indicators
Ap
p 1
Ap
p 2
Ap
p 3
Ap
p 4
APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 28
Note: Object size
represents operational
cost
Application Heat Map
APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC
APM Phase 1
• Assess top 50 applications.
– Business Value
– Technical Integrity
• Completed September 2011
29
APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC
How Many Top 50 Apps in Each Quadrant?
30
Eliminate, 8
Invest, 36
Migrate, 2 Tolerate, 4
Number of Top 50 Applications By Quadrant
APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC
How do Costs Compare Across Quadrants?
31
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
Eliminate Invest Migrate Tolerate
Average Annual Cost per Application Number of Applications
APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC
Observations
• Positive feedback from participants on APM to address
concerns about application viability, risk and escalating
costs
• Most support investment devoted to apps deployed in
last 10 years, not older legacy apps, but..
• Often at expense of vitality of overall portfolio
• Acceptable number in standard technologies, but...
• Lots of disparate, boutique technologies and a high
number in containment technologies
• Most applications are maintainable—today—but vitality
deficit is increasing, vitality debt growing
32
APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC
Lessons Learned
• Business area involvement is essential but
engagement was challenging
• Significant effort required (2 to 4 hours per
application)
• Application inventory information is
valuable and must be maintained
• Program must be ongoing to be effective;
change is constant
33
APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC
Next Steps
• Proposed next steps
– Operationalize APM as an ongoing BTT
program
– APM analysis as input to capital planning
– Continue to work though application inventory
to completion
• Complete Top 100 by end of 2011
• Complete all apps by end of 2012
– Expand to include all costs (e.g. hardware,
system software, services, etc.)
34
APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC
Application Portfolio Management
35
top related