PORTFOLIO METRICS PROGRAM - Amazon S3 · 2014-12-20 · HINDERING APPS OPERATIONALLY BURDENSOME APPS SKILLS DEFICIENT APPS These apps may have technical or functional limitations

01 PortfolioSummary 02 Business

Enablement Assessment 03 Business Function

Drilldown 04 06 Criticality Assessment 07 Criticality

Assessment Drilldown 08 Individual

Applications Summaries05

REPORT OVERVIEWProduct Effectiveness Assessment

Vendor Effectiveness Assessment

APPLICATIONPORTFOLIO METRICS

PROGRAM

PREPARED FOR:John Doe, CIOComputer Business Inc.March 20, 2014

POWERED BY:

Company XPrepared for:Name, RoleNumber of Respondents: 100Number of Applications: 48

Last Updated: MMM,YYYY








Vendor Partnership

Vendor Support Satisfaction

Implementation & Setup

Business Users Satsfaction



IT Users Satsfaction



VENDOR EFFECTIVENESSPRODUCT EFFECTIVENESS

Portfolio Summary

Satisfaction Rating35

Respondents

END USER SATISFACTION

Features & functionality

Data Quality

Ease of use

APPLICATION PORTFOLIO METRICS PROGRAM

Overall IT Users’ Satisfaction Rating Overall Business Users’ Satisfaction Rating

79% 79%

3522IT Respondents Business Respondents

OVERALL IT USERS OVERALL BUSINESS USERS

74%

80%

70%

75%

85%

76%

82%

TechnicalCapability

Ease of Management

TechnicalIntegration

IT SkillsCapacity

FunctionalCapability

FunctionalReliability

Workfl ow & Data Integration

Business Skills Capacity

74%70%

68%

85%

75%

88%83%

76%

69%

92%

81%

80%

70%

50%

TechnicalAlignment

FunctionalAlignment

82%

80%

73%

86%

Business Needs Alignment

63%Completely

Unique

65%Replaceable

Partial Overlap

Complete Overlap

15%

5%

UniquenessReplaceability

35%Irreplaceable

65%

ProductCapability

Business Process Integration

Business Needs Alignment

Operational Effi ciency

Strategic Flexibility

Skills Capacity

BUSINESS ENABLEMENT












Group(s)Satisfi ed Life

cycle

StageLocatio

n

Average

Approach

Adequacy to Meet Future Needs

Business Enablement Assessment – Overview

BUSINESS ENABLEMENT

TechnicalAlignment

FunctionalAlignment

82%80%

73%86%

Future Needs Alignment


Application Name

Salesforce.com Chatter Plus

Dynamics AX for Field Service

HRsmart Unifi ed Talent Management Suite

NEOGOV Insight

Microsoft SkyDrive Pro

Seapine TestTrack Pro 2012

IBM Cognos Express 10

Judicial Enforcement Management System

These applications have been fl agged as eliciting

discrepancies between IT and business users

in terms of the future fi t of the application at

the organization.

Assessment of the fi t of an application to the needs of the organization is critical as a fi rst step, regardless of the technical and functional quality of an app, or the vendor effectiveness. Evalute applications according to business function, to ensure that each function has a collection of apps that meet those needs, according to both IT and Business Users.

These applications are aligning poorest with

the future needs of the organization from the

perspective of both IT and Business users. These likely

need to be addressed fi rst.

Adequacy to Meet Future Needs

# of Apps

Total # of Apps

AverageScore Growth Maturity DeathFunctional Area

Production 7 1

92%

92%

91%

86%

84%

79%

76%

72%

65%

58%

55%

6 0

12

9

4

4

7

7

1

1

R&D

Industry Specifi c

SAP Crystal Reports 2008

For The Record Falcon

Overall Portfolio Alignment Satisfaction

This score is an overall indication of how well evaluated applications are setting up the organization to meet current and future business needs. This score is made up of alignment with business needs, fl exibility to adjust to changing needs, and overlap with other apps in the portfolio.

81%

84%

68%

89%

76%

51%

53%

54%

55%

55%

CONTROVERSIALAPPLICATIONS

ADEQUACY TO MEET FUTURE NEEDS ACCORDING TO BUSINESS FUNCTION

MOST IN NEEDOF ADDRESSING

5 most

5 apps

Legend

8%

31%

32%

29%

APPLICATION BUSINESS FUNCTION ENABLEMENT

BY LIFECYCLE STAGEGROUP SATISFACTION SUMMARY

At any given time, any organization will have many

applications at various lifecycle stages. Ideally, lifecycle stage

should align with the needs of the business going forward

because the cost of maintaining applications tends to increase

over time as maintenance costs go up and the value of

applications declines. Ensure that dying apps are disposed

of and growing apps are satisfactory to all groups.Growth

Lifecyle StageMaturity Death

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

63%Completely

Unique

85%Replaceable

0 Extremely Dissatisfi ed



Extremely Satisfi ed 100



11

9

8

10

5

6

3

1 2

>

IT User Group

BusinessUser Group

Both User Groups

Neither User Groups

Group(s) Satisfi ed (Satisfaction Score —%)

# of

App

licat

ions

Locations Approach

Module Bought BuiltOn-Premises Co-Lo/MSP Cloud

Partial Overlap

Complete Overlap

15%

5%


35%Irreplaceable

Customer Service 12 1 6 0

HR 4 1 6 0

Administration 5 1 6 0

Finance 5 1 6 0

6 4 7 1Distribution

IT 12 1 6 0

9 4 7 1Marketing

Sales 11 1 6 0

100

88

82

73

68

65

49

75

84

96

90

90

77

79

61

95

89 93

69

66

61

50

69

80

93

98

61

59

73

59

58

45

49

48

94

78

94

57

59

63

45

51










Business Enablement Assessment – Business Function Drilldown

Managing and rationalizing the application portfolio should involve an assessment of functional overlap by functional process area. This avoids confusion for ends users around when to use what, and also simplifies management.

BUSINESS FUNCTION PROCESS AREA

* Administration 83%

65%

75%

55%

35%

78%

63%

43%

72%

52%

18%

* Finance* Customer Service* HR* Distribution* IT* Marketing* SalesProductionR&D

* Represents the Business Function Process Areas that appear on this page.

Industry Specific

Group(s) Satis

fied

Group(s) Satis

fied

Group(s) Satis

fied

Lifecyc

le Stage

Lifecyc

le Stage

Lifecyc

le Stage

Replaceability

Replaceability

Replaceability

Uniqueness

Uniqueness

Uniqueness

Microsoft SharePoint 2013

Sage 500 ERP 2013 – HumanResources & Payroll

Sage 500 ERP 2013 – Accounting Solutions

Salesforce.com Service Cloud


Salesforce.com Chatter Plus

Sage 500 ERP – Business & Resource Management


Salesforce.com Sales Cloud

Cisco Webex Connect IM

Client Communication System




KLRS Reporting System

Dynamics AX for Field Service

Symantec NetBackup


BMC Remedyforce


Marketo Standard

Sage 500 ERP - Business & Resource Management


Sage 500 ERP - Business & Resource Management



Hootsuite Enterprise

Oracle PeopleSoft 9 – Supply Chain Management

Salesforce.com Knowledge


Cisco Webex Meeting Center

Symantec Enterprise Vault



HRsmart Unified Talent Management Suite

Microsoft Dynamics AX 2009



IBM Cognos Express 10KLRS Reporting System


Trustwave SIEM


EMC RSA DLP


Company Intranet Site



Marketo Standard


Cisco Identity Services Engine


Cisco IPS

Sophos SafeGuard Enterprise

Business Function Process Area Applications Assessment

ADMINISTRATION

HR

FINANCE

CUSTOMER SERVICE

DISTRIBUTION

IT

MARKETING

SALES

Legend

Replaceable Irreplaceable

Replaceability

Completely Unique

Complete Overlapwith Another App

Partial Overlap with Another App

Uniqueness

Growth Maturity Death

Lifecycle Stage

Groups Satisfied

IT Users Business Users Both Groups Neither Groups

Average



77% 27% 61% 95% 93%? 65% 85% 75%

69

75

85

81








Customizabilit

y

Data Relevancy

Responsiveness

Ext. App.

Integ.Platfo

rm

Stds.

Security Adeq.

Data Integratio

n

Compliance

Adeq.

Data Quality

Control

Ease of

Trblshooting

Ease of Use

Feat. & Funct.

Bus.Process

Effcy.

Availa

bility

Reporting

& Analytics

Self

Suffi ciency

User Training

Avail.

User Skil

ls

Complex.

User Skil

ls

Avail.

Bus. Logic

Reusability

End User

Support

Bus. Logic

Automation

Ease of

Maintenance

Intra-App Data

Consistency

Reliabilit

y

Average

Average

Average

Average

Mobile

Support

63%

68%

68%

86%

76%

64%

57%

76%

72%

86%

70%

76%

72%

66%

70%

26%

56%

46%

51%

63%

73% 72%

71%

12%

57%

80%

N/A

78%

82%

85%

77%

63%

80%

65%

73%

73%

51%

47%

68%

72%

68%

91%

65%

60%

75%

N/A

N/A

95%

73%

80%

57%

N/A

85%

83%

73%

73%

66%

74%

74%

27%

85%

76%

70%

61%

75%

82%

68%

95%

81%

84%

73%

93%

51%

74%

57%

66%

78%

76%

56%

81%

78%

?

69%

63%

75%

66%

85%

95%

81%

67%

40% 100% 56%

76% 72% 74%

91% 87% 47%

80% 60% 85%

84% 90% 51%

IT Training

Availa

bility

IT Skills

Availa

bility

IT Skills

Complexity

56% 46% 84%

67% 71% 63%

76% 88% 60%

45% 87% 79%

51% 74% 100%

61% 68% 78% 51%

74% 84% 75% 35%

83% 43% N/A 63%

67% 61% 73% 57%

46% 66% 56% N/A

90%

61%

87%

66%

71% 54% 86% 65%

73% 81% N/A 68%

88% 72% 77% 43%

89% 73% 81% 81%

Application Name

Application Name

Application Name

Application Name

Fore the Record Falcon



Nurse Adie Registry

KLRS Reporting System

Company Intranet Site

EMC Documentum 7

MCD Reporting System

NEOGOV Insight


TIBCO Active Matrix 2


Sage 500 ERP- Payment Solutions




IBM SPSS Statistics

Sage 500 ERP – Payment Solutions

SAP Crystal Reports 2008

Marketo Standard

CAPABLE APPLICATIONS

PROCESS HINDERING APPS

OPERATIONALLY BURDENSOME

APPS

SKILLS DEFICIENT APPS

These apps may have technical

or functional limitations that

limit their overall capability.

These apps most poorly integrate

with business process, directly

impacting productivity.

Operational issues may be

driving poor satisfaction with

these applications.

These apps elicit potential

future skills gaps resulting from

lack of expertise, skills transfer or

training.

Product Effectiveness Assessment

Operational Effi ciency Satisfaction

Product Capability Satisfaction


5 least

5 most

5 most

5 most Skill Capacity Satisfaction









ProductAssessment

Effectiveness of applications relies on more than just technical and functional capabilities. Look for systemic issues around business process integration and operations to improve effectiveness of people and process to boost overall application satisfaction.

ITUsers

ITUsers

ITUsers

ITUsers

BusinessUsers

BusinessUsers

BusinessUsers

BusinessUsers

58

59

66

66

71

74

75

73

73

62

67

71

67

67

69

66

69

75

75

75

80

71

75

74

71

63

56

63 66

67

76

76

75

68

81

76



74% 79%

TechnicalCapability


70% 83%Product Capability

77% 72%

54% 77%

71% 89%

78% 82%

External ApplicationIntegration Features & Functionality

Platform Standards Conformance Ease of Use

Security Adequacy Customizability

Compliance Adequacy Mobile Support


OpperationalEffi ciency

IT SkillsCapacity

Workfl ow &Data Integration



85%

68%

75%

69%

76%

92%



Skills Capacity

96%

75%

63%

60%

63%80%

95%

79%

76%

85%

74%

85%

84%

89%

90%

75%

53%

77%

82%

77%

92%

Business Logic Reusability

End User Support Needs

IT Skills Availability

Business Process Effi ciency

Reliability

Availability

User Skills Availability

Business Logic Automation

Ease of Maintenance

IT Skills Complexity

Intra-App Data Consistency

Responsiveness

User Skills Complexity

Data Integration

Data Quality Control Capability

Ease of Troubleshooting

IT Training Availability

Data Relevancy

Reporting & Analytics

Self Suffi ciency (reliance on IT)

User Training Availability

PRODUCT EFFECTIVENESS











Overall Vendor Effectiveness

Overall Product

Effectiveness

INNOVATOR (I)

11EMERGING PLAYER (EP)

8MARKET PILLAR (MP)

10

CHAMPION (C)

19

Implementation Satisfaction Support Satisfaction Partnership Satisfaction

Aderant CompuLaw Vision 10


Nurse Aide Registry

EPM Live PPM

For the Record Falcon

Dealer Management System




Aegis Health Group, Inc. PRISM


Cisco Identity Services Engine

IBM SPSS Statistics


Sophos SafeGuard Enterprise

The goal of the organization should be to have all applications in the Champion quadrant. This can be accomplished by switching vendors/ applications or by focusing on improvements to internal capabilities.

VENDOR LANDSCAPE OVERVIEW

Vendor partnerships can be critical to initiating and maintaining effective quality of service on applications over time. Not only is it critical to have quality support structures in place, but also to work with vendors that are committed to future innovation and backing their applications fully from a research and development perspective.

Overall Product Partnership Assessment

Application Name

66% 81%

90% 49%

90% 90%

68% 75%

59% 61%

83% 61%

67% 82%

91% 55%

75% 89%

70% 69%

64% 65%

77% 87%

68% 75%

61% 56%

85% 91%

71% I

79% EP

65% I

75% MP

91% I

71% EP

82% I

75% MP

65% C

89% EP

90% EP

75% EP

85% EP

84% MP

67% I

Average

Average

Average

VL Quad.

33% Extremely Ineffective



















33% Extremely

Ineffective

Extremely Effective

100%

100% Extremely Effective

POORLY IMPLEMENTEDAPPLICATIONS

POORLY SUPPORTED

APPLICATIONS

APPLICATIONS LACKING VENDOR

PARTNERSHIP

While these apps may be working well currently, they were

poorly implemented by vendors on day one.

These applications have been problematic

in the past from a support standpoint.

While implementation and support may have been satisfactory, the vendor has been less than forthcoming or

negative regarding the future of this product.

5 most

5 most

5 most

57 80 79

8574

64 79

60

9259

65

54

46

42

41

71

96

88

58 81

87

96

97

82

65

96

98

58

87

71

84

75

79

75 82

86

79

90

71

52

73

63

79

91

90

86

63

82

86 52

81

70

52

59

57

72

64

69

73

71

82

77

76

69

81

86

83

75

93 93

92

70

79

86

91

83

86

87

90

51

59

79

71

73

63

60

67

71

71

71

TechnicalCapability

TechnicalCapability

TechnicalCapability




81%

74%

70%

80%

75%

85%

82%

76%

Product Capability



75% 76%

65% 90%

Support Effectiveness/Timeliness


Support Expertise Support Expertise

74% 85%Speed & Ease of Implementation Speed & Ease of Setup

80% 80%

87% 76%

73% 71%

Platform Commitment

Product Commitment

Product Representation


Negotiation & Renewal Satisfaction






VENDOR EFFECTIVENESS

Vendor Partnership










Criticality Assessment of Applications - Overview

Importance Category

Average OverallEffectiveness Score

Completely Irrelevant

Necessary to Legal/ComplianceNecessary to Business SupportIndirectly Tied to RevenueDirectly Tied to Revenue

83%

71%

48%

49%

45%

MissionCritical

Important

Misaligned

Nice to Have

Unused

Unused

6/13%

10/21%

14/28%

12/25%

6/13%

Important MissionCritical

Nice to Have

HAZARDOUS

1 CAUTIONARY

1 UNWANTED

3

CONTENTIOUS

9 CONTROVERSIAL

9 QUESTIONABLE

4

EFFECTIVE

10 UN-PRIORITIZED

7 UNLEVERAGED

4

At Risk

At Risk

At Risk

At Risk

At Risk

At Risk

6

6

2

2

2

2

4

7

4

3

2

0

3

6

2

0

2

1

6

11

9

2

6

2

Expendable

Expendable

Expendable

Expendable

Expendable

Expendable

Misaligned

Misaligned

Misaligned

Misaligned

Misaligned

Misaligned

High Performing

High Performing

High Performing

High Performing

High Performing

High Performing

Average# of

Apps Effectiveness Rating

56%

65%

63%

65%

51%

45%

69%

26%

62%

33%

38%

--%

57%

61%

47%

--%

61%

30%

87%

87%

95%

100%

84%

84%

Total # of Apps 19

Total # of Apps 17

Total # of Apps 34

Total # of Apps 8

Total # of Apps 6

Total # of Apps 12

40%

35%

71%

17%

12%

25%

IN-HOUSE

CLOUD

CO-LO/MSP

BOUGHT

BUILT

MODULE

Many organizations are moving applications to the cloud to improve accessibility and simplify overall management. However, it is critical to ensure overall effectiveness of outsourced apps stay on par with those in-house.

While leveraging in-house expertise to develop applications to build custom modules on top of off the shelf software, it is critical to ensure these apps perform as well as those that are purchased.

OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS BY LOCATION

OVERALL EFFECTIVENESSBY APPLICATION CREATOR

Evaluating the number of applications within each quadrant is the fi rst step in assessing the health of the overall portfolio, and in determining which applications require immediate action.

Number of Applications by Criticality & Effectiveness

The goal of the organization should be to have all applications in the Champion quadrant. This can be accomplished by switching vendors/ applications or by focusing on improvements to internal capabilities.

APPLICATION BREAKDOWN BY RELEVANCE

Misaligned Expendable

At Risk High Performing

% o

f Tot

al A

pplic

atio

ns

Average Criticality Rating

Legend

Legend

TOTAL CRITICALITY

SCORE

+IT Users'

Satisfaction

Business Users'

Satisfaction

Extremely Ineffective Extremely Effective

OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS

BusinessEnablement

Effectiveness

ProductEffectiveness

VendorEffectiveness

+ +

0 Extremely Ineffective






Extremely Effective 100






62

61

83

52

46

51

85

55

39

46

80

26

30

75

35

83

66

32

61

65

100

91

50

51

42

30

64

20

25

61

65

100

40

60

93

94

63

76

85

76

63

71

99

90










For these apps there is either disagreement between Business users and IT users on Criticality, or each group has given the app

middling criticality ratings.

These applications should be second in priority, as some

groups may have rated these apps as critical.

Achieve alignment on the criticality of these apps fi rst, and then look to improvement efforts.

MISALIGNED APPLICATIONS

MissionCritical

MissionCritical

Important Important

Misaligned

Nice to Have Nice to Have

UnusedUnused

HAZARDOUS

1 HAZARDOUS

1 CAUTIONARY

1 CAUTIONARY

1 UNWANTED

3 UNWANTED

3

CONTENTIOUS

9 CONTENTIOUS

9 CONTROVERSIAL

9 CONTROVERSIAL

9 QUESTIONABLE

4 QUESTIONABLE

4

EFFECTIVE

10 EFFECTIVE

10 UN-PRIORITIZED

7 UN-PRIORITIZED

7 UNLEVERAGED

4 UNLEVERAGED

4

Sage 500 ERP - Payment Solutions

Nurse Aide Registry

MCD Reporting Systems DotNetNuke Evoq

SAP Crystal Reports 2008 IBM Cognos Express 10

Microsoft Dynamics AX 2009 KLRS Reporting System

Cisco Identity Services Engine Aderant CompuLaw Vision 10

Sage 500 ERP - Human Resources and Payroll Dealer Management System

EMC Documentum 7 Seapine TestTrack Pro 2012

Client Communication System Hootsuite Enterprise

TIBCO Active Matrix 2 Company Intranet Site

Sophos SafeGuard Enterprise Microsoft Skydrive Pro

Application Name Application NameOverall Effectivness Score Overall Effectivness ScoreReplaceabiity

Replaceabiity

Approach

Approach

Lifecyc

le Stage

Lifecyc

le Stage

Location

Average

Average

Average

Relevance

Relevance

Location

Uniqueness

Uniqueness

76% 31% 34% 25% 39% 60% 36% 31% 23% 27% 36% --% 13% 37%

81% 34% 36% 60% 39% 56% 49% 55% 55% 61% 93% --% 10% 17%

95% 35% 72% 65% 37% 66% 53% 65% 37% 44% 57% 61% 62% 55%

72% 36% 47% 34% 93% 64% 57% 60% 94% 33% 66% 27% 49% 43%

98% 40% 61% 44% 72% 64% 42% 30% 72% 47% 23% 41% 56% 23%

97% 45% 78% 82% 23% 60% 67% 58% 100% 21% 87% --% 62% 74%

73% 52% 68% 82% 39% 61% 56% 44% 42% 65% 67% 66% 65% 50%

77% 55% 76% 89% 24% 56% 45% 52% 20% 42% 90% 33% 55% 12%

77% 56% 87% 98% 10% 58% 56% 65% 23% 41% 100% 51% 66% 45%

86% 61% 98% 68% 29% 43% 57% 51% 93% 54% 54% --% 52% 35%

While crucial to the business,

these apps have been unanimously

rated by both Business and

IT users as both critical to the business and

underperforming. These apps should be

addressed for root cause

immediately.> >

Criticality Assessment of Applications – Drilldown by Effectiveness

Extremely Ineffective Extremely EffectiveOVERALL EFFECTIVENESS

Business Enablement Effectiveness


VendorEffectiveness

+ +Business Enablement

EffectivenessProduct

EffectivenessVendor

Effectiveness

+ +

Extremely Ineffective Extremely EffectiveOVERALL EFFECTIVENESS

Average

Criticality

Score

Lifecycle Stage Locations Approach Relevance

Growth ModuleMaturity BoughtDeath Built Completely IrrelevantOn-Premises Necessary to Legal/ComplianceCo-Lo/MSP Necessary to

Business SupportCloud Indirectly Tied to Revenue

Directly Tied to Revenue

Legend

Group Criticality Score

AT RISKAPPLICATIONS

0 0 0100 100 100Extremely Dissatisfi ed

Extremely Dissatisfi ed


Extremely Satisfi ed



TOTAL CRITICALITY

SCORE

+IT Users'

Satisfaction

Business Users'

Satisfaction

TOTAL CRITICALITY

SCORE

+IT Users'

Satisfaction

Business Users'

Satisfaction

31

41

41

48

53

56

35

40

36

57

34

41

28

28

49

63

63

56

69

27 48

49

43

45

30

36

83

79

74

74

71

76

48

48

46

47

69

71

55

79

32

55

24

42

40

52

50

47

47

53

56

50

61

39

57

68

44

87

58

57



>

Overall Effectivness Score Replaceabiity

Approach

Lifecyc

le Stage

Average

Average

Relevance

Location

Uniqueness

86% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% --% 100% 100%

79% 98% 100% 100% 98% 92% 94% 86% 100%

69% 95% 84% 90% 96% 100% 100% 100% 100%

77% 95% 90% 100% 100% 86% 79% 94% 100%

60% 98% 83% 78% 79% 75% 72% 81% 81%

64% 73% 89% 91% 84% 100% 93% 92% 54%

59% 77% 100% 100% 100% 94% 81% 100% 94%

60% 69% 100% 60% 98% 44% 78% 86% 50%

44% 88% 100% 100% 96% --%42% 100% 18%

44% 83% 90% 76% 100% 54% 79% 84% 8%

Group Criticality Score








Both IT and the business are very happy with the performance of

these applications. However, there many be opportunity to retire these apps if business users do not fi nd them valuable to the organization.

While it may make sense to maintain these apps in the short

term, non-critical applications nearing end of life may be targets

for retirement or phasing out.

MissionCritical

MissionCritical

Important Important

Misaligned

Nice to Have Nice to Have

Unused Unused

HAZARDOUS

1 HAZARDOUS

1 CAUTIONARY

1 CAUTIONARY

1 UNWANTED

3 UNWANTED

3

CONTENTIOUS

9 CONTENTIOUS

9 CONTROVERSIAL

9 CONTROVERSIAL

9 QUESTIONABLE

4 QUESTIONABLE

4

EFFECTIVE

10 EFFECTIVE

10 UN-PRIORITIZED

7 UN-PRIORITIZED

7 UNLEVERAGED

4 UNLEVERAGED

4

IBM SPSS Statistics EPM Live PPM

Cisco Webex Connect IM Salesforce.com Sales Cloud

Salesforce.com Knowledge Salesforce.com

For The Record Falcon Aegis Health Group, Inc. PRISM

Key Tracer Key

Sage 500 ERP - Business & Resource Management PLM Licensing Manager

Marketo Standard Microsoft SharePoint 2013

Sage 500 ERP – Payment Solutions

NEOGOV Insight IBM Cognos Express 10

Chatter Plus

Application Name Application NameOverall Effectivness Score Replaceabiity

Approach

Lifecyc

le Stage

Location

Average

Relevance

Average

Criticality

Score

Uniqueness

27% 28% 29% 30% 25%

23% 31% 22% 36% 35%

24% 32% 20% 20% 56%

34% 40% 44% 45% 31%

39% 46% 34% 35% 69%

48% 46% 82% 60% 29%

44% 63% 67% 44% 78%

These applications have been agreed upon by Business and IT users to bring

questionable value to the

organization, as they are

ineffective and unused. Consider

retiring these applications.

EXPENDABLE APPLICATIONS

>

Extremely Ineffective Extremely IneffectiveExtremely Effective Extremely EffectiveOVERALL EFFECTIVENESS OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS

Lifecycle Stage Locations Approach Relevance

Growth ModuleMaturity BoughtDeath Built Completely IrrelevantOn-Premises Necessary to Legal/ComplianceCo-Lo/MSP Necessary to

Business SupportCloud Indirectly Tied to Revenue


Legend

HIGH PERFORMING APPLICATIONS

Criticality Assessment of Applications – Drilldown by Effectiveness



VendorEffectiveness

+ +Business Enablement

EffectivenessProduct

EffectivenessVendor

Effectiveness

+ +

0

0 0

100

100 100







TOTAL CRITICALITY

SCORE

+IT Users'

Satisfaction

Business Users'

Satisfaction

TOTAL CRITICALITY

SCORE

+IT Users'

Satisfaction

Business Users'

Satisfaction

32 90

78

95

97

50

61

65

24 78

59 93

95

95

99

91

46

48

42

31

61

30 78 97

96

51

55

46

71

41

49

39

42

22

32

32 80 98

83

80

78

48

46

32

58

71

72

100 100

100

94

91

82

75











Drilldown 04 Product Effectiveness Assessment 06 Criticality

Assessment 07 Criticality Assessment Drilldown 08 Individual

Applications Summaries05 Vendor

Effectiveness Assessment

REPORT OVERVIEW

75% 79%

TechnicalCapability


82% 83%Product Capability

68% 80%

86% 95%

89% ?

85% N/A

External ApplicationIntegration Features & Functionality

Platform Standards Conformance Ease of Use

Security Adequacy Customizability

Compliance Adequacy Mobile Support


OpperationalEffi ciency

IT SkillsCapacity

Workfl ow &Data Integration



80%

65%

71%

72%

90%

70%



Skills Capacity

80%

50%

73%

27%

80%80%

60%

N/A

75%

60%

61%

95%

100%

90%

90%

N/A

70%

80%

93%

80%

60%

Business Logic Reusability

End User Support Needs

IT Skills Availability

Business Process Effi ciency

Reliability

Availability

User Skills Availability

Business Logic Automation

Ease of Maintenance

IT Skills Complexity

Intra-App Data Consistency

Responsiveness

User Skills Complexity

Data Integration

Data Quality Control Capability

Ease of Troubleshooting

IT Training Availability

Data Relevancy

Reporting & Analytics

Self Suffi ciency (reliance on IT)

User Training AvailabilityOVERALL VENDOR EFFECTIVENESS

OVERALL APPLICATION

EFFECTIVENESS

INNOVATOR

EMERGING PLAYER

MARKETPILLAR

CHAMPION

Vendor Landscape Placement

IT USER(S)

BUSINESS USER(S)

OVERALL END USER(S)

Overall Satisfaction


323 Respondents

22 Respondents

35 Respondents

78% 83%

TechnicalAlignment

FunctionalAlignment

78% 83%Business Needs Alignment


87% 87%

69%Biannually

to Annually

Technical Adequacy for future Needs

Functional Adequacy for Future Needs

Adaptability Change Frequency

BUSINESS ENABLEMENT PRODUCT EFFECTIVENESS

81% 81%

78% 84%


74% 74%

86% 93%



Support Expertise Support Expertise

81% N/A


81% ?Speed & Ease of Implementation Speed & Ease of Setup

85% 78%

94% N/A

85% 78%

76% N/A

Platform Commitment

Product Commitment





Microsoft SharePoint 2010 Metrics Scorecard

GRO

UP

CRIT

ICAL

ITY

SCO

RE

MissionCritical

100%

33%

33% 100%

Important

Nice to Have

Unused

Extremely Ineffective Extremely Effective

OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS

HAZARDOUS

UNWANTED

CONTENTIOUS

QUESTIONABLE

EFFECTIVE

UNLEVERAGED

STATUS: MISALIGNED

STATUS: CHAMPION

End-Users IT Users Business Users

Legend

VENDOR EFFECTIVENESS

BusinessEnablement

Effectiveness


VendorEffectiveness

+ +

80%Mature

15%Growth

15%Death

Lifecyle Stage

CloudBought

Approach Location

80% 10% 5%Usability Features Data Quality

20%

0%

0%

0%

Necessary to Legal/Compliance

Necessary to Business Support

Indirectly Tied to Revenue


80%Completely Irrelevant

ALIGNMENT ON APPLICATION CRITICALITY & EFFECTIVENESS

Relevance63%

Completely Unique

85%Replaceable

Partial Overlap

Complete Overlap

15%

5%


35%Irreplaceable

78%

81%

46%

Business Function Process AreaR&D

Sales

Customer ServiceAdministration

Marketing

ProductionIT

Distribution

HR

Industry Specifi c

Industry Specifi c

Finance

29

14

26

3

23

0

22

0

0

17

0

15

Respondents


Vendor Partnership



Q: If the organization had to switch to another solution, what would be your top 3 things that you would want to keep about this solution?

Q: If you could change one thing about this application, what would it be?

† One or more questions were not answered for this category

Version control and version history have been absolutely critical. Access to SharePoint from home has been handy. Use as a communication tool for announcement has been handy.

Version control and version history have been absolutely critical. Access to SharePoint from home has been handy. Use as a communication tool for announcement has been handy.

I would need to maintain the customizability of the app, as well as the mobile capability at a bare minimum. Beyond that I would say integration with our ERP system would be fantastic.

I would need to maintain the customizability of the app, as well as the mobile capability at a bare minimum. Beyond that I would say integration with our ERP system would be fantastic.

It is often very diffi cult to fi nd what we are looking for. An FAQ page on how to navigate, search and use more advanced features would be very helpful.

It is often very diffi cult to fi nd what we are looking for. An FAQ page on how to navigate, search and use more advanced features would be very helpful.

Without a tech steward to represent what's possible and how to use it, and some governance/standards, we will continue to have best-effort, voluntarily assembled, and unreliable content in SharePoint.

Without a tech steward to represent what's possible and how to use it, and some governance/standards, we will continue to have best-effort, voluntarily assembled, and unreliable content in SharePoint.

Criticality

Criticality

Criticality

Criticality

Functional Capabilities




Functional Alignment

Functional Alignment

Functional Alignment†

Functional Alignment†

Workfl ow/DataIntergration




Functional Reliability




Skills Capacity†

Skills Capacity†

Skills Capacity

Skills Capacity

JOHN DOE, BUSINESS ANALYST

JOHN DOE, BUSINESS ANALYST

USER GROUP :

USER GROUP :





Relevance

Relevance

LifecycleStage

LifecycleStage





VendorEffectiveness

VendorEffectiveness

VendorEffectiveness

VendorEffectiveness

89%

77%

83%

73%

89%

77%

83%

73%

73%

63%

72%

63%

57%

69%

53%

64%

78%

88%

78%

83%

73%

87%

86%

74%

74%

84%

75%

69%

Implementation

Implementation

Implementation

Implementation

Support

Support

Support

Support

Partnership

Partnership

Partnership

Partnership

90% 80% N/A

87% 78% N/A

89% 80% N/A

92% 76% N/A

Legend

Microsoft SharePoint 2010 – Comments & Respondent Breakdown

Uniqueness†

Uniqueness†

Uniqueness

Uniqueness

Completely Unique

Completely Unique

Completely Unique

Completely Unique

Mission Critical

Mission Critical

Mission Critical

Mission Critical

Business User

IT User

84%

77%

81%

86%



Mature

Mature

JOHN DOE, SHAREPOINT ADMINISTRATOR

JOHN DOE, SYSTEMS ANALYST

USER GROUP :

USER GROUP :

PORTFOLIO METRICS PROGRAM - Amazon S3 · 2014-12-20 · HINDERING APPS OPERATIONALLY BURDENSOME APPS SKILLS DEFICIENT APPS These apps may have technical or functional limitations

Documents