• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
L phillips apm
 

L phillips apm

on

  • 433 views

Application Program Management in the Government

Application Program Management in the Government

Statistics

Views

Total Views
433
Views on SlideShare
433
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    L phillips apm L phillips apm Presentation Transcript

    • Application Portfolio Managementat the Manitoba GovernmentLarry PhillipsDirector Applications Management ServicesBusiness Transformation and TechnologyGovernment of ManitobaOctober 17, 2011
    • Agenda • Background • Work completed • Analysis of Manitoba’s application inventory • Manitoba’s APM model • Pilot results • Top 50 applications analysis • Lesson learned & next steps • QuestionsAPM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 2
    • 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 lifespanAPM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 3
    • 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 prioritiesAPM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 4
    • 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”APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 5
    • IT Investment Lifecycle I. Strategic Planning, III. Operation, Investment Selection, and Maintenance, and Planning – IPM Determine which assets to acquire. Renewal/Retirement/ Replacement – APM Maintain and operate assets in the rightways and renew, retire, or replace them at the right times. II. Project Implementation – PPM Buy, build and implement assets in the right manner. Source: State Government of North Carolina APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 6
    • 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 infrastructureAPM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 7
    • 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 effortsAPM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 8
    • 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 applicationsAPM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 9
    • 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?APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 10
    • 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.APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 11
    • General Statistical B – How Many Apps By Technology? 60Number of Applications 50 40 30 20 10 0 APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 12
    • General Statistical C – How Many Apps By Tech Type? 140Number of Applications 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Technology Type APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 13
    • General Statistical D – How Many Apps By Department? 50 45Number of Applications 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 14
    • Apps Deployed Per Year 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 1985 1987 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Age Based 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 0 100 200 300 500 400 600 15 Cumulative Number of Apps Deployed E - Most Apps Have Been Deployed Since 1999
    • Age Based F - Most Time Spent on Apps <= 11 Years Old AMS Hours : April – December 2010 30% 82% of time spent on apps deployed since 1999 25%Percent of Time 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1985 1987 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year Application Was Deployed APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 16
    • Age Based G – What Is Average Age of Apps? 16 14 12 10Years 8 6 4 2 - APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 17
    • Age Based H – When Did Departments Deploy Apps? 60 Less Than 5 Years 50Number of Applications 5 - 10 Years 10 - 15 Years 40 15 - 20 years 30 More than 20 years 20 10 0 FIN AEL CHT FSCA HCD SAP JUS MAFRI MH CON COR LIM MIT WSD BTT CSC EDU ETT IEM MLG ANA HLYS APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 18
    • Cost Based I – Where Do we Invest? AMS Hours : April – December 2010 25% 51% in preferred technologies 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 19
    • Cost Based J - Half of Time Spent in Old Technologies AMS Hours : April – December 201040% 51% in Standard Technologies30%20%10% 0%APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 20
    • Risk BasedK - What Services Have Most Technical Risk? AMS Hours : April – December 2010 25% Current Standard 20% Containment Retire 15%Percent of Time Unclassified 10% 5% 0% APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 21
    • 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 areaAPM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 22
    • APM Model Performance Indicators Aspect 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 CapabilityAPM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 23
    • APM Analysis Framework (TIME) High Tolerate Innovate/Invest (Re-evaluate/ (Maintain/ Reposition Asset) Evolve Asset) ? Technical Integrity Eliminate Migrate (Retire/Replace) (Re-engineer/ Modernize Asset) Low Low High Business ValueAPM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 24
    • 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 staffAPM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 25
    • Pilot Ratings• Scorecard utilizes comprehensive, objective framework for each criteria to aid in quality and consistency of application ratings 3.3 Extensibility The design, construction, integration and implementation of • 2 (Good) — The application the application ease changes. Indicators include: is adaptive in all aspects of • Addition of business functionality. extensibility and scalability. • Growth in number of users or volume of data. • Addition, deletion or modification of interfaces and • 1 (Fair) — The application integration to/from other applications. is adaptive in the most- • Adaptation to infrastructure changes. frequent changes (add • Collaborative interaction with external applications business function, growth, or services. interfaces and integration). • Evolution to new development languages and methods. • 0 (Poor) — The application • Gather data through discussions with key experts is generally difficult to extend in each area (design, construction, integration and or scale. implementation) for each bulleted item.APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 26
    • Pilot Ratings Performance Indicators App 1 App 2 App 3 App 4 App 5 App 6 Aspect Business Business Process Support 0 0 0 0 0 1 Business Importance 2 2 2 1 2 2 Data and Information Quality/Timeliness 0 1 0 0 2 0 Business Robustness 0 2 0 0 2 0 Life Cycle Position 0 1 1 0 0 2 BUSINESS VALUE 2 6 3 1 6 5 Operational Complexity 1 2 1 0 1 1 Reliance on Subject Matter Experts 1 1 1 0 0 0 Maintenance Factors 2 1 2 2 1 1 Supportability 0 2 2 0 2 2 Availability and Cost of Support Skills 0 2 2 0 0 0 Technical Architectural Alignment 0 1 1 0 0 0 Foundational Technology Quality 0 2 1 0 0 1 Extensibility 0 2 1 0 1 1 Technical Performance 1 2 1 1 2 1 Vendor Capability 0 0 0 0 0 0 TECHNICAL INTEGRITY 5 15 12 3 7 7APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 27
    • Application Heat Map Note: Object size represents operational costAPM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 28
    • APM Phase 1 • Assess top 50 applications. – Business Value – Technical Integrity • Completed September 2011APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 29
    • How Many Top 50 Apps in Each Quadrant? Migrate, 2 Tolerate, 4 Eliminate, 8 Invest, 36 Number of Top 50 Applications By QuadrantAPM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 30
    • How do Costs Compare Across Quadrants? $250,000 40 35 $200,000 30 $150,000 25 20 $100,000 15 10 $50,000 5 $0 0 Eliminate Invest Migrate Tolerate Average Annual Cost per Application Number of ApplicationsAPM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 31
    • 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 growingAPM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 32
    • 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 constantAPM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 33
    • 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.)APM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 34
    • Application Portfolio ManagementAPM at the Manitoba Government – 2011 SDEC 35