Gap Analysis
•Download as PPT, PDF•
0 likes•372 views
A methodology for stepwise process innnovation from current state to future requirements.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Featured
Featured (20)
Editor's Notes
- The accompanying methodology address process enhancement from the standpoint of an existing function that is operating but not yielding the desired results. The approach assumes that: The existing application has been in use for a significant length of time There is a list of potential enhancements already in existence There is an opportunity to reinvest in the application with a substantial payback for significant improvements.
- The current practice is defined as how the application is being utilized by most of the current users. This implies that there are individuals who may be utilizing functionality (either imbedded or external) beyond the abilities of the norm. The baseline is established from common usage. There should be a consensus from the user community that additional functionality is not being incorporated. Additionally, the procedures are measured as in use as opposed to how they have been documented.
- From the previous analysis we have assumed that there is functionality currently existing in the application that is not in general usage. This may be functionality built but never taught to the users, functionality used at one time but dropped for any number of reasons, or functionality that was considered no longer useful at some point in the application’s life cycle. In fact, many times this functionality is readily accessible and can help fill a portion of the enhancement requests without significant investment is development resources. The key to utilizing this functionality usually lies in verifying the access to the functionality, determining the codes and procedures to activate it and training the users to avail themselves of the benefits they can provide. In some cases, the processes themselves may need to be adjusted, in other instances, it is simply adding a report or query to the existing application. The bottom line is that significant benefits can be attained without major investment and in rapid order. These initiative can be considered “Low-hanging fruit”.
- The sum of all the existing requests for enhancement usually comprises the current requirements. The longer an application has been is use, the more likely it does not meet 100% of its functional requirements. In fact, if most applications follow the 80-20 rule, it never did meet all the requirements. An application that start out meeting 80% of the business requirements, will gradually drop lower to the point that it no longer is considered a viable solution. Whether this happens at 60%, 50% or some other metric is a value judgment. However, when this condition occurs, even employing unutilized functionality will only improve the application marginally. If, indeed, the business did not anticipate significant modifications to its business requirements in the future, they would typically embark upon a program to bring the application “Up to speed’ based on its current requirements. However, as the subsequent slides show, when there are both immediate demands for functionality and a long-term innovation required, the business must make some hard decisions.
- The most expensive alternative from a development point of view is to first implement changes to meet current requirements and subsequently to redo the system based on future requirements. The risk is that the investment in the short-term enhancement may be a throw-away. The issue for the business is can it continue to operate within allowable performance levels without making these changes. It is possible to determine those changes that could be rolled into the future state requirements and include them in the program as early steps. However, without a concise plan for the future state development, any enhancement may end up as “Throw away”. This is especially true when the analysis points to replacing a legacy application with a third-party package.
- In the ideal environment, we would be able to forestall any interim changes and “Birds in Flight” to allow the program to implement the future state vision. This typically involves process innovation including new or significantly revamped applications, reengineered process and potentially redefined organizational relationships. While this is the most direct route to meeting future state requirements, it can also be a “big bang” approach where benefits are not achieved until long after the investment has been made. The length of time also implies that the future vision can morph and require significant modifications to the future state development effort. The challenge for the business is to weigh the alternatives and determine which approach – 3+4 or 3’, is appropriate for their environment.