L phillips apm

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: 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 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 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


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


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


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


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


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


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



– 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


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


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


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


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


Age Based

G – What Is Average Age of Apps?

-

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Years


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


Cost Based

I – Where Do we Invest? AMS Hours : April – December 2010

19

51% in preferred technologies

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%


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%


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


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 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


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

?


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


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


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


Note: Object size

represents operational

cost

Application Heat Map


APM Phase 1

• Assess top 50 applications.

– Business Value

– Technical Integrity

• Completed September 2011

29


How Many Top 50 Apps in Each Quadrant?

30

Eliminate, 8

Invest, 36

Migrate, 2 Tolerate, 4

Number of Top 50 Applications By Quadrant


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


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


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


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


Application Portfolio Management

35

L phillips apm

Business

Transcript of L phillips apm