Advertisement

Architecture-Based IT Portfolio Valuation

  • Marc M. Lankhorst
  • Dick A. C. Quartel
  • Maarten W. A. Steen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 69)

Abstract

This paper describes the ingredients of an integrated IT valuation method that uses architectural models as its backbone. First, it investigates the link between the organization’s mission and vision and high-level strategy, such as its value center approach and operating model. These strategic choices determine the aspects that need to be taken into account when assessing the value of the IT portfolio. The resulting business requirements can be modeled in conjunction with the enterprise architecture of the organization. This provides concrete insights in the contribution of these elements to the business. KPIs are then associated with business requirements on the one hand and architecture elements on the other hand, and measurement of these KPIs determines the operational performance of the organization and its IT. The paper uses an implementation of Bedell’s method as an illustration of this approach.

Keywords

IT portfolio management requirements management enterprise architecture IT governance IT investment management IT value management 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Schuurman, P., Berghout, E.W., Powell, P.: Calculating the Importance of Information Systems: The Method of Bedell Revisited, CITER WP/010/PSEBPP, University of Groningen, Sprouts Working Papers on Information Systems (June 2008), http://sprouts.aisnet.org/8-37
  2. 2.
    Jeffery, M., Leliveld, I.: Best practices in IT portfolio management. MIT Sloan Management Review 45 (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Archer, N.P., Ghasemzadeh, F.: An integrated framework for project portfolio selection. In: Dye, L.D., Pennypacker, J.S. (eds.) Project Portfolio Management Project Portfolio Management, Center for Business Practices, West Chester, pp. 117–133 (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ITGI: Enterprise Value: Governance of IT investments: the Val IT Framework 2.0. IT Governance Institute, Rolling Meadows, Illinois (2008), http://www.itgi.org/valit/
  5. 5.
    Venkatraman, N.: Beyond Outsourcing: Managing IT Resources as a Value Center. MIT Sloan Management Review 38(3), 51–64 (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Venkatraman, N.: IT Agenda 2000: Not fixing technical bugs but creating business value. European Management Journal 16(5), 573–585 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ross, J.W., Weill, P., Robertson, D.C.: Enterprise Architecture as Strategy: Creating a Foundation for Business Execution. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    The Open Group: TOGAFTM Version 9, The Open Group, Reading, UK (2009), http://www.opengroup.org/togaf
  9. 9.
    Lankhorst, M.M., et al.: Enterprise Architecture at Work – Modelling, Communication and Analysis, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Iacob, M.E., Jonkers, H., Lankhorst, M., Proper, E.: ArchiMate 1.0 Specification. Van Haren Publishing, Zaltbommel (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schekkerman, J.: The Economic Benefits of Enterprise Architecture, Trafford (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Slot, R., Dedene, G., Maes, R.: Business Value of Solution Architecture. In: Proper, E., Harmsen, L., Dietz, J.L.G. (eds.) Proc. First NAF Academy Working Conference on Practice-Driven Research on Enterprise Transformation, PRET 2009, held at CAiSE 2009, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, June 11. LNBIP, vol. 28, pp. 84–108 (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ross, J.W., Weill, P., Robertson, D.C.: Enterprise Architecture As Strategy: Creating a Foundation for Business Execution. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Quartel, D.A.C., Engelsman, W., Jonkers, H., van Sinderen, M.J.: A goal-oriented requirements modeling language for enterprise architecture. In: Proceedings of the 13th IEEE International EDOC Enterprise Computing Conference, Auckland, New-Zealand, pp. 3–13 (September 2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Engelsman, W., Jonkers, H., Quartel, D.: Supporting requirements management in TOGAF and ArchiMate, White Paper, The Open Group (February 2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pols, R., van der Backer, Y.: Application Services Library - A Management Guide. ASL Foundation/Van Haren Publishing (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    ISO/IEC: Information technology – Software product evaluation – Quality characteristics and guidelines for their use, International Standard ISO/IEC 9126, International Organization for Standardization, International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva (1991)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Iacob, M.-E., Jonkers, H.: Quantitative Analysis of Service-Oriented Architectures. International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems 3(1), 42–60 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    ISO: Risk management – Principles and guidelines, International Standard ISO 31000:2009, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva (2009) Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    ISO/IEC: Risk management – Risk assessment techniques, International Standard ISO/IEC 31010:2009, International Organization for Standardization, International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Capgemini: Global CIO Report – Harnessing Information Value: Could you be a digital winner? (December 2009), http://www.capgemini.com/insights-and-resources/by-publication/global-cio-report/
  22. 22.
    Wierenga, H.: Architectural Information Economics. Via Nova Architectura, August 28 (2009), http://www.via-nova-architectura.org/artikelen/tijdschrift/architectural-information-economics.html
  23. 23.
    Kazman, R., Barbacci, M., Klein, M., Carriere, S.J., Woods, S.G.: Experience with Performing Architecture Tradeoff Analysis. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 54–63 (1999)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kazman, R., Asundi, J., Klein, M.: Making Architecture Design Decisions: An Economic Approach. Technical report. CMU/SEI-2002-TR-035. Carnegie Mellon University, USA (2002)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    ISACA: CoBiT 4.1. IT Governance Institute, Rolling Meadows, Illinois (2007), http://www.isaca.org/cobit.htm
  26. 26.
    Nord, R.L., et al.: Integrating the Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method (ATAM) with the Cost Benefit Analysis Method (CBAM). Technical report CMU/SEI-2003-TN-038. Carnegie Mellon University, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Johnson, P., Lagerström, R., Närman, P., Simonsson, M.: Enterprise Architecture Analysis with Extended Influence Diagrams. Information System Frontiers 9(2-3), 163–180 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lagerström, R., Franke, U., Johnson, P., Ullberg, J.: A Method for Creating Enterprise Architecture Metamodels – Applied to Systems Modifiability Analysis. International Journal of Computer Science & Applications 6(5), 89–120 (2009)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    CMMI Product Team: CMMI® for Development, Version 1.2, CMU/SEI-2006-TR-008. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University (August 2006), http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/06tr008.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marc M. Lankhorst
    • 1
  • Dick A. C. Quartel
    • 1
  • Maarten W. A. Steen
    • 1
  1. 1.NovayEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations