Patent Publication Number: US-2005137918-A1

Title: Method, system and program product for assessing an enterprise architecture

Description:
FIELD OF THE INVENTION  
      In general, the present invention relates to a method, system and program product for assessing an enterprise (computer) architecture. Specifically, under the present invention an enterprise architecture is assessed based on a statistical, analytical and cognitive analysis thereof.  
     BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION  
      As computer technology continues to advance, businesses and other organizations are increasingly implementing more complex enterprise (computer) architectures. For example, in today&#39;s market, an automobile manufacturer will typically implement a computer infrastructure to accommodate dealers, customers as well as the underlying manufacturing operation. In many of these cases, the enterprise architecture will change/grow with time to accommodate changes in the business. Unfortunately, as such changes occur, it is often difficult to determine whether the overall enterprise architecture has remained optimal for the business. For example, resources added to improve one aspect of the business might actually have an adverse effect on existing resources that are designed to aid another aspect of the business. Moreover, such changes could expose unforeseen risks within the enterprise architecture.  
      To this extent, it would be beneficial for an enterprise architecture to periodically undergo an assessment to determine if any changes are needed. Heretofore, attempts have been made to provide techniques for assessing an enterprise architecture. No such attempt, however, provides the extent of assessment that is currently needed. Specifically, the previous assessment techniques focus on the technical aspects of the enterprise architecture. For example, the previous techniques will examine issues such as storage space, computing bandwidth, etc. without considering the underlying business environment in which the enterprise architecture is implemented. Further, no existing technique considers the risks currently being experienced within the enterprise architecture in making the assessment. Knowing the underlying business environment and the current risks could not only impact the determination of whether the enterprise architecture is fully optimized, but also whether certain changes are necessary. Still yet, no existing technique assesses an enterprise architecture by comparing its operational performance to best practice data. That is, no existing technique considers how other similar enterprise architectures perform in assessing an enterprise architecture.  
      In view of the foregoing, there exists a need for a method, system and program product for assessing an enterprise architecture. Specifically, a need exists whereby an enterprise architecture is assessed on the technical business environment in which it is implemented as well as the integration challenges of applications therein. A further need exists for the assessment of the enterprise architecture to be based on best practice data for other similar enterprise architectures. Still yet, a need exists for architectural alternatives to be recommended based on the assessment and any risks identified within the architecture.  
     SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION  
      In general, the present invention provides a method, system and program product for assessing an enterprise architecture. Specifically, under the present invention, a set of data corresponding to the enterprise architecture is first gathered. Such data includes, among other things: responses to a plurality of questions pertaining to the enterprise architecture; information pertaining to integration challenges of enterprise applications within the enterprise architecture; and any risks within the enterprise architecture. Based on the responses and the integration information, an operational performance of the enterprise architecture is determined and compared to best practice data. The best practice data corresponds to similar enterprise architectures that were determined to have performed at optimal levels. Based on the comparison, an assessment of the enterprise architecture is generated. Architectural alternatives are then recommended based on the assessment and the identified risks.  
      A first aspect of the present invention provides a method for assessing an enterprise architecture, comprising: receiving responses for a plurality of questions regarding the enterprise architecture; receiving information pertaining to integration challenges of enterprise applications within the enterprise architecture; providing a viability assessment that is populated based on risks within the enterprise architecture; determining an operational performance of the enterprise architecture based on the responses and the information; comparing operational performance to best practice data; and providing an assessment of the enterprise architecture based upon the comparing.  
      A second aspect of the present invention provides a computerized system for assessing an enterprise architecture, comprising: an input system for receiving responses to a plurality of questions regarding the enterprise architecture, information pertaining to integration challenges of enterprise applications within the enterprise architecture, and risks within the enterprise architecture; a performance determination system for determining an operational performance of the enterprise architecture based on the responses and the information; a comparison system for comparing operational performance to best practice data; and an assessment system for providing an assessment of the enterprise architecture based upon the comparison.  
      A third aspect of the present invention provides a program product stored on a recordable medium for assessing an enterprise architecture, which when executed, comprises: program code for receiving responses to a plurality of questions regarding the enterprise architecture, information pertaining to integration challenges of enterprise applications within the enterprise architecture, and risks within the enterprise architecture; program code for determining an operational performance of the enterprise architecture based on the responses and the information; program code for comparing operational performance to best practice data; and program code for providing an assessment of the enterprise architecture based upon the comparison.  
      Therefore, the present invention provides a method, system and program product for assessing an enterprise architecture.  
    
    
     BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS  
      These and other features of this invention will be more readily understood from the following detailed description of the various aspects of the invention taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings in which:  
       FIG. 1  depicts an illustrative system for assessing an enterprise architecture according to the present invention.  
       FIG. 2  depicts an illustrative enterprise architecture that is assessed according to the present invention.  
       FIG. 3  depicts an illustrative method flow diagram according to the present invention. 
    
    
      It is noted that the drawings of the invention are not necessarily to scale. The drawings are merely schematic representations, not intended to portray specific parameters of the invention. The drawings are intended to depict only typical embodiments of the invention, and therefore should not be considered as limiting the scope of the invention. In the drawings, like numbering represents like elements.  
     BEST MODE FOR CARRYING OUT THE INVENTION  
      For convenience purposes, the Best Mode for Carrying out the Invention will have the following sections: 
          I. General Description     II. Computerized Implementation 
            A. Data Collection 
                1. Responses to Questionnaire     2. Integration Information     3. Risks within the Enterprise Architecture    
               
            III. Assessment of the Enterprise Architecture 
 
 I. General Description 
       

      As indicated above, the present invention provides a method, system and program product for assessing an enterprise architecture. Specifically, under the present invention, a set of data corresponding to the enterprise architecture is first gathered. Such data includes, among other things: responses to a plurality of questions pertaining to the enterprise architecture; information pertaining to integration challenges of enterprise applications within the enterprise architecture; and any risks within the enterprise architecture. Based on the responses and the integration information, an operational performance of the enterprise architecture is determined and compared to best practice data. The best practice data corresponds to similar enterprise architectures that were determined to have performed at optimal levels. Based on the comparison, an assessment of the enterprise architecture is generated. Architectural alternatives are then recommended based on the assessment and the identified risks.  
      II. Computerized Implementation  
      Referring now to  FIG. 1 , a system  10  for assessing enterprise architecture  12  is shown. Under the present invention, enterprise architecture  12  is assessed based on statistical, analytical and cognitive analyses. Specifically, as will be further described below, the assessment is made based on responses  32  to a plurality of questions pertaining to enterprise architecture  12 , integration information  34  pertaining to a business environment in which enterprise architecture is implemented, and risks  36  within enterprise architecture  12 .  
       FIG. 2  depicts enterprise architecture  12  in greater detail. In this example, enterprise architecture  12  pertains to an automobile manufacturer. Enterprise architecture  12  can include any type of resources such as hardware, software, personnel or any combination thereof. Moreover, enterprise architecture  12  can include resources for communicating over a network such as the Internet. In any event, it should be appreciated that an enterprise architecture such as that shown in  FIG. 2  can be depicted graphically in different views (e.g., in business, technology, and infrastructure architecture views). Collectively, those views and the supporting documentation should address the policy, organizational, technical, and business information relevant to the enterprise. Business context diagraming such as that shown in  FIG. 2  is an element of business architecture diagraming. Specifically, it depicts the major users (internal or external to enterprise) that interact with the enterprise applications and data. The applications within the “enterprise systems” central node of the diagram may include many legacy systems that have been implemented in a stovepipe manner. No clean or well-defined interactions need exist between the “enterprise systems” and the users, or between the “enterprise systems” internally. Many such interactions may occur only with human interaction duplicating effort and data. The external interfaces may include “thin” and “fat” client solutions. The depiction shown in  FIG. 2  also shows the main stakeholders within the enterprise business context and illustrates key relationships. The present invention will perform a complete assessment of enterprise architecture  12  and determine whether any architectural alternatives should be implemented. It should be understood that enterprise architecture  12  is intended to be illustrative only, and that the present invention could be implemented to assess any type of enterprise architecture  12 .  
      Referring back to  FIG. 1 , it should also be understood that in a typical embodiment, the assessment of enterprise architecture  12  is performed by analysis system  40  shown in memory  22  of computer system  14 . However, this need not be the case. Rather, the functions described herein could be performed manually by one or more individuals (i.e., assessors). Further, it should be understood that the teachings of the present invention could be implemented as a business method in which fees or subscriptions are paid for providing assessments of enterprise architectures  12 .  
      In any event, as depicted, computer system  14  generally comprises central processing unit (CPU)  20 , memory  22 , bus  24 , input/output (I/O) interfaces  26 , external devices/resources  28  and storage unit  30 . CPU  20  may comprise a single processing unit, or be distributed across one or more processing units in one or more locations, e.g., on a client and server. Memory  22  may comprise any known type of data storage and/or transmission media, including magnetic media, optical media, random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), a data cache, etc. Moreover, similar to CPU  20 , memory  22  may reside at a single physical location, comprising one or more types of data storage, or be distributed across a plurality of physical systems in various forms.  
      I/O interfaces  26  may comprise any system for exchanging information to/from an external source. External devices/resources  28  may comprise any known type of external device, including speakers, a CRT, LCD screen, handheld device, keyboard, mouse, voice recognition system, speech output system, printer, monitor/display, facsimile, pager, etc. Bus  24  provides a communication link between each of the components in computer system  14  and likewise may comprise any known type of transmission link, including electrical, optical, wireless, etc.  
      Storage unit  30  can be any system (e.g., database) capable of providing storage for information under the present invention. Such information could include, for example, received responses  32 , integration information  34 , risks  36  within enterprise architecture  12 , best practice data, etc. As such, storage unit  30  could include one or more storage devices, such as a magnetic disk drive or an optical disk drive. In another embodiment, storage unit  30  includes data distributed across, for example, a local area network (LAN), wide area network (WAN) or a storage area network (SAN) (not shown). Although not shown, additional components, such as cache memory, communication systems, system software, etc., may be incorporated into computer system  14 .  
      It should be understood that responses  32 , integration information  34  and risks  36  could be communicated to computer system  14  over a network such as over the Internet, a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), a virtual private network (VPN), etc. As such, communication with computer system  14  could occur via a direct hardwired connection (e.g., serial port), or via an addressable connection that may utilize any combination of wireline and/or wireless transmission methods. Conventional network connectivity, such as Token Ring, Ethernet, WiFi or other conventional communications standards could be used. Moreover, connectivity could be provided by conventional TCP/IP sockets-based protocol. In this instance, an Internet service provider could be used to establish connectivity to computer system  14 .  
      A. Data Collection  
      As indicated above, to fully assess enterprise architecture  12 , certain pieces of data should be provided. As shown in  FIG. 1 , such data includes responses to questions  32 , integration information  34  and risks  36  within enterprise architecture  12 . As will be further described below, this data is generally provided by operators/owners of enterprise architecture  12 . To this extent, this data can be determined by the operators of enterprise architecture  12  in collaboration with one or more assessors who are responsible for administering the assessment process. For example, to obtain responses  32 , the operators of enterprise architecture  12  would first be provided with a questionnaire that includes questions designed to determine the business and information technology (IT) needs that currently face enterprise architecture  12 . The responses can be prepared jointly by the operators and the assessors. Similarly, integration information  34  and risks  36  can be determined pursuant to workshops, meetings and the like between the operators and the assessors.  
      1. Responses to Questionnaire  
      The general purpose of the questionnaire is to determine the business and information technology-based needs that currently face enterprise architecture  12 . As such, several types of questions can be posed. For example, the questions can pertain to: 
          (1) The business context/environment in which the enterprise architecture  12  is implemented. Typical questions to determine this could include: “What business processes, business functions (components), information, roles and locations must be addressed?”
 
 “What are the business and IT goals for the enterprise architecture  12 ?” and “What are the key users, entities and systems interacting with enterprise architecture  12 ?”
    (2) The system context of enterprise architecture  12 . Typical questions to determine this could include: “What are the different types of client devices accessing the system?” and “What users/systems/entities are interacting with enterprise architecture  12  via which channels/devices?”    (3) IT environment, process and procedures of enterprise architecture  12 . Typical questions to determine this could include: “What are the key IT roles and responsibilities?” and “How is the IT group organized?”    (4) General architecture of enterprise architecture  12 . Typical questions to determine this could include: “Have the roles of business architect, application architect and technical architect been identified and assigned to individuals with sufficient experience?” and “Have the business architecture, application architecture and technical architecture been created?”    (5) User experience for those using enterprise architecture  12 . Typical questions to determine this could include: “What are the primary user groups?” and “What are the primary user types?”    (6) Information architecture of enterprise architecture  12 . Typical questions to determine this could include: “What information needs to be made available, to whom, and how?” and “What are the language requirements for business content?”    (7) Application architecture of enterprise architecture  12 . Typical questions to determine this could include: “How do applications support the required functionality? “What are the primary applications within enterprise architecture  12 ?” and “What are the interactions among applications, users and external entities?”    (8) Content management of enterprise architecture  12 . Typical questions to determine this could include: “What types of content, how is it maintained, published, and distributed?” Will the content for the web pages be stored in multiple places?” and “Will the content of the web pages be managed?”    (9) Data and integration architecture of enterprise architecture  12 . Typical questions to determine this could include: “What is the enterprise data architecture—What are the data elements, where stored, and how are they accessed?” and “What is the current logical design of the databases?”    (10) Operational Architecture of enterprise architecture  12 . Typical questions to determine this could include: “What infrastructure do we need to provide the required Service levels?” “What are the main components of the IT environment?” and “What environments are supported for different phases?”    (11) Security architecture of enterprise architecture  12 . Typical questions to determine this could include: “What are the security and privacy requirements for the infrastructure and applications?” “What are the authentication/identification requirements for the various business processes?” and “Have the access requirements for the various data elements been identified?”    (12) Systems management of enterprise architecture  12 . Typical questions to determine this could include: “Is there an ongoing performance planning process?” and “Is there an ongoing capacity planning process?”    (13) Functional and volumetric information of enterprise architecture  12 . Typical questions to determine this could include: “Does a baseline of business volumetric information captured exist?” and “What are the current and future arrival rate of the various business sessions?”    (14) Testing of enterprise architecture  12 . Typical questions to determine this could include: “Who will perform the testing?” and “What tools will they use?”    (15) Hosting of enterprise architecture  12 . Typical questions to determine this could include: “Who is the provider?” and “Who owns the equipment?”       

      The questionnaire could also request information per application or system within enterprise architecture  12 . For example, the operators could be requested to identify the access channels per user type, the total number of users, etc. In any event, it should be understood that the questions cited above are not intended as an exhaustive list of questions. Rather, they are cited herein only to illustrate the possible types of questions that can be posed. A more complete listing of illustrative questions is included in Appendix A, which is attached hereto and is herein incorporated by reference.  
      2. Integration Information  
      In addition to responses  32 , to properly assess enterprise architecture  12 , information pertaining to the integration challenges among major applications (e.g., customer systems, marketing systems, commerce applications, etc.) of enterprise architecture  12  should also be provided. This “integration information”  34  could be determined pursuant to workshops, meetings and the like between the operators of enterprise architecture  12  and the assessors. Once it is determined, it will be provided to computer system  14  similar to responses  32 .  
      3. Risks within the Enterprise Architecture  
      The final piece of data that is collected under the present invention are risks  36  within enterprise architecture  12 . This information could not only be used to determine whether the current resources (hardware, software and/or personnel) are adequately addressing those risks, but also whether the current resources are unnecessarily exposing enterprise architecture  12  to risk. The risks  36  can also be used to recommend architectural alternatives for enterprise architecture  12 . Similar to integration information  34 , risks  36  can be determined based on workshops, meetings and the like between the operators of enterprise architecture  12  and assessors. Once the risks are identified, they can be populated into a viability assessment. This can occur prior to or during the assessment process. In the case of the former, the operators and/or assessors can populate the viability assessment and then provide the same to computer system  14 . Alternatively, as will be further described below, the risks  36  can be provided to computer system  14  and subsequently populated into the viability assessment by viability assessment system  44 .  
      III. Assessment of the Enterprise Architecture  
      In a typical embodiment, responses  32 , integration information  34  and risks  36  will be received by input system  42 . Upon receipt, if risks  36  were not provided as populated within a viability assessment, viability assessment system  44  will do so. In such a case, viability assessment system  44  could access a template or the like (e.g., in storage unit  30 ). In any event, to commence the assessment of enterprise architecture  12 , performance determination system  46  will first compute/determine an operational performance of enterprise architecture  12  based on responses  32  and integration information  34 . In computing the operational performance, performance determination system  46  will “collate” responses  32  and integration information  34  into some form of useable data such as a set of scores. This can be accomplished in any number of ways. For example, performance determination system  46  could assign scores or points based on certain responses or integration challenges. This could lead to a composite score that represents the operational performance of enterprise architecture  12 . It should be appreciated, however, that any methodology for determining the performance of enterprise architecture  12  based on responses  32  and integration information  34  could be implemented.  
      Once the operational performance is determined, comparison system  48  will compare it to best practice data (e.g., as stored in storage unit  30 ) corresponding to operational performances of similar enterprise architectures. Specifically, the best practice data can be determined based on previous enterprise architectures that are similar to enterprise architecture  12  and were determined to have optimal or ideal performance. In identifying similar enterprise architectures, any type of standard can be applied. For example, a similar enterprise architecture could be one that is implemented in a similar business environment and/or has similar resources as enterprise architecture  12 . In any event, the best practice data of similar enterprise architectures can be used to rate the operational performance of enterprise architecture  12 .  
      Based on the comparison, assessment system  50  will generate an assessment of enterprise architecture  12 . For example, if enterprise architecture  12  is not performing up to the best practice data, assessment system  50  will indicate as much. Assessment system  50  will also attempt to identify the resources within enterprise architecture  12  that are responsible for any sub-optimal performance. Moreover, assessment system  50  will also recommend architectural alternatives for enterprise architecture  12  to improve the operational performance. Such alternatives could include changes/alterations to hardware, software and/or personnel/individuals within enterprise architecture  12 . In any event, in determining the architectural alternatives, the present invention will consider risks  36  from the viability assessment. Specifically, to help ensure that risks  36  are not realized, or are at least minimized, assessment system  50  is configured to take risks  36  into consideration when recommending architectural alternatives. Once the assessment is complete and any architectural alternatives are determined, assessment system  50  can generate a final report  54  that is outputted by output system  52 . Final report  54  will include the details of the assessment process as well as any recommended architectural alternatives.  
      It should be understood that the present invention can be realized in hardware, software, or a combination of hardware and software. Any kind of computer system(s)—or other apparatus adapted for carrying out the methods described herein—is suited. A typical combination of hardware and software could be a general purpose computer system with a computer program that, when loaded and executed, carries out the respective methods described herein. Alternatively, a specific use computer, containing specialized hardware for carrying out one or more of the functional tasks of the invention, could be utilized. The present invention can also be embedded in a computer program product, which comprises all the respective features enabling the implementation of the methods described herein, and which—when loaded in a computer system—is able to carry out these methods. Computer program, software program, program, or software, in the present context mean any expression, in any language, code or notation, of a set of instructions intended to cause a system having an information processing capability to perform a particular function either directly or after either or both of the following: (a) conversion to another language, code or notation; and/or (b) reproduction in a different material form.  
      Referring now to  FIG. 3 , a method flow diagram  100  according to the present invention is shown. As depicted, first step S 1  is to receive responses for a plurality of questions regarding the enterprise architecture. Second step S 2  is to receive information pertaining to integration challenges of enterprise applications within the enterprise architecture. Third step S 3  is to provide a viability assessment that is populated with risks within the enterprise architecture. Fourth step S 4  is to determine an operational performance of the enterprise architecture based on the responses and the information. Fifth step S 5  is to compare operational performance to best practice data. Sixth step S 6  is to provide an assessment the enterprise architecture based upon the comparison. Seventh step S 7  is to recommend architectural alternatives for the enterprise architecture based on the assessment and the risks.  
      The foregoing description of the preferred embodiments of this invention has been presented for purposes of illustration and description. It is not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the invention to the precise form disclosed, and obviously, many modifications and variations are possible. Such modifications and variations that may be apparent to a person skilled in the art are intended to be included within the scope of this invention as defined by the accompanying claims.