01 PortfolioSummary 02 Business
Enablement Assessment 03 Business Function
Drilldown 04 06 Criticality Assessment 07 Criticality
Assessment Drilldown 08 Individual
Applications Summaries05
REPORT OVERVIEWProduct Effectiveness Assessment
Vendor Effectiveness Assessment
APPLICATIONPORTFOLIO METRICS
PROGRAM
PREPARED FOR:John Doe, CIOComputer Business Inc.March 20, 2014
POWERED BY:
Company XPrepared for:Name, RoleNumber of Respondents: 100Number of Applications: 48
Last Updated: MMM,YYYY
01 PortfolioSummary 02 Business
Enablement Assessment 03 Business Function
Drilldown 04 06 Criticality Assessment 07 Criticality
Assessment Drilldown 08 Individual
Applications Summaries05
REPORT OVERVIEWProduct Effectiveness Assessment
Vendor Effectiveness Assessment
Vendor Partnership
Vendor Support Satisfaction
Implementation & Setup
Business Users Satsfaction
Business Users Satsfaction
Business Users Satsfaction
IT Users Satsfaction
IT Users Satsfaction
IT Users Satsfaction
VENDOR EFFECTIVENESSPRODUCT EFFECTIVENESS
Portfolio Summary
Satisfaction Rating35
Respondents
END USER SATISFACTION
Features & functionality
Data Quality
Ease of use
APPLICATION PORTFOLIO METRICS PROGRAM
Overall IT Users’ Satisfaction Rating Overall Business Users’ Satisfaction Rating
79% 79%
3522IT Respondents Business Respondents
OVERALL IT USERS OVERALL BUSINESS USERS
74%
80%
70%
75%
85%
76%
82%
TechnicalCapability
Ease of Management
TechnicalIntegration
IT SkillsCapacity
FunctionalCapability
FunctionalReliability
Workfl ow & Data Integration
Business Skills Capacity
74%70%
68%
85%
75%
88%83%
76%
69%
92%
81%
80%
70%
50%
TechnicalAlignment
FunctionalAlignment
82%
80%
73%
86%
Business Needs Alignment
63%Completely
Unique
65%Replaceable
Partial Overlap
Complete Overlap
15%
5%
UniquenessReplaceability
35%Irreplaceable
65%
ProductCapability
Business Process Integration
Business Needs Alignment
Operational Effi ciency
Strategic Flexibility
Skills Capacity
BUSINESS ENABLEMENT
Company XPrepared for:Name, RoleNumber of Respondents: 100Number of Applications: 48
Last Updated: MMM,YYYY
Business Users Satsfaction
IT Users Satsfaction
01 PortfolioSummary 02 Business
Enablement Assessment 03 Business Function
Drilldown 04 06 Criticality Assessment 07 Criticality
Assessment Drilldown 08 Individual
Applications Summaries05
REPORT OVERVIEWProduct Effectiveness Assessment
Vendor Effectiveness Assessment
Group(s)Satisfi ed Life
cycle
StageLocatio
n
Average
Approach
Adequacy to Meet Future Needs
Business Enablement Assessment – Overview
BUSINESS ENABLEMENT
TechnicalAlignment
FunctionalAlignment
82%80%
73%86%
Future Needs Alignment
Strategic Flexibility
Application Name
Salesforce.com Chatter Plus
Dynamics AX for Field Service
HRsmart Unifi ed Talent Management Suite
NEOGOV Insight
Microsoft SkyDrive Pro
Seapine TestTrack Pro 2012
IBM Cognos Express 10
Judicial Enforcement Management System
These applications have been fl agged as eliciting
discrepancies between IT and business users
in terms of the future fi t of the application at
the organization.
Assessment of the fi t of an application to the needs of the organization is critical as a fi rst step, regardless of the technical and functional quality of an app, or the vendor effectiveness. Evalute applications according to business function, to ensure that each function has a collection of apps that meet those needs, according to both IT and Business Users.
These applications are aligning poorest with
the future needs of the organization from the
perspective of both IT and Business users. These likely
need to be addressed fi rst.
Adequacy to Meet Future Needs
# of Apps
Total # of Apps
AverageScore Growth Maturity DeathFunctional Area
Production 7 1
92%
92%
91%
86%
84%
79%
76%
72%
65%
58%
55%
6 0
12
9
4
4
7
7
1
1
R&D
Industry Specifi c
SAP Crystal Reports 2008
For The Record Falcon
Overall Portfolio Alignment Satisfaction
This score is an overall indication of how well evaluated applications are setting up the organization to meet current and future business needs. This score is made up of alignment with business needs, fl exibility to adjust to changing needs, and overlap with other apps in the portfolio.
81%
84%
68%
89%
76%
51%
53%
54%
55%
55%
CONTROVERSIALAPPLICATIONS
ADEQUACY TO MEET FUTURE NEEDS ACCORDING TO BUSINESS FUNCTION
MOST IN NEEDOF ADDRESSING
5 most
5 apps
Legend
8%
31%
32%
29%
APPLICATION BUSINESS FUNCTION ENABLEMENT
BY LIFECYCLE STAGEGROUP SATISFACTION SUMMARY
At any given time, any organization will have many
applications at various lifecycle stages. Ideally, lifecycle stage
should align with the needs of the business going forward
because the cost of maintaining applications tends to increase
over time as maintenance costs go up and the value of
applications declines. Ensure that dying apps are disposed
of and growing apps are satisfactory to all groups.Growth
Lifecyle StageMaturity Death
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
63%Completely
Unique
85%Replaceable
0 Extremely Dissatisfi ed
0 Extremely Dissatisfi ed
0 Extremely Dissatisfi ed
Extremely Satisfi ed 100
Extremely Satisfi ed 100
Extremely Satisfi ed 100
11
9
8
10
5
6
3
1 2
>
IT User Group
BusinessUser Group
Both User Groups
Neither User Groups
Group(s) Satisfi ed (Satisfaction Score —%)
# of
App
licat
ions
Locations Approach
Module Bought BuiltOn-Premises Co-Lo/MSP Cloud
Partial Overlap
Complete Overlap
15%
5%
UniquenessReplaceability
35%Irreplaceable
Customer Service 12 1 6 0
HR 4 1 6 0
Administration 5 1 6 0
Finance 5 1 6 0
6 4 7 1Distribution
IT 12 1 6 0
9 4 7 1Marketing
Sales 11 1 6 0
100
88
82
73
68
65
49
75
84
96
90
90
77
79
61
95
89 93
69
66
61
50
69
80
93
98
61
59
73
59
58
45
49
48
94
78
94
57
59
63
45
51
Company XPrepared for:Name, RoleNumber of Respondents: 100Number of Applications: 48
Last Updated: MMM,YYYY
01 PortfolioSummary 02 Business
Enablement Assessment 03 Business Function
Drilldown 04 06 Criticality Assessment 07 Criticality
Assessment Drilldown 08 Individual
Applications Summaries05
REPORT OVERVIEWProduct Effectiveness Assessment
Vendor Effectiveness Assessment
Business Enablement Assessment – Business Function Drilldown
Managing and rationalizing the application portfolio should involve an assessment of functional overlap by functional process area. This avoids confusion for ends users around when to use what, and also simplifies management.
BUSINESS FUNCTION PROCESS AREA
* Administration 83%
65%
75%
55%
35%
78%
63%
43%
72%
52%
18%
* Finance* Customer Service* HR* Distribution* IT* Marketing* SalesProductionR&D
* Represents the Business Function Process Areas that appear on this page.
Industry Specific
Group(s) Satis
fied
Group(s) Satis
fied
Group(s) Satis
fied
Lifecyc
le Stage
Lifecyc
le Stage
Lifecyc
le Stage
Replaceability
Replaceability
Replaceability
Uniqueness
Uniqueness
Uniqueness
Microsoft SharePoint 2013
Sage 500 ERP 2013 – HumanResources & Payroll
Sage 500 ERP 2013 – Accounting Solutions
Salesforce.com Service Cloud
Microsoft SharePoint 2013
Salesforce.com Chatter Plus
Sage 500 ERP – Business & Resource Management
Microsoft SharePoint 2013
Salesforce.com Sales Cloud
Cisco Webex Connect IM
Client Communication System
Cisco Webex Connect IM
Sage 500 ERP – Business & Resource Management
Cisco Webex Connect IM
KLRS Reporting System
Dynamics AX for Field Service
Symantec NetBackup
Sage 500 ERP – Business & Resource Management
BMC Remedyforce
IBM Cognos Express 10
Marketo Standard
Sage 500 ERP - Business & Resource Management
Cisco Webex Connect IM
Sage 500 ERP - Business & Resource Management
Microsoft SharePoint 2013
Sage 500 ERP – Business & Resource Management
Hootsuite Enterprise
Oracle PeopleSoft 9 – Supply Chain Management
Salesforce.com Knowledge
Cisco Webex Connect IM
Cisco Webex Meeting Center
Symantec Enterprise Vault
Hootsuite Enterprise
Microsoft SkyDrive Pro
HRsmart Unified Talent Management Suite
Microsoft Dynamics AX 2009
Cisco Webex Connect IM
Hootsuite Enterprise
IBM Cognos Express 10KLRS Reporting System
Cisco Webex Connect IM
Trustwave SIEM
Microsoft SkyDrive Pro
EMC RSA DLP
Seapine TestTrack Pro 201
Company Intranet Site
IBM Cognos Express 10
Client Communication System
Marketo Standard
Microsoft SkyDrive Pro
Cisco Identity Services Engine
Client Communication System
Cisco IPS
Sophos SafeGuard Enterprise
Business Function Process Area Applications Assessment
ADMINISTRATION
HR
FINANCE
CUSTOMER SERVICE
DISTRIBUTION
IT
MARKETING
SALES
Legend
Replaceable Irreplaceable
Replaceability
Completely Unique
Complete Overlapwith Another App
Partial Overlap with Another App
Uniqueness
Growth Maturity Death
Lifecycle Stage
Groups Satisfied
IT Users Business Users Both Groups Neither Groups
Average
Company XPrepared for:Name, RoleNumber of Respondents: 100Number of Applications: 48
Last Updated: MMM,YYYY
77% 27% 61% 95% 93%? 65% 85% 75%
69
75
85
81
01 PortfolioSummary 02 Business
Enablement Assessment 03 Business Function
Drilldown 04 06 Criticality Assessment 07 Criticality
Assessment Drilldown 08 Individual
Applications Summaries05
REPORT OVERVIEWProduct Effectiveness Assessment
Vendor Effectiveness Assessment
Customizabilit
y
Data Relevancy
Responsiveness
Ext. App.
Integ.Platfo
rm
Stds.
Security Adeq.
Data Integratio
n
Compliance
Adeq.
Data Quality
Control
Ease of
Trblshooting
Ease of Use
Feat. & Funct.
Bus.Process
Effcy.
Availa
bility
Reporting
& Analytics
Self
Suffi ciency
User Training
Avail.
User Skil
ls
Complex.
User Skil
ls
Avail.
Bus. Logic
Reusability
End User
Support
Bus. Logic
Automation
Ease of
Maintenance
Intra-App Data
Consistency
Reliabilit
y
Average
Average
Average
Average
Mobile
Support
63%
68%
68%
86%
76%
64%
57%
76%
72%
86%
70%
76%
72%
66%
70%
26%
56%
46%
51%
63%
73% 72%
71%
12%
57%
80%
N/A
78%
82%
85%
77%
63%
80%
65%
73%
73%
51%
47%
68%
72%
68%
91%
65%
60%
75%
N/A
N/A
95%
73%
80%
57%
N/A
85%
83%
73%
73%
66%
74%
74%
27%
85%
76%
70%
61%
75%
82%
68%
95%
81%
84%
73%
93%
51%
74%
57%
66%
78%
76%
56%
81%
78%
?
69%
63%
75%
66%
85%
95%
81%
67%
40% 100% 56%
76% 72% 74%
91% 87% 47%
80% 60% 85%
84% 90% 51%
IT Training
Availa
bility
IT Skills
Availa
bility
IT Skills
Complexity
56% 46% 84%
67% 71% 63%
76% 88% 60%
45% 87% 79%
51% 74% 100%
61% 68% 78% 51%
74% 84% 75% 35%
83% 43% N/A 63%
67% 61% 73% 57%
46% 66% 56% N/A
90%
61%
87%
66%
71% 54% 86% 65%
73% 81% N/A 68%
88% 72% 77% 43%
89% 73% 81% 81%
Application Name
Application Name
Application Name
Application Name
Fore the Record Falcon
Microsoft Dynamics AX 2009
Cisco Webex Connect IM
Nurse Adie Registry
KLRS Reporting System
Company Intranet Site
EMC Documentum 7
MCD Reporting System
NEOGOV Insight
Microsoft SharePoint 2013
TIBCO Active Matrix 2
Microsoft SharePoint 2013
Sage 500 ERP- Payment Solutions
Sage 500 ERP – Business & Resource Management
Seapine TestTrack Pro 2012
Salesforce.com Knowledge
IBM SPSS Statistics
Sage 500 ERP – Payment Solutions
SAP Crystal Reports 2008
Marketo Standard
CAPABLE APPLICATIONS
PROCESS HINDERING APPS
OPERATIONALLY BURDENSOME
APPS
SKILLS DEFICIENT APPS
These apps may have technical
or functional limitations that
limit their overall capability.
These apps most poorly integrate
with business process, directly
impacting productivity.
Operational issues may be
driving poor satisfaction with
these applications.
These apps elicit potential
future skills gaps resulting from
lack of expertise, skills transfer or
training.
Product Effectiveness Assessment
Operational Effi ciency Satisfaction
Product Capability Satisfaction
Business Process Integration
5 least
5 most
5 most
5 most Skill Capacity Satisfaction
0 Extremely Dissatisfi ed
0 Extremely Dissatisfi ed
0 Extremely Dissatisfi ed
0 Extremely Dissatisfi ed
Extremely Satisfi ed 100
Extremely Satisfi ed 100
Extremely Satisfi ed 100
Extremely Satisfi ed 100
ProductAssessment
Effectiveness of applications relies on more than just technical and functional capabilities. Look for systemic issues around business process integration and operations to improve effectiveness of people and process to boost overall application satisfaction.
ITUsers
ITUsers
ITUsers
ITUsers
BusinessUsers
BusinessUsers
BusinessUsers
BusinessUsers
58
59
66
66
71
74
75
73
73
62
67
71
67
67
69
66
69
75
75
75
80
71
75
74
71
63
56
63 66
67
76
76
75
68
81
76
Business Users Satsfaction
IT Users Satsfaction
74% 79%
TechnicalCapability
FunctionalCapability
70% 83%Product Capability
77% 72%
54% 77%
71% 89%
78% 82%
External ApplicationIntegration Features & Functionality
Platform Standards Conformance Ease of Use
Security Adequacy Customizability
Compliance Adequacy Mobile Support
TechnicalIntegration
OpperationalEffi ciency
IT SkillsCapacity
Workfl ow &Data Integration
FunctionalReliability
Business Skills Capacity
85%
68%
75%
69%
76%
92%
Business Process Integration
Operational Effi ciency
Skills Capacity
96%
75%
63%
60%
63%80%
95%
79%
76%
85%
74%
85%
84%
89%
90%
75%
53%
77%
82%
77%
92%
Business Logic Reusability
End User Support Needs
IT Skills Availability
Business Process Effi ciency
Reliability
Availability
User Skills Availability
Business Logic Automation
Ease of Maintenance
IT Skills Complexity
Intra-App Data Consistency
Responsiveness
User Skills Complexity
Data Integration
Data Quality Control Capability
Ease of Troubleshooting
IT Training Availability
Data Relevancy
Reporting & Analytics
Self Suffi ciency (reliance on IT)
User Training Availability
PRODUCT EFFECTIVENESS
Company XPrepared for:Name, RoleNumber of Respondents: 100Number of Applications: 48
Last Updated: MMM,YYYY
01 PortfolioSummary 02 Business
Enablement Assessment 03 Business Function
Drilldown 04 06 Criticality Assessment 07 Criticality
Assessment Drilldown 08 Individual
Applications Summaries05
REPORT OVERVIEWProduct Effectiveness Assessment
Vendor Effectiveness Assessment
Vendor Effectiveness Assessment
Overall Vendor Effectiveness
Overall Product
Effectiveness
INNOVATOR (I)
11EMERGING PLAYER (EP)
8MARKET PILLAR (MP)
10
CHAMPION (C)
19
Implementation Satisfaction Support Satisfaction Partnership Satisfaction
Aderant CompuLaw Vision 10
Client Communication System
Nurse Aide Registry
EPM Live PPM
For the Record Falcon
Dealer Management System
Salesforce.com Knowledge
IBM Cognos Express 10
Microsoft Dynamics AX 2009
Aegis Health Group, Inc. PRISM
Hootsuite Enterprise
Cisco Identity Services Engine
IBM SPSS Statistics
Microsoft SkyDrive Pro
Sophos SafeGuard Enterprise
The goal of the organization should be to have all applications in the Champion quadrant. This can be accomplished by switching vendors/ applications or by focusing on improvements to internal capabilities.
VENDOR LANDSCAPE OVERVIEW
Vendor partnerships can be critical to initiating and maintaining effective quality of service on applications over time. Not only is it critical to have quality support structures in place, but also to work with vendors that are committed to future innovation and backing their applications fully from a research and development perspective.
Overall Product Partnership Assessment
Application Name
66% 81%
90% 49%
90% 90%
68% 75%
59% 61%
83% 61%
67% 82%
91% 55%
75% 89%
70% 69%
64% 65%
77% 87%
68% 75%
61% 56%
85% 91%
71% I
79% EP
65% I
75% MP
91% I
71% EP
82% I
75% MP
65% C
89% EP
90% EP
75% EP
85% EP
84% MP
67% I
Average
Average
Average
VL Quad.
33% Extremely Ineffective
0 Extremely Dissatisfi ed
0 Extremely Dissatisfi ed
0 Extremely Dissatisfi ed
0 Extremely Dissatisfi ed
0 Extremely Dissatisfi ed
0 Extremely Dissatisfi ed
0 Extremely Dissatisfi ed
0 Extremely Dissatisfi ed
0 Extremely Dissatisfi ed
Extremely Satisfi ed 100
Extremely Satisfi ed 100
Extremely Satisfi ed 100
Extremely Satisfi ed 100
Extremely Satisfi ed 100
Extremely Satisfi ed 100
Extremely Satisfi ed 100
Extremely Satisfi ed 100
Extremely Satisfi ed 100
33% Extremely
Ineffective
Extremely Effective
100%
100% Extremely Effective
POORLY IMPLEMENTEDAPPLICATIONS
POORLY SUPPORTED
APPLICATIONS
APPLICATIONS LACKING VENDOR
PARTNERSHIP
While these apps may be working well currently, they were
poorly implemented by vendors on day one.
These applications have been problematic
in the past from a support standpoint.
While implementation and support may have been satisfactory, the vendor has been less than forthcoming or
negative regarding the future of this product.
5 most
5 most
5 most
57 80 79
8574
64 79
60
9259
65
54
46
42
41
71
96
88
58 81
87
96
97
82
65
96
98
58
87
71
84
75
79
75 82
86
79
90
71
52
73
63
79
91
90
86
63
82
86 52
81
70
52
59
57
72
64
69
73
71
82
77
76
69
81
86
83
75
93 93
92
70
79
86
91
83
86
87
90
51
59
79
71
73
63
60
67
71
71
71
TechnicalCapability
TechnicalCapability
TechnicalCapability
FunctionalCapability
FunctionalCapability
FunctionalCapability
81%
74%
70%
80%
75%
85%
82%
76%
Product Capability
Business Process Integration
Business Process Integration
75% 76%
65% 90%
Support Effectiveness/Timeliness
Support Effectiveness/Timeliness
Support Expertise Support Expertise
74% 85%Speed & Ease of Implementation Speed & Ease of Setup
80% 80%
87% 76%
73% 71%
Platform Commitment
Product Commitment
Product Representation
Product Representation
Negotiation & Renewal Satisfaction
Negotiation & Renewal Satisfaction
Business Users Satsfaction
IT Users Satsfaction
Vendor Support Satisfaction
Implementation & Setup
VENDOR EFFECTIVENESS
Vendor Partnership
Company XPrepared for:Name, RoleNumber of Respondents: 100Number of Applications: 48
Last Updated: MMM,YYYY
01 PortfolioSummary 02 Business
Enablement Assessment 03 Business Function
Drilldown 04 06 Criticality Assessment 07 Criticality
Assessment Drilldown 08 Individual
Applications Summaries05
REPORT OVERVIEWProduct Effectiveness Assessment
Vendor Effectiveness Assessment
Criticality Assessment of Applications - Overview
Importance Category
Average OverallEffectiveness Score
Completely Irrelevant
Necessary to Legal/ComplianceNecessary to Business SupportIndirectly Tied to RevenueDirectly Tied to Revenue
83%
71%
48%
49%
45%
MissionCritical
Important
Misaligned
Nice to Have
Unused
Unused
6/13%
10/21%
14/28%
12/25%
6/13%
Important MissionCritical
Nice to Have
HAZARDOUS
1 CAUTIONARY
1 UNWANTED
3
CONTENTIOUS
9 CONTROVERSIAL
9 QUESTIONABLE
4
EFFECTIVE
10 UN-PRIORITIZED
7 UNLEVERAGED
4
At Risk
At Risk
At Risk
At Risk
At Risk
At Risk
6
6
2
2
2
2
4
7
4
3
2
0
3
6
2
0
2
1
6
11
9
2
6
2
Expendable
Expendable
Expendable
Expendable
Expendable
Expendable
Misaligned
Misaligned
Misaligned
Misaligned
Misaligned
Misaligned
High Performing
High Performing
High Performing
High Performing
High Performing
High Performing
Average# of
Apps Effectiveness Rating
56%
65%
63%
65%
51%
45%
69%
26%
62%
33%
38%
--%
57%
61%
47%
--%
61%
30%
87%
87%
95%
100%
84%
84%
Total # of Apps 19
Total # of Apps 17
Total # of Apps 34
Total # of Apps 8
Total # of Apps 6
Total # of Apps 12
40%
35%
71%
17%
12%
25%
IN-HOUSE
CLOUD
CO-LO/MSP
BOUGHT
BUILT
MODULE
Many organizations are moving applications to the cloud to improve accessibility and simplify overall management. However, it is critical to ensure overall effectiveness of outsourced apps stay on par with those in-house.
While leveraging in-house expertise to develop applications to build custom modules on top of off the shelf software, it is critical to ensure these apps perform as well as those that are purchased.
OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS BY LOCATION
OVERALL EFFECTIVENESSBY APPLICATION CREATOR
Evaluating the number of applications within each quadrant is the fi rst step in assessing the health of the overall portfolio, and in determining which applications require immediate action.
Number of Applications by Criticality & Effectiveness
The goal of the organization should be to have all applications in the Champion quadrant. This can be accomplished by switching vendors/ applications or by focusing on improvements to internal capabilities.
APPLICATION BREAKDOWN BY RELEVANCE
Misaligned Expendable
At Risk High Performing
% o
f Tot
al A
pplic
atio
ns
Average Criticality Rating
Legend
Legend
TOTAL CRITICALITY
SCORE
+IT Users'
Satisfaction
Business Users'
Satisfaction
Extremely Ineffective Extremely Effective
OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS
BusinessEnablement
Effectiveness
ProductEffectiveness
VendorEffectiveness
+ +
0 Extremely Ineffective
0 Extremely Ineffective
0 Extremely Ineffective
0 Extremely Ineffective
0 Extremely Ineffective
0 Extremely Ineffective
Extremely Effective 100
Extremely Effective 100
Extremely Effective 100
Extremely Effective 100
Extremely Effective 100
Extremely Effective 100
62
61
83
52
46
51
85
55
39
46
80
26
30
75
35
83
66
32
61
65
100
91
50
51
42
30
64
20
25
61
65
100
40
60
93
94
63
76
85
76
63
71
99
90
Company XPrepared for:Name, RoleNumber of Respondents: 100Number of Applications: 48
Last Updated: MMM,YYYY
01 PortfolioSummary 02 Business
Enablement Assessment 03 Business Function
Drilldown 04 06 Criticality Assessment 07 Criticality
Assessment Drilldown 08 Individual
Applications Summaries05
REPORT OVERVIEWProduct Effectiveness Assessment
Vendor Effectiveness Assessment
For these apps there is either disagreement between Business users and IT users on Criticality, or each group has given the app
middling criticality ratings.
These applications should be second in priority, as some
groups may have rated these apps as critical.
Achieve alignment on the criticality of these apps fi rst, and then look to improvement efforts.
MISALIGNED APPLICATIONS
MissionCritical
MissionCritical
Important Important
Misaligned
Nice to Have Nice to Have
UnusedUnused
HAZARDOUS
1 HAZARDOUS
1 CAUTIONARY
1 CAUTIONARY
1 UNWANTED
3 UNWANTED
3
CONTENTIOUS
9 CONTENTIOUS
9 CONTROVERSIAL
9 CONTROVERSIAL
9 QUESTIONABLE
4 QUESTIONABLE
4
EFFECTIVE
10 EFFECTIVE
10 UN-PRIORITIZED
7 UN-PRIORITIZED
7 UNLEVERAGED
4 UNLEVERAGED
4
Sage 500 ERP - Payment Solutions
Nurse Aide Registry
MCD Reporting Systems DotNetNuke Evoq
SAP Crystal Reports 2008 IBM Cognos Express 10
Microsoft Dynamics AX 2009 KLRS Reporting System
Cisco Identity Services Engine Aderant CompuLaw Vision 10
Sage 500 ERP - Human Resources and Payroll Dealer Management System
EMC Documentum 7 Seapine TestTrack Pro 2012
Client Communication System Hootsuite Enterprise
TIBCO Active Matrix 2 Company Intranet Site
Sophos SafeGuard Enterprise Microsoft Skydrive Pro
Application Name Application NameOverall Effectivness Score Overall Effectivness ScoreReplaceabiity
Replaceabiity
Approach
Approach
Lifecyc
le Stage
Lifecyc
le Stage
Location
Average
Average
Average
Relevance
Relevance
Location
Uniqueness
Uniqueness
76% 31% 34% 25% 39% 60% 36% 31% 23% 27% 36% --% 13% 37%
81% 34% 36% 60% 39% 56% 49% 55% 55% 61% 93% --% 10% 17%
95% 35% 72% 65% 37% 66% 53% 65% 37% 44% 57% 61% 62% 55%
72% 36% 47% 34% 93% 64% 57% 60% 94% 33% 66% 27% 49% 43%
98% 40% 61% 44% 72% 64% 42% 30% 72% 47% 23% 41% 56% 23%
97% 45% 78% 82% 23% 60% 67% 58% 100% 21% 87% --% 62% 74%
73% 52% 68% 82% 39% 61% 56% 44% 42% 65% 67% 66% 65% 50%
77% 55% 76% 89% 24% 56% 45% 52% 20% 42% 90% 33% 55% 12%
77% 56% 87% 98% 10% 58% 56% 65% 23% 41% 100% 51% 66% 45%
86% 61% 98% 68% 29% 43% 57% 51% 93% 54% 54% --% 52% 35%
While crucial to the business,
these apps have been unanimously
rated by both Business and
IT users as both critical to the business and
underperforming. These apps should be
addressed for root cause
immediately.> >
Criticality Assessment of Applications – Drilldown by Effectiveness
Extremely Ineffective Extremely EffectiveOVERALL EFFECTIVENESS
Business Enablement Effectiveness
ProductEffectiveness
VendorEffectiveness
+ +Business Enablement
EffectivenessProduct
EffectivenessVendor
Effectiveness
+ +
Extremely Ineffective Extremely EffectiveOVERALL EFFECTIVENESS
Average
Criticality
Score
Lifecycle Stage Locations Approach Relevance
Growth ModuleMaturity BoughtDeath Built Completely IrrelevantOn-Premises Necessary to Legal/ComplianceCo-Lo/MSP Necessary to
Business SupportCloud Indirectly Tied to Revenue
Directly Tied to Revenue
Legend
Group Criticality Score
AT RISKAPPLICATIONS
0 0 0100 100 100Extremely Dissatisfi ed
Extremely Dissatisfi ed
Extremely Dissatisfi ed
Extremely Satisfi ed
Extremely Satisfi ed
Extremely Satisfi ed
TOTAL CRITICALITY
SCORE
+IT Users'
Satisfaction
Business Users'
Satisfaction
TOTAL CRITICALITY
SCORE
+IT Users'
Satisfaction
Business Users'
Satisfaction
31
41
41
48
53
56
35
40
36
57
34
41
28
28
49
63
63
56
69
27 48
49
43
45
30
36
83
79
74
74
71
76
48
48
46
47
69
71
55
79
32
55
24
42
40
52
50
47
47
53
56
50
61
39
57
68
44
87
58
57
Company XPrepared for:Name, RoleNumber of Respondents: 100Number of Applications: 48
Last Updated: MMM,YYYY
>
Overall Effectivness Score Replaceabiity
Approach
Lifecyc
le Stage
Average
Average
Relevance
Location
Uniqueness
86% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% --% 100% 100%
79% 98% 100% 100% 98% 92% 94% 86% 100%
69% 95% 84% 90% 96% 100% 100% 100% 100%
77% 95% 90% 100% 100% 86% 79% 94% 100%
60% 98% 83% 78% 79% 75% 72% 81% 81%
64% 73% 89% 91% 84% 100% 93% 92% 54%
59% 77% 100% 100% 100% 94% 81% 100% 94%
60% 69% 100% 60% 98% 44% 78% 86% 50%
44% 88% 100% 100% 96% --%42% 100% 18%
44% 83% 90% 76% 100% 54% 79% 84% 8%
Group Criticality Score
01 PortfolioSummary 02 Business
Enablement Assessment 03 Business Function
Drilldown 04 06 Criticality Assessment 07 Criticality
Assessment Drilldown 08 Individual
Applications Summaries05
REPORT OVERVIEWProduct Effectiveness Assessment
Vendor Effectiveness Assessment
Both IT and the business are very happy with the performance of
these applications. However, there many be opportunity to retire these apps if business users do not fi nd them valuable to the organization.
While it may make sense to maintain these apps in the short
term, non-critical applications nearing end of life may be targets
for retirement or phasing out.
MissionCritical
MissionCritical
Important Important
Misaligned
Nice to Have Nice to Have
Unused Unused
HAZARDOUS
1 HAZARDOUS
1 CAUTIONARY
1 CAUTIONARY
1 UNWANTED
3 UNWANTED
3
CONTENTIOUS
9 CONTENTIOUS
9 CONTROVERSIAL
9 CONTROVERSIAL
9 QUESTIONABLE
4 QUESTIONABLE
4
EFFECTIVE
10 EFFECTIVE
10 UN-PRIORITIZED
7 UN-PRIORITIZED
7 UNLEVERAGED
4 UNLEVERAGED
4
IBM SPSS Statistics EPM Live PPM
Cisco Webex Connect IM Salesforce.com Sales Cloud
Salesforce.com Knowledge Salesforce.com
For The Record Falcon Aegis Health Group, Inc. PRISM
Key Tracer Key
Sage 500 ERP - Business & Resource Management PLM Licensing Manager
Marketo Standard Microsoft SharePoint 2013
Sage 500 ERP – Payment Solutions
NEOGOV Insight IBM Cognos Express 10
Chatter Plus
Application Name Application NameOverall Effectivness Score Replaceabiity
Approach
Lifecyc
le Stage
Location
Average
Relevance
Average
Criticality
Score
Uniqueness
27% 28% 29% 30% 25%
23% 31% 22% 36% 35%
24% 32% 20% 20% 56%
34% 40% 44% 45% 31%
39% 46% 34% 35% 69%
48% 46% 82% 60% 29%
44% 63% 67% 44% 78%
These applications have been agreed upon by Business and IT users to bring
questionable value to the
organization, as they are
ineffective and unused. Consider
retiring these applications.
EXPENDABLE APPLICATIONS
>
Extremely Ineffective Extremely IneffectiveExtremely Effective Extremely EffectiveOVERALL EFFECTIVENESS OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS
Lifecycle Stage Locations Approach Relevance
Growth ModuleMaturity BoughtDeath Built Completely IrrelevantOn-Premises Necessary to Legal/ComplianceCo-Lo/MSP Necessary to
Business SupportCloud Indirectly Tied to Revenue
Directly Tied to Revenue
Legend
HIGH PERFORMING APPLICATIONS
Criticality Assessment of Applications – Drilldown by Effectiveness
Business Enablement Effectiveness
ProductEffectiveness
VendorEffectiveness
+ +Business Enablement
EffectivenessProduct
EffectivenessVendor
Effectiveness
+ +
0
0 0
100
100 100
Extremely Dissatisfi ed
Extremely Dissatisfi ed
Extremely Dissatisfi ed
Extremely Satisfi ed
Extremely Satisfi ed
Extremely Satisfi ed
TOTAL CRITICALITY
SCORE
+IT Users'
Satisfaction
Business Users'
Satisfaction
TOTAL CRITICALITY
SCORE
+IT Users'
Satisfaction
Business Users'
Satisfaction
32 90
78
95
97
50
61
65
24 78
59 93
95
95
99
91
46
48
42
31
61
30 78 97
96
51
55
46
71
41
49
39
42
22
32
32 80 98
83
80
78
48
46
32
58
71
72
100 100
100
94
91
82
75
Company XPrepared for:Name, RoleNumber of Respondents: 100Number of Applications: 48
Last Updated: MMM,YYYY
Business Users Satsfaction
IT Users Satsfaction
Business Users Satsfaction
Business Users Satsfaction
IT Users Satsfaction
IT Users Satsfaction
01 PortfolioSummary 02 Business
Enablement Assessment 03 Business Function
Drilldown 04 Product Effectiveness Assessment 06 Criticality
Assessment 07 Criticality Assessment Drilldown 08 Individual
Applications Summaries05 Vendor
Effectiveness Assessment
REPORT OVERVIEW
75% 79%
TechnicalCapability
FunctionalCapability
82% 83%Product Capability
68% 80%
86% 95%
89% ?
85% N/A
External ApplicationIntegration Features & Functionality
Platform Standards Conformance Ease of Use
Security Adequacy Customizability
Compliance Adequacy Mobile Support
TechnicalIntegration
OpperationalEffi ciency
IT SkillsCapacity
Workfl ow &Data Integration
FunctionalReliability
Business Skills Capacity
80%
65%
71%
72%
90%
70%
Business Process Integration
Operational Effi ciency
Skills Capacity
80%
50%
73%
27%
80%80%
60%
N/A
75%
60%
61%
95%
100%
90%
90%
N/A
70%
80%
93%
80%
60%
Business Logic Reusability
End User Support Needs
IT Skills Availability
Business Process Effi ciency
Reliability
Availability
User Skills Availability
Business Logic Automation
Ease of Maintenance
IT Skills Complexity
Intra-App Data Consistency
Responsiveness
User Skills Complexity
Data Integration
Data Quality Control Capability
Ease of Troubleshooting
IT Training Availability
Data Relevancy
Reporting & Analytics
Self Suffi ciency (reliance on IT)
User Training AvailabilityOVERALL VENDOR EFFECTIVENESS
OVERALL APPLICATION
EFFECTIVENESS
INNOVATOR
EMERGING PLAYER
MARKETPILLAR
CHAMPION
Vendor Landscape Placement
IT USER(S)
BUSINESS USER(S)
OVERALL END USER(S)
Overall Satisfaction
Overall Satisfaction
323 Respondents
22 Respondents
35 Respondents
78% 83%
TechnicalAlignment
FunctionalAlignment
78% 83%Business Needs Alignment
Strategic Flexibility
87% 87%
69%Biannually
to Annually
Technical Adequacy for future Needs
Functional Adequacy for Future Needs
Adaptability Change Frequency
BUSINESS ENABLEMENT PRODUCT EFFECTIVENESS
81% 81%
78% 84%
Vendor Support Satisfaction
74% 74%
86% 93%
Support Effectiveness/Timeliness
Support Effectiveness/Timeliness
Support Expertise Support Expertise
81% N/A
Implementation & Setup
81% ?Speed & Ease of Implementation Speed & Ease of Setup
85% 78%
94% N/A
85% 78%
76% N/A
Platform Commitment
Product Commitment
Product Representation
Product Representation
Negotiation & Renewal Satisfaction
Negotiation & Renewal Satisfaction
Microsoft SharePoint 2010 Metrics Scorecard
GRO
UP
CRIT
ICAL
ITY
SCO
RE
MissionCritical
100%
33%
33% 100%
Important
Nice to Have
Unused
Extremely Ineffective Extremely Effective
OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS
HAZARDOUS
UNWANTED
CONTENTIOUS
QUESTIONABLE
EFFECTIVE
UNLEVERAGED
STATUS: MISALIGNED
STATUS: CHAMPION
End-Users IT Users Business Users
Legend
VENDOR EFFECTIVENESS
BusinessEnablement
Effectiveness
ProductEffectiveness
VendorEffectiveness
+ +
80%Mature
15%Growth
15%Death
Lifecyle Stage
CloudBought
Approach Location
80% 10% 5%Usability Features Data Quality
20%
0%
0%
0%
Necessary to Legal/Compliance
Necessary to Business Support
Indirectly Tied to Revenue
Directly Tied to Revenue
80%Completely Irrelevant
ALIGNMENT ON APPLICATION CRITICALITY & EFFECTIVENESS
Relevance63%
Completely Unique
85%Replaceable
Partial Overlap
Complete Overlap
15%
5%
UniquenessReplaceability
35%Irreplaceable
78%
81%
46%
Business Function Process AreaR&D
Sales
Customer ServiceAdministration
Marketing
ProductionIT
Distribution
HR
Industry Specifi c
Industry Specifi c
Finance
29
14
26
3
23
0
22
0
0
17
0
15
Respondents
Overall Satisfaction
Vendor Partnership
Company XPrepared for:Name, RoleNumber of Respondents: 100Number of Applications: 48
Last Updated: MMM,YYYY
Q: If the organization had to switch to another solution, what would be your top 3 things that you would want to keep about this solution?
Q: If you could change one thing about this application, what would it be?
† One or more questions were not answered for this category
Version control and version history have been absolutely critical. Access to SharePoint from home has been handy. Use as a communication tool for announcement has been handy.
Version control and version history have been absolutely critical. Access to SharePoint from home has been handy. Use as a communication tool for announcement has been handy.
I would need to maintain the customizability of the app, as well as the mobile capability at a bare minimum. Beyond that I would say integration with our ERP system would be fantastic.
I would need to maintain the customizability of the app, as well as the mobile capability at a bare minimum. Beyond that I would say integration with our ERP system would be fantastic.
It is often very diffi cult to fi nd what we are looking for. An FAQ page on how to navigate, search and use more advanced features would be very helpful.
It is often very diffi cult to fi nd what we are looking for. An FAQ page on how to navigate, search and use more advanced features would be very helpful.
Without a tech steward to represent what's possible and how to use it, and some governance/standards, we will continue to have best-effort, voluntarily assembled, and unreliable content in SharePoint.
Without a tech steward to represent what's possible and how to use it, and some governance/standards, we will continue to have best-effort, voluntarily assembled, and unreliable content in SharePoint.
Criticality
Criticality
Criticality
Criticality
Functional Capabilities
Functional Capabilities
Functional Capabilities
Functional Capabilities
Functional Alignment
Functional Alignment
Functional Alignment†
Functional Alignment†
Workfl ow/DataIntergration
Workfl ow/DataIntergration
Workfl ow/DataIntergration
Workfl ow/DataIntergration
Functional Reliability
Functional Reliability
Functional Reliability
Functional Reliability
Skills Capacity†
Skills Capacity†
Skills Capacity
Skills Capacity
JOHN DOE, BUSINESS ANALYST
JOHN DOE, BUSINESS ANALYST
USER GROUP :
USER GROUP :
Business Enablement Effectiveness
Business Enablement Effectiveness
Business Enablement Effectiveness
Business Enablement Effectiveness
Relevance
Relevance
LifecycleStage
LifecycleStage
ProductEffectiveness
ProductEffectiveness
ProductEffectiveness
ProductEffectiveness
VendorEffectiveness
VendorEffectiveness
VendorEffectiveness
VendorEffectiveness
89%
77%
83%
73%
89%
77%
83%
73%
73%
63%
72%
63%
57%
69%
53%
64%
78%
88%
78%
83%
73%
87%
86%
74%
74%
84%
75%
69%
Implementation
Implementation
Implementation
Implementation
Support
Support
Support
Support
Partnership
Partnership
Partnership
Partnership
90% 80% N/A
87% 78% N/A
89% 80% N/A
92% 76% N/A
Legend
Microsoft SharePoint 2010 – Comments & Respondent Breakdown
Uniqueness†
Uniqueness†
Uniqueness
Uniqueness
Completely Unique
Completely Unique
Completely Unique
Completely Unique
Mission Critical
Mission Critical
Mission Critical
Mission Critical
Business User
IT User
84%
77%
81%
86%
Necessary to Legal/Compliance
Necessary to Legal/Compliance
Mature
Mature
JOHN DOE, SHAREPOINT ADMINISTRATOR
JOHN DOE, SYSTEMS ANALYST
USER GROUP :
USER GROUP :