|
Mitigating CIS Selection
Risks - Part
4: Technical Architecture
By Mario Bauer; Vice President (April 2004)
Part 1:Overview | Part
2:Project Management | Part 3: | Part
4:Technical Architecture
This article is the fourth part of a five part series of articles
that focuses on mitigating risk in selecting a new CIS. The four
areas I feel contribute most to risk in selecting a new CIS are
as follows:
- Functionality
- Project Management
- Technical Architecture
- Organization IT Strategy
This article focus' on evaluating CIS application's technical architecture.
This is absolutely one of the most overlooked aspects of the selection
process. I've spoken with several organizations who have made the
mistake of only taking a cursory look at the technical architecture
an application is built on. Not going through a thorough evaluation
of an applications technical architecture is like buying a car without
inquiring about the specs of the engine. Could you imagine buying
large Sport Utility Vehicle only to find out on the way home it
is running on a 4-cyclinder? You would probably have a good idea
when you reached the first hill if you didn't notice a lack of power
when you were pulling out of the dealership. The problem on the
CIS side is you usually don't find out about the implications of
a weak or poor architecture until you go-live if you don't allow
for a detailed technical evaluation. I'll go into more detail later
in this article about some of the problems incurred when trying
to operate on a poorly architected application.
Due to the importance of an application's technical architecture
TMG Consulting has designed a comprehensive methodology to evaluate
and compare different architectures. From the highest level TMG
Consulting focuses on the following technical areas in the technical
evaluation. While the evaluation varies slightly from site to site
below are some of the areas I focused on in my last evaluation.
The next evaluation will be more extensive due to changes in technology
and the market place:
The above list is just a portion of what I review during the TMG
Consulting selection review. I think the above list will give you
at least a flavor of some of the questions you should be asking
during your technical evaluation.
The categories above are then broken out into individual subsections
with questions that fall under them. It is similar to the TMG Consulting
functional checklist which has become the industry standard for
evaluating CIS systems from a functional perspective. The advanced
technical review TMG Consulting uses has well over 100 technical
questions that are then graded in an effort to rank order each proposing
vendor. Below is a format to rank order the proposing vendors from
a technical perspective.
| Area |
Possible
Points |
Vendor
A |
Vendor
B |
Vendor
C |
Vendor
D |
Vendor
E |
| Deployment |
5 |
4.000 |
4.909 |
4.818 |
3.091 |
5.00 |
| Design |
10 |
8.182 |
9.636 |
9.818 |
7.091 |
9.818 |
| Duration of Support |
10 |
7.33 |
8.000 |
8.000 |
7.33 |
6.67 |
| Extensibility |
15 |
11.800 |
14.600 |
14.600 |
9.000 |
14.600 |
| Functionality (Operational) |
5 |
3.583 |
4.917 |
4.33 |
1.417 |
4.677 |
| Modifiablity |
10 |
7.00 |
8.00 |
8.333 |
7.333 |
8.333 |
| Organization (Technical) |
5 |
4.133 |
4.533 |
4.533 |
3.600 |
4.800 |
| Scalability |
10 |
7.566 |
10.00 |
10.00 |
4.667 |
10.00 |
| Staffing Impact |
10 |
9.111 |
8.889 |
9.778 |
8.000 |
9.778 |
| Support (Infrastructure) |
5 |
4.667 |
5.00 |
5.00 |
4.667 |
5.00 |
| Technical Architecture |
10 |
8.889 |
9.778 |
9.778 |
8.000 |
9.333 |
| Technical Session |
5 |
3.500 |
4.000 |
5.000 |
3.500 |
3.00 |
|
| Total |
100 |
79.754 |
92.262 |
93.992 |
67.698 |
90.996 |
|
| Based on a 30 Point Score |
|
23.926 |
27.679 |
28.198 |
20.310 |
27.299 |
|
| Rank Order |
-- |
4 |
2 |
1 |
5 |
3 |
|
As you can see the vendors technical responses are broken out into
the above categories that were defined earlier in the article. In
a nut shell the methodology I just reviewed is what I use to help
TMG Consulting clients eliminate risk for a technical perspective.
You may be wondering, why is this important?
Over the last few years I found that this is not only important
but it is critical in selecting a CIS. You can usually work around
functional problems through work around or even system modifications.
You can not work around significant technical architecture
issues! I've seen organization brought to their knees
due to technical problems around their CIS. Some of the problems
I see when technical architecture is ignored are as follows:
- poor performance
- integration problems
- modification of system expensive and risky
- old technology is difficult to support
- upgrade difficulties
At the end of the day it is critical to check references closely
after a comprehensive internal review is performed. If the vendor
has not implemented at a similar site in terms of size and scope
it should send out red flags. Consider asking a reference the following
questions:
- Ask about batch performance.
- Ask specific performance questions.
- Ask about integration
- Ask questions around integration.
- Ask questions around upgrades.
I can't tell you how many utility organizations have told me about
how they made the mistake I just defined. In the last year alone
I have spoken to several utility executives that are back out to
market for a new CIS because they made the mistake of not digging
deep enough into the technical aspects of the application. Most
vendors know the weaknesses of their application and avoid going
into those details if they are not forced to. Unfortunately, most
utility organizations do not have the depth of knowledge to ask
the right questions. In the end, the utility takes the vendor's
word on the applications technical merits. Once the client gets
into the implementation they begin to see the technical limitations
of the application they selected as they are forced to modify daily
processes to deal with the technical limitations of the application.
In some cases I've seen organizations forced to split batches in
order to complete a batch run within acceptable timeframes thus
crippling the utility's business and customer service.
The question to ask your self is, how did I evaluate technology?
Did my organization make these same mistakes? If you have concerns
with those questions you would fall into the majority.
Conclusion
I'd like to point out that this is just one facet of the
selection process I feel is critical. While I have covered this
topic at an extremely high level in this article I believe you should
have a good feel for what you should be looking for from a technical
perspective. The main point in this article is to point out how
critical the technical evaluation is. In this article I've described
a couple of highly effective ways to do this.
This is one of the most over looked areas in the selection process.
While this appears to be an obvious evaluation point and should
be weighted accordingly I continue to be amazed how often technology
is overlooked. The fact of the matter is more time and effort should
be spent looking under the hood of some of these systems.
Mario Bauer is Senior Consultant for TMG Consulting. Mr.
Bauer has over 12 years experience with utilities as: an analysts
for a major utility, Senior Associate for a major utility consulting
firm, and a Senior Consultant for TMG Consulting. Mr. Bauer has
worked with approximately 100 utilities (electric, gas, water, wastewater,
solid waste) around the world. Mario can be reached at Mariob@TMGConsulting.com.
|