Governing the Analysis Process in .NET Creator UPC-13 in .NET Governing the Analysis Process

Governing the Analysis Process use vs .net gs1-13 printing tomake ean-13 on .net Recommended GS1 barcodes for mobile apps Therefore, augmenting the pre .net vs 2010 GS1-13 vious discussed checkpoints, the Project Inception checkpoint should answer the following questions: Has the project identified potential services that it may require Has each potential service been mapped back to the business capability map Has the scope for each potential service been properly defined according to the business capability map Has the responsible business area for the potential services been identified and contacted for the purposes of defining scope and funding Have existing systems been taken into account as potential service providers for the purposes of defined scope and funding Is all usage of shared services justified according to the current business capability map Is all usage of dedicated services justified according to the current business capability map Does the funding reflect the appropriate scope for the capabilities desired according to the business capability map Does the proposed schedule for the effort reflect the normal release cycles for any existing services Has the sequence of delivery of services and consumers been appropriately defined to allow for key services to be developed well in advance of consumer demand . Summary. In this chapter, Advasco had visual .net EAN13 progressed past their initial success and were now experiencing some challenges. The state in which they were operating was best described as just-in-time.

Despite successful efforts to manage the service lifecycle, new things kept coming along within projects that challenged the way that existing services had been defined. Service providers would need to react just-in-time, since the project had already been funded and had deadlines that needed to be met. Analysis of the situation by the Center of Excellence, the Chief Architect, and a team of key service managers determined that the root cause was the fact that all analysis discussions around the scope of services did not occur until after the project had been funded and started.

As a result, the approved scope of the project had an impact on all subsequent discussions. Surprisingly, even when the service teams had subsequent meetings with other consumers, the requirements of the initial consumer that identified the service still influenced the discussion and scope definition of the service..

[ 120 ]. 5 . When looking at the analysis methods in use, the team recognized that both the traditional functional analysis used on projects, as well as the newer business process analysis techniques associated with BPM suites, both had risks of being short-sighted in their scope because they were focused on a single project or a single process. The team chose to form a business architecture team that could perform analysis outside of the context of any particular project or process. This team mapped the desired business capabilities back to the key business areas and these artifacts were included as part of the governance process that is required to achieve funding for projects.

As a result, many projects had their scope, schedule, and funding augmented prior to approval to ensure that the "right" services were built. The key to success is the establishment of an effort that allows analysis to be performed outside of the context of any particular project, and as such, is not overly influenced by the needs of any one particular system or department. Existing functional analysis artifacts, including business process models and traditional functional analysis artifacts, are inputs to the process.

The analysis artifact to be produced by this effort must represent a mapping of business capabilities to the areas in need of those services. Where a business capability maps to a single business area, ownership and usage is very clear. Where a business capability spans multiple business areas, ownership must be determined.

Business capabilities that are desired by the same business areas should be investigated for possible aggregation into a single service, managed by a single team. It is not required for all business capabilities to have a single implementation that is used across the organization, but where multiple implementations exist, the decision to do so must be consistent with the organization"s goals for the business areas involved. A strategy for cost reduction does not justify having multiple implementations of the same capability.

In order to determine the set of capabilities desired, organizations can take a top-down approach, such as value chain analysis, or any of the many methodologies for SOA analysis available from professional services organizations. Likewise, a bottom-up approach can be used. In this approach, the existing portfolio of applications is reviewed to document the capabilities associated with them.

This may yield new opportunities across applications that may presently be in a maintenance mode without plans for any significant modifications that would require taking a deep look at their current capabilities. This mapping of capabilities to business areas should be leveraged as part of the project inception process, where there normally is a governance checkpoint focused on establishing funding for the effort. Policies that reflect the desired behavior to build the "right" services must be enforced at this time to get the organization out of the habit of "just-in-time" change and onto the path of strategic service development.

Copyright © . All rights reserved.