Date post: | 14-Feb-2017 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | nguyenkien |
View: | 217 times |
Download: | 2 times |
©2012 Emirates. All Rights Reserved.
Reflecting Stakeholder Perspectives in Architecture Reviews
Simon Field
Emirates Group
University of Glamorgan Business School
About Emirates GroupAbout Emirates GroupAbout Emirates GroupAbout Emirates Group
In 2010/11 financial year, the Emirates Group announced record net profits of US$ 1.5 billion
The Emirates Group’s extensive and diverse international portfolio includes Emirates airline, Dubai's 52 year-old household name dnata, Emirates SkyCargo, Emirates Destination and Leisure Management and Skywards. Together with a number of joint venture businesses, the Group comprises more than 50 brands, employing 57,000 people.
Architecture Reviews
Stakeholder Model
Quality Model Risk Model
Almost Certain 5 5 10 15 25 30
Likely 4 4 8 12 20 24
Possible 3 3 6 9 15 18
Unlikely 2 2 4 6 10 12
Rare 1 1 2 3 5 6
1 2 3 5 6
Negligible Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic
Impact
Likelihood
Impact x Likelihood = Exposure
David van Dantzig
Delta Works Project 1953
RiskRiskRiskRisk
Why risk?Why risk?Why risk?Why risk?
A common business language
Impact
of failing to achieve a scenario
Likelihood
of a solution option failing to achieve a scenario
Stakeholders can consider mitigation options
QualityQualityQualityQuality
Power
Legitimacy
Urgency
Dormant
Stakeholder
Latent
Discretionary
Stakeholder
Latent
Dominant
Stakeholder
Expectant
Definitive
StakeholderDangerous
Stakeholder
Expectant
Dependent
Stakeholder
Expectant
Demanding
Stakeholder
Latent
source: Mitchell, Agle & Wood, Academy of Management Review Vo. 22, No. 4, p874
StakeholdersStakeholdersStakeholdersStakeholders
Stakeholder Analysis
Scenario Development
Classify according to Quality Model
For each scenario:
Agree Impact for each Scenario
Assess level of stakeholder interest
Validate using ‘heat map’
Tradeoff Analysis
By Quality Characteristic
By Stakeholder
Explore by Scenario
Cost Benefit Analysis
Architecture Reviews at EmiratesArchitecture Reviews at EmiratesArchitecture Reviews at EmiratesArchitecture Reviews at Emirates
Power
Legitimacy
Urgency
Dormant
Stakeholder
Latent
Discretionary
Stakeholder
Latent
Dominant
Stakeholder
Expectant
Definitive
StakeholderDangerous
Stakeholder
Expectant
Dependent
Stakeholder
Expectant
Demanding
Stakeholder
Latent
source: Mitchell, Agle & Wood, Academy of Management Review Vo. 22, No. 4, p874
1 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
StakeholdersStakeholdersStakeholdersStakeholders
ScenariosScenariosScenariosScenarios
Functionality Reliability Usability Efficiency Maintainability AdaptabilityOverall Average Rank
Number of scenarios -> 31 2 9 5 2 3 52
NCC Cmd & Ctrl 0.50 0.25 0.28 0.50 0.25 0.33 0.43 4
NCC Ops 0.71 0.25 0.33 0.40 0.25 0.33 0.56 1
Govt Cmd & Cntrl 0.18 0.25 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.13 9
DOCC Cmd & Ctrl 0.61 0.25 0.28 0.40 0.25 0.33 0.49 3
DOCC Ops 0.65 0.25 0.39 0.40 0.50 0.33 0.54 2
External suppliers 0.11 0.25 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.10 11
Govt Ops 0.06 0.25 0.00 0.20 0.25 0.00 0.08 12
Front line service 0.32 0.25 0.39 0.40 0.50 0.33 0.35 5
Front line service (mob) 0.27 0.25 0.50 0.40 0.50 0.33 0.34 6
Application Owners 0.10 0.25 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.11 10
EG-IT 0.15 1.00 0.11 0.70 0.25 0.17 0.23 8
Steering Group 0.42 0.00 0.17 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.29 7
Does it look right?Does it look right?Does it look right?Does it look right?
Now we know what we wantNow we know what we wantNow we know what we wantNow we know what we want
Reuse, Buy, Build?
How?
Define competing solution options
A sufficiency of architecture
���� 13.50 ���� 4.50 7.50 ���� 4.50
���� 6.00 ���� 6.00 ���� 3.00 4.50
���� 3.00 ���� 15.00 9.00 13.50
���� 6.50 ���� 12.00 8.00 8.50
���� 3.00 ���� 9.00 6.00 ���� 9.00
� 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00
Aggregate Risk Burden 32.00 46.50 33.50 40.00
Efficiency
Maintainability
Adaptability
Functionality
Reliability
Usability
By characteristic:
���� 6.86 ���� 9.57 6.93 8.20
���� 6.75 ���� 6.75 ���� 4.50 5.25
���� 6.00 ���� 10.50 6.75 8.25
Demanding
Discretionary
Dormant
Definitive
Dependent
Dangerous
Dominant
By stakeholder type:
Risk Tradeoff AnalysisRisk Tradeoff AnalysisRisk Tradeoff AnalysisRisk Tradeoff Analysis
Ability to develop stateless
application with no state
maintenance in the servers side
beyond web application Major Almost certain 5 Almost certain 5 Almost certain 5 Almost certain 5
Ability to support Externalization
for native transports Major Almost certain 5 Almost certain 5 Possible 15 Possible 15
Ability to support user
management out of the box Major Almost certain 5 Almost certain 5 Possible 15 Possible 15
Ability to support chat kind of
application requirements Moderate Almost certain 3 Almost certain 3 Possible 9 Likely 6
Ability to support code master
Major Almost certain 5 Almost certain 5 Possible 15 Possible 15
Ability to support list of values
Major Almost certain 5 Almost certain 5 Possible 15 Possible 15
Ability to shutdown, start , stop
Major Possible 15 Likely 10 Likely 10 Possible 15
Ability to integrate , use or
availability of String, Date
Moderate Almost certain 3 Almost certain 3 Almost certain 3 Almost certain 3
Ability to support procedures,
functions and ref cursors Moderate Almost certain 3 Almost certain 3 Almost certain 3 Almost certain 3
Ability to shutdown functions,
channels and so on. Ability to
force user out of the system Moderate Almost certain 3 Almost certain 3 Possible 9 Possible 9
Ability to support contract
(interface) based development.
Ability to separate interfaces
from implementation Major Almost certain 5 Almost certain 5 Almost certain 5 Almost certain 5
Ability to support two factor
Moderate Possible 9 Possible 9 Possible 9 Possible 9
Support for Thick client
Major Possible 15 Almost certain 5 Almost certain 5 Possible 15
Support IT security policies Catastrophic Almost certain 6 Almost certain 6 Likely 12 Likely 12
Major Almost certain 5 Almost certain 5 Possible 15 Possible 15
ability to support java standalone
Moderate Almost certain 3 Likely 6 Unlikely 12 Almost certain 3
By individual scenario:
One-off benefit 0
Annual benefit 30,000
Number of years 1
Maximum benefit 30,000
Development cost
Annual cost
Exit difficulty
Total
Estimated Benefit
Net Return
Scenario Impact Weight Maximum Benefit Likelihood Estimated Benefit Likelihood Estimated Benefit Likelihood Estimated Benefit Likelihood Estimated Benefit
Quick Journey Major 5 4839 Almost certain 4839 Unlikely 484 Likely 3871 Possible 2419
Predictable journey to work - minimal
delays Moderate 3 2903 Likely 2323 Likely 2323 Almost certain 2903 Almost certain 2903
Comfortable journey to work Moderate 3 2903 Almost certain 2903 Rare 0 Possible 1452 Unlikely 290
Minimise cost Minor 2 1935 Unlikely 194 Likely 1548 Possible 968 Almost certain 1935
No accidents Catastrophic 6 5806 Likely 4645 Almost certain 5806 Almost certain 5806 Almost certain 5806
Flexibility Moderate 3 2903 Almost certain 2903 Possible 1452 Likely 2323 Possible 1452
Ability to share car with family Moderate 3 2903 Rare 0 Almost certain 2903 Possible 1452 Almost certain 2903
Predictable journey home - minimal
delays Moderate 3 2903 Likely 2323 Likely 2323 Almost certain 2903 Likely 2323
Comfortable journey home Moderate 3 2903 Almost certain 2903 Rare 0 Possible 1452 Rare 0
Total Benefits
619.8% 547.6%
16,839 23,129
513.5% 853.9%
20,032
19,832 14,239 19,359 17,932
23,032
0
3,770
0
2,100
Low Low
3,770 2,100
3,200
Low
3,200
0
2,600
Low
2,600
Car Bus / Metro Car / Metro Lift / Metro / Bus
Cost Benefit AnalysisCost Benefit AnalysisCost Benefit AnalysisCost Benefit Analysis
Architecture Reviews
Stakeholder Model
Quality Model Risk Model