In this unit you will expand your Systems Analysis and Design Portfolio by evaluating the following elements:
Using the elements listed above, compose project evaluation. Please use the attachment found on this question. Note that each section of your document should provide the following information:
August 21, 2019
General Template
Project Name
General Document
Author(s)
This General Template was prepared by:
John Smith, Inc.
0000 Main Street
Lawrence, KS 66061
Revision History
Version
Author
Notes
Date
0.1
John Smith
First Draft of Project Evaluation
7/26/2013
Project Name
© 2013 John Smith, Inc.
ii
Table of Contents
Revision History ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ii
Executive Summary ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2
Decision Title …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4
Decision Description …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4
Evaluation Criteria ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4
Proposed Alternative Descriptions ………………………………………………………………………………. 5
Alternative 1. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5
Evaluation Method Description …………………………………………………………………………………… 6
Evaluation Findings ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 6
Recommended Solution …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7
Overview …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 10
Product 1 Model ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10
Product 2 Model ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 11
Product 3 Model ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 12
Project Name
iii
Executive Summary
1
Executive Summary
[This section summarizes the findings of the Project Evaluation. The alternatives selected should be
indicated, along with the critical aspects that drove the decision, and the major benefits of the selected
alternative. Benefits listed should include not only technical, but business benefits as well.]
The Decision process, based on review of the weighted scores of several options, indicates that the
architecture modeling tool produced by Mega is the closest match to John Smith, Inc.’s architecture
modeling needs. Though not the least expensive of the solutions reviewed, Mega Modeling Suite offers
a wide variety of modeling capabilities, placing it ahead of the competition in terms of current and
future modeling abilities.
2
Decision Analysis and Review
3
Decision Title
[This section contains the title of the decision being made. It is generally quite short, consisting of a
sentence fragment containing the name of the project and the type of decision being made.]
This document contains the Architecture Modelling Tool Selection DAR.
Decision Description
[This section describes the decision being considered, focussing on the business goal of the decision,
and calling out those aspects that are especially critical to the success of the project. The following
text can serve as a basis for generally describing the DAR. It should be supplemented with
information specific to each individual DAR.]
Successful communication is key to successful IT projects. To facilitate communication, it is important
to capture critical elements of both the requirements and their realization. Industry best practices
indicate that the most effective way to achieve this goal is through the use of models. However, for
models to be useful they must meet a number of criteria; it is those criteria that formed the basis of
this DAR.
Evaluation Criteria
[This section contains a view of the evaluation spread sheet showing constraints and features
considered. To extract the view, open the embedded Excel object, copy the range of cells, and paste
special as an Enhanced Metafile Picture.]
The following criteria were evaluated for this DAR. These criteria are typically divided into two
primary categories: constraints, and features. Constraints are reviewed to determine which should
serve as exclusions, that is, which constraints a product must fulfil to even be considered; and which
should not be exclusionary, which serve to severely weaken the score of those products not meeting
the constraint. For this DAR, no constraints were identified. Features included those functional
characteristics of the solutions that were considered by the stakeholders to be representative of the
requirements for the DAR.
4
Feature
Cost Effectiveness
Central Repository
Collaboration
Enterprise Architecture Modeling
Component Based Licensing
Customization / Branding
Import / Export – Interoperability
Traceability
Diagramming
Reporting
Framework Support
Metamodel Flexibility
Version Control
Compliance with BE Practice
Product Roadmap Support
Weight
10.00
7.00
10.00
10.00
6.00
8.00
9.00
9.00
7.00
7.00
4.00
5.00
7.00
2.00
5.00
Proposed Alternative Descriptions
[This section provides an overview of the alternatives selected for DAR, including any criteria used to
narrow down the number of alternatives considered. The included text serves as a template for the
section content. It should be modified with information related to the specific DAR, and appended with
the names of the solutions considered. If alternatives exist that were not considered, that also should
be indicated, along with the reason those alternatives were rejected.]
The following alternatives were considered for this DAR. They were chosen by the project
stakeholders and DAR reviewers based upon an evaluation of available alternatives.
Alternative 1.
[This section provides a detailed description of one alternative solution considered under DAR.
Additional sections should be added for each alternative considered. In this section, attention should
be paid to describing the alternative in terms that have been shown, through the DAR, to have
impacted the result. This section is therefore generally completed after the DAR model results have
been established.]
Through their academic partnership with UTS and global research efforts, Avolution has developed a
groundbreaking methodology integrating the ABACUS solution to effectively solve complex and
multidimensional problems.
Avolution’s ABACUS improves the quality of architectural decision making by supporting system
applications, infrastructure, and information to align with the business functions of an organization, as
well as the processes and standards that dictate and guide their evolution. The ABACUS® solution
provided by Avolution approaches the challenges facing IT dependent organizations in the modern
business climate by assessing and improving:
5
•
•
•
Technical Organizational Architecture ;
Business Processes; and
Organizational Structure.
Avolution provides the following solutions utilizing the ABACUS toolset and methodology:
IT Governance
Business Continuity & Strategic IT Planning
Regulatory Compliance
Financial Management & Reporting
Service Delivery Management
Evaluation Method Description
[This section describes the DAR method used. The included text describes a typical process, and
should be customized to include any relevant specifics for a particular DAR.]
Stakeholders met to establish decision criteria. These criteria were divided into two primary
categories: constraints, and features. Constraints were then reviewed to determine which should
serve as exclusions, that is, which constraints a product must fulfil to even be considered; and which
should not be exclusionary, which serves to severely weaken the score of those products not meeting
the constraint. Features included those functional characteristics of the solutions that were considered
by the stakeholders to be representative of the requirements for the DAR.
Next, stakeholders reviewed each of the features, and assigned a weight of 1 to 10, where 1 indicated
a feature that while part of the criteria was not important, while 10 indicated a feature that was
considered very important to the decision process.
Next, stakeholders selected a group of three reviewers. The decision criteria were reviewed to ensure
that reviewers understood them, and changes made as required. Then the reviewers and stakeholders
met to determine three alternatives solutions to be considered during DAR.
Reviewers met with the solution vendors, conducting functional demonstrations and product reviews.
Each reviewer then evaluated the compliance of the solutions to constraints; compliance was scored
on a “true/false” scale. Next, reviewers scored the solutions against each of the functional criteria;
scores ranged from 1 to 10, with a score of indicating failure to meet the requirement, and a score of
10 indicating exceptional compliance.
The evaluations were tabulated in the spread sheet contained in this document in Appendix A,
producing the results used throughout this document.
Evaluation Findings
[This section summarizes the criteria and conditions of the DAR, and shows the scores. The score
view is extracted from, and linked to, the spread sheet in Appendix A. To extract the views, open the
embedded Excel object, copy the range of cells, and paste special as an Enhanced Metafile Picture.]
Based on review of the weighted scores Product 3 aligns most effectively with the stated criteria.
6
Product 1 Score:
36.37
Product 2 Score:
42.45
Product 3 Score:
50.38
In order to evaluate the impact of the various criteria on the results, the following chart
shows the weighted score by criteria for each product.
Recommended Solution
[This section identifies the recommended solution, and summarizes the primary reasons it was
selected. Typically this solution should be the one with the highest score. If this is not the case, it is
likely that criteria were not properly categorized into constraints and features. In such cases
refactoring of the DAR should be considered, depending on the criticality of the decision.]
It is recommended that we choose to move forward with the purchase, utilization, and standardization
of Product 3 as our architecture-modeling tool. Alignment with existing requirements, and the ability
7
to expand (in an integrated fashion) into the field of compliance and road mapping, make this tool an
excellent value both now and in the future.
8
DAR Model
9
Overview
[This section provides an overview of the DAR Model and its usage. The template text is sufficient, but
may be customized as required.]
The following model views show the DAR result details for each of the alternatives considered. The
source for all model content is the embedded spreadsheet in Appendix A. All updates to the evaluation
should be performed in the embedded spreadsheet.
Product 1 Model
[The DAR Model view is an extracted view from the spreadsheet in Appendix A. To extract the view,
open the embedded Excel object, copy the range of cells, and paste special as an Enhanced Metafile
Picture.]
DAR Model for Product 1
Constraint
Feature
Cost Effectiveness
Central Repository
Collaboration
Enterprise Architecture Modeling
Component Based Licensing
Customization / Branding
Import / Export – Interoperability
Traceability
Diagramming
Reporting
Framework Support
Metamodel Flexibility
Version Control
Compliance with BE Practice
Product Roadmap Support
Exclusion?
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
Weight
10.00
7.00
10.00
10.00
6.00
8.00
9.00
9.00
7.00
7.00
4.00
5.00
7.00
2.00
5.00
Constraint Weight
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Weighted Score
53.33
21.00
43.33
53.33
12.00
34.67
39.00
51.00
32.67
28.00
16.00
18.33
35.00
5.33
10.00
Final Feature Score:
36.37
Constrained Score:
36.37
10
Product 2 Model
[The DAR Model view is an extracted view from the spreadsheet in Appendix A. To extract the view,
open the embedded Excel object, copy the range of cells, and paste special as an Enhanced Metafile
Picture.]
DAR Model for Product 2
Constraint
Feature
Cost Effectiveness
Central Repository
Collaboration
Enterprise Architecture Modeling
Component Based Licensing
Customization / Branding
Import / Export – Interoperability
Traceability
Diagramming
Reporting
Framework Support
Metamodel Flexibility
Version Control
Compliance with BE Practice
Product Roadmap Support
Exclusion?
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
Weight
10.00
7.00
10.00
10.00
6.00
8.00
9.00
9.00
7.00
7.00
4.00
5.00
7.00
2.00
5.00
Constraint Weight
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Weighted Score
26.67
39.67
50.00
70.00
8.00
42.67
48.00
54.00
39.67
32.67
17.33
31.67
30.33
5.33
15.00
Final Feature Score:
42.45
Constrained Score:
42.45
11
Product 3 Model
[The DAR Model view is an extracted view from the spreadsheet in Appendix A. To extract the view,
open the embedded Excel object, copy the range of cells, and paste special as an Enhanced Metafile
Picture.]
DAR Model for Product 3
Constraint
Feature
Cost Effectiveness
Central Repository
Collaboration
Enterprise Architecture Modeling
Component Based Licensing
Customization / Branding
Import / Export – Interoperability
Traceability
Diagramming
Reporting
Framework Support
Metamodel Flexibility
Version Control
Compliance with BE Practice
Product Roadmap Support
Exclusion?
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
Weight
10.00
7.00
10.00
10.00
6.00
8.00
9.00
9.00
7.00
7.00
4.00
5.00
7.00
2.00
5.00
Constraint Weight
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Weighted Score
60.00
35.00
50.00
73.33
30.00
48.00
51.00
45.00
42.00
32.67
16.00
28.33
32.67
6.00
36.67
Final Feature Score:
50.38
Constrained Score:
50.38
12
Appendix A
This appendix contains the embedded Microsoft Excel spreadsheet used to calculate and manage the
DAR results. As the process is executed, the results of the various activities should be stored in this
embedded object. Throughout the document, views of the object are used to show appropriate detail.
These views will need to be updated to format the information correctly. See the instructions
accompanying each view for more information.
Criteria
Constraints
Features
Cost Effectiveness
Central Repository
Collaboration
Enterprise Architecture Modeling
Component Based Licensing
Customization / Branding
Import / Export – Interoperability
Traceability
Diagramming
Reporting
Framework Support
Metamodel Flexibility
Version Control
Compliance with BE Practice
Product Roadmap Support
Product 1
Reviewer 2
Reviewer 1
Exclusionary?
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
Weight
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
10
7
10
10
6
8
9
9
7
7
4
5
7
2
5
Reviewer 3
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
4
3
6
6
3
4
4
6
4
3
3
3
5
1
2
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
7
3
3
5
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
4
2
Product 2
Reviewer 2
Reviewer 1
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
5
3
4
5
2
4
4
6
5
4
4
4
5
3
2
Reviewer 3
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
4
5
5
7
1
4
5
6
4
4
3
3
4
1
3
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
1
5
5
8
1
5
5
5
7
5
4
9
5
4
3
Prod
Revie
Reviewer 1
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
3
7
5
6
2
7
6
7
6
5
6
7
4
3
3
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
8
5
5
7
4
5
6
6
4
4
3
3
4
1
4
13
