S-38 3310

1 Nokia Siemens Networks Presentation / Author / DateFor internal use

Masters Thesis:Developing a Strategic Evaluation Framework for Technology and Architecture Asset Information Management Project

Author: Juha KupiainenSupervisor: Prof. Thomas KeilInstructor: M. Sc. Kari Sahlman


Outline

Research problem Motivation for the subject Framework elements Framework process Testing the framework at Nokia Siemens Networks Conclusions Future research


Research problem

How to assess the investment in technology and architecture asset information management at Nokia Siemens Networks?

Thesis structure follows constructive research approach


Motivation

No ready made framework or managerial practice to solve the specific business problem at NSN. E.g.

Instead, a new framework was created Project context:

Balanced Scorecard(Kaplan & Norton)

NTCP model(Shenhar & Dvir)


Motivation

Strategic investment project evaluation framework

to help project managers, decision makers such as portfolio managers, and analysts to evaluate and/or improve a single project's business case which captures the reasoning for the initiating project

to help understand the project context; relations between expected benefits and to spot new possibilities

to help managers to justify their projects better by determining the key stakeholder concerns and basing key selling points on them


Elements of the framework


Framework Evaluation Process

1. Stake-holder

interviews

2. Analysis of the

interview results

Project concern evaluation scorecard

Analyzed benefit expectations

Cross assessment report

3. Cross-assessment

4. Review and decision

making

Stakeholder concern and

expectation table



1. Stakeholder interviews Concerns related to the investment project on

Organizational Managerial Operational Strategic IT Infrastructure

Short- and long-term benefits expectations on these areas 2. Analysis of the interview results

Processing the interview data to produce Investment project concern evaluation scorecard Primary benefits and benefit dependency network


Scorecard Evaluation Process and Benefit Dependency Network

Score association

LowDifficult

Not possibleWrong

...

HighEasy

PossibleRight

...

Project related concerns

Interview results

Neutral criteria and evaluation boundaries

Importance level association

Not important Important

1

1

5

5

1. Filter other than project related concerns out from the concern data and append them into the scorecard.

2. In the scorecard, transform the project related concerns into neutral criteria. Choose evaluation boundaries that reflect the meaning of given score.

3. Evaluate each criterion by associating score and importance values to them. Evaluation can be done by project team alone or together with stakeholders

Example Benefit Dependency NetworkScorecard Evaluation Process



3. Cross Assessment, two parts: Conclusions on the scorecard results for the perspective and

suggestions on how the project could be improved to match the concerns and reasoning why some concerns will remain unchanged also in the future

Parallel evaluation of benefits and concerns in a table(Characterization, what it alleviates, can it be measured etc)

4. Decision review, three parts: Primary benefits (key selling points) on five areas, a metric indicating

the estimated value of benefit (low-high, monetary or non-monetary), and conclusion on whether the expected value is sufficient vis--vis costs and expectations

Summary of the project assessment including description on how the project related concerns were taken into account and how the benefits alleviate the non-project related concerns

Decision proposal (go, no go, defer, etc)


Testing the framework at Nokia Siemens Networks

Some key concepts Architecture = The fundamental organization of a system, embodied in its components, their

relationships to each other and the environment, and the principles governing its design and evolution

Technology and Architecture (TA) Asset = Technology item or design originating from internal development or external vendor that has value for NSN. Examples: SW or HW component, component set or architecture description

Technology and Architecture (TA) Asset Management aims to support management of technologies in a way that strategic goals (e.g. consolidation, convergence, divergence) are realized.

TA Asset Information Management = Classifying, versioning and documenting TA assets by attributes and relations to support TA Asset Management.

Investment project: Design and deploy an IT system to support TA Asset Management Goals:

Visibility to NSN product implementation technologies Capability to manage technology use and reuse Support to management and governance of technology and architecture (TA) deliverables and

practices Support to management of 3rd party components

Stakeholders in scope: Chief and Product Architects, Technoloy Management, Procurement, and R&D Engineers

Business case must be improved by Enhancing the understanding of stakeholder needs and concerns accross the company Justifying financial-, non-financial-, tangible-, and intangible benefits


As-is situationProblem statement


As-is situationProblem statement

Information of product implementation technologies is scattered in individual MS office files and various IT systems

Static documents with no evolution and change shown

No common TA management related practices

Limited searching capabilities

Visibility and cross-BU communication is limitedRelevant knowledge is in tacit form

Technology development tracking is difficult

Seeking and maintaining information in various sources causes additional effort

Point-solutions in complex IT environment

Re-use possibilities not identified

Overlapping usage of technologies

Emails

Inaccessible information

Knowledge drain

Excels


The ChallengeWhere is the TA asset knowledge?

Platform Assets

TA Assets developed by NSN TA Assets developed by 3rd parties

Z(Documents)

(Wikis)

(IPR check,

OSSWcommunity)

Y(Project data)

(3rd party products for

product programs)

IT System X(TA Asset and

product information)

Current state: Sources of TA asset knowledge are scattered, e.g.:

RA Assets

CC Assets

OBS Assets

BCS Assets

MS Office files

+

IT Landscape


Results of testing the framework

0

1

2

3

4

5Organizational

Managerial

OperationalStrategic

IT Infrastructure

Mean importance Mean score

Investment project evaluation scorecard and benefit dependency network

7 stakeholder interviews to find out stakeholder concerns and benefit expectations

Result: Investment should be made

+ Written report


Operational benefitsReduced R&D costs and time efforts due to discovery of overlaps, increased TA asset re-use, and reduced procurement costs

Managerial efficiencyCommon TA management practices by providing technology implementation visibility through an IT system supporting technology decisions

Organizational efficiencyCross-BU information flow and cooperation increase, leveraging of employee expertise and knowledge

IT synergiesIncreased usage of existing IT systems by leveraging their information content, synergy benefits due to building on already existing IT systems and sharing IT create resources

L

o

n

g

-

t

e

r

m

S

h

o

r

t

-

t

e

r

m

Strategic competitivenessLeveraged usage of strategic suppliers, time-to-market improvement, product quality improvement, and TA asset portfolio guided by NSN wide technology selections

Primary Benefits


Conclusions and discussion

Conclusion: The framework has practical relevance as after utilizing the frameworkevaluation the investment project was approved

Use cases 1. A tool for project managers to justify their projects by enhancing the business case

and project plans 2. A tool for project managers, decision makers, such as portfolio managers, and

analysts to evaluate a single project's business case which captures the reasoning for the initiating project. The framework is a heavy tool requiring a lot of effort from the evaluator (team)

Greatest value when traditional means not enough: Complex project environment, multiple benefits, and complex benefit relationships etc

Applicability to other companies or industries not known because created for a specific business problem -> Should be tested with other projects

Intangible benefits were not evaluated thoroughly

Future research Evaluating different types of projects with complex stakeholder relations

Banking sector? Nuclear plant? Space ship design?

Actual measurement of intangible benefits over a longer time period


Thank you for listening!

Questions?

Masters Thesis:Developing a Strategic Evaluation Framework for Technology and Architecture Asset Information Management ProjeOutlineResearch problemMotivationMotivationElements of the frameworkFramework Evaluation ProcessFramework Evaluation ProcessScorecard Evaluation Process and Benefit Dependency NetworkFramework Evaluation ProcessTesting the framework at Nokia Siemens NetworksAs-is situationProblem statementAs-is situationProblem statementThe ChallengeWhere is the TA asset knowledge?Results of testing the frameworkPrimary BenefitsConclusions and discussion