1. Technical Field
The present invention relates to cost management of a software application portfolio.
2. Related Art
Known methods of software application portfolio cost management for large software application portfolios have inadequate accuracy and/or are incapable of effectively dealing with complexities associated with large application portfolios. Thus, there is a need for software application portfolio cost management with sufficient accuracy and capable of effectively dealing with complexities associated with large application portfolios.
The present invention provides a method for managing a cost of ownership of a portfolio of N software applications, said method comprising the steps of:
identifying a regression function for each software application of the N software applications, wherein each regression function expresses an approximate cost of ownership of the application in terms of at least one parameter and at least one undetermined coefficient, wherein N is at least 2;
selecting J applications A1, A2, . . . , AJ from the N applications such that a remaining N-J applications of the N applications are unselected, wherein J<N, wherein the coefficients in the regression functions for the N-J unselected applications constitute a subset of the coefficients in the regression functions for the J selected applications, and wherein Fj represents the approximate cost of ownership of the application Aj for j=1, 2, . . . , J; and
determining the coefficients in the regression functions for the J selected applications so as to minimize a function H=ΣjWj|Fj−Gj|P, wherein Gj is an actual cost of ownership of application Aj for j=1, 2, . . . , J, wherein Σj represents a summation over j from j=1 to j=J, wherein P>0, and wherein Wj are predetermined weights subject to Wj>0.
The present invention provides a computer program product, comprising a computer usable medium having a computer readable program code embodied therein, said computer readable program code comprising an algorithm adapted to implement a method for managing a cost of ownership of a portfolio of N software applications, said method comprising the steps of:
identifying a regression function for each software application of the N software applications, wherein each regression function expresses an approximate cost of ownership of the application in terms of at least one parameter and at least one undetermined coefficient, wherein N is at least 2;
selecting J applications A1, A2, . . . , AJ from the N applications such that a remaining N-J applications of the N applications are unselected, wherein J<N, wherein the coefficients in the regression functions for the N-J unselected applications constitute a subset of the coefficients in the regression functions for the J selected applications, and wherein Fj represents the approximate cost of ownership of the application Aj for j=1, 2, . . . , J; and
determining the coefficients in the regression functions for the J selected applications so as to minimize a function H=ΣjWj|Fj−Gj|P, wherein Gj is an actual cost of ownership of application Aj for j=1, 2, . . . , J, wherein Σj represents a summation over j from j=1 to j=J, wherein P>0, and wherein Wj are predetermined weights subject to Wj>0.
The present invention provides a computer system comprising a processor and a computer readable memory unit coupled to the processor, said memory unit containing instructions that when executed by the processor implement a method for managing a cost of ownership of a portfolio of N software applications, said method comprising the computer implemented steps of:
identifying a regression function for each software application of the N software applications, wherein each regression function expresses an approximate cost of ownership of the application in terms of at least one parameter and at least one undetermined coefficient, wherein N is at least 2;
selecting J applications A1, A2, . . . , AJ from the N applications such that a remaining N-J applications of the N applications are unselected, wherein J<N, wherein the coefficients in the regression functions for the N-J unselected applications constitute a subset of the coefficients in the regression functions for the J selected applications, and wherein Fj represents the approximate cost of ownership of the application Aj for j=1, 2, . . . , J; and
determining the coefficients in the regression functions for the J selected applications so as to minimize a function H=ΣjWj|Fj−Gj|P, wherein Gj is an actual cost of ownership of application Aj for j=1, 2, . . . , J, wherein Σj represents a summation over j from j=1 to j=J, wherein P>0, and wherein Wj are predetermined weights subject to Wj>0.
The present invention provides a method for managing, by a service provider, a cost of ownership of a portfolio of N software applications of a customer, said method comprising the steps of:
identifying a regression function for each software application of the N software applications, wherein each regression function expresses an approximate cost of ownership of the application in terms of at least one parameter and at least one undetermined coefficient, wherein N is at least 2;
selecting J applications A1, A2, . . . , AJ from the N applications such that a remaining N-J applications of the N applications are unselected, wherein J<N, wherein the coefficients in the regression functions for the N-J unselected applications constitute a subset of the coefficients in the regression functions for the J selected applications, and wherein Fj represents the approximate cost of ownership of the application Aj for j=1, 2, . . . , J; and
determining the coefficients in the regression functions for the J selected applications so as to minimize a function H=ΣjWj|Fj−Gj|P, wherein Gj is an actual cost of ownership by the customer of application Aj for j=1, 2, . . . , J, wherein Σj represents a summation over j from j=1 to j=J, wherein P>0, wherein Wj are predetermined weights subject to Wj>0, and wherein the identifying, selecting, and performing steps are performed by the service provider.
The present invention advantageously provides software application portfolio cost management with sufficient accuracy and capable of effectively dealing with complexities associated with large application portfolios.
A rigorous (i.e., actual) calculation of the cost of ownership of each application may be difficult, tedious, and time-consuming. Accordingly, the present invention develops a mathematical model, according to methodology described in
In
F
n
=F
n(P1, P2, . . . , K1, K2, . . . ) (1)
In equation (1), the parameters (P1, P2, . . . ), the number of such parameters, the coefficients (K1, K2, . . . ), and the number of such coefficients are each application dependent (i.e., dependent on the application index n). Some applications may comprise the same coefficients and/or parameters (but not necessarily the same values of the parameters). The parameters may comprise, inter alia, application size, application complexity (e.g., as characterized by a numerical weight), instance footprint (e.g., number of servers required), instance topology complexity (e.g., topological complexity of the network connecting the servers comprising the instance footprint), implementation technology (e.g., operating system, computer language, etc.), etc. The tables of
In a first approach to determining the parameters P1, P2, . . . for each application of the N applications, the parameters P1, P2, . . . may be determined for each application independently. In a second approach to determining the parameters P1, P2, . . . for each application of the N applications, the portfolio is divided into groups of similarly modeled applications (with at least one group comprising at least 2 applications) such that the applications in each group having at least two applications are modeled in the same manner mathematically using the same parameters and functional dependencies, but differing at most in the respective coefficients K1, K2, . . . . For either the first approach or the second approach, the parameters P1, P2 . . . may be determined directly (e.g., using prior knowledge of the effect of the parameters of the cost of each application in the first approach or of the similarly modeled applications in the second approach). Alternatively, for either the first approach or the second approach, the parameters P1, P2, . . . may be selected from a larger set of candidate parameters using a technique such as, inter alia, correlation analysis for selecting those parameters that are most strongly correlated with the cost of each application in the first approach or of the similarly modeled applications in the second approach.
Each regression function Fn has its own set of parameters and coefficients, and the modeling methodology of the present invention determines the coefficients for each regression function Fn. However, different regression functions Fn (i.e., for different values of n) may utilize common parameters and/or coefficients, as illustrated by the following example in Equations (2)-(7) for F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, and F6 which utilize parameters P1, . . . P5 and coefficients K1, . . . , K10.
F
1
=K
1
*P
1
+K
2
*P
2
+K
3
*P
3 (2)
F
2
=K
4
*P
1
+K
5
*P
2
+K
6
*P
3 (3)
F
3
=K
7*exp(K8*P4) (4)
F
4
=K
9
*P
5
+K
10 (5)
F
5
=K
4
*P
1
+K
5
*P
2
+K
6
*P
3 (6)
F
6
=K
7*exp(K8*P4) (7)
Step 12 selects J applications A1, A2, . . . , AJ from the N applications such that a remaining N-J applications of the N applications are unselected, wherein J<N. Fj represents the approximate cost of ownership of the application Aj for j=1, 2, . . . , J, as modeled by the present invention. Step 12 may be performed by, inter alia, the service provider. The J applications are selected such that the regression functions of the J selected applications are representative of the regression functions of the N applications. The coefficients in the regression functions for the N-J unselected applications constitute a subset of the coefficients in the regression functions for the J selected applications. This latter requirement is very important as explained in the following example.
For example, consider the case of Equations (2)-(7) with N=6, J=4 and N-J=2, wherein the J selected applications A1, A2, A3, and A4 have associated regression functions F1, F2, F3, and F4, and wherein the N-J unselected applications A5 and A6 have associated regression functions F5 and F6. Note that the coefficients (K4, K5, K6, K7, K8) in the regression functions F5 and F6 for the unselected applications A5 and A6 are a subset of the coefficients (K1, . . . , K10) for the J selected applications A1, A2, A3, and A4. The preceding requirement reflects the fact that the only coefficients determined by the methodology of the present invention are the coefficients appearing in the regression functions for the J selected applications. Yet, the regression functions of all N applications are to be subsequently summed to determine a total cost of ownership (TCO) of the portfolio. Thus, the regression functions of the N-J unselected applications will need to be calculated. This requires that all coefficients appearing in the regression functions of the N-J unselected applications must be known, which is the reason why the coefficients in the regression functions for the N-J unselected applications constitute a subset of the coefficients in the regression functions for the J selected applications.
Step 13 provides an actual cost of ownership Gj of selected application Aj for j=1, 2, . . . , J. Step 13 may be performed by, inter alia, the customer; i.e., the customer may determine Gj and inform the service provider of the value of Gj. Gj may be computed, inter alia, as a sum of costs of the components of the application, said components including hardware, software, and labor (i.e., operations and support). In one embodiment, the cost of ownership (TCO) of a component may be calculated according to TCO=OTC+C*MRC, wherein OTC is a one-time charge, MRC is a monthly recurring charge, and C is a constant reflecting the application lifetime expressed in months (e.g. C=36 months). In a shared infrastructure environment, a cost of the infrastructure elements may be divided amongst all the applications using the particular element, proportionally to some characteristic metrics. For example, a firewall usage cost may be divided amongst the applications protected by the firewall proportionally to the application traffic through the firewall. Similarly, if several applications are co-located on a single hardware server, or on a group of hardware servers, or if several applications use a single hardware server or a group of hardware servers, the usage cost may be divided amongst those applications proportionally to some characteristic metrics; e.g. central processor unit (CPU) usage by the processes pertaining to an application. The method of the present invention determines the coefficients in the J selected applications in such a manner as to match Fj to Gj as closely as possible in accordance with step 14.
Step 14 determines the coefficients in the regression functions for the J selected applications so as to minimize a function H, wherein
H=Σ
j
W
j
|F
j
−G
j|P (8)
wherein Σj represents a summation over j from j=1 to j=J. The use of the absolute value of Fj−Gj in Equation (8) guarantees that H cannot be negative. Step 14 may be performed by, inter alia, the service provider.
In Equation (8), Wj are predetermined weights subject to Wj>0 for j=1, 2, . . . , J. The weights Wj permit differentiation in the relative importance of the J selected applications. For example, there may be a budget-related reason or a management policy reason why a particular selected application should receive a higher weight than other selected applications. In some embodiments, however, the weights are application independent, so that Wj is set to a constant weight W for j=1, 2, . . . , J. The weights Wj may be predetermined by, inter alia, the service provider or the customer.
In Equation (8), P is a positive real number (i.e., P>0). For example, if P=2 then H is proportional to the mean squared difference between Fj and Gj. However, any other value of P (e.g., P=1, P=1.5, P=3, etc.) may be used subject to P>0.
The coefficients in the J regression functions of the J selected applications are determined via minimization of H. In the example of Equations (2)-(7) with N=6 and J=4, discussed supra, the ten coefficients of K1, . . . , K10 appearing in the regression functions F1, F2, F3, and F4 will be determined via minimization of H. If a numerical value of each parameter in each regression function is supplied, then the minimization of H will result in numerically computed values for the coefficients. However, if the parameters in the regression functions are left in symbolic, non-numerical form, then the minimization of H will result in an analytical solution in which the coefficients are expressed in terms of the parameters.
The function H in Equation (8) may be minimized by any method known to a person of ordinary skill in the art. For example, the function H may be minimized by solving simultaneous equations
∂H/∂K=0 (9)
wherein K is a vector consisting of the unique coefficients in the regression functions of the J selected applications; i.e., K=[K1, K2, . . . ]. For the case of the ten unique coefficients K1, . . . , K10, Equation (9) stands for the following set of equations: ∂H/∂K1=0, ∂H/∂K2=0, . . . , ∂H∂K10=0 such that K=[K1, K2, . . . , K10]. Thus, K is determined by solving Equations (9).
For other mathematical and numerical methods of determining values for coefficients that minimize H and/or for performing statistical regression, see Ross, Sheldon M., Introduction To Probability and Statistics, third edition, pages 353-354 and 391 (2004), Elsevier Academic Press; and Kom, G. A and T. M. Kom, “Mathematical Handbook For Scientists and Engineers, pages 605-606, 611, and 698, Dover Publications (2000).
Steps 15-17 are directed to determining whether the coefficients determined in step 14 are sufficiently accurate for the purpose of determining a cost of ownership of the portfolio of N applications.
Step 15 supplies an estimate of a total cost of ownership CEST of the N applications. This estimate does not have to be rigorously exact, but rather is an estimated amount such as might appear in a quarterly or annual financial report. Step 15 may be performed by, inter alia, the service customer who may inform the service provider of the value of CEST.
Step 16 calculates a regression total cost of ownership CREGR of the N applications. The calculation of CREGR comprises summing the N regression functions; i.e.,
C
REGR=ΣnFn(P1, P2, . . . , K1, K2, . . . ) (10)
wherein Σn represents a summation over n from n=1 to n=N. Equation (10) utilizes the computed coefficients (K1, K2, . . . ) and a numerical value of each parameter (P1, P2, . . . ) relating to the N applications. Step 16 may be performed by, inter alia, the service provider.
Step 17 ascertains whether CREGR differs from CEST by more than a tolerance. The tolerance may be a pre-determined cost differential or a predetermined percent. If CREGR differs by no than the tolerance, then the method of
Step 18 ascertains whether a specified maximum number of iterations has been performed. Step 18 may be performed by, inter alia, the service provider. If the maximum number of iterations has been performed, then the method of
Achieving the condition of CREGR not differing from CEST by more than the tolerance indicates that the coefficients calculated in step 14 may be used to calculate the total cost of ownership of the portfolio (CREGR) via Equation (10) with sufficient accuracy. Thus, a model for calculating the total cost of ownership of the portfolio has been developed.
Step 21 of
Step 22 specifies permissible values for each control parameter of the at least one control parameter. The permissible values for each control parameter may independently be: a discrete set of values, at least one continuous range of values, or a combination thereof.
Step 23 expresses a total cost of ownership (T) of the N applications as a sum of the N regression functions associated with the N applications such that T is a function of the at least one control parameter. Denoting the at least one control parameter as U1, U2, . . . , T has the following form:
T=Σ
n
F
n(R1, R2, . . . , K1, K2, . . . , U1, U2, . . . ) (11)
Note that P1, P2, . . . constitute the complete set of parameters in the regression functions of the N applications. Accordingly, U1, U2, . . . are the control parameters selected from P1, P2, . . . , and R1, R2, . . . are the remaining parameters in the regression functions of the N applications that were not selected as control parameters. In Equation (11): numerical values are substituted for R1, R2, . . . in the regression functions of the N applications; and the values of the coefficients computed in accordance with
Step 24 determines a value for each control parameter U1, U2, . . . so as to minimize T subject to the permissible values provided in step 22. Thus, T in Equation (11) is minimized with respect to U1, U2, . . . , wherein U1, U2, . . . are constrained to fall within the permissible values of step 22.
Alternative methods may be employed to implement step 24 for determining the control parameters U1, U2, . . . . For example, if U1, U2, . . . are each prescribed as a discrete set of values, then, the specific combination of U1, U2, . . . that minimizes T may be determined by brute force; i.e., by calculating T for each possible combination of U1, U2, . . . .
A more efficient method of determining U1, U2, . . . that minimizes T may be found in Chou, C. I. et al., “Guided Simulated Annealing Method For Optimization Problems”, Physical Review E, 67, 066704-1 to 066704-6 (2003).
Yet another more efficient method of determining U1, U2, . . . that minimizes T is the heuristic optimization method for discrete functions as described in Rykov A. S., “Poiskovaja optimizatsija. Metody deformiruemyh konfiguratsij. (Heuristic optimization. Methods of deformable shapes)”, pp. 77-81 (Moscow, Science Publishers, 1993).
Generally, any method known to a person of ordinary skill in the art may be used to determine U1, U2, . . . that minimizes T. As a result of performing steps 21-24 of
Step 41 of
Step 42 selects at least one control parameter (U1, U2, . . . ) from the parameters (P1, P2, . . . ) in the N regression functions such that the remaining parameters (R1, R2, . . . ) in the N regression functions are unselected. Thus, the control parameters may be application dependent. Any parameter, of the parameters (P1, P2, . . . ) in the N regression functions, whose value may be varied, may be selected to be a control parameter. The idea behind selecting control parameters is to vary the values of the control parameters so as to reduce the total cost of ownership of the portfolio as will be described infra in conjunction with steps 43-45.
Step 43 changes the numerical value for the at least one control parameter (U1, U2, . . . ) from the first numerical value to a second numerical value.
Step 44 computes a second total cost of ownership (T2) of the N applications via:
T
2=ΣnFn(R1, R2, . . . , K1, K2, . . . , U1, U2, . . . ) (13)
Equation (13) for T2 is essentially the same equation as Equation (11) for T. In calculating T2 from Equation (13): the coefficients K1, K2, . . . computed from the method of
Step 45 determines whether T2 is less than T1. If T2 is less than T1, then the use of the second numerical values for U1, U2, . . . has been successful in reducing the total cost of ownership of the portfolio. If T2 is not less than T1, then the use of the second numerical values for U1, U2, . . . has not been successful in reducing the total cost of ownership of the portfolio and other second numerical values for U1, U2, . . . may be tried, or another set of control variables may be tried, in accordance with the method of
Steps 42-45 may be flexibly utilized in any manner. For example, all control parameters U1, U2, . . . may be varied concurrently to calculate T2 to determine whether T2 is less than T1. As another example, the control parameters U1, U2, . . . may be varied individually (i.e., one control parameter at a time) to determine whether a variation in each such control parameter, by itself, will reduce the total cost of ownership of the portfolio. As a third example, each control parameter individually, or a plurality of control parameters, may be varied to multiple second numerical values to determine which second numerical values effectuate the largest reduction in the total cost of ownership of the portfolio.
The resulting control parameters and their values determined via
Some embodiments may utilize a hybrid method that combines the methods of
Step 81 of
Step 82 chooses at least one control parameter (U1, U2, . . . ) from the parameters (P1, P2, . . . ) in the N regression functions. Thus, the control parameters may be application dependent. Any parameter, of the parameters (P1, P2, . . . ) in the N regression functions, whose value may be varied, may be chosen to be a control parameter. The idea behind choosing control parameters is to vary the values of the control parameters so as to reduce the total cost of ownership of the portfolio as will be described infra in conjunction with steps 83-85.
Step 83 changes the numerical value for each control parameter from the first numerical value to a second numerical value such that a second total cost of ownership (T2) of the N applications is less than T1. The second total cost of ownership T2 is a second sum of the N regression functions associated with the N applications using the computed coefficients, the first numerical value for each unselected parameter, and the second numerical value for each chosen parameter.
In step 83, changing the numerical value for each control parameter from the first numerical value to a second numerical value may comprise constraining the second numerical value to be within specified permissible values for each control parameter in a manner analogous to step 22 of
In step 83, changing the numerical value for each control parameter from the first numerical value to a second numerical value may comprise minimizing T2 with respect to the control parameters in a manner analogous to step 24 of
In step 83, changing the numerical value for each control parameter from the first numerical value to a second numerical value may be implemented in a manner analogous to step 43 of
Steps 84-85 collectively decide whether to continue or end the method of
Step 84 decides whether to utilize the second numerical value for each control parameter as determined in step 83. Deciding whether to utilize the second numerical value for each control parameter may comprise deciding whether it is feasible to utilize the second numerical value for each control parameter. For example, if a control parameter is the number of concurrent users of a particular application and if the second numerical value of this control parameter (as determined by step 83) cannot be implemented in light of practical considerations, then it is not feasible to utilize the second numerical value for this particular control parameter.
If step 84 decides to utilize the second numerical value for each control parameter then the method ends with the second numerical value being used for each control parameter. If step 84 decides not to utilize the second numerical value for each control parameter then the method next executes step 85.
Step 85 determines whether to continue the method. Step 85 may determine to continue the method if, inter alia, there are other control parameter combinations and/or other numerical values for the control parameters to try. If step 85 determines not to continue the method, then the method ends without the second numerical value being utilized for each control parameter. If step 85 determines to continue the method, then the method executes a next iteration comprising re-execution of steps 82-85.
Rows 61-71 in column 51 of
Row 72 of
Row 73 of
Row 74 lists the values of the coefficients that minimize H of Equation (8) with Wj=1 for j=1, 2, 3, 4, through use of the methodology described supra in conjunction with
Row 75 lists the values of Fj (j=1, 2, 3, 4) resulting from substitution of the coefficient values in row 74 for k1, . . . , k12 in Fj of row 72.
While
While embodiments of the present invention have been described herein for purposes of illustration, many modifications and changes will become apparent to those skilled in the art. Accordingly, the appended claims are intended to encompass all such modifications and changes as fall within the true spirit and scope of this invention.
This application is a continuation application claiming priority to Ser. No. 11/011,681, filed Dec. 14, 2004.
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 11011681 | Dec 2004 | US |
Child | 12431029 | US |