Method for determining total cost of ownership

• US 7,020,621 B1
• Filed: 10/06/2000
• Issued: 03/28/2006
• Est. Priority Date: 10/06/1999
• Status: Expired due to Term

• Current Assignee: Accenture Global Services Limited (Accenture PLC)
• Original Assignee: Accenture LLP (Accenture PLC)
• Inventors: Feria, Joaquin, Nunn, Stephen
• Primary Examiner(s): Diaz, Susanna M.
• Assistant Examiner(s): LOFTIS, JOHNNA RONEE
• Application Number:
  US09/680,902
• Time in Patent Office: 1,999 Days
• Field of Search: 705/400, 705/8, 705/9, 705/10, 705/7, 705/11, 395/183
• US Class Current: 705/7.29
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06375 Prediction of business process outcome or impact based on a proposed change
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/0639 Performance analysis of employees; Performance analysis of enterprise or organisation operations
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06393 Score-carding, benchmarking or key performance indicator [KPI] analysis
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06395 Quality analysis or management
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 30/02 Marketing; Price estimation or determination; Fundraising
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 30/0201 Market modelling; Market analysis; Collecting market data

Abstract

A method for determining the total cost incurred per user of information technology (IT) in a distributed computing environment includes obtaining base costs and ongoing costs of an IT system and applying those costs to a series of metrics. The metrics are compared against benchmarks to evaluate and assess where cost efficiencies can be achieved.

Claims

1. A method for determining a cost for each user of an information technology system, the method comprising:

obtaining base costs;

obtaining ongoing direct costs;

obtaining ongoing indirect costs;

gathering information relating to user profiles and organizational characteristics;

inputting said costs and information into a computer and calculating by the computer the cost for each user and a plurality of appraisal metrics;

wherein the appraisal metrics include (i) financial perspective metrics determined from the obtained costs, (ii) operational effectiveness and efficiency metrics determined from the gathered information, and (iii) infrastructure and evolution perspective metrics determined from the gathered information;

identifying interrelationship profiles between the financial perspective metrics and related operational effectiveness and efficiency metrics and related infrastructure and evolution perspective metrics;

assigning each of said appraisal metrics to correspond to an information technology organizational function category, wherein the organizational function category comprises service management;

systems management;

service planning and change management;

selecting an information technology organizational function category; and

reporting both the financial and non-financial appraisal metrics corresponding only to the selected category.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein said base costs include design costs, acquisition costs, and installation costs, which costs are used by the computer to determine the appraisal metrics.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein said ongoing direct costs include production control costs, monitoring costs, security management and failure control costs, changes in upgrade costs, support costs, and operational costs, which costs are used by the computer to determine the appraisal metrics.

4. The method of claim 1, wherein said ongoing indirect costs include end-user costs and downtime costs.

5. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of said costs correspond to at least one information technology function, and the cost for each user is broken down according to said information technology function.

6. The method of claim 1, further comprising assigning the operational effectiveness and efficiency metrics into categories representative of (1) quality, (2) availability and (3) efficiency of the information technology system.

7. The method of claim 6, wherein:

(1) the operational effectiveness and efficiency metrics representative of quality include (a) faults per user, (b) performance demand, and (c) security ratings;

(2) the operational effectiveness and efficiency metrics representative of availability include (a) downtime rate, (b) call relogging rate, and (c) call abandonment rate; and

(3) the operational effectiveness and efficiency metrics representative of efficiency include (a) response time, (b) resolution time, (c) help desk call handling rate, (d) help desk staffing ratio, (e) PC delivery time, (f) SLA coverage ratio and (g) SLA performance failure rate; and

wherein the method further comprises comparing each of said operational effectiveness and efficiency metrics with predetermined benchmarks or with metrics determined for the system in prior periods.

8. The method of claim 1, further comprising assigning the infrastructure and evolution perspective metrics into categories representative of (1) adaptability and (2) growth of the information technology system.

9. The method of claim 8, wherein:

(1) the infrastructure and evolution perspective metrics representative of adaptability include (a) system upgradeability and life span, (b) network bandwidth utilization, (c) training time, and (d) average time for change implementation; and

(2) the infrastructure and evolution perspective metrics representative of growth include (a) length of planning horizon, (b) user growth, (c) budget growth, and (d) performance improvement expectation; and

wherein the method further comprises comparing each of said infrastructure and evolution perspective metrics with predetermined benchmarks or with metrics determined for the system in prior periods.

10. The method of claim 1, further comprising identifying a relationship in said profile as a complementary relationship, a trade-off relationship or an influential relationship.

17. The method of claim 1, further comprising identifying a relationship in said profile as a complementary relationship, a trade-off relationship or an influential relationship.

11. A method for analyzing costs associated with supporting an information technology system, the method comprising:

obtaining cost information;

obtaining system characteristics;

calculating by a computer appraisal metrics based on said cost information and said system characteristics;

wherein the appraisal metrics include (i) financial perspective metrics determined from the obtained costs, (ii) operational effectiveness and efficiency metrics determined from the gathered information, and (iii) infrastructure and evolution perspective metrics determined from the gathered information;

defining interrelationship profiles between the financial perspective metrics and related operational effectiveness and efficiency metrics and related infrastructure and evolution perspective metrics;

assigning each of said appraisal metrics to correspond to an information technology organizational function category, wherein the organizational function category comprises service management;

systems management;

service planning and change management;

comparing said appraisal metrics with established benchmarks; and

providing the appraisal metrics and cost information in separate reports for the corresponding organizational function categories.

12. The method of claim 11, wherein said cost information includes base costs, ongoing direct costs and ongoing indirect costs, which costs are used to calculate the appraisal metrics.

13. The method of claim 12, wherein the base costs include design costs, acquisition costs, and installation costs, which costs are used to calculate the appraisal metrics.

14. The method of claim 12, wherein the ongoing direct costs include production control costs, monitoring costs, security management and failure control costs, changes in upgrade costs, support costs, and operational costs, which costs are used to calculate the appraisal metrics.

15. The method of claim 12, wherein the ongoing indirect costs include end-user costs and downtime costs, which costs are used to calculate the appraisal metrics.

16. The method of claim 11, wherein said metrics are used to determine cost improvement opportunities through best practices implementation for said category.

18. The method of claim 11, further comprising identifying a relationship in said profile as a complementary relationship, a trade-off relationship or an influential relationship.