Architecture Principles



| |PMA Project Phoenix |

| |P230 - User Alternatives |

|Description |

|Deliverable purpose: |

|To evaluate options for critical, user perceivable designs and components and select those that best meet business objectives. |

|Additional files and documents: |

|None |

|Version |

|Version |Description |Author |Date |

|0.1 |Initial Template |Alain Foucault |08/08/02 |

|0.2 |Initial Draft |Eric Payeur |09/11/02 |

|0.3 |Updated Draft |Scott Green |12/06/02 |

|0.4 |Updated Draft |Scott Green |12/10/02 |

| | | | |

Contents

1. Introduction 3

1.1 References 3

2. Scope 4

2.1 Category of Package Selection 4

2.2 Reference to Relevant Enterprise Directions 5

3. Alternatives 6

3.1 Description 6

4. Selection of Alternatives 11

4.1 Comparison of Alternatives and Recommendations 11

4.2 Rationale 25

Deliverable History

|Version |Comments / Reviews |Responsible/ Reviewers|Date Completed |

|0.2 |Initial Draft | | |

|0.3 |Updated draft – updates the number of packages that are being considered. | | |

|0.4 |Updated draft | | |

| | | | |

Introduction

1 References

▪ PMA Business Plan

▪ A220 Architecture Business Process View

▪ P201 Business Dynamics

Scope

1 Category of Package Selection

The following packages have been divided logically into three categories: front-office, back-office and support. The front-office applications are those that are typically associated to supporting the customer. The back-office functions are those applications that support the product management aspects. The support functions will all the other support applications that are used to provide an infrastructure to the front-office or back-office functions.

The listings of these packages under these different categories have then been listed by the their general priority or importance.

Front-Office Package Selection:

▪ Customer Relationship Management [CRM]

▪ eCommerce [eCOM]

▪ Order Management [OM]

▪ Enterprise Content Management [ECM]

▪ Car Locator [CL]

▪ e-Mail Response Management [eRM]

▪ Workflow Management [WFM]

▪ Schedule Management [SM]

Back-Office Package Selection:

▪ Supply Chain Management [SCM]

▪ Enterprise Resource Planning [ERP]

▪ Warranty Management [WM]

▪ Technical Documentation Management [TDM]

▪ Dealer Communication System [DCS]

Support Package Selection:

▪ Enterprise Portal [EP]

▪ Finance [FIN]

▪ Knowledge Management [KM]

▪ Conversion Extract-Transform-Load [ETL]

▪ Training management[TM]

▪ Reporting/Business Intelligence [R/BI]

▪ Human Resources [HR]

▪ Enterprise Value Management [EVM]

▪ Competitive Intelligence [CIM]

▪

2 Reference to Relevant Enterprise Directions

Reference to existing business and organizational strategies, principles and standards that are relevant to the alternatives being considered.

Alternatives

1 Description

|Category |User-level Description |

| |Front-Office Area |

|CRM |Client Relationship Management [CRM] Suite |

| |A Client Relationship Management package is required supporting basic Integrated Customer Management activities.|

| |The functions that must cover are: |

| |Marketing |

| |Sale |

| |Call Center/Service/Self-help |

| |Chat |

| |Partner Relationship Management |

| | |

| |The options include: |

| |Existing supplier for Peugeot: PeopleSoft |

| |Selection of a best of breed more Internet based supplier such as Pivotal, Epiphany and Talisma. |

| |PSA system (e.g. Campagne) to complete solution 1 or 2 for Recall management. |

|eCOM |eCommerce [eCOM] |

| |eCommerce package is required supporting basic Integrated eCommerce activities such as online buying, selling, |

| |collaborating, |

| | |

| |Sale, Call Center, E-Business, self-help, order management… |

| | |

| |The options include: |

| |Existing supplier for Peugeot: PeopleSoft’s eStore |

| |PSA system (e.g. Campagne) to complete solution 1 or 2 for Recall management. |

| |High-end frameworks: IBM’s Crossworlds, Microsoft .NET/Sharepoint |

| |High-end Package/Engine: ATG, Broadvision, Blue Martini |

| |Medium-end Engines: BEA, Firepond |

| |Automotive specific package: Cobalt’s Parts Counter Express and MyCarTools |

|OM |Order Management |

| | |

| |The functionality will provide a traditional order management system. This will primarily be a slaved system to|

| |Peugeot’s main order management systems. |

| | |

| |The options include: |

| |PeopleSoft’s SCM product: Order Management |

| |Other SCM products: i2, Manugistics, Oracle |

| |Leverage the OM functionality eCOM: ATG, Broadvision, Blue Martini |

| |Use functionality provided in the FIN package: SAP |

|ECM |Enterprise Content Management [ECM] |

| |A Content Management package is required supporting basic Integrated Document Management (IDM, paper and |

| |electronic, workflow), generated any king of electronic documents (Contract, brochures, …) and Web Content |

| |management (WCM). |

| | |

| |The options include: |

| |Existing supplier for Peugeot: FileNet |

| |Selection of a high-end supplier such as Documentum and Opentext. |

| |Selection of a low-end supplier such as Microsoft (SharePoint) or Oracle (Web Portal). |

| |Use functionality of Enterprise Portal for ECM |

| |Use functionality of eCOM for ECM |

|CL |Car Locator [CL] |

| |A car Locator function is required to allow customers to configure a car with specific options, searching and |

| |locate availability according to selected configuration (LTO), Compare configuration and price with other |

| |configuration or/and competitive car. |

| | |

| |The options include: |

| |Use Functionality provide by CRM suite (If Available) Selection of automotive specific package such as |

| |“Carbook/AutoBuilder /AutoPorter” by CROME, “Make & Match” by COBALT |

| |Sales configurator’s: Trilogy, Selectica |

| |Configurator Constraint Based Engine: ILOG’s Configurator |

| |E-commerce associated sales configurators: Firepond, Blue Martini (Cybrant) |

|eRM |e-Mail Response Management Systems |

| | |

| |This functionality provides the functionality for responding to email requests in an automated environment. |

| | |

| |The options include: |

| |Pure-play systems: Rightnow Technologies, eGain, |

| |CRM Suite Components: Talisma, Epiphany, Kana, Firepond |

| |Traditional Suite: Oracle, Siebel |

| |Leverage new functionality in PeopleSoft’s latest release (ver 8.8) |

|WFM |Workflow Management |

| | |

| |This functionality provides the backbone for managing non-traditional, not-fuctional specific (i.e. marketing, |

| |sales, service) process control functions. An example for the use of this category would be the workflow |

| |associated to Valet. |

| | |

| |The options include: |

| |Simple process management functionality: iFlow, Bizflow |

| |Complex EDI process management: Vitria, TIBCO |

| |Pure-play Business Process Monitoring: IBM WebShere HOLOSOFX, Staffware |

| |Existing workflow engine provided in PeopleSoft |

|SM |Schedule Management |

| | |

| |This functionality is to automate the scheduling functions when attempting to integrate across several types of |

| |assets. An example would be the scheduling of the customer into a partner’s facility and having the valet |

| |picking-up and returning the car. |

| | |

| |The options include: |

| |Sophisticated scheduling & tracking: Artemis, i2, Manugistic |

| |Automated scheduling: Servicepower, |

| |Manual / simplified calendar scheduling: Exchange |

| |Back-Office Area |

|SCM |Supply Chain Management [SCM] |

| |A Supply Chain Management package or solution is required to help PMA in managing the delivery and planning of |

| |Product such as Car and Part, Inventories. |

| | |

| |The options include: |

| |Existing PSA systems such as (ALADIN, DIALOG, SIV “Ordering”, NOSTRA “Delivery”, PROSPER “Forecasting”, TATOU, |

| |PLPR, ALADIN “Spare Parts inventory”) |

|ERP |Enterprise Resource Planning [ERP] |

| |An Enterprise Resource Planning package is required for the management of the PMA enterprise resources. |

| | |

| |The options include: |

| |For Accounting: Existing supplier/system from PSA: EURECA, TOUCAN, SIGMA |

|WM |Warranty Management [WM] |

| | |

| |A Warranty package is required to manage all Warranty claims and activity. |

| | |

| |The options include: |

| |Existing PSA Warranty system: SAIGAI, CAMPAGNE (Recall) |

|TDM |Technical Documentation Management [TDM] |

| | |

| |A Technical Documentation Management package is required to provide the following functionality: |

| |Workshop manual |

| |Parts documentation |

| |Accessories and signature products |

| |Owners manuals |

| |Repair orders and estimates |

| |Parts documentation |

| | |

| |The options include: |

| |Existing PSA Technical Documentation Management system: INFOTEK & LASER |

| |Make use of the ECM solution to provide a Technical Documentation Management |

|DCS |Dealer Communication System |

| | |

| |A Dealer Communication System (DCS) is required to interface with the Dealer management system (DMS) at the |

| |dealership and to allow dealers to access specific PMA system. The DCS will have the capability to interface |

| |with all the touch points at PMA and also various DMS systems being used by the dealers. |

| | |

| |The options include: |

| |Existing PSA system: ABCnet, Dealer Portal (In Design) |

| |COTS package like ??? (Portal Software) |

| |In-House (PMA) customize solution. |

| |Support Area: |

|EP |Enterprise Portal |

| | |

| |This functionality will provide the main interface into all the applications and systems for customers, |

| |employees, and partners. |

| | |

| |The options include: |

| |Pure-play portals: Plumtree, Epicentric |

| |Enterprise portals: IBM, BEA, iPlanet, Sharepoint |

| |Enterprise Application Portals: PeopleSoft, SAP |

|FIN |Finance |

| | |

| |The functionality will provide the basic functions associated with managing the financial aspects of the |

| |company. This includes all of the following elements: Finance, accounting, tax, cost center reporting, payroll,|

| |etc. |

| | |

| |The options include: |

| |Use existing PSA functionality: SAP |

| |Spreadsheet/Manual: Excel |

|KM |Knowledge Management tool. |

| |Required to provide technical problem reporting from dealer to AP and technical problem resolution information |

| |from AP to dealer |

| | |

| |The options include: |

| |Existing PSA AGIR in Europe |

| |Selection of large package like ERNIE (Ford System), ???? |

| |Selection of mid-size package: Primus, |

| |On-line KM facilitation tools: Micromedia |

|ETL |Extract Transform Load |

| |This functionality will provide the extraction routines needed to move the data from legacy into PMA systems. |

| |This will need to be accomplished in either a batch or “near real-time” environment. The requirement may |

| |require ongoing batch jobs that move data either from or to PSA into PMA. |

| |What data should be converted from the legacy system into the new one? |

| |The current database contains information from PSA. The options include: |

| |1 - ??? |

| |2 - ??? |

| | |

| |The options include: |

| |Low end tools: Cognos, Sagent, Hummingbird |

| |DBA tools: Oracle, SQL Server |

| |High end tools: Informatica, Ascential |

|TM |Training Management [TM] |

| | |

| |A Training management package is required to help the technicians to upgrade their skills and help in |

| |troubleshooting the repair of problems and to service the vehicle. |

| | |

| |The options include: |

| |Existing PSA Training system: DEFI & FORM@LION |

| |Selection of Mid-Size Training package such as Interwise |

| |Training management outsource to 3rd party |

|R/BI |Reporting tool/Business Intelligence. |

| |A reporting package is required to enables PMA Executives to reach into the vast supply of business information |

| |available and quickly use it as knowledge for decisions and action. It is a business measurement tool for |

| |understanding key performance metrics - and optimizing PMA operations. |

| | |

| |The options include: |

| |Selecting a basic reporting package: Crystal Report, Oracle Report, Brio |

| |Selecting a complete Business Intelligence package (simple, OLAP, batching) such as Cognos, Business Objects |

|HR |Human Resources |

| | |

| |This functionality will track all of the HR activity for employees. |

| | |

| |The options include: |

| |Outsource all of the functionality expect partners to provide the functionality |

| |Implement enterprise HR package: SAP, PeopleSoft |

| |Utilize spreadsheets/Manual process: Excel |

|EVM |Enterprise Value Management [EVM] |

| | |

| |An Enterprise Value Management package is required to manage PMA technology investments (like a project |

| |portfolio), enabling management teams to choose and execute activities that increase value. To directly aligns |

| |technology investments with business goals and objectives. Provides dashboard view for overall asset management |

| |around PMA’s investments. |

| | |

| | |

| |The options include the selection of a COTS package such as: |

| |Enterprise asset management functions around portfolio options: ProSight (Fujitsu Partnership), Kintana |

| |Enterprise project aggregation of portfolio options: SysCorp (IBM Partnership), (Independent), |

| |Primavera, Artemis, |

| |Stand alone project management software: MS Project, Project Workbench, Turbo Project |

| |Enterprise Application portfolio options: PeopleSoft (others include SAP and similar enterprisewide |

| |applications.) |

|CI |Competitive Intelligence (Proposed) |

| | |

| |The functionality will provide ongoing insight into the competitive landscape for the automotive marketplace. |

| | |

| |The options include: |

| |Generalized CI Research: DowJones, Hoovers, Fuld, McKensey Quarterly |

| |Automated E-Mail CI Research: Providata, CyberAlert, |

| |Manual CI: Google |

Selection of Alternatives

1 Comparison of Alternatives and Recommendations

Specification of the method and the criteria used to compare the alternatives. Description of the differences between the alternatives and the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative.

Specification of the method and the criteria used to compare the alternatives. Description of the differences between the alternatives and the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative.

[pic]

Front-Office Package Selection:

[pic]

|Category |User-level Description |

|CRM |Client Relationship Management – Package selection |

| |The CRM system is expected to be the most important piece of software for PMA as it relates to managing |

| |customer relationships. The core objectives of the PMA strategy can be found in the PMA Business Plan. |

|Comparison |1 – Existing supplier for Peugeot: PeopleSoft |

| |Corporate agreement – low licensing costs for core modules |

| |Comprehensive package that has industry best practices |

| |Existing integration across all applications |

| |New feature supplement (Ver 8.8 versus Ver 8.4) |

| |E-mail / response management |

| |Chat |

| |Campaign Management enhancements |

| |Proto-type gap analysis required. |

| |2 – Selection of a best of breed more Internet based supplied. |

| |New technology enabled; |

| |Tailored for ease of integration since many of the packages have been built with the notion of |

| |integration. |

| |Product selection between the various 700 different packages would be required; |

| |Not recommended since there is does not seem to be major advantages or savings at this time. |

| |3 – Use PSA system (e.g. Campagne) to compliment solution. |

| |Additional Supplier – might be complimentary for the particular solution of warranty management; |

| |Product selection required; |

| |Recommended as sub-solution component. Review possible advantages and savings; |

| |Meets existing PMA requirements. |

|Recommendation |PeopleSoft – the following are the main reasons for the package |

| |Corporate standard for Peugeot |

| |Long-term viability of the company & package |

| |Base amount of proven functionality (e.g. best practice) of the package |

| |Internet/web-enabled application framework |

| |Architecture scaled to an enterprise-wide application |

| |Requirements for supplemental enhancements for functionality seem to be much less than the high level of|

| |integration requirements of a pure “best of breed” solution framework. |

|Category |User-level Description |

|eCOM |e-Commerce – this functionality will provide the electronic storefront for Peugeot car and parts |

| |operation. Some of this functionality may integrate some aspects into the light/heavy service side |

| |eventually but not initially. |

| |The following preliminary analysis for a package selection. |

| |The overall focus of the analysis was to obtain as much out-of-box functionality as possible for an |

| |e-commerce type package. Within this area – there was a focus on B2C e-commerce type transactions |

| |versus the B2B. It is expected that most of the B2B transactions will happen within the context of the |

| |Partnership Management. |

| |The key elements for e-commerce are: |

| |Internet based order management. This should be open enough to allow for non-internet based order |

| |management so that there is a single order management system in the solution. (Standard transaction |

| |types: new, update, delete) |

| |Standard and custom contract terms |

| |Pricing calculators (tax, order/quantity, discounts, shipping) |

| |Order status update (state changes causing automatic update to end users) |

| |Fulfillment integration (UPS, FedEx, USPS) |

| |Payment (credit card, check , PO, PayPal) |

| |Multi-currency |

| |Security management / personalization features |

| |Catalog / content management |

| |Product comparison feature |

| |Product configurator integration |

| |Workflow – approval and order restrictions |

| |PeopleSoft CRM and SAP inventory integration |

| |Enhancements are: |

| |Automatic fraud detection schemas |

| |Complex shipping requirements (line item cost center, shipping address, billing address) |

| |Standard and configurable SKU management (kitting) |

| |Gift certificate / coupon management |

|Comparison |Since out-of-box functionality was the target – many of the solutions possibilities were reduced to |

| |those enterprise solutions that support this requirement. This meant that options were narrow down to |

| |ATG, Broadvision and Blue Martini |

| |1 – ATG is a robust solution for the enterprise. |

| |Pro |

| |Meets basic requirements |

| |Strength in order management features |

| |Fraud detection is a plus |

| |Con |

| |Non-Standard integration with PeopleSoft and SAP |

| |2 – Broadvision - This product seems to be eliminated due to these two aspects |

| |Most of the focus is on B2B, which will probably be covered in the Partnership Management requirements |

| |Promotion of their Portal Technology more than the commerce side. The product should have a portal |

| |independence nature. |

| |3 – Blue Martini – |

| |Pro |

| |Meets basic requirements |

| |Strength is in back-end integration |

| |Promotion and pricing features |

| |Gift registry appealing |

| |Order management seems quite independent |

| |PeopleSoft and SAP standard integration modules |

| |(CEO prior employee of PeopleSoft) |

| |Con |

| |Look for this company to be acquired – based upon past history with CEO |

|Recommendation |Blue Martini (with ATG as close second) |

| | |

| |The basic package delivers on the basic functionality required for this module. It is appear to the |

| |ability to exceed the necessary requirements for the e-commerce package. The main reasons are as |

| |follows: |

| |Excellent references – especially in the manufacturing area |

| |Background within the manufacturing |

| |Closely tied into PeopleSoft |

|Category |User-level Description |

|OM |Order Management – slaved package that manages all the information related to managing the information |

| |related to an order. |

| |The following preliminary analysis for a package selection. |

| |The order management system will be a slave to the various order management systems used by PSA. There |

| |are two different systems within PSA – one for parts and one for cars. It is expected that these |

| |systems will maintain the official order information – but that the PMA system will retain the rights |

| |for create, update, edit and delete by the end user or PMA resources. |

| |Features of the order management are similar to those outlined in the e-commerce system. |

|Comparison |1 – Use the PeopleSoft’s SCM module – Order Management. |

| |Pro |

| |Ease of integration into the CRM suite |

| |Traditional package features |

| |Con |

| |Need to review to see it is able to meet the requirements for an e-commerce package |

| |Duplicate functionality with the e-commerce package |

| |2 – Other SCM Products: i.e. i2, Manugistics, Oracle, SAP |

| |Pro |

| |Excellent integration into the supply chain – especially providing functionality around BTO |

| |Con |

| |Cost prohibitive, the vendor generally will require the an entire SCM module be acquired – not just |

| |Order Management features. The exception will be PeopleSoft. Since we are getting the baseline CRM |

| |functionality, it would make sense that they would allow this functionality to be broken out and |

| |provided. |

| |3 – Leverage OM functionality of eCOM. |

| |Pro |

| |Integration of the storefront functionality with order management is essential. |

| |Leverage best practices within the Internet space for providing commonly accepted functionality. |

| |Con |

| |Ability to make order management functionality a slave to the PSA systems may require extra integration |

| |effort. |

| |Package maybe too tailored to the internet space. |

| |4 – Use existing functionality provided in the FIN package (i.e. SAP) |

| |Pro |

| |Synchronization with the base package should not be a complex integration issue. The two main packages |

| |that are being used should already have a strong foundation |

| |Con |

| |Not generally acceptable for the Internet world due to high degree of subject matter expertise needed to|

| |navigate the package. |

|Recommendation |Leverage the OM functionality of eCOM. |

| | |

| |Reasons for this selection: |

| |This choice is the most logical based upon the amount of existing functionality provided in these |

| |out-of-box solutions. |

| |The requirement of this functionality to be highly integrated into the storefront makes it a requirement|

| |to keep that functionality embedded in the eCOM solution. |

| |No reason to duplicate functionality when it is already included in the eCOM functionality. |

| |The Con’s from the other options almost completely discount them as being viable. |

| | |

|Category |User-level Description |

|ECM |Enterprise Content Management – Package selection |

| | |

| |The following is a preliminary analysis for a package selection. |

| | |

| |The following criteria should be taken into account when evaluating ECM packages: |

| |Basic Integrated Document Management (IDM) functionality, including library services (such as |

| |check-in/check-out), version control, and search and retrieval; |

| |Multiple content type capabilities, including electronic documents, imaged paper documents, as well as |

| |Web-based content; |

| |Web Content Management (WCM) functionality, including templating, publishing, and workflow; |

| |Integration with Enterprise Portals and with Web Application Servers; |

| |Integration with Collaboration and/or Knowledge Management tools and functionality |

| |Integration with Business Process Management functionality |

| |Market and Product Vision; |

| |Other criteria which can be important: |

| |Integration with Digital Asset Management (DAM) functionality, referring to the management of rich-media|

| |content |

| |Integration with eLearning tools and/or functionality |

|Comparison | |

| |Selection of a high-end supplier with a strong IDM background, such as Documentum, FileNet, or OpenText.|

| |Pros: |

| |Each of these companies has strong track records in traditional document management, as well as robust |

| |applications; |

| |Strong WCM components for some of these vendors; |

| |Cons |

| |Cost |

| |Specific Vendor Information: |

| |Documentum |

| |Robust infrastructure and proven track record in IDM |

| |Early adoption of WCM and ‘02 acquisition of DAM and Collaboration products |

| |Scalability |

| |Strong in dynamic presentation of content through explicit and implicit personalization |

| |Downside includes cost of implementation and maintenance |

| |FileNet |

| |Strong IDM and Document Imaging background with extensive world-wide customer base |

| |Leader in Business Process Management functionality |

| |Scalable architecture |

| |’02 purchase of eGrail WCM product |

| |Downside is cost and complexity relative to low-end solutions, as well as weakness in dynamic |

| |presentation of content |

| |OpenText |

| |Strong position in IDM market |

| |Integrated platform with collaboration, knowledge management and business process management |

| |functionality; |

| |Lower in cost than FileNet and Documentum |

| |Short Implementation cycle |

| |Scalable architecture |

| |Major weakness is current lack of WCM functionality (integration with 3rd party WCM would be necessary |

| |for now) |

| |Selection of a smaller but visionary company with solid IDM and WCM functionality |

| |divine |

| |Highly rated WCM product suite |

| |Very strong integration with Java-based development and J2EE application servers, such as BEA, IBM and |

| |Sun |

| |Very strong integration with Portal servers |

| |Would require integration with a separate IDM product |

| |Stellant |

| |Strong at distributed content creation through delegated administration |

| |User-friendly Web-based Uis |

| |Robust IDM library services |

| |Downsides include poor integration with back-end systems |

| |Selection of a product from the “powerhouse vendors,” in most cases relatively new to the market, such |

| |as IBM/Lotus, Microsoft (SharePoint) or Oracle (Web Portal) |

| |IBM/Lotus |

| |Most mature player in this category, but best for companies with Lotus architecture, and less robust and|

| |complete than traditional IDMs |

| |Microsoft |

| |Integrated with MS SharePoint Portal Server, with user friendly implementation, but with serious |

| |concerns about scalability |

| |Oracle |

| |Rudimentary document management |

|Recommendation |This should be narrowed down to the two IDM leaders with the strongest WCM functionality: Documentum or |

| |FileNet. |

| | |

| |The selection of either of these should be done after more requirements and analysis of the |

| |architectural implications has been accomplished. |

|Category |User-level Description |

|CL |Car Locator – This package will need to have the capability to perform the following specific tasks |

| |related to configuration of the vehicle. |

| |Ability to perform the search capability related to finding a close match to the desired functionalities|

| |specified by the consumer. |

| |Ability to provide pricing information based upon the designated configuration entered |

| |Ability to provide traceability (click type analysis) of configuration selections of the different |

| |customers |

| |Ability to interface into a set of structure the business rules that will determine the valid |

| |configurations |

| |Provide the functionality to compare functionality to other types of vehicles |

| |This package will be used to help the customer visually configure the car based upon available options. |

| |The following preliminary analysis for a package selection. |

| |One of the interesting issues associated to this area is the fact that Peugeot expects than a Microsoft |

| |Access database be used as the mechanism for validation of the vehicle configurations. This means that |

| |the core functionality of the configurator may need to be interfaced into this database. |

| |The other major issue regarding this review that needs to be considered is that selecting best-of-breed |

| |functionality can be very risky. The major risk relates to the fact that this functionality is usually |

| |not properly integrated into the solution. Gartner indicates that the majority of the implementations |

| |the amount of integration in this area is underestimated and/or not properly architected. |

| |Note: With the exception of Blue Martini and Firepond – all these products can be considered product |

| |configuration engines that have been organized to support the sales process. (versus the supporting the|

| |product management process.) These engines are then assumed to be “programmed” to accomplish the |

| |business objectives. |

|Comparison |1 - . Automotive specific configators: “Carbook/AutoBuilder /AutoPorter” by Chrome, or “Make & Match” |

| |by COBALT |

| |Product Evaluations |

| |Chrome products – these products have been around in the industry since 1985. They have an extensive |

| |library of models that can be used for comparison. The product covers three areas: configuration, |

| |inventory and searching. The product is essentially an engine that will have the following information |

| |that will need to be configured |

| |Configuration Data |

| |Configuration rules |

| |Manufacturer option codes |

| |Pictures |

| |Competitive vehicle checklist |

| |Cobalt Product – a press release was found concerning the “Make and Match” product. However, no |

| |information was found on the companies web page – or has any information been returned by the company |

| |concerning this product. Chrome lists Cobalt as a customer on their material supplied to us in a |

| |presentation. This means that the Cobalt product does not exist or is just a derivation of the Chrome |

| |product. |

| |Pro’s |

| |These are products have been designed specifically to handle the specific functions of the auto industry|

| |Provide the functionality of the search/locate – which is one of the critical elements |

| |Excellent references - although most of these are related to the dealer side of the business. |

| |Open API’s will make easier to interface. |

| |Used in many dealers – so it seems like a baseline product. |

| |Con’s |

| |Products are not recognized by outside of the auto industry – therefore product comparisons are |

| |difficult. |

| |Viability of the company is questionable in the long-term, but they seem to have done an excellent job |

| |at this point. |

| |Do they assume more functionality or control over the web page than what was expected? |

| |The inventory management module use might be critical for the locate functionality. |

| |2 - . Sales configurator’s: Trilogy, Selectica |

| |Product Comparison: |

| |Trilogy – This company has been on the premier sales configuration engines on the market since this |

| |category was invented. They are the only ones that service particular solutions tailored to the |

| |particular industry. They also have some of the biggest players in the industry: |

| |Ford |

| | (solution provided configuration matching against vehicle inventory, lead referral, |

| |financing and order processing) |

| |Lexus |

| |Lincoln |

| |Mercury |

| |Nissan |

| |Renault S.A. |

| |Selectica – considered one of the premier players in the configurator market place for online |

| |transactions. However, they don’t seem to support the notion around search/locate functionality. There|

| |approach is very similar to the Trilogy in that they provide a base engine that will then need to be |

| |configured based upon the specific business rules. |

| |3 - . Configurator Constraint Based Engine: ILOG’s Configurator |

| |Product Evaluation: This product was one of first generation – constraint based scheduling engines. |

| |That is, these types of engines are able to exceed the typical two parameter limitation of linear |

| |programming. This engine forms the basis of the 2nd generation engines like i2 and Manugistics. The |

| |product has been performing asset schedule optimization for about 20 years using AI techniques. The |

| |engine has been transformed so the interfacing has been radically simplified. The current interface can|

| |be accomplished via C++ API’s or Jave based mechanisms. |

| |Pro’s |

| |Additional module for schedule could be a natural extension. This functionality would support the |

| |requirements around scheduling. |

| |Most flexible interfacing, since it would all be customized. |

| |Con’s |

| |Does not meet the search engine/locator features requested. |

| |Potentially difficult to support the click analysis – since each configuration will be unique request. |

| |4 - . E-commerce associated sales configurators: Firepond, Blue Martini (Cybrant) |

| |Product Evaluations: |

| |Firepond – was eliminated due to the financial state of the company. They are small and have struggled |

| |since the dot-com bomb. |

| |Blue Martini acquired Cybrant and integrated the product into their e-commerce package. Since it was |

| |embedded in the product – it is not highlight on the company’s web information. The product was given |

| |very high marks by Gartner prior to it being absorbed into Blue Martini. |

| |Pro’s |

| |Integrated features into the e-commerce package. This reduces the risk associated with integration. |

| |Con’s |

| |Unknown if they can support the search/locate functionality. |

| |Concern if there has been continued investment in the Cybrant product since the acquisition. |

|Recommendation |This should be narrowed down to the two automotive specific packages: Chrome or Trilogy. The selection |

| |of either of these should be done after more requirements and analysis of the architectural implications|

| |has been accomplished. |

| |Trilogy was highly rated by Gartner. They are seen as one of the industry leaders in the sales |

| |configurator market. |

|Category |User-level Description |

|eRM |e-mail Response Management – package selection. |

| |The following preliminary analysis for a package selection. |

| |The following outlines the basic functionality that would be expected from these packages |

| |Intelligent routing – based upon the context of the message – into established work queue (which |

| |hopefully are universal work queues) |

| |Integration of templates |

| |Threaded response history, correlation and tracking |

| |Rule driven escalation management (time, content, context driven rules to help facilitate customer |

| |satisfaction) |

| |Integration into the self-service / knowledge management function of the internet site |

| |Ability to integration interactions with other channels – especially phone and chat |

| |Immediate auto-response with ability to auto-suggest solution in particular situations |

| |Workflow integration on inbound and outbound. |

| |Ability to provide outbound filters for QA checking |

| |Multi-lingual support |

| |AI support for classification of emails |

|Comparison |1 – Pure-play systems: Rightnow Technologies, eGain |

| |Product Assessment: |

| |Rightnow Technologies – Package is considered at the lowest end of the functionality spectrum. |

| |Inexpensive solution that provides minimal functionality. Expect basic functionality would be achieved |

| |with PeopleSoft’s version. Does not appear to be a good option. |

| |eGain – package strength as traditionally been in the response / collaborative management space. |

| |Excellent knowledge management / AI features. Integrates into the self-service functionality that meets|

| |the basic functionalities. |

| |Pro |

| |Products have a long history around integrating into the standard packages. These types of packages |

| |have historically |

| |Con |

| |Recent trend has been to optimize the products in certain niche areas. This has caused the products to |

| |start to become very focused on these niche areas as the traditional CRM product vendors (e.g. Siebel, |

| |PeopleSoft or SAP) have developed this functionality into their offering. |

| |2 – CRM Suite Components: Talisma, Epiphany, Kana, Firepond |

| |Product assessment: |

| |Talisma – Originally established as a response engine product – component could be separated from other |

| |CRM functionality. Package provides integration into Microsoft Exchange. |

| |Epiphany – Embedded product functionality – not known for separating the response engine – not an |

| |option. |

| |Kana – product has been componentized for sometime and has been used to support an enterprise response |

| |management system |

| |Firepond – not well known in the market as providing a strong response management component – not an |

| |option. |

| |Pro |

| |Enhancements to the response engines by these firms have been greatly enhanced by the products providing|

| |other CRM functionalities. The more these product vendors have understood the space around CRM – the |

| |more complete the functionality has been embedded into the product |

| |High level integration into standard email engines (e.g. Talisma) like Microsoft’s Exchange. |

| |Con |

| |Integration into the product framework will be difficult and expensive. |

| |3 – Traditional Suite: Oracle, Siebel |

| |Con |

| |Limited functionality of these package provide for basic functionality |

| |Integration issues would be overly complex |

| |These elements of the product are not designed to be components and therefore would not be easily broken|

| |out from the core functionality. |

| |4 – Leverage new functionality in PeopleSoft’s latest release (ver 8.8) |

| |Pro |

| |Integration into other channels should not easiest |

| |Con |

| |Untested functionality |

| |Limited availability on product knowledge since this release is just generally becoming available |

|Recommendation |2 – CRM Suite Components: Talisma, Kana |

| | |

| |Rationale: |

| |These products have really established the baseline for response management functionality |

| |PeopleSoft’s solution is not proven – but should be reviewed in greater detail. |

| |Generally, the functionality provided by these packages meets the basic requires outlined above. |

|Category |User-level Description |

|WFM |Workflow Management – will manage the workflow for all of those cases that are currently not covered by |

| |a workflow engine. (Note: the known workflow engines are Sales, Service, Marketing, E-commerce, |

| |Document Management, PeopleSoft’s Field Service sub-module) Therefore, this functionality will be used |

| |when attempting to integrate a process that is currently outside the scope of any single workflow |

| |engines that are planned on being deployed. An example of this would be integration of th |

| |The following preliminary analysis for a package selection. |

| |The following is the basic functionality necessary: |

| |Support for manual and transactional activities |

| |Graphical flow of process steps |

| |Templates references used as manual process documentation |

| |Ability to integrate in disparate databases and/or systems |

| |Generally consider the monitoring of these events are not required to be real-time |

|Comparison |1 – Simple process management functionality: iFlow, Bizflow |

| |Pro’s |

| |Small effort on integration. |

| |Package is geared around displaying / educating the steps of the process. |

| |Ability to change / modify the process is easy |

| |Con’s |

| |Difficult to provide hooks into the process – so that there is not a good way to monitor the process. |

| |Generally, manually tracked and statused |

| |2 – Complex EDI process management: Vitria, TIBCO, Crossroads |

| |Con’s |

| |These products are designed to monitor and manage processes from a transactional sense in a |

| |near-real-time setting. |

| |These products are very expensive to implement due to high integration costs associated with supporting |

| |a near-real-time environment. |

| |Historically, each of the different systems will require some type of connector to be designed and built|

| |to support the interactions between the systems. These connectors are usually expensive to build. |

| |Due to cost considerations and lack of requirements for these type of tools – this option should not be |

| |considered unless the requirements change in this area. |

| |3 – Pure-play Business Process Monitoring: IBM WebShere HOLOSOFX, Staffware |

| |Product Evaluation: |

| |Holosofx – This is toolkit to perform Business Process Monitoring/Management. It can model and simulate|

| |the business processes that are configured. Integrates with MQ Series for transaction process flow and |

| |monitoring. |

| |Staffware – |

| |This package has won a high number of awards as it relates to process management tracking. |

| |Typically used in situations where the processes are a mix between manual and automated. |

| |Does not attempt to integrate into all the databases. |

| |Pro’s |

| |There is an attempt to balance the cost of integration versus the absence of disciplined transactions |

| |with this solution. These products will try to embed the process flows and the db updates. |

| |Good graphical interfaces |

| |Good business rules to reinforce process compliance |

| |Supports monitoring for SLA compliance |

| |Con’s |

| |Expensive solution |

| |Processes become very rigid unless dedicated resources are provided to monitor and management updates |

| |4 – Existing workflow engine provided in PeopleSoft |

| |The workflow engine from PeopleSoft has been separated from the core modules and been allowed be |

| |accessed generically. Lacking is some specific information on the capabilities of this engine. |

| |Pro’s |

| |Integration with CRM |

| |Graphical review |

| |Con’s |

| |This is not a major focus for PeopleSoft, so it may not contain all the required best practices for |

| |process monitoring required to support the requirements. |

|Recommendation |4 – PeopleSoft solution. |

| |This option should be first consideration since the primary interface will be with the CRM software. |

| |The engine will need to be reviewed to see how flexible it might be as it relates to process design and |

| |execution. |

|Category |User-level Description |

|SM |Schedule Management – this will be used to perform those features around scheduling of assets and |

| |personal required by the process. |

| |The following preliminary analysis for a package selection. |

| |There are three basic approaches when considering scheduling. These different options have an |

| |associated level of complexity and costs (setup and ongoing) that will need to be chosen |

| |Option 1: Automatic Scheduling |

| |Scheduling is handled online and real-time. |

| |All resources (facility, car, valet, dealership personal, etc) are loaded and maintained on an |

| |continuous basis |

| |Workflow steps, with associated standards, are loaded and maintained in the system |

| |Constraint-based schedule engine (or optimization routines) used for matching optimal asset allocation. |

| | |

| |Option 2: Automatic Scheduling cars only |

| |Cars can be loaded and managed by a single asset management software |

| |Business rules are used for checking availability of other resources |

| |Unassigned slots are presented to the customers as open options. Scheduling will then be the simple |

| |allocation of these open slots. |

| |Support resources, (facility, valet, dealerships) will then be allocated based upon the customer’s |

| |preferences. |

| |This will cause overloading of common resources like Valet. These will be handled on an exception |

| |basis. Customers will be contacted individually to make adjustments in the schedules. |

| |Option 3: Manual Scheduling |

| |Customer availability is forwarded to a manual process. |

| |Coordination of assets is accomplished manually by checking availability of various assets. |

| |No requirement for common system for management of assets. A common scheduling tool is used for |

| |allocation |

|Comparison |1 – Sophisticated scheduling & tracking: Artemis, i2, Manugistic |

| |Product Background |

| |i2 and Manugistics SCM engines are based upon constraint-based scheduling. Historically, however, the |

| |vendor have not wanted to separate the engine from their other functionality due to the maintenance |

| |costs associated with this approach. Additionally, there was the fear of losing IP associated the core |

| |routines in the package. |

| |Artemis – as provided their scheduling engine in an API format – but it really is a non-linear |

| |scheduling engine versus a constraint-based schedule. This will result in sub-optimal solutions – but |

| |should not material affect the recommendations given the low volume of transactions. |

| |2 – Automated scheduling: Servicepower |

| |Product Functionality: |

| |Real-time, on-line appointment offering and booking |

| |Service level agreement (SLA) job scheduling |

| |Ongoing optimization |

| |Real-time rescheduling |

| |Schedule problem reporting and management |

| |Pro’s |

| |Excellent at asset management |

| |Scheduling is done as multi-pass operation |

| |Online and batch scheduling operation supported |

| |Con’s |

| |Would only use 5% of the functionality. |

| |Not designed as just a scheduling engine – really intented as an enterprise application |

| |3 – Manual / simplified calendar scheduling: Exchange (or another type of schedule management software)|

| |Pro’s |

| |Simple solution |

| |Low cost |

| |Con’s |

| |Dependent on manual processes |

|Recommendation |3 – Manual / simplified calendar scheduling using Microsoft Exchange |

| |Until there the volume and/or customer satisfaction requirements change – the manual process would be |

| |the least cost and complexity solution. This will mean that the customer will not be able to get |

| |immediate confirmation of their selection. |

[pic]

Back-Office Package Selection:

[pic]

|Category |User-level Description |

|SCM |Supply Chain Management – all the elements related to the |

| |The following preliminary analysis for a package selection. |

|Comparison |1 – |

| | |

| |2 – |

| | |

| |3 – |

|Recommendation |2 - |

|Category |User-level Description |

|ERP | |

| |The following preliminary analysis for a package selection. |

|Comparison |1 – |

| | |

| |2 – |

| | |

| |3 – |

|Recommendation |2 - |

|Category |User-level Description |

|WM | |

| |The following preliminary analysis for a package selection. |

|Comparison |1 – |

| | |

| |2 – |

| | |

| |3 – |

|Recommendation |2 - |

|Category |User-level Description |

|TDM | |

| |The following preliminary analysis for a package selection. |

|Comparison |1 – |

| | |

| |2 – |

| | |

| |3 – |

|Recommendation |2 - |

|Category |User-level Description |

|DCS | |

| |The following preliminary analysis for a package selection. |

|Comparison |1 – |

| | |

| |2 – |

| | |

| |3 – |

|Recommendation |2 - |

[pic]

Support Package Selection:

[pic]

|Category |User-level Description |

|EP | |

| |The following preliminary analysis for a package selection. |

|Comparison |1 – |

| | |

| |2 – |

| | |

| |3 – |

|Recommendation |2 - |

|Category |User-level Description |

|FIN | |

| |The following preliminary analysis for a package selection. |

|Comparison |1 – |

| | |

| |2 – |

| | |

| |3 – |

|Recommendation |2 - |

|Category |User-level Description |

|KM |Knowledge Management tool. |

| |The following preliminary analysis for a package selection. |

|Comparison |1 - . |

| |2 - . |

|Recommendation | |

|Category |User-level Description |

|ETL |ETL |

| | |

| |Extraction, Transformation & Loading tools integrate data from heterogeneous environments (such as |

| |legacy systems, various data warehouses, data marts, business intelligence tools, and other disparate |

| |enterprise systems and applications) so that data may be efficiently moved across the enterprise and |

| |loaded into corporate databases, data marts, or decision support structures. The key elements to be |

| |taken into account during the evaluation process are : |

| |Platform Support — which platforms and databases are supported by the product, either natively or |

| |through ODBC, as well as support for native bulk loaders and Engine functionality. |

| |Data Integration — The ability of the product to successfully integrate various systems and applications|

| |in a heterogeneous IT environment. |

| |Data Extraction — The ability of the product to isolate and move data from source systems and prepare it|

| |for loading into target systems. |

| |Data Quality — The ability to monitor, clean, and test defective data prior to transformation to ensure |

| |integrity of data integration environments. |

| |Data transformation — The ability to convert selected data from disparate systems into desired, proper |

| |database architectures. |

| |Metadata management — The ability to store, manage, and share metadata across the enterprise through the|

| |use of a flexible repository. |

| |Scalability — The ability to support features such as load balancing, failover, parallel processing, |

| |multithreaded software, and other requirements for optimizing scalability. |

| |Development — The presence of user interfaces and multi-user design environments for developing ETL jobs|

| |and designing enterprise data flows. |

| |Administration — The inclusion of centralized management features regarding issues such as audits, |

| |scheduling, version management, etc. |

|Comparison | |

| |Low end tools: |

| |1. Cognos DecisionStream |

| |Pros: |

| |DecisionStream has been designed with the concept of Dimensional Modeling to support conformed |

| |dimensions, slowly changing dimensions and hierarchical business rules, all automatically. |

| |Reuse and extension of common dimensions throughout an organization is achieved through the shared |

| |dimensional framework |

| |Metadata built with the DecisionStream is published into the metadata layer which can be shared with BI |

| |tools. |

| |Cons: |

| |Needs separate connector product to connect to ERP systems such as SAP. |

| |The product has basic data cleansing support but relies on third-party products for advanced data |

| |cleansing but doesn't include adapters for any.  |

| |Doesn't handle correction, deduplication, normalization, smoothing, missing value treatment, or |

| |reduction.  |

| | |

| |2. Hummingbird ETL |

| |Pros: |

| |The Administration Manager is a single, centralized console for the entire platform. |

| |Data transformations can be applied at both the source and engine level. |

| |Running context makes it possible for developers to change connection and execution parameters and |

| |dynamically change table parameters to apply transformations on different files |

| | |

| |Cons: |

| |The product offers limited support for real-time data movement,. |

| |There are no automatic load-balancing features |

| |Third party solutions must be used for advanced data cleansing and data quality assurance |

| | |

| |3. Data Mirror Transformation Server |

| | |

| |Pros: |

| |The product natively supports real-time data replication. |

| |2. It integrates with LiveAudit to capture specified transactions and create electronic audit trails, |

| |data histories and provides features for historical tracking and real-time monitoring. |

| |3. The product enables users to set up administrative alerts on certain selected events. |

| | |

| |Cons: |

| |1. Impact analysis features are not provided |

| |No load balancing or failover measures are included |

| |Requires integration with complementary DataMirror products for advanced ETL features. |

| | |

| |4. Data Junction Integration Studio |

| | |

| |Pros: |

| |The Map Designer uses an event-driven programming logic making it easier for programmers to create |

| |events. |

| |. The product can be set up as a Web service to a specific URL and can run in standalone or automated |

| |modes. |

| |. Isomorphic mapping makes it possible to drop transaction structures into XML formats, which can then |

| |be populated automatically. |

| |. Content Extractor and Content Extractor Language (CXL) enable users to visually construct parsing |

| |rules. |

| |Cons: |

| |1. . There is no transformation engine on mainframe environments. |

| |2. Impact analysis features are not provided |

| |3. Administrative features such as scheduling and version control are not handled |

| | |

| |DBA Tools: |

| |Oracle Warehouse Builder 3i |

| |Pros: |

| |Built upon Oracle infrastructure (PL/SQL, caching in Oracle RDBMS) |

| |Allows Oracle customers to leverage investments in Oracle technology and skills (e.g., PL/SQL) |

| |Integration with Oracle applications repository (simplifies extraction and transformation of data from |

| |Oracle applications) |

| |Backed by size and strength of the Oracle organization |

| |Cons: |

| |Oracle-centric architecture |

| |Cannot handle complex integration or transformations. |

| |Complex GUI |

| |Cannot handle non-relational sources or significant percentage of non-oracle data. |

| |Target DBMS has to be on Oracle. |

| | |

| |Microsoft SQL Server DTS |

| | |

| |Pros: |

| |Microsoft SQL Server DTS provides both data storage and basic ETL functions. |

| |The product can access data from many sources, including databases, data warehouses and data marts, |

| |cubes, applications, and custom sources. |

| |It integrates with Microsoft's message queuing and EAI products |

| | |

| |Cons: |

| |Does not support advanced data cleansing methods |

| |The product doesn't include packaged adapters to business systems like ERP and CRM |

| |It doesn't support EJB, JCA, or CORBA and runs only on the Windows platform. |

| | |

| |High end tools: |

| | |

| |Informatica PowerCenter |

| |Pros: |

| |Informatica PowerCenter has a powerful data integration engine that executes all data extraction, |

| |transformation and loading functions in-memory, without generating code. |

| |PowerCenter provides a single, object-based metadata repository that operates in unison with its data |

| |integration engine. |

| |Complemented by Informatica PowerConnect, PowerCenter delivers connectivity to various datasources. |

| |Addresses version control through the Repository Manager that allows archiving any object. |

| |Cons: |

| |Scripting not provided in the design stage. |

| | |

| | |

| |Ascential’s DataStage |

| |Pros: |

| |Provides flexibility through proprietary BASIC-like programming language |

| |Through MetaBroker lets users share metadata with business intelligence tools |

| |The Director is DataStage's job validation and scheduling module. |

| |The DataStage Server is the engine that moves data from source to target. It runs on either NT, Unix or |

| |mainframe platforms. |

| |Quality Manager ensures that only clean, valid data is loaded into the data warehouse. |

| |The MetaStage module integrates metadata from DataStage with metadata from other tools |

| |Cons: |

| |Flexibility attained through coding that may easily become a nightmare to maintain. |

| |Development environment is spread between at least 4 separate desktop applications, each requiring a |

| |separate login. This becomes cumbersome to use. |

| |Provides a Version Control that is not optimal integrates separately with each BI tool which is a |

| |potential risk. |

|Recommendation |Informatica PowerCenter |

| |Though this tool is comparable to Ascential’s DataStage is many ways, the reason for our recommendation |

| |is : |

| |It has some of the best features compared to others. |

| |It is a more stable and mature product. |

| |It is simple to use and still provides a lot of flexibility and power. |

|Category |User-level Description |

|TM | |

| |The following preliminary analysis for a package selection. |

|Comparison |1 – |

| | |

| |2 – |

| | |

| |3 – |

|Recommendation |2 - |

|Category |User-level Description |

|R/BI |Reporting tool. |

| |The following preliminary analysis for a package selection. |

|Comparison |Crystal Reports |

| | |

| |Pros: |

| |Report Parts enable users to select pieces of a specific report and integrate them into portal |

| |components, mobile devices, etc. |

| |Interactive Viewers provide ad hoc query functions within existing reports and |

| |enable users to manipulate report fields and export results to other sources. |

| |ePortfolio offers users an out-of-the-box user interface and also lets users build custom interfaces. |

| | |

| |Cons: |

| |Crystal Enterprise offers very limited data modeling features |

| |Crystal Enterprise offers no data mining functionality |

| |Metadata extraction capabilities are limited |

| | |

| |Cognos |

| | |

| |Pros: |

| |Impromptu supports users in authoring, running and viewing reports and PowerPlay supports OLAP cube |

| |creation and related reporting needs. |

| |Visualizer allows users to explore high-impact multimetric visualizations |

| |PowerPlay users can directly access, explore, and analyze data from OLAP servers. |

| |Cognos offers the API to the PowerPlay data structures. |

| | |

| |Cons |

| |PowerPlay works only against multidimensional data structures. It can’t directly access relational |

| |databases |

| |Functionality in PowerPlay Web is not equivalent to that of PowerPlay Windows. |

| |PowerPlay Web Explorer users cannot drill through to Impromptu (Windows) reports |

| |A user can only drill through from a local source to another local source or from a remote source to |

| |another remote source. |

| |Cognos Series 7 does not provide any search capabilities that can go across both structured BI data and|

| |unstructured data. |

| | |

| |Brio |

| | |

| |Pros: |

| |The product has strong connectivity features, including support for multiple databases and access to |

| |external OLAP servers and ERP systems. |

| |Push and pull server technology is supported through the Broadcast Server and the On Demand Server. |

| |Brio Intelligence integrates with a large number of ETL vendors |

| |Support for ActiveX and Data mining functionality has been added to Version 6.5. |

| | |

| |Cons: |

| | |

| |No standard reports are provided out of the box |

| |Advanced modeling features are not provided. |

| |Self-subscribe features, Forecasting, Data mining functionality and WAP-enabled and voice-based |

| |applications are not provided. or supported. |

| |No mapping functions or libraries of base maps are included. |

| | |

| | |

| |Oracle Reports |

| | |

| |Pros: |

| | |

| |The product handles data validation and verification, as well as data cleansing features |

| |The product supports sophisticated OLAP analysis and advanced data mining algorithms |

| |The product includes application adapters and programming interfaces |

| |Supports multiple report types such as tables, matrices, group reports, and graphs, as well as |

| |combinations of these formats |

| |Can build Web reports based on data dynamically served from the database |

| | |

| |Cons |

| | |

| |The product supports star and constellation, but not snowflake, data models. |

| |Doesn't provide tools for selecting the best model based on performance. |

| |report wizards and templates only help to write the more simple reports. |

| |To create the more complex reports, the report developer should have a good working knowledge of SQLPlus|

| |and PL/SQL |

| |Without significant knowledge about Oracle databases, a report developer would not be able to take the |

| |advantage of this powerful tool. |

| | |

| |Business Objects |

| | |

| |Pros: |

| | |

| |WebIntelligence 2.7 has improved access to and analysis of Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Analysis Services |

| |data and IBM DB2 OLAP Server data, which enables users to exploit these servers' functionalities. |

| |BusinessObjects MDX Connect generates MDX without users having to interact with the complex query |

| |syntax. |

| |OLAP Access Packs provide native connectivity to Hyperion Essbase, SAP BW and Oracle 9i |

| |BusinessQuery is an add-in for Microsoft Excel that gives direct access to corporate databases from |

| |Excel spreadsheets. |

| |BusinessQuery for Microsoft SQL Server provides advanced OLAP support within Microsoft Excel to |

| |populate spreadsheets with data from both relational data sources and SQL Server Analysis Services. |

| | |

| |Cons |

| |WebIntelligence and BusinessObjects products is optimized for its target environment(.windows and |

| |web)Therefore, the implementation of a function in different environments often results in different |

| |modes of operation. |

| | |

| |users can't manipulate WebIntelligence documents from within BusinessObjects and vice versa. |

| |BusinessObjects 2000's reporting capabilities do not offer the same facilities as enterprise reporting |

| |products that produce high-volume printed output. |

| | |

| | |

| |Actuate |

| | |

| |Pros: |

| |Actuate 6 offers an object-oriented report application development environment. |

| |Actuate Server is a multitier server-based environment that can manage a cluster of reporting servers |

| |Actuate 6 clustering supports load balancing automatically and provides failover support. Administrators|

| |can add server nodes as required to handle an increased workload. |

| |Actuate 6 provides a number of levels of security |

| | |

| |Cons: |

| | |

| |As an object-oriented development environment, it requires some programming to build components that |

| |perform complex data access or formatting operations. |

| |Actuate uses the DBMS's metadata and doesn't provide its own metadata layer. A metadata layer is |

| |essential to enabling users to create their own reports and queries. |

| |Actuate 6 has a very minor OLAP capability |

| |The spreadsheets generated don't support pivot tables, 3-D charts or the VBA version of Visual Basic. |

|Recommendation |2 – Business Intelligence Reporting |

|Category |User-level Description |

|HR | |

| |The following preliminary analysis for a package selection. |

|Comparison |1 – |

| | |

| |2 – |

| | |

| |3 – |

|Recommendation |2 - |

|Category |User-level Description |

|EVM |Enterprise Value Management - |

| |The following preliminary analysis for a package selection. |

| |The main requirements of the system are broken down into two different areas: PMO support for major |

| |change initiatives and ongoing asset management functionality used after the change initiatives. Unless|

| |the tool has the capability of supporting both types of functionality – there might be a difficult |

| |chance of supporting a balanced ROI for the tool. The requirements are outlined for the tool in these |

| |two categories below. |

| |The selection of the package for this area should be driven by specific business requirements and needs |

| |of the project. That this point, some of these requirements outlined are implied from a best practice |

| |perspective versus having any pre-existing items. If there is not a change in the requirements then |

| |this type of software will be optional. |

| |PMO Support for Major Change Initiatives: |

| |Support for the prioritization of the different projects |

| |Systematic method for evaluating and selecting different projects. Mechanisms around these elements |

| |must support management in helping to provide clarity in the key business objectives for the projects. |

| |Flexible way of visually reviewing the project status |

| |Flexibility around integrating various project management tools – mainly Microsoft Project. This |

| |requirement is due to the fact that usually many of the different individual projects will leverage |

| |Microsoft Project as their standard tracking tool. |

| |Configuration management of the critical baselines (time, money and resources) managed as a cohesive |

| |WBS structures |

| |Ability to establish and apply business rules for aggregation of the various projects |

| |Provide support/insight to the overall governance process |

| |Ongoing Asset Management Functionality in Sustaining: |

| |Visibility and communication of the activities associated with the deployed assets. |

| |SLA compliance metrics to ensure target objectives are being achieved. Normally portrayed as either KPI|

| |or BSC metrics that indicate progression toward strategic objectives. |

| |Independence of any singular lifecycle – ability to combine results across the enterprise based upon |

| |different project and/or departmental lifecycle rules. |

|Comparison |1 – Enterprise asset management functions around portfolio options: ProSight (Fujitsu Partnership), |

| |Kintana. |

| |Pro’s |

| |This type of software meets the dual needs of change and sustaining as defined above. |

| |Designed for graphical representation of the different variables associated to the decision making |

| |process. |

| |Dynamic import features from Microsoft Project are very robust |

| |Rule based engines have been designed to handle complex situations |

| |Con’s |

| |Setup and configuration of these tools require special skills and background |

| |Flexibility of the tool requires more discipline on the process side |

| |Flexibility will also require more specific standards to be established |

| |2 – Enterprise project aggregation of portfolio options: SysCorp (IBM Partnership), |

| |(Independent), Primavera, Artemis |

| |Pro’s |

| |These tools are good at workload balancing of the resources and summarization of different projects. |

| |Con’s |

| |Typically these tools like to control the baseline resource allocation of the project. Makes it |

| |difficult to have individual project plans independent of the tool set. |

| |Mainly focused on the change aspects – do not support the sustaining asset management. |

| |3 – Stand alone project management software: MS Project, Project Workbench, Turbo Project |

| |Con’s |

| |Unable to handle the complexities associated to integrating multiple projects. |

| |Will not handle the ongoing sustaining functionality required to manage the SLA’s. |

| |Does not meet the dual requirements. |

| |4 – Enterprise Application portfolio options: PeopleSoft (others include SAP and similar enterprisewide|

| |applications.) |

| |Pro’s |

| |Adapted from numerous projects – application of the best practices associated with implementing their |

| |software. |

| |Integrated with the implementation plans |

| |Con’s |

| |Generally, scope is too focused on implementation of their software. |

| |Does not cover the SLA management required for sustaining. |

|Recommendation |1 – Enterprise asset management |

| |Option 1 is the only option that meets both Change and Sustaining requirements. The tools choice for |

| |this option will need to be accomplished after the all the requirements have been established in this |

| |area. At this time, the recommendation would be not to proceed with a tool at this time. |

|Category |User-level Description |

|CIM | |

| |The following preliminary analysis for a package selection. |

|Comparison |1 – |

| | |

| |2 – |

| | |

| |3 – |

|Recommendation |2 - |

2 Rationale

Demonstration that the set of recommended alternatives taken as a whole can fulfill the overall objectives of the system and satisfy the key issues of the change.

[Enter Content Here]

[pic]

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download