Enterprises choose one of two path simplify the foundation

Enterprises choose one of two path simplify the foundation Fast and furious approachSlow and steady approachFast and furious approach: The programmer works intensely on the problem for one or more days, then abandons it for sometimes and goes back to it laterHigh riskRapid and thorough transmission of application

Slow and steady approach: The programmer work regularly on the problems, spending almost equal periods of time every dayExample of fast and furious approachTektronix is a good exampleFirm inability to make a major change strategic move proved by senior mgt Agility risks of its legacy application base were intolerable Major strategic move sure to come and senior was ready to funding, attention and support for transmissionCFO neun and CIO vence consolidated the infrastructure for transmission

They first proving the design, technology, and organizational change behind new uniform global processes and supporting application in single divisionAnd integrating the other two business units when success was achieved Use standard process and technologyNecessary customization ( display, currencies)Ensuring standardization is challengingLower other IT Risk to improve performance

Example of slow and steady approachAmerada Hess, a O & G industrySimplified their data wide range of applications over 10 yearsOne application beginning 1990New project removed old Non standard data structure replaced with new oneWell architected databases, gradually creating IS all divisionDrastically increase the pace of change

Successful foundation transformations follow three stepsBoth approaches starts with a clear architectural vision that serves as a guide to the transformationThey proceed by improving infrastructures to reduce risk as the base of the risk pyramid, cut operation costs and provide platform to build applicationWith the robust platform in place and a clear direction, tough challenges of transforming legacy applications then beginFoundation simplication program of HUDIn 1996, it had very complex, costly, and risky foundationThree business functions (housing, community and public housing)Established under separate legislative mandate and operated independently and separate IT staffDemanded fast action but not well structured Fragmented, costly, inflexible

HUD asses its technology portfolio against its architectural planDividing the IT technology portfolio by line of businessIdentifying the core business and support processMapping all IT system Developing a plan and architecture for a streamlined systems environment

We have a plan to migrate our major legacy systems to modern platforms hud cio 2010 because they constraint in the business. They consist of millions of lines of code built over twenty years and they are inflexible

9After completed the plan HUD focused on Reducing infrastucture cost that accounted for its IT budgetEliminating refundant applications and inftrasture contributed to reducing IT staff

We put so many efficiencies in place thath we were able to reduce costs significatly freeing up money for reinvesstmnt cio toldLarge scale application replacemnt the thirrd stage in the overall simplication is now undrer way. Nor with standing the considetable cost of this stage hud overall it budget has remaid stable thannks to the ground work laid in the architure and infrastre stages10