Enterprise Software Architectural Fit Evaluation

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

The manual process of evaluating architectural fit and business criticality of business software applications in enterprises is time-consuming, prone to errors, and lacks consistency, relying on subjective evaluations that may lead to false or missed matches.

Innovation Solution

A computer tool with a defined rating system and key values is used to input and rank business technology factors, conducting an analysis to evaluate the architectural fit of business software applications based on predefined objectives, ensuring consistent and objective assessments.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If manual evaluation methods are used to assess architectural fit and business criticality, then flexibility in interpretation is maintained, but evaluation consistency and objectivity deteriorate

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveinterpretation flexibilityVSAvoidevaluation consistency

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSMeasurement precision

Solution Approach 1:

The patent transforms subjective evaluation parameters into objective, quantifiable metrics by defining specific rating scales (e.g., 1-5 scales) for business criticality, architectural fit, and other evaluation dimensions. This parameter transformation enables consistent measurement across different evaluators while maintaining structured flexibility through configurable rating criteria.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #35Parameter changes

Solution Approach 2:

The evaluation process is segmented into distinct, standardized components including business criticality assessment, architectural fit evaluation, technology compliance checking, and risk analysis. Each segment has its own defined criteria and rating system, allowing for systematic and consistent evaluation while maintaining adaptability through modular configuration.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

2Difficulty of detecting and measuring

If manual research and perusal of available information are used to identify potential servers and applications, then deep analysis capability is maintained, but time consumption increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveanalysis capabilityVSAvoidevaluation time

Core Design Contradiction:

Difficulty of detecting and measuringVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent replaces manual mechanical research processes with automated computer-based systems that systematically query databases, retrieve application specifications, and analyze compatibility matrices. This substitution maintains analytical capability through algorithmic evaluation while dramatically reducing the time required for information gathering and initial assessment.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Solution Approach 2:

The system performs preliminary actions by pre-configuring rating systems, defining evaluation criteria, and preparing compatibility matrices before actual assessments. Application specifications, server capabilities, and business requirements are pre-loaded into the system, enabling rapid evaluation without manual research during the assessment phase.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

3Difficulty of detecting and measuring

If manual interpretation of system software is performed to determine architectural fit, then nuanced understanding is maintained, but error rate increases due to false matches and missed matches

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvenuanced understandingVSAvoidevaluation accuracy

Core Design Contradiction:

Difficulty of detecting and measuringVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent introduces standardized evaluation forms and structured data models as intermediaries between the evaluator and the complex system software. These intermediaries capture nuanced requirements in standardized fields, enabling consistent interpretation while reducing errors through systematic data collection and automated validation rules.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements feedback mechanisms where evaluation results are automatically compared against predefined criteria and compatibility matrices. The system provides immediate feedback on match quality, highlighting potential false positives or missed matches, and allows for iterative refinement of assessments while maintaining overall consistency through structured validation.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

Data Source

PatentUS10019678B2Evaluating business components in an enterprise

Publication Date: 2018.07.10 KYNDRYL INC

AI summary

A method and/or computer system evaluates an architectural fit of a business software application employed in an enterprise. A defined rating system establishes a rating of how effective a business software application is in meeting pre-determined requirements for each one of a set of business technology factors. An architectural fit analysis evaluates an architectural fit of the business software application based on inputted rating values. An analysis report is generated based on the architectural fit analysis, and a software application that provides the best architectural fit is installed.