Capgemini Application Landscape Report 2014

Application Landscape
Report 2014
2014Application Landscape Report

Report 2014
2

Preface
Executive Summary
01 Innovation and Digital Transformation are Essential
02 Understanding between Business and IT Improves the Application Landscape
03 The 2014 Application Landscape Needs to Move
04 New Technology Provides Disruptive Drivers to Application Landscape Innovation
05 Application Rationalization in Action: the Experience of the WARP Center of Excellence
06 Recommendations
07 Additional Data
Acknowledgements
About the Study
4
6
8
12
20
26
33
36
38
49
49
Contents
3

Preface
Welcome to the 2014 Application Landscape Report. In this, our
second edition, our aim is to help companies achieve a better
grasp of the current state of application landscapes and a deeper
understanding of the modernization trends, both continuing and
emerging, which will shape them in the months and years to come.
IT investments must support business priorities and criticality.
If any business transformation program is to be successful, it
requires enhanced, mutual insight between business and IT
as a crucial success factor. The starting point is a thorough
assessment of the present state.
The size and weight of today’s application landscapes are
reaching unmanageable levels and present major challenges to
CIOs. This report elucidates these challenges and the strategies
being used to deal with them. As authors, we use the report
to complement and validate what our subject matter experts
already know from working with clients in their respective markets.
The research findings help inform our strategic direction as we
develop new services and continue to support our clients in their
application modernization initiatives. We hope that this report
will serve to inform your own application portfolio management
decisions and maybe challenge some of your current thinking.
4

The findings of our report are based on an online survey
conducted in 12 languages with over 1,100 CIOs and top-level
IT decision-makers in companies of various sizes from a wide
range of industries. With a global emphasis, the report covers 16
countries, with 73% of respondents from developed economies
(Europe, USA and Australia) and 27% from fast-developing
countries (China, India, Brazil). The results of this survey were
supplemented with insights from in-depth interviews conducted
with business CIOs and top IT executives across geographies
and sectors.
In addition, we included data points for this report gathered
from the extensive data repository of the Wide-angle Application
Rationalization Program Center of Excellence (WARP CoE). This
repository is a database of key application metrics collected
over four years of the CoE’s experience in IT strategy and
transformation exercises, spread across sectors and geographies,
and comprises data for more than 30,000 applications analyzed.
We would like to express our gratitude to those individuals and
organizations that dedicated their time to participating in the
survey and enhancing the richness of this report.
If you would like to see how the state of the application landscape
in your organization compares to the research sample on
some of the main findings, we have developed a self-service
benchmarking tool for you to use.
Similarly, if you would like to see a more comprehensive
benchmark for your organization or would like to compare a
specific data sub-set, please contact your Capgemini account
manager, who will be able to arrange that for you.
We hope you enjoy reading the research, analysis and
commentary contained in this year’s report and encourage you
to share your thoughts and feedback with us, as we prepare for
the next installment.
5
Aruna Jayanthi
Group Executive Committee Member

Executive
Summary
In the ideal world of a CIO, the application landscape would
be a precise reflection of the objectives and governance of an
organization’s business. In reality, there is always a gap between
the needs and ambition of an organization and the extent to
which the application portfolio can address these. Keeping the
gap as narrow as possible may sound simple enough, but it is a
huge task that requires long-term strategic thinking and planning
supported by effective execution.
In the 2011 edition of the Application Landscape Report, we found
that the majority of CIOs clearly felt the pressure of maintaining and
supporting the existing legacy application landscape absorbed
too much of the available IT budget and turned out difficult, if
not downright risky, to manage. Despite their worries – and clear
recognition of the need for action – many CIOs indicated that they
found it difficult to actually start rationalizing their portfolio. The
impediments of complexity, cost constraints and the inability to
define a convincing business case were simply too big to take on.
But times are changing. The weight of application landscapes
is reaching critical mass; disruptive technologies have emerged.
It is no longer a question of “whether” to rationalize, but rather
“when” and “how” to do it. In the current edition of our report,
we surveyed over 1,100 CIOs and top-level IT decision-makers
to benefit from their insights.
These insights led us to five key findings:
• IT, more than ever, plays a strategic role for Business in
both conventional ways, such as cost reduction, and
innovative ways
• Healthy understanding between Business and IT
organizations is critical for both optimal performance and
improvement of the application landscape
• Reducing complexity and increasing flexibility in the IT
environment is a key imperative for the CIO
• CIOs are inclined toward adopting more extreme
application rationalization measures to increase IT’s value to
Business
• Disruptive technologies are considered crucial to creating
new business value
6

Organizations widely embrace the concept of Digital
Transformation, appreciating that significant growth and
profitability improvements can only be achieved by infusing
change from end to end with technology. We believe that this is
one of the most important drivers behind the fact that the majority
of organizations expect to spend more – or even significantly
more – on IT in the forthcoming years.
As a consequence, the gap between corporate ambitions and
the state of the application landscape is now felt more than
ever: it is no longer “just” a matter of cost and manageability, it
is the indispensable role of technology as a crucial enabler
for innovation, renewal and business expansion that now takes
center stage.
In this context, the alignment between Business and IT is a top
priority. Although on average CIOs seem surprisingly satisfied with
their business peers’ level of understanding of the IT landscape,
our in-depth interviews show that it is often difficult to make joint
decisions about painful, impactful topics such as application
rationalization and complexity reduction. We have found that, with
a better understanding of the application portfolio by Business,
it is not only easier to simplify the IT landscape but also to redirect
the resulting savings towards high-value, innovative initiatives.
With the typical application landscape not significantly changed
in the past few years – as inhibitors to rationalization are still being
felt and organizations indicate to having an excess of applications
– more radical scenarios need to be considered. Cleaning
up the existing baseline is especially important now that both
Business and IT sides of organizations quickly want to deploy
the next generation of solutions that leverage Mobility, Social,
Big Data and Cloud.
We recommend taking a fresh look at the application landscape
as a whole, applying industrialization and standardization to
radically rationalize the foundation. Only then, innovation and
renewal can be built into the application lifecycle, continuously
delivering the next generation of high-value applications to
Business. Alternative rationalization strategies also need to be
considered: we have identified newly preferred strategies that
on one hand address opportunistic, short-term needs but also
more radical strategies that aim for daring, impactful changes.
The first crucial step, however, should be to improve mutual
understanding: both factual insights and engaging storylines
will help to create the forward-looking, collaborative atmosphere
between Business and IT that is needed to fuel real Digital
Transformation.
Our Recommendations
• Systematically use facts and metrics to improve
understanding between Business and IT
• Industrialize and standardize
• Consider more radical rationalization scenarios
• Leverage the next generation of solutions
• Embed innovation in the application lifecycle
7
Mutual insight between
Business and IT leads to a cycle
of continuous transformation
PortfolioOpt
imization
Create Savings
andValue
Portfolio
Assessment
Inn
ovation

8
Chapter 1
Cost reduction
Competitive
advantage through
leveraging new
technologies
Operational
excellence
Risk mitigation
Reducing
time to market
None of these
Figure 1.0
Which of these strategic business priorities is
IT expected to have the most impact on?

In addition to the traditional role
that IT plays in supporting Business,
increasingly it is being looked to as
a source of business innovation.
Although very few organizations nowadays could imagine their
daily operations without technology, the link between the cost
spent on IT and the value it brings to Business is not always
apparent. The value IT brings is not always easy to see, and even
more difficult to agree upon. What’s more, there is a distinction
between the traditional, almost “classical” role of IT in reducing
the costs and risks of doing business and the more proactive,
driving role of being more competitive and being able to release
new products and services quicker to market. The research
shows both roles to be of nearly equal importance to today’s CIOs.
Not surprisingly, more than half of the respondents indicate that
the main expected impact of IT on Business is reducing costs.
Operational Excellence also scores highly, reflecting the traditional
role IT plays in improving business productivity. Another traditional
function of IT, risk mitigation, is also mentioned by close to half
of the respondents. This may refer to such risks as technology
obsolescence, business continuity and systems development
lifecycle.
Innovation and
Digital Transformation
are Essential
01
...we could save a lot of time
and resources, increase
reliability, and improve data
analysis capability by
modernizing our applications.”
CIO – USA Public Sector
9

Complex IT landscapes
lengthen the time to market
not only in the Private Sector,
but also in the Public Sector.
IT is often on the critical path
to deploy new legislation.”
CIO – Public Sector, Netherlands
10

IT for growth, profitability and innovation
In addition to these traditional roles, some newer priorities ranked
highly. Creating competitive advantage through leveraging new
technologies, for example, is mentioned by more than half of
the respondents. When added to the high score that improving
operational excellence received (which, according to our recent
Digital Transformation research is sometimes a neglected change
area) and reducing time to market for new products and services,
it becomes clear that IT is right in the spotlight when it comes to
growth, increased profitability and innovation.*
These considerations hold true for both public and private sectors.
While time to market, for example, may sound like a predominantly
Private Sector topic, it is clearly on the agenda of Public Sector
organizations too. Public Sector interviewees reported that
the speed at which new legislation can be deployed is mainly
determined by how quickly the supporting IT solutions can be
developed. In some cases, even the content of the legislation
itself is influenced by what IT can or cannot deliver in time.
The role of IT regarding growth, profitability and innovation is also
illustrated by what the respondents indicate as the most important
strategic IT goals for their company – or to put it simply: what
keeps the CIO awake at night.
“Improve efficiency using IT systems” tops the list and “Increase
productivity” has moved up to the second biggest concern. While
containing the overall cost of IT remains an important objective, we
also see, compared to the previous edition, a substantial increase
in importance for “Enable innovation through applications” and
“Improve quality of applications.”
Capgemini’s recent client experiences back this up: there appears
to be a revival in in-house application development taking place
– at least pertaining to certain solutions – perhaps spurred by
dissatisfaction with expensive package upgrades, the need to
take advantage of more digital technologies and the popularity
of agile, development approaches.
Improving mutual understanding between Business and IT is still
an important topic to CIOs. This is understandable given two facts.
The first is the strategic role that IT plays in Digital Transformation;
and the second is the way that the consumerization of IT has
brought technology much closer to Business than ever before.
For the 2014 edition of the Application Landscape Report, we
have dedicated a separate chapter to exploring how Business/IT
alignment is currently perceived. This will also establish a baseline
so that progress can continue to be tracked in the future.
* The “Front Line” of Digital Transformation - MIT Sloan Management Review and Capgemini Consulting
For more information see: http://www.capgemini-consulting.com/digital-transformation
11
60%
70%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Increase
productivity
Increase
efﬁciency
using IT
systems
Cut overall
costs for
Busniess
Improve
quality of
application
Enable
innovation
through new
applications
Cut costs of IT Improve
availability
of applications
(from service
level perspective)
Improve
ﬂexibility
of IT systems
Improve
alignment
between IT
and Business
Others I do not know
52%55% 33%47% 46%36% 11%27% 16%26% 22%25% 26%24% 22%22% 0%10% 6%1% 1%2%
1.1 What are the three most strategic IT goals of the company? 2014 2011

What proportion of the total savings
made from application rationalization
is directly utilized for funding
business transformation?
To what extent is the
state of the application
portfolio understood
by Business?
The higher the level of understanding,
the more savings from rationalization is
utilized for business transformation.
12
The wider business has
a poor understanding
a sufficient understanding
an excellent understanding
More than 65%
36–65%
21–35%
0–20%
Chapter 2
Figure 2.0

A healthy, mutual understanding
between Business and IT does
not guarantee transformation, but
transformation cannot occur without it.
The significant amount of emphasis placed on the business impact
of IT – combined with the phenomenon of “consumerization” that
has made the Business side of organizations much better aware
of technological possibilities – makes it interesting to see how
the alignment between Business and IT nowadays is perceived.
First of all, it is necessary to understand to what extent Business
understands the current state of the application landscape, as
this is a key factor for successful transformation.
At first glance, the situation seems quite satisfactory. A remarkable
85% of the respondents feel that the application portfolio is
sufficiently understood by Business, with more than a quarter
even classifying the level of understanding as “excellent.” There
are significant differences though, depending on both the region
and the sector an organization is in.
Understanding between
Business and IT Improves
the Application Landscape
02
13
The wider business
has an excellent understanding
The wider business
has a sufﬁcient understanding
The wider business
has a poor understanding
60%
70%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
15%
28%
57%
2.1 To what extent is the state of the application portfolio understood by Business?

Even just a quick look at developing countries – notably
Brazil, India and China – shows that the level of satisfactory
understanding is rated significantly higher there (92%). On
the other hand, in quite a few countries that are supposed
to have more “mature” IT landscapes – for example in most
of the Nordic countries, the US and the UK – the score is
below average. This is likely to be an indication of the fact
that the more established (and probably more complex) the
applications portfolio is, the more difficult it is for Business to
really understand its current state.
92%
0 20%10% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
8% 55% 37%
of respondents in developing countries declare
satisfactory (or higher) levels of understanding
between Business and IT.
above
average
+ +
CHINAINDIABRAZIL
Sweden
Spain
Portugal
Norway
Italy
Finland
Denmark
USA
UK
Netherlands
India
Germany
Brazil
Australia
China
France
of respondents in Finland and Norway
declare satisfactory (or higher) levels of
understanding between Business and IT.
64–69%
below
average
16%
64%
20%
36%
16%
48%
31% 31%
38%
14% 21%
66%13% 26%
60%
22% 19%
59%
21% 23%
55%
11%
32%
57% 7% 24%
68%
19% 25%
56%
6%
38%
56%
15%
36%
49%
20% 17%
63%
6%
42%
52%
27%
73%
19% 19%
62%
14
2.2 To what extent is the state of the application portfolio understood by Business? – By geography

Public Sector IT Services High Tech Healthcare/Life Sciences
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0
25% 59% 15% 10% 55% 35% 9% 45% 45% 10% 59% 31%
In the same way, it seems that the application portfolio is less
understood in the Public Sector, which usually has a long legacy
of IT solutions in a very distributed context. Satisfaction is highest
in IT services, High Tech and Healthcare. This could be because
all of them are arguably simpler – or at least more focused – in
terms of the IT support needed, or, in the case of IT and High
Tech, there is naturally a better understanding of technology.
Alignment and new application
development
Our research shows that when Business understands the
application portfolio, IT is more likely to initiate new application
development.
It is no surprise that the IT side gets more opportunities to create
new solutions on their own initiative within organizations that
have a better mutual understanding. If the level of alignment is
lower, Business seems to take the initiative much more, taking
control of both the portfolio and the budget.
There is a clear trend that IT is becoming more involved in initiating
new application development. In this survey, three times as
many CIOs stated that they were involved in initiating 35–65%
of application developments than in 2011. However, for Cloud
services, Business seems to be taking the lead. Another piece
of research Capgemini recently conducted shows that for Cloud-
related projects Business already leads by almost 50%: simply a
result of the obvious, direct business value that is expected from
Cloud solutions, combined with the ease of procuring them and
the lower emphasis on technology, which is such an obvious
quality of the Cloud.*
15
2.3 To what extent is the state of the application portfolio understood by Business? – By sector
* Business Cloud – The State Of Play Shifts Rapidly. Capgemini research report 2012.
Full data set here

Understanding crucial for change
(see figure 2.0)
If there is one key insight from the previous edition of the
Application Landscape Report, it is that CIOs have difficulty
initiating application rationalization projects, even if everyone
agreed the necessity was high. There were many reasons
mentioned for this, but particularly striking was the inability to
define a business case – both in terms of cost savings and other
benefits – together with the Business.
Mutual understanding may be the key to improvement. Not
only is it easier to actually start the application rationalization
process, but our research clearly shows that with better
understanding, the resulting funds are also directly injected
again into business transformation efforts, creating more
value and more innovation from IT. In other words: the value
balance of an applications portfolio (“keeping the lights on”
versus “transformational business/IT”) improves as a result of
a better mutual understanding of the application landscape.
Self-funding rationalization or support initiatives are becoming
more popular, especially in Europe where budgets stall. For one
major UK organization, a self-funded rationalization program has
realized savings of £175 million per annum. Using a small amount
of seed-corn funding, they identified sufficient quick wins to fund
major modernization initiatives, switching off 65 applications,
decommissioning 1,954 servers, and merging major systems
to reduce complexity and overheads.
Organizations seem to be more certain than in the recent past of
the value of IT for their business. This is convincingly illustrated
by the fact that a majority of respondents expect IT spending
to increase over the next five years, with only 10% believing that
a decrease will occur.
Again, quickly developing regions, such as India, China and Brazil,
even expect a sharper increase in IT spending and only in certain
“incumbent” business regions – such as a number of European
countries – a sizable number of respondents predict a decrease.
11% 50% 22% 9% 2% 5%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
IT spend will increase
signiﬁcantly
IT spend will increase IT spend will not change IT spend will decrease IT spend will decrease
signiﬁcantly
I do not know
2.4 How do you think the total IT spend within Business will change over the next five years?
Our business is rapidly
changing and it’s fair
to say that our application
landscape – both in
terms of its complexity
and its lack of flexibility
– is now more an
inhibitor to innovation
than a driver of it.”
COO/CIO – Internet Provider
Western Europe
16

signiﬁcantly
signiﬁcantly
I do not know
?
India
57%
5%
2%
2%32%
USA
53%
21%
8%
5%10%
UK
45%
30%
17%
1%7%
Netherlands
40%
28%
12%
6%
8%5%
Denmark
31%
7%
3%
24%34%
France
47%
28%
11%
3%
5%
6%
Brazil
59%
17%
2%
1%
1%
20%
Australia
54%
18%
6%
1%
8%
10%
Germany
43%
38%
10%
2%
4%
3%
China
71%
9%
2%
1%17%
Portugal
32%
39%
20%
2%
2%
2%
Spain
50%
33%
7%
3%7%
Italy
63%
20%
7%
3%7%
Finland
63%
20%
24%
4%4%
Norway
44%
19%
6%
6%
13%
13%
36%
12%
12%
4%
20%
16%
Sweden
+ +
ChinaIndiaBrazil
62%
10%
2%
1%23%
17
2.5 How do you think the total IT spend within Business will change over the next five years? – By geography

signiﬁcantly
signiﬁcantly
I do not know
?
Retail Public Sector Energy, Utilities and Chemicals
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0
2%
5%
3%
17%
54%
17%
10%
15%
26%
42%
7%
3%
13%
13%
65%
8%
In terms of sectors, Energy and Utilities is the place where the
expectations are most positive about an increase in IT spend.
This is indicative of an industry that is changing quickly and
is obviously benefiting from new advances in technology (e.g.,
“Smart Energy”). The same definitely applies to the Retail Sector,
where the quest for the new customer experience – and a highly
optimized, demand-driven supply chain – is driven by innovative
technology. Less optimistic are the respondents in the Public
Sector, where the economic downturn still puts substantial
pressure on IT budgets.
18
2.6 How do you think the total IT spend within Business will change over the next five years? – By sector Full data set here

50%
60%
70%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Yes No, but we would like a formal
framework/methodology
No, there is no need for a formal
framework/methodology
43%
46%
12%
Portfolio framework
or methodology needed
A better understanding of the application portfolio by the Business
(and IT) side would clearly be served by the use of a formalized
framework or methodology that helps the organization to map
business objectives to the IT portfolio, analyze the mix and monitor
improvement. However, although nearly half of the organizations
interviewed claim to use such tools, a greater number do not use
them yet but indicate that they would like to start.
All in all, there appears to be a positive outlook for IT-driven
business transformation projects in the forthcoming years.
However, a better shared understanding of the application
landscape by Business and IT is pivotal in terms of both
rationalizing existing legacy systems and initiating new, innovative
activities. Business outcome-driven dashboards are a way to
enhance mutual insight between Business and IT.
In order to increase that understanding, we have again dedicated
a major piece of our research to mapping the current state of
the application landscape. We have also compared the results
with those from the 2011 Application Landscape Report. These
points are what the next chapter will cover.
However, a better shared
understanding of the
application landscape by
Business and IT is pivotal
in terms of both rationalizing
existing legacy systems
and initiating new, innovative
activities.”
19
2.7 Do you have a framework/methodology to assist in continuously evolving your
application portfolio to meet business objectives?
Additional data for this chapter here

Which strategies do you use
for application portfolio modernization?
20
2014
2011
Enhancement
Replacement
Other
Decommission
Remediation
Consolidation
Migration
Replatform/Upgrade
Standardization
None
of these
Chapter 3
Figure 3.0

As the issue of complexity in the IT
environment continues to plague CIOs,
they are increasingly likely to consider
extreme rationalization methods.
According to Abraham Maslow’s pyramid of needs, a person’s
basic needs must be met first. Only after these are taken care
of, can a person establish a foundation for development.
In terms of IT, data security may be thought of as being the base
of the pyramid; 61% of CIOs see data security as one of their
three greatest operational challenges. This is the biggest issue
that “keeps CIOs awake at night.”
Though security indeed is a basic hygiene factor that must be
dealt with before all other issues, it appears that recent, worldwide
revelations around data privacy and data sovereignty have
reinforced this sentiment. This issue will only be felt more in
forthcoming years, as advances in Mobility, Social, Cloud and the
“Internet Of Things” will further stipulate the need for data security.
With organizations vitally depending on the right information to
make operational decisions, it should also come as no surprise
that data quality ranks number two on the list.
But it is immediately followed by the complexity of the IT landscape,
mentioned by 40% of the respondents in their top 3, together
with 34% mentioning obsolete and outdated technologies as a
key worry.
Additionally, “Shadow IT” was identified in several personal
interviews as an emerging issue – especially with the new
generation of SaaS solutions that are easy to try, buy and
implement – but does not yet rank among the key challenges
for CIOs at this time.
The 2014
Needs to Move
03
21
Data security Data quality Complex IT
lanscape
Obsolete,
outdated
technologies
Governance
and service
integration
IT staff
skill set
Low
productivity
AD/AM budget
distribution
Shadow IT Others I do not know
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
61% 43% 40% 34% 33% 25% 22% 21% 12% 2% 3%
3.1 What are the three most important operational challenges for the company CIO?

An excess of applications
Zooming further in on the complexity of the application landscape
(a major area of interest in this report, after all), it should first of
all be noted that nearly half of all respondents find that there are
more applications in the portfolio than Business actually requires,
up significantly since the last report, when the figure was at only
about one-third.
Apparently, despite all intentions and efforts, few organizations
have already managed to retire or consolidate applications; the
load of legacy only has become heavier, rather than lighter. Also,
the rising number of SaaS solutions that are directly purchased
by Business Units rather than the IT department, may add to
this situation.
Financial Services – traditionally a sector in which many
applications have been custom-built and mergers and acquisitions
further complicate the portfolio – ranks among the sectors that
have most room for improvement. Sectors such as High Tech
and Manufacturing on the other hand have always focused on the
use of highly standardized, package-based software, and as a
result they feel the burden of an excess of applications much less.
Having said that, clearly a larger number of applications are
deemed mission critical to Business compared to the previous
report. This indicates at least an improvement in the overall value
mix of the portfolio. It might also illustrate that the latest additions
to the portfolio have created a higher value perception.
22
100%0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Manufacturing
High Tech
Financial Services
10%34%
33% 31%
41%
41%23%
21%
5% 5%
13%
14%14%
12%
3.3 How appropriate do you feel the number of applications you have across the company is? – By sector
There are far more
applications than
Business requires
There are more
applications than
Business requires
There are just
the right number
of applications
There are fewer
applications than
Business requires
There is a severe lack
in the number of applications
that Business requires
I do not
know
30%
40%
50%
60%
20%
10%
0%
There are far more
applications than
Business requires
There are more
applications than
Business requires
There are just the right
number of applications
There are fewer
applications than
Business requires
There is a severe lack in
the number of applications
I do not know
11%14% 34% 23% 52%37% 14%10% 0%1% 0%4%
3.2 How appropriate do you feel the number of applications you have across the company is?
2014 2011
Full data set here
Data by geography here

Ready for consolidation
Of course, having too many applications often also means that
multiple applications provide similar, overlapping functionality. This
can typically be the result of mergers and acquisitions but also of
decentralized Business Units that have chosen to implement their
own solutions as they feel the central applications do not provide
themwiththeflexibilityordifferentiatingedgethattheyarelookingfor.
Whatever the reason, 73% of the respondents believe that at
least one-fifth of their applications could be consolidated by
eliminating redundant functionality.
23
0
14
27
30
28
7
6
47
8
31
10%10% 0 0 20%20% 30%30% 40%40% 50%50%
2011 2014
I do not know
More than 81%
51–80%
21–50%
1–20%
3.4 What percentage of your company’s applications are considered mission critical?
0% 1–20% 21–35% 36–50% 51–65% 66–80% 81–95% More than 95% I do not know
30%
25%
35%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
2%
22%
28%
22%
12%
6%
4% 1%
6%
3.5 What percentage of your company’s applications do you believe share similar functionalities,
and therefore could be consolidated?

24
Retirement or replacement
more relevant than ever
On top of that, the need for consolidation, replacement or
retirement of applications – a major theme in our previous
report – is more urgent than ever. There has been a steep
increase in the number of respondents who indicate that at least
20% of their current applications actually could be replaced
or retired. As concluded earlier, there is still hesitation within
organizations to actually act on this insight, and only improved,
shared understanding of the applications portfolio can help to
make real next steps.*
Although “rip and replace” scenarios – typically in which
custom-built applications are completely replaced by
standardized, package-based solutions – are still often seen
as impactful and risky with high business impact, more
organizations seem to be considering rigid measures such
as these. Experience shows it is key to avoid mapping an
excess of detailed requirements – likely to reflect the functionality
of the old system – to the package solutions considered. Instead,
the industry best practices that packages usually contain should
be validated against much more coarse-grained value scenarios
that could work for the organization. Only then, should potential
changes and/or risks be assessed.**
Modernization is a must
By now, we should not be surprised to learn that a staggering 76%
of respondents find modernization of the application landscape
instrumental to the business objectives of the organization.
3.6 What percentage of your company’s current applications do you believe could be retired,
or replaced by a new application?
30%
40%
50%
20%
10%
0%
0%
Respondents
Applications 1–20% 21–50% 51–80% More than 80% I do not know
15%2% 35% 44% 33%42% 7%12% 3% 1% 0%6%
2014 2011
3.7 How important is application modernization to your company’s business objectives?
30%
35%
40%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
45%
Very important Important Neither important
nor unimportant
Unimportant Very unimportant Application modernization is
not relevant to the company
6% 1%3%
14%
36%
40%
* For more information see: www.capgemini.com/resources/application-retirement-analysis-framework
** More about this on Capgemini’s CTO blog on capgemini.com. Search for No Requirements and Vanilla Tastes Good.
Data by sector here

Brazil + India + China China Northern Europe Central Europe Southern Europe USA UK
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0
29%
6%
2%
14%
1%
48%
39%
28%
1%
6%
3%
22%
46%
21%
4%
1%
1%
28%
43%
5%
3%
1%
1%
47%
42%
9%
4%
1%
2%
43%
45%
14%
5%
4%
2%
31%
55%
37%
7%
1%
Very important Important Neither important
nor unimportant
Unimportant Very unimportant Application modernization
is not relevant to the company
3.8 How important is application modernization to your company’s business objectives? – By geography
25
Zooming in on this from a regional perspective, it can be seen that
some of the most “established” countries in terms of IT – notably
Southern Europe and the US – are heavily entertaining the idea
of application modernization, albeit possibly for different reasons.
But also – interestingly enough – an emerging business country
such as China shows a strong preference for these activities. On
the other side of the spectrum, some Northern Europe countries
– although organizations there certainly recognize the the lack
of balance in their portfolios – seem to assign less priority to
the topic.
Shift in rationalization strategies
(see figure 3.0)
As part of the survey, organizations were asked – just like in
the previous report – what their preferred modernization and
rationalization strategies are, once they have decided to take
on the existing application landscape. We saw some interesting
shifts: where the top answer in the 2011 report resolved around
standardization and consolidation of applications, we are now
seeing a tendency towards enhancement of existing applications
(for example by adding a Mobile front-end or a Cloud-based API)
or – alternatively – fully replacing them.
Though the first strategy is a pragmatic, relatively low-risk one
that delivers quick results without massive change, it’s radical
in the sense that it moves the focus away from rebuilding core
applications to the outer layers of the application estate. The
second strategy is much more radical though, and is likely to
be ignited by impatience of the Business, frustration by earlier
rationalization attempts and the availability of a new generation
of relatively low-cost, easy-to-implement Cloud-based solutions
(SaaS).
In short, the issue of application landscape complexity is still very
much alive on the CIO’s agenda. Although some progress has
been made in the value mix of the typical application portfolio,
there is still plenty of room for further rationalization and renewal.
In both pragmatic and radical rationalization strategies, there
is a prominent place for next-generation technologies in areas
such as Social, Mobility, Big Data and Cloud. In order to further
explore what the disruptive impact of these technologies is on
the application landscape, we have dedicated a separate part
of our survey to this.

What proportion of your application
landscape utilizes each of the
disruptive technologies?
26
I do not know
More than 80%
51–80%
21–50%
0–20%
Cloud
Mobility
Social
Big Data
Chapter 4
Figure 4.0

The significant positive impact that
Social, Mobile, Big Data and Cloud
have already had on key business
drivers will continue to grow.
After the foundation of the Maslow pyramid has been sufficiently
established, the quintessential challenge of any CIO is to create
value for Business. Enter the next generation of technology drivers
– and the fuel for Digital Transformation – often categorized with
the acronym SMAC: Social, Mobility, Analytics and Cloud. And
although the advances in Big Data are about much more than
“just” analytics, this generally sums up where organizations find
their inspiration for innovative projects that deliver direct value
to Business.
Of particular interest in this research was to what extent these
SMAC drivers already influence the application landscape. Also,
given the fact that Business enthusiastically and quickly embraces
SMAC technologies, we wanted to know if this helped – or even
forced – CIOs to more radically rationalize their existing application
portfolio.
Thus, interviewees were asked first of all about the strategies
they follow to create value for Business. For 60%, “Introduction of
new technologies and services” topped the list, easily outranking
“Application renovation” and “Application rationalization.” So
indeed, the SMAC wave should have an important place on the
CIO’s radar screen.
New Technology Provides
Disruptive Drivers to Application
Landscape Innovation
04
To add value, we can benefit
from the agility of the Cloud,
utilizing domain knowledge to
provide Cloud-based services.”
CIO – Public Sector, UK
27
Introduction of
new technologies
and services
Application
renovation
Application
rationalization
Lean management Vendor optimization Internal pyramid
optimization
None of these I do not know
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
60%
49%
37% 36%
32%
22%
3% 3%
4.1 Which strategies have you used to increase IT’s value to Business?

Degree of deployment
(see figure 4.0)
Looking at the extent to which these technologies already have
been deployed within organizations, we find that at this time
Cloud is most popular with more than half of all respondents
mentioning it, very closely trailed by Mobility. Social technologies
follow at some distance and the list is closed by Big Data. It is
assumed that the respondents perceived “Big Data” here in
the sense of relatively new technologies such as Hadoop and
in-memory databases, as Business Intelligence and Analytics
are established values within many organizations.
Looking at the geographical spread, we see yet again that the
regions with a “developing” economy – India, China, Brazil – are
more eager to pick up new technologies than some of the more
“established” regions; Italy making for an interesting exception here.
In terms of sectors, Public, Healthcare and Life Sciences (the
latter traditionally not an early adaptor in the first place) seem to
be lagging behind a bit, with the usual suspects of High Tech,
Telecommunication, Software and Hardware, and also Retail
leading the way.
Public Sector
Healthcare/Life Sciences
Retail
Technology, Software/Hardware
Telecommunication
55%59%50% 14%36%
54%46% 26% 16%33%
45% 40% 15%52% 1
45% 33%61% 52% 9%
51% 51%64% 41% 8
61% 49% 51% 15%27%
10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 2000% 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 220210 230
High Tech
Cloud Mobility OtherBig DataSocial We are not interested
in any of these technologies
28
4.2 Which disruptive technologies/concepts have you already leveraged in your landscape?
4.3 Which disruptive technologies/concepts have you already leveraged in your landscape? - By sector
60%
70%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Cloud Mobility Social Big Data We are not interested in any
of these technologies
Other
56% 54%
41%
34%
10% 1%
Full data set here

USA
UK
Australia
Central Europe
Southern Europe
Northern Europe
+ +
ChinaIndiaBrazil
57%
47%
47%
3%
7%
60%
Italy
63%
56%
48%
1%
2%
67%
47%
34%
25%
2%
16%
49%
67%
40%
41%
6%
71%
50%
30%
28%
1%
7%
60%
49%
33%
33%
1%
14%
45%
46%
40%
21%
18%
40%
50%
40%
29%
3%
8%
55%
4.4 Which disruptive technologies/concepts have you already leveraged in your landscape? – By geography
29

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
33% 42% 14% 11%
High
Medium
Low
I do not know
35% 41% 15% 9% 33% 44% 15% 8% 20% 40% 31% 8%
Cloud Social Mobility Big Data
4.5 What impact do the disruptive technologies have on delivering business value?
0%
20%
40%
60%
61% 18% 16% 5% 50% 21% 25% 4% 62% 20% 14% 5% 64% 18% 11% 7%
Important
Neither important
nor unimportant
Unimportant
I do not know
4.6 How important do you rate the disruptive technologies for the business driver of reducing risk?
When asking about the relative position of SMAC-based
solutions in the overall application landscape, we get a
fragmented picture, ranging from anything between absolutely
nothing to a whopping 95%. However, on average we find that
Social solutions have the lowest stake in today’s application
portfolios. Cloud and Mobility mainly occupy the “21–35%”
space whereas Big Data is even more present.
Ranking the business impact of SMAC
Then, when we finally zoom in on the actual business impact
of SMAC technologies, a convincing three-quarters of the
respondents believe that the four technology areas have a
medium or even high impact on delivering value to Business.
Cloud computing is perceived as the technology area that delivers
the overall highest value. Mobility – probably because it does not
fit well into every sector’s objectives – is perceived the lowest
overall. Sectors like Energy Utilities, Manufacturing and the
Public sector indicate lower business value delivered by Mobility,
whereas Retail, Consumer Products, Healthcare and Technology,
score highly on the same parameter.
Reducing risk
Much, of course, depends on the actual qualities that
organizations aim to achieve in order to create more business
value. As we found out earlier, reducing risk still ranks very high
on many management agendas. According to our respondents,
both Cloud and Big Data are particularly relevant to this area.
This makes sense because Cloud – when applied well –
releases organizations from having to deal with complex, risky
infrastructures and applications themselves. Also, the analytical
and predictive capabilities of Big Data can help organizations
considerably to mitigate operational risks or make business
decisions more quickly.
30

0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
66% 15% 13% 5% 48% 24% 25% 4% 67% 19% 11% 4% 64% 20% 9% 7%
Important
Neither important
nor unimportant
Unimportant
I do not know
4.7 How important do you rate the disruptive technologies for the business driver of reducing cost?
0%
20%
40%
60%
62% 17% 15% 6% 52% 22% 22% 4% 68% 19% 9% 4%
Important
Neither important
nor unimportant
Unimportant
I do not know
63% 20% 10% 7%
4.8 How important do you rate the disruptive technologies for the business driver of reducing time to market?
Cutting cost
There are many ways to use technology for cutting the cost
of Business, and this is reflected in the variety of answers
respondents gave for the impact of SMAC technologies on
this area. The highest number of respondents identified Cloud
as “very important.” This is a confirmation of earlier research,
showing that cost-cutting is by far the highest perceived
benefit of Cloud at this time. However, Mobility and Big Data
are not far behind, as their applications have almost unlimited
potential to further drive down the cost of doing business.
Social technologies still lag behind in our analysis, even though
there are already some impressive examples of the use of
social networks to reduce cost, for example in customer (self-)
service and co-creation.
Reducing time to market
When the basics of risk reduction and cutting cost have been
addressed sufficiently, organizations turn their attention towards
business agility, notably the ability to reduce the time to market
of new products and services. The very last thing we asked
interviewees was as to the extent that SMAC technologies help
them to achieve this desirable, business-winning quality. Mobility
turns out to be the favorite technology area here, as it is often
associated with “fast” customer channels, simple and highly
focused apps and a lifecycle that typically does not shy away
from frequent updates and improvements. But Cloud ranks
high here too, with its elastic scalability and easy deployment
characteristics. Social gets a slightly “better press” in this but
still – consistently – trails the list of favorite technology areas.
In summary, SMAC technologies are quickly entering the
mainstream IT landscape – headed by Cloud and trailed by
social technologies – and they provide clear benefits in business
agility areas such as reducing time to market, but just as much
(or actually, even more) in the foundational areas of reducing
risk and cutting cost.
When asked personally during selected in-depth discussions,
many interviewees confirmed that the pressure, particularly
from Business, is mounting to quickly internalize more SMAC
technologies, as the business case for applying them is now more
solid and obvious. However, the state of the current application
landscape often does not allow for such acceleration, both from
cost and architectural perspectives. Therefore, it is likely that CIOs
will turn to alternative rationalization strategies: some of them
very pragmatic and short-term oriented (e.g., extending existing
applications with Cloud and Mobility), others much more radical
than before (e.g., ripping and replacing existing applications by
standardized SaaS solutions).
31

=3 years 4–7 years 8–11 years 12 years
20%
29%
25%
18%
41%
26%
16%
26%
52%
68%
32%
52%
48%
36%
64%
48%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0%
26%
5.1 Trends in application cost spread across IT portfolios
Since we published the first Application
Landscape Report in 2011, Capgemini
has gained a wealth of experience
in application rationalization.
More than 150 organizations from a variety of sectors across
the globe have rationalized more than 30,000 applications with
the help of the Wide-angle Application Rationalization Program
(WARP).
The WARP Center of Excellence (CoE) has played a key role in
these activities. With its dedicated focus on application landscape
rationalization and specialized capabilities in IT strategy and
transformation, the WARP CoE assists clients with a structured
approach towards assessing their IT application portfolios
and provides the initial key steps to identify opportunities for
rationalization and modernization in the landscape.
In the process, the CoE has collected a wealth of metrics
providing crucial insights into various aspects of IT organizations
worldwide today – challenges faced, cost structures seen and
trends in IT strategies, to name a few. By grouping applications
according to their time since launch within the landscape, an
interesting picture emerges of the typical investment and cost
strategies adopted by organizations today.
Application Rationalization in
Action: the Experience of the
WARP Center of Excellence
05
33
% Of applications in portfolio % Cost of portfolio Application maintenance costApplication development cost

When applications are initially deployed into the landscape, equal
priority tends to be given to investing in both their maintenance
and further development. Once they are better established
and aligned with business operations, their functional scope
tends to be enhanced, resulting in a spike in development costs.
Applications in this group are seen to be most productive, and
are accompanied by correspondingly high costs.
Beyond this phase, the focus increasingly shifts away from
further development of the applications. Run and remediation
measures are given priority here, while functional enhancement
takes a backseat. In the case of these more mature applications,
initiatives like standardization, migration and upgrade of obsolete
technologies assume higher significance. In more extreme cases,
discussions on replacement strategies, either in terms of more
modern front-ends, virtualization initiatives or entire overhauls,
take place here.*
This increasing proportion of application maintenance (AM) costs
is used to deal with a variety of challenges that are faced in
the application landscape. The WARP CoE’s experience with
handling typical IT landscape problems yields key insights on
what these challenges or IT landscape risks are.**
Availability of up-to-date and accurate documentation for an
application is seen as a vexing problem in the application
landscape with close to one-third of applications exhibiting this
risk. This threat is pronounced in the case of legacy applications
that have gone through multiple updates over the years. When
present in conjunction with skill paucity, the risk is heightened
since this indicates that there is insufficient knowledge about
the working of the application either in documented form, or in
the presence of knowledgeable staff.
30%
35%
40%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Lack of
documentation
Skill paucity Unavailability
of source code
Lack of vendor
support
Volatility Instability
30%
28%
26%
19%
16%
14%
5.2 Key challenges faced by IT landscapes
A regular, focused approach
for IT portfolio assessment
provides key insights on the
enterprise-wide architecture
and its alignment with
business strategy.”
Director
Australian Professional Services
34
* For more information see: http://www.capgemini.com/resources/application-portfolio-cost-reduction-strategies
** For more information see: http://www.capgemini.com/resources/assessment-model-for-application-risk-and-mitigation-recommendations

One-fourth of custom applications suffer from lack of access
to source code. This is seen in such situations where multiple
updates from various sources have occurred, for example, or when
software development was effected without proper governance
processes. This can have a serious impact when it comes to the
need for future functional enhancements or maintaining efficient
operations. In these situations, organizations have been forced to
replace entire applications due to the unavailability of source code.
Some applications have a lot of their information placed in the
hands of external vendors, for both development and maintenance.
In these situations, it is essential that the portfolio is constantly
monitored to ensure that the applications are kept in good health,
and their quality and maintainability can be improved.
Instability is a function of the errors and bugs that the application
faces in the course of its normal functioning, while volatility is a
measure of how often the functionality of the application changes.
Both these factors are present in around 15% of the applications,
and result in additional effort and resources being expended on
the application. A root cause analysis is recommended as the
first step towards resolving these challenges.
A large number of the problems cited above can also be tackled
by adopting a focused, enterprise-wide approach towards
greater deployment of standardized, package-based solutions.
However, based on the WARP CoE’s experience, close to 30% of
a typical application landscape still consists of custom, bespoke
applications.
As detailed earlier, in spite of the inherent advantages of
adopting packaged applications as a strategic initiative, it does
not necessarily pay to follow a blind replacement of custom
with packaged applications on a whole-scale basis. Instead,
opportunities should be explored to cater to specific business
functionalities in more effective ways (for example through BPM
and Mobile front-ends), and to adopt new service models such
as Cloud, while implementing packaged solutions.
60%
70%
80%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Custom Commercial Off-The-Shelf
(COTS)
Customized Commercial
Off-The-Shelf (CCOTS)
13%
59%
28%
5.3 Typical application landscape profile by nature of application (custom/packaged)
...it is essential that the rela-
tionship with the vendor
is constantly monitored to
ensure that the application is
kept in good health.”
35

Recommendations
The application landscape always needs
to be on the move, reflecting the current
needs and objectives of the organization
while they continuously evolve.
Based on the findings of our survey, the in-depth interviews
we had with IT leaders and our experiences with improving
application landscapes, we recommend that ongoing analysis,
building a mutual understanding with Business and a focus on
rationalization will result in tangible steps towards a healthier,
better aligned application landscape.
Industrialize and standardize first
We recommend taking a fresh look at the application landscape
as a whole, applying industrialization and standardization even
more rigidly to rationalize its foundation. Look for opportunities to
mutualize resources, improve documentation, refactor software,
consolidate overlapping applications, eliminate redundant
applications, replace aging and high-risk technologies, get rid
of excessive customization and to improve development and
application management productivity.
Only then, innovation and renewal can be built into the application
lifecycle, continuously delivering the next generation of high-value
applications to Business.
Consider more radical
rationalization scenarios
For some, though, industrialization and standardization may no
longer be sufficient as the pent-up demand for the next generation
of applications by Business increases considerably and the pace
of application landscape renewal proves to be too low.
Alternative rationalization strategies need to be considered in
that case. In this report, we have identified newly preferred
strategies that on one hand address opportunistic, short-term
needs (e.g., extending existing applications with web and Mobile
front-ends, using APIs and platform technologies) but also more
radical strategies that aim for daring, impactful changes (e.g.,
“ripping and replacing” legacy custom or ERP applications by
highly standardized SaaS solutions). In the latter case, though,
the transformative impact on the organization, its processes, its
governance and its people should not be underestimated, the
benefits can be considerable.
06
36

Leverage the next generation of solutions
Because the mounting need for application rationalization is
partially driven by the availability of Social, Mobility, Big Data
and Cloud solutions, this next generation of solutions can be
used to add new impulses to the application landscape. As the
perceived business value of these solutions is often high, more
compelling business cases can be made for the improvements
that need to be made in the underlying, core applications. Also,
the new wave of applications typically comes with advanced
(Cloud-based) platforms that provide alternative ways to unlock
legacy applications and link them to the new front-ends. Done
in the right way, the application portfolio would be a convincing
mix of new, high-value solutions and critical changes to the
underlying foundation.
Embed innovation in the
application lifecycle
It is tempting to focus on the daily challenges of “keeping the
lights on” of the application landscape. As running and operating
existing applications often seems to require a different mindset
than innovating them, renewal is often – most likely involuntarily –
forgotten. Innovation should therefore be built into the applications
lifecycle (and if applicable, into any application management
or support contract). For example, this can be done through
organizing periodical trend workshops, the obligation to dedicate
a well-defined part of the project portfolio to innovative solutions or
more organizational measures such as establishing an innovation
governance element (like a “value office”) or simply crowdsourcing
suggestions for improvement.
Systematically use facts and metrics
to create more mutual understanding
In the end, agreeing on how to rationalize and innovate is only
possible once Business and IT develop a mutual understanding
of what the current state of the application landscape is and
where it needs to be improved first.
Consider tools for application mapping and assessment, and
for application portfolio management. Use these tools – among
other things – to relate applications to business processes, so
that the business impact and value of applications become
clearer and more tangible. This helps to make rationalization
decisions and establish priorities based on business criticality.
Also pay more attention to business case development, business
outcome-driven dashboards and even “value engineering,” as
they provide powerful, objective means for communication
between the various stakeholders. Do realize, however, that
the maturity needed for using these tools effectively needs to
be built up over time.
With this, both factual insights and engaging storylines can help
to create the forward-looking, collaborative atmosphere that is
needed to fuel real Digital Transformation.
37

Additional data
07
7.1 To what extent is the state of the application portfolio understood by the business? - By sector
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70%
30%
15%
55%
27%
13%
60%
32%
12%
56%
15%
25%
59%
26%
15%
59%
30%
15%
55%
35%
10%
55%
45%
9%
45%
31%
10%
59%
33%
12%
55%
24%
13%
64%
23%
18%
60%
12%
19%
69%
27%
13%
60%
Telecommunication
Retail
Public Sector
Professional Services
Manufacturing
IT Services
Hi-tech
Healthcare / Life Sciences
Financial Services
Engineering and Construction
Energy, Utilities and Chemicals
Distribution and Logistics
Consumer Products
38
Return to report

7.2 What percentage of new application deveopment is initiated by IT in your organization
as opposed to by the business?
7.3 How do you think the total IT spend within the business will change over the next five years?
By sector
a sufficient understanding
0%
20%
10%
30%
50%
70%
90%
40%
60%
80%
100%
8%
5%
3%
4%
15%
17%
29%
6%
13% 1%
8%
4%
8%
11%
18%
27%
21%
2%
2%
3%
11%
17%
1%
25%
24%
15%
1%
None
I do not know
More than 95%
81% - 95%
66% - 80%
51% - 65%
36% - 50%
21% - 35%
1% - 20%
0%
100%0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 905 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95
Telecommunication
Retail
Public Sector
Manufacturing
IT Services
Hi-tech
Financial Services
Consumer Products
9%
9%
8%
8%
6% 6%
6%
58%
51%
54%
51%
36%
31%
56%
46%
45%
49%
42%
42%
65%
26%
51%10%
10%
11%
10%
10%
17%
13% 13%
17%17%
18%
4%
4%
4% 5%
5%
5%
5%
27%
11% 3
3
3
3
3
3
26%
23%
23%
21%
15%
14%
14%
13%
8%
7% 7%
8%
11%
7%
8%
8%
7%
53%
53%
2
2
20%
21%
15%
15%
To what extent is the state of the application
portfolio understood by Business?
significantly
significantly
I do not know
?
Return to report
Return to report
39

By geography
By sector
100%0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Brazil +India +China
Sweden
Spain
Portugal
Norway
Italy
Finland
Denmark
USA
UK
Netherlands
India
Germany
France
China
Brazil
Australia
15%
17%
16%
16%
18%
15%
15%
13%
14%
14%
14%
10%
9%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
6%
6%
6%
6%
17%
7%
3 3
3
3
3
3
5
4
4
6%
14%
12%16%
20%
10%
10%
10%
13% 13%
14%
14%
15%
30%
38%
37%
39%
31%
35%
36%
30%
25%
25%
24%
25%
25%
29%
28%
28%
28%
28%
27%
32%
31%
32%
50%
51%
45%
40%
45%
47%
57%
32%
31%
33%
36%
39%
41%
2 2
3
2
2
2
2
100%0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Telecommunication
Retail
Public Sector
Manufacturing
IT Services
High Tech
Financial Services
Consumer Products
15%
15%
15%19%
9%
10%
8%
6%
6%
9%
8%
7%
30%
31%
34%
34%
35%
33%
37%
36%
30%
30%
30%
31%
31%
35%
40%
41%
46%
43%
41%
42%
44%
44%25%
23%
21%
5%
5%
5%
5% 5%
5%
5%
27%
39%
36%
15%
15%
15%
15%
15%
13%
12%
13%
14%14%
14%14%
13%
12%
10%
10%
7%
7%
7%
7% 7%
2
2
2
3
3
Return to report
Return to report
40
There are far more
applications than
Business requires
There are more
applications than
Business requires
There are just
the right number
of applications
There are fewer
applications than
Business requires
I do not
know
There are far more
applications than
Business requires
There are more
applications than
Business requires
There are just
the right number
of applications
There are fewer
applications than
Business requires
I do not
know

7.6 What percentage of your company’s current applications are custom-developed?
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
0% 1–20% 21–35% 36–50% 51–65% 66–80% 81–95% More than 95% I do not know
3%
23%
25%
18%
12%
7%
4%
2%
6%
Return to report
41
7.7 How important is application modernization to your company’s business objectives? - By sector
Telecommunication
Retail
Public Sector
Manufacturing
IT Services
High Tech
Healthcare / Life sciences
Financial Services
Consumer Productst
100%0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
15%
15%
15%
14%
14%
20%
9% 9%
9%
9%
9%
10%
6%
31%
31%
33%
35%
33%
32%
37%
38% 38%
30%
39%
38%
45%
40%
40%
40%
42%
42%
41%
41%
42%
43%
45%
44%
58%
25%
23% 23%
4%
5%
5%
5%
5%
4%
40%
16%
12%
11%
13%
13%
8%
7%
7% 2
2
4%
4%
2
2
2
2
3 3
3
3
3
3
3
Neither Important
nor unimportant
Application modernization
is not relevant to the company
Very Important Important Unimportant Very unimportant
Return to report

7.9 What is your preferred approach towards application portfolio assessment?
No need for a formal
portfolio assessment
approach
1%
Conduct formal,
enterprise-wide portfolio
assessment on a regular
basis
48%
Conduct formal,
enterprise-wide portfolio
assessment once,
and evaluate results
33%
Conduct formal
assessment on a critical
part of the portfolio, and
evaluate results
11%
Conduct formal
assessment on a regular
basis, focuing on different
parts of the portfolio
in each iteration
8%
60%
70%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
7.8 Do you have a framework/methodology to assist in continuously evolving your application portfolio
to meet business objectives?
Neither
Important
nor Unimporant
ImportantVery
Important
0%
20%
10%
30%
50%
70%
90%
40%
60%
80%
100%
37%
57%
53%
36%
11%
48%
28%
24%
39%
33%
28%
42%
50%
8%
Unimportant Very
Unimportant
6%
How important is application modernization
to your company’s business objectives
No, but we would like a formal
framework / methodology
No, there is no need for a formal
framework / methodology
Yes
Return to report
Return to report
42

7.10 How many AD/AM vendors do you typically have catering to your application portfolio?
7.11 Would you like to optimize/consolidate the number of AD/AM vendors catering to your application
landscape?
30%
35%
40%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Less than 5 Between 6–10 Between 11–15 Between 16–25 More than 25 I don’t know
26%
33%
18%
4% 3%
16%
Less than 5 Between
6-10
Between
11-15
Between
16-25
More than
25
8% 7%
7%
38%
48%
25%
37%
30% 30%
12%
53%55%
48%
37%
30%
2% 4% 5%
12%
11%
0%
20%
10%
30%
50%
70%
90%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Yes
No
I don’t know
Might consider it, if there
is any industrialized offering
How many AD/AM vendors do you typically have catering
to your application landscape
Return to report
Return to report
43

7.12 Which of the following disruptive technologies/concepts have you already leveraged in your
landscape? - By sector
7.13 Which of the cloud service models are you using?
Telecommunication
Retail
Public Sector
Manufacturing
IT Services
High Tech
Healthcare / Life sciences
Financial Services
Consumer Products
45%65%40% 25% 15%
55%59%50% 14%36%
35%58% 12%27%50%
43% 17%40% 43%53%
54%46% 26% 16%33%
45% 28% 513%53% 33%
45% 40% 15%52% 20%
53% 40%44% 763%
40%55% 462% 38%
5
40% 341%54% 64% 2
29%55% 6%66% 240%
45% 33%61% 52% 9%
51% 51%64% 41% 8
61% 49% 51% 15%27%
10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 2000% 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 220210
60%
70%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
SaaS PaaS laaS None of these I do not know
59%
34%
27%
5%
13%
Return to report
Return to report
44

7.14 Are you satisfied with cloud computing from a technology and business perspective?
7.15 Thinking about all of your applications, what proportion utilizes each of the disruptive technologies?
laaSPaaSSaaS
0%
20%
10%
30%
50%
70%
90%
40%
60%
80%
100%
38%
35%
25%
2%
33%
32%
33%
2%
43%
33%
22%
2%
Satisfied with both
perspectives
Satisfied from trchnology
prespective
Satisfied from business
perspective
Not satisfied with
either of them
0% 1−20% 21−35% 36−50% 51−65% 66−80% 81−95% More than 95% I do not know
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0
8% 17%
12%19%
21% 24%
16%18%
22% 18%
15%20%
17% 13%
16%13%
10% 8%
13%11%
8% 6%
8%7%
4% 4%
5%4%
2% 2%
3%2%
7% 8%
11%7%
Which of the cloud service models are you using?
Cloud Mobility Social Big Data
Return to report
Return to report
45

We would like to acknowledge everyone who was
instrumental in creating this report.
For project management analysis, and report content:
Ankit Gupta, Shweta Jassal, Arun John, James Kyd, Saurabh
Laddha, Anup Mandvariya, Anwesha Mondal, Robert
Schwartz, Ivar Sinka, Ron Tolido, Alex Wortmann.
For market research:
the team at Freshminds.
For marketing, communications, editing and proofing:
Krzysztof Grzegorczyk, Krzysztof Kot, Gregory Nieuwsma,
Mieke Van Handenhove.
Layout and design:
Lukasz Migacz, Wiktor Szczypka.
For executive sponsorship:
Aruna Jayanthi.
We would like to express our gratitude to those individuals and
organizations that dedicated their time to participating in the
survey and enhancing the richness of this report.
For this report, we surveyed over 1,100 CIOs and top-level IT
decision-makers in companies of various sizes within a wide range
of industries. With the emphasis on global coverage, 16 countries
were covered as part of the survey, with 53% respondents from
Europe, 27% from the fast-developing countries (China, India,
Brazil), 10% from USA, and 10% from Australia. The results
of this survey were supplemented with insights from in-depth
interviews conducted with business CIOs and top IT managers
across geographies and sectors.
In addition, we gathered data points for this report from the
extensive application landscape data repository available with the
WARP CoE, and have discussed them in the WARP CoE section
in this report. This repository is a database of key application
metrics collected over four years of the CoE’s experience in IT
strategy and transformation exercises, spread across sectors
and geographies, and comprises data for more than 30,000
applications analyzed.
Acknowledgements About the study
47

About Capgemini
With more than 130,000 people in over 40 countries, Capgemini is one of the
world’s foremost providers of consulting, technology and outsourcing services.
The Group reported 2013 global revenues of EUR 10.1 billion.
Together with its clients, Capgemini creates and delivers business and
technology solutions that fit their needs and drive the results they want.
A deeply multicultural organization, Capgemini has developed its own way of
working, the Collaborative Business ExperienceTM
, and draws on Rightshore®
,
its worldwide delivery model.
Learn more about us at
www.capgemini.com
The information contained in this document is proprietary. ©2014 Capgemini. All rights reserved.
Rightshore®
is a trademark belonging to Capgemini.
For more details contact:
Alex Wortmann
Chief Value Officer
Application Services - Continental Europe
alex.wortmann@capgemini.com
Ron Tolido
Chief Technology Officer
Application Services - Continental Europe
ron.tolido@capgemini.com
Saurabh Laddha
Lead, WARP CoE
saurabh.laddha@capgemini.com

Capgemini Application Landscape Report 2014

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Más de Capgemini

Más de Capgemini (20)

Último

Último (20)

Capgemini Application Landscape Report 2014