The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 85... ...
85 3 Task 3 – Develop Best Practices in EIP Design and Management This chapter describes the work performed in Task 3 of NCHRP Project 20‐103, "Guidance for Development and Management of Sustainable Information Portals." The purpose of Task 3 was to develop best practices in EIP design and management. The intent of Task 3 was to first identify current EIP technologies and practices and then assess their adequacy against the requirements of a sustainable DOT EIP. The technologies and practices recommendations were developed based on a benchmarking approach. The objectives of Task 3 are as follows: Develop benchmark criteria Collect EIP technology practices Score and rate each identified EIP practice Summarize and review EIP practice scores Recommend EIP best practices During April of 2016, the research team distributed an online survey to a wide audience of technology experts. Once the survey was complete, the results were consolidated, analyzed, and organized into this single document. This document presents an overview of the survey development, distribution, analysis, and resulting recommendations. Enterprise portals are evolving; portal customer needs and desires are continually changing, and the number of applications portals support and the amount of data they handle are growing exponentially. In addition, IT companies are delivering less‐expensive and improved technologies at an increasing pace. Consequently, applications deployed as part of a portal are becoming obsolete quickly, and adapting the portal to the new requests and technologies is often costly and time consuming, making it very difficult to keep pace. While demands on EIPs are increasing, the budget for the development and management of EIPs is often not following suit, leaving IT managers with the challenges of increasing storage capacity, increasing user capacity, maintaining more portal applications, and/or implementing new unforeseen applications at a low cost and in a very short timeframe. To remedy these challenges, new IT applications and services have been developed leveraging service‐oriented architecture (SOA) models and system‐of‐systems approaches. EIP frameworks have followed this trend and started incorporating technologies such as hardware as a service (i.e., cloud computing)
|
From page 86... ...
86 designed and built to develop sustainable web applications without ever having to deal with hardware redundancies, software failover, and load balancing. The goal of Task 3 is to first identify these new EIP technologies and practices and then assess their potential at fulfilling DOT EIP functional requirements. During Task 2, the research team developed a list of DOT EIP functional requirements and a high‐level framework for sustainable DOT EIPs, as shown in Figure 38, where sustainable EIP technologies and practices could be implemented to fulfill the requirements of sustainable DOT EIPs. In Task 3, the team first established a list of criteria defining the sustainability of DOT EIP (non‐functional requirements) and then developed a questionnaire based on DOT EIP functionalities to collect sustainable EIP technologies. The research team submitted the questionnaire to members of several computing IT industry groups to collect possible sustainable DOT EIP technologies and practices. The team then evaluated each technology and/or practice suggestion against the list of non‐functional requirements to determine which of the suggested EIP technologies best fit DOT EIPs. Once the suggestions were evaluated, the research team reviewed the scores of the suggested EIP technologies and practices as well as the notes and comments collected and developed a list of recommended EIP technologies and practices to be considered for sustainable DOT EIPs. 3.1 Task 3.1 Develop Benchmark Criteria In Task 3.1, the research team developed a list of EIP technology evaluation criteria, characterizing the non‐ functional requirements of a sustainable DOT EIP. The research team used Boehm's general utility tree, shown in Figure 39, as a guide to the development of the criteria. The research team reviewed the business cases and functional requirements developed in Task 2 as well as the content of the interview results and then derived a list of EIP evaluation criteria relevant to sustainable DOT EIPs.
|
From page 87... ...
T c g b t 3 F f R p A d M r s hese criteria haracterize t roups: (1) a l usiness crite he research t .1.1 Techn unctionality unction ident eliability. Th erform its in vailability. T esignated fu aintainabili estored to its ystem, using are intended he capabilitie ist of technic ria referring t eam identifie ical Criteria . The function ified in Task e reliability c tended or req he availabilit nction, when ty. The maint normal, ope the prescribe Figu to represen s required by al criteria ref o matters su d and their a ality criterio 2. riterion in th uired functio y criterion in ever required ainability cri rable state w d practices a re 39. Boehm t the non‐fun a sustainab erring to asp ch as cost or ssociated de n in this rese is research re n, on deman this research . terion in this ithin a given nd procedur 's general uti ctional requi le DOT EIP. T ects such as p corporate cu finitions. arch refers to fers to the a d, and witho refers to the research refe timeframe fo es. lity diagram.
|
From page 88... ...
88 Security. The security criterion refers to the ability of an EIP technology to resist unauthorized attempts at usage or behavior modification, while still providing services to its users. Interoperability. The interoperability criterion in this research refers to the ability of an EIP technology to collaborate with another system. Usability. The usability criterion in this research refers to how effectively end users can use, learn, or control the various components of an EIP technology. Supportability. The supportability criterion in this research refers to the degree to which an EIP technology's design characteristics and planned logistics resources are capable of supporting operations and readiness needs throughout the life cycle of a system at an affordable cost. Scalability. The scalability criterion in this research refers to the ability of an EIP technology to successfully meet increasing demands caused by higher usage and its ability to ensure that the various components of the portal remain intact even when submitted to more stress than it was designed to handle. Modifiability. The modifiability criterion in this research refers to the ability of an EIP technology to allow and accept significant extension or changes to its capabilities without major rewriting of code or changes in its basic architecture. Portability. The portability criterion in this research refers to the ability of an EIP technology to run on numerous platforms. This is can include actual application hosting, viewing, and/or data portability. Reusability. The reusability criterion in this research refers to the ability of an EIP technology to allow newer components or applications to reuse existing EIP components or applications. Integrability. The integrability criterion in this research refers to the ability of an EIP technology to make the separately developed components work together. Testability. The testability criterion in this research refers to the ability of EIP technology applications or components to be easily tested and their ability to demonstrate their faults without affecting other applications or components. 3.1.2 Business Criteria Affordability. The affordability criterion in this research refers to the overall cost of a DOT EIP technology including acquisition, implementation, and maintenance. Marketability. The marketability criterion in this research refers to the extent to which the DOT EIP technology is being used in a similar context in other organizations. Appropriateness to the Organization. The appropriateness to the organization criterion in this research refers to the ability of the organization regulations, expertise, and culture to align with the DOT EIP technology. Note that the criteria listed above may not be appropriate for evaluating every possible EIP technology or practice. Depending on the nature of the EIP technology/practice, some criteria may or may not be applicable. For example, external audit practices may not be assessed using these criteria the way a cloud hosting EIP technology would be assessed. The research team ignored irrelevant criteria when assessing an EIP technology/practice.
|
From page 89... ...
3 3 U o k a d 3 A e S G c D p M s C s 3 W D M d D d 3 C C C s 3 G a .2 Task 3 .2.1 Surve sing the DOT rganized into ept simple a udience. Bel efinitions. Serv.2.1.1 PI Gateway. xposed to ot earching. Th IS Data Proc apable of pro ata Stream P rocess data s essaging. Th ervices. ontent Deliv ervices. User .2.1.2 eb Applicat OT EIP web obile Applic eliver DOT E esktop Appl eliver EIP de Stor.2.1.3 ontent Arch ontent Cach ontent Tagg ervices. Data.2.1.4 IS Database nd search GI .2 Collect y Question EIP function topic areas nd open‐ende ow is the com ices The API Gate her internal o e Searching t essing and R cessing GIS i rocessing. T treams from e Messaging ery. The Con Interface ions. The We applications. ations. The M IP mobile app ications. The sktop applica age iving. The Co ing. The Cont ing. The Cont base Services. The S data. EIP Pract naire al requireme to collect the d intentiona plete list of way topic in r external ap opic includes endering. Th nformation a he Data Strea sources such topic includ tent Delivery b Application obile Applic lications. Desktop App tions. ntent Archivi ent Caching ent Tagging t GIS Databas ices nts develope candidate su lly in order to topic areas th cludes the co plications. EIP technolo e GIS Data Pr nd rendering m Processin as traffic se es EIP techno topic include s topic inclu ations topic lications top ng topic inclu topic include opic include e Services to d in Task 2, t stainable EIP avoid impo at the resea ntrol service gies that can ocessing and GIS imagery g topic includ nsors. logies that p s EIP techno des EIP techn includes EIP t ic includes EI des EIP tech s EIP technol s EIP technolo pic includes t he research t technologie sing specific t rch team crea s that allow b be used to s Rendering t . es EIP techn rovide DOT E logies that p ologies that echnologies P technologi nologies that ogies that pr gies that pro he EIP techn eam develop s and practic echnologies ted and thei ack‐end EIP earch DOT E opic includes ologies that a IP message q rovide DOT E can be used t that can be u es that can b provide arch ovide conten vide metada ologies that ed a survey es. The surv or practices o r associated resources to IP content. EIP technolo cquire, mana ueuing deliv IP content de o build and d sed to build e used to bui iving service t caching ser ta managem can be used t 89 ey was n the be gies ge, and ery livery eliver and ld and s. vices. ent o store
|
From page 90... ...
D u I i C F c S b 3 R t R p C c 3 I c S s N t p e 3 T ocument Da sed to store mage, Video, ncludes the E AD drawings inancial Data an be used to ensor Data D e used to sto Man.2.1.5 esources an echnologies t esources Pro rovide resou ontent Audi ontent and c Secu.2.1.6 dentity and A an provide D ecurity Audi ecurity audit ote that for he responde resents the s xamples of s .2.2 Surve he research P In se In A In In of M tabase Servi and search d and Binary IP technolog . Database S store and se atabase Serv re and searc agement Too d Application hat can be u visioning an rces provisio ting. The Con an also ident rity and Iden ccess Manag OT EIP identi t. The Securit services to D each of the t nt thought th urvey questi urvey respon y Audience team used th ractices ment put from AEM rvices, big da put from the EM -- NOVA‐M put from me put from add State Techn anagement ( ces. The Doc ocument dat Files Databas ies that can b ervices. The arch financia ices. The Se h sensor data ls Monitoring sed to monit d Scaling. Th ning and scal tent Auditing ify and locate tity ement. The ty and access y Audit topic OT EIPs. opic areas, th e DOT EIP sh ons in full. A ses. e following s ioned by the experts wh ta, requirem members of EAN, DC Are mbers of uni itional trans ology Directo AIIM) . ument Datab a such as PDF e Services. T e used to sto Financial Data l data such a nsor Data Da (e.g., road s . The Resourc or DOT EIP op e Resources ing. topic includ mismanage Identity and managemen includes EIP e survey que ould be built ppendix C pr ources to col DOT represe o are special ents analysis three IT com a JBoss User versity IT dep portation and rs (NASTD)
|
From page 91... ...
91 The NOVA‐MEAN community was created in 2013 and currently has 772 members who share an interest in the development of better enterprise solutions using recent JavaScript frameworks, such as the MEAN stack. The membership of NOVA‐MEAN is composed of industry practitioners and open‐source evangelists. NOVA‐MEAN meets every month at AEM headquarters in Herndon, Virginia. The DC Area JBoss Users community was created in 2011 and has 645 members who share an interest in the development of enterprise solutions using the RedHat JBOSS Enterprise Application Platform. The group's membership is composed of industry practitioners, open‐source evangelists, and Java developers. The DC Area JBoss Users Group meets every month at the AEM headquarters in Herndon, Virginia. The ACM Washington, D.C., community was founded in 2012 and has 715 members who share an interest in various computer science topics such as predictive analytics, applied machine learning, statistical modeling, open data, data visualization, user experience, user research, and artificial neural networks. The ACM Washington, D.C., membership is composed of industry practitioners and academics. The ACM community meets in Washington, D.C., to discuss tools, new technologies, and best practices. NASTD is a member‐driven organization whose purpose is to advance and promote the effective use of IT and services to improve the operation of state government. The organization was founded in 1978. NASTD represents information technology professionals from the 50 states divided into four regions and the private sector. DC Web Women was founded in 1995 to provide a community in which women in technology fields could develop, nurture, and promote their leadership, technical, and professional skills. DC Web Women currently has more than 3,000 members located in the Washington, D.C., metro area. The membership consists of professional technologists, students, and enthusiasts who specialize in the fields of blogging, copywriting, computer science, editing and proofreading, e‐marketing, graphic design, IT, marketing/communications, multimedia, search engine marketing and optimization, social media, web analytics, web content, web design, web development, and web editing. AIIM is a global community for information professionals that was formed in 1943. AIIM provides education, market research, certification, and standards for information professionals. AIIM's mission is to help its members learn the skills to manage their information with vendor‐neutral research, step‐by‐step project guidance, and a community of experienced professionals. 3.2.3 Survey Distribution The research team developed an online survey from the aforementioned survey topics to gather input from IT communities on what they consider to be sustainable EIP best practices. The research team kept the survey fairly short (i.e., approximately 10 minutes) in an attempt to increase the number of participants. In order to accomplish this, each respondent chose to answer questions related to the single topic area that best matched his/her expertise. Participants could choose to answer additional questions if they were willing. This online survey was distributed on April 1, 2016, originally allowing 2 weeks for responses (i.e., closed April 15, 2016)
|
From page 93... ...
93 100% On‐Premise 9% Mixed 36% 3.2.5.1.2 Deployment and Maintenance Application Deployment and Server Configuration 1. Open source configuration management tool (e.g., Chef, Puppet, Ansible + Capistrano)
|
From page 94... ...
94 2. Commercial distributed content delivery solution such as Cloudflare 3.
|
From page 95... ...
95 Content Caching 1. Commercial caching and load balancing solution on premise or cloud such as Hazelcast or Couchbase 2.
|
From page 96... ...
96 3. Commercial solution such as Riverbed or Splunk Note that some cloud‐monitoring services, such as the Google cloud monitoring API, are at the beta stage and still being developed. Resources Provisioning and Scaling 1.
|
From page 97... ...
97 Table 21. Criteria evaluation scoring. Does Not Meet Poor Value of 0 Barely Meets Fair Value of 1 Somewhat Meets Good Value of 2 Mostly Meets Very Good Value of 3 Fully Meets Excellent Value of 4 Each evaluation criterion was assigned a weight denoting its relative importance in the overall scoring (see Table 22) . A score was assigned to each of the criteria for each of the EIP technologies. The score multiplied by the weight of a criterion resulted in a weighted score for each criterion. The weighted scores were then added together for each EIP technology, resulting in a total weighted score for each of the CMS. The weighting of each criterion was limited to a two‐level scale: a basic weight of 3.7 and an elevated weight of 7.4 for criteria that are crucial to the establishment of DOT EIP sustainability at cost (i.e., Reliability, Security, Interoperability, Usability, Scalability, Modifiability, Reusability, Integrability, Affordability, and Appropriateness to the Organization)
|
From page 98... ...
98 Table 22. Criteria weighting table. Technical Criteria Weight Functionality 3.7 Reliability 7.4 Availability 3.7 Maintainability 3.7 Security 7.4 Interoperability 7.4 Usability 7.4 Supportability 3.7 Scalability 7.4 Modifiability 7.4 Portability 3.7 Reusability 7.4 Integrability 7.4 Testability 3.7 Business Qualities Affordability 7.4 Marketability 3.7 Appropriateness to the Organization 7.4 Total 100
|
From page 99... ...
99 3.3.2 Deployment and Maintenance Table 23. Application deployment and server configuration. Deployment and maintenance tools Weight EIP technology alternatives Comments 1 2 3 Application deployment and server Configuration Open Source configuration management tool Cloud based configuration management service Open Source configuration management tool + Container architecture Technical Criteria Functionality 3.7 5 4 5 Equivalent across alternatives Reliability 7.4 4 5 4 Cloud based software have higher reliability Availability 3.7 4 5 4 Cloud based software provide higher level of availability Maintainability 3.7 4 5 4 Open Source solution may require more maintenance Security 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Interoperability 7.4 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Usability 7.4 4 4 5 Containers solutions can be easier to use Supportability 3.7 4 5 4 Cloud services require less support Scalability 7.4 4 5 4 Cloud services have better scaling capabilities than on premise Modifiability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Portability 3.7 4 3 4 Cloud services are not really portable unless containerized Reusability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Integrability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Testability 3.7 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Business Qualities Affordability 7.4 4 5 4 Cloud based solutions are often provided for free Marketability 3.7 5 4 5 Open Source and container solutions are most common Appropriateness to the Organization 7.4 5 3 5 DOTs are less likely to use cloud services
|
From page 100... ...
100 Table 24. Continuous integration. Deployment and maintenance tools Weight EIP technology alternatives Comments 1 2 3 Continuous integration Open source continuous integration tool Hosted continuous integration service Proprietary continuous integration tool Technical Criteria Functionality 3.7 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Reliability 7.4 4 5 4 Cloud based software have higher reliability Availability 3.7 4 5 4 Cloud based software provide higher level of availability Maintainability 3.7 4 5 5 Open Source solution may require more maintenance Security 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Interoperability 7.4 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Usability 7.4 4 5 5 Open Source solutions can be more difficult to use Supportability 3.7 4 5 4 Cloud services require less support Scalability 7.4 4 5 4 Cloud services have better scaling capabilities than on premise Modifiability 7.4 5 4 4 Open Source solution can be modified more easily Portability 3.7 4 3 4 Cloud services are not really portable unless containerized Reusability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Integrability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Testability 3.7 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Business Qualities Affordability 7.4 5 4 4 Open source solution is the least expensive Marketability 3.7 5 4 5 hosted CI solutions are still rather new Appropriateness to the Organization 7.4 5 3 5 DOTs are less likely to use cloud services Total Score 100.0 4.4 4.4 4.4
|
From page 101... ...
101 3.3.3 Services Table 25. API gateway alternatives scoring. Services Weight EIP technology alternatives Comments 1 2 3 API gateway Cloud API framework Custom REST service API Custom web service Java API Technical Criteria Functionality 3.7 5 4 5 Some functionality may be too costly to implement as a custom solution Reliability 7.4 5 4 4 Cloud typically offer higher reliability by design Availability 3.7 5 3 3 Non‐cloud solution may reach a maximum availability when scaling Maintainability 3.7 5 4 3 Cloud services are designed to handle failure by design Security 7.4 4 3 4 All around security may be more difficult to implement in a custom solution Interoperability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across solution Usability 7.4 4 4 3 REST based API are typically easier to use than Java based API Supportability 3.7 4 4 3 Custom solution may be more difficult to support Scalability 7.4 5 4 3 Cloud solution scale by design, custom solution may be limited in their ability to scale Modifiability 7.4 4 5 5 Cloud solution are under the cloud provider control and therefore less open to modification Portability 3.7 3 4 4 Cloud solution are often less portable unless containerized Reusability 7.4 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Integrability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Testability 3.7 5 5 3 Custom solution may be more difficult to test thoroughly Business Qualities Affordability 7.4 5 3 3 Cloud services are typically less costly than custom developed and maintained solutions Marketability 3.7 3 4 5 Custom Java API have been a very common way to provide API gateway services but cloud services are on the rise Appropriateness to the Organization 7.4 2 3 5 Cloud solutions are typically not yet accepted within some DOTs Total Score 100.0 4.2 3.9 3.9
|
From page 102... ...
102 Table 26. Searching alternatives scoring. Services Weight EIP technology alternatives Comments 1 2 3 Searching Standalone enterprise search platform Cloud enterprise search platform NoSQL Document database Technical Criteria Functionality 3.7 5 5 3 Enterprise search platforms possess analytical capabilities that NoSQL Document database often lacks such as text analysis components Reliability 7.4 3 5 5 Standalone enterprise search platforms often use master‐slave architecture which has a higher risk of failure than distributed cloud architecture Availability 3.7 4 5 5 Standalone enterprise search platforms often use master‐slave architecture which has a higher risk of failure than distributed cloud architecture Maintainability 3.7 3 5 3 Cloud services are designed to handle failure by design Security 7.4 4 4 4 Security is equivalent across alternatives Interoperability 7.4 4 4 4 Interoperability is similar often revolving around REST API or various language client Usability 7.4 5 5 3 Pure NoSQL database may be requiring more intricate programming when performing search queries Supportability 3.7 4 5 4 Little support is needed for Cloud services Scalability 7.4 3 5 4 Cloud service are designed to scale by design, traditional master‐ slave setup can become limited Modifiability 7.4 3 3 3 All solution allows the addition of plugins but no extensive modifications Portability 3.7 5 3 5 Cloud solutions are not designed to be portable unless container based Reusability 7.4 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Integrability 7.4 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Testability 3.7 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Business Qualities Affordability 7.4 4 5 4 Cloud search solution are the least expensive Marketability 3.7 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Appropriateness to the Organization 7.4 5 3 4 Traditional solutions used by DOTs have been revolving around RDBMS based enterprise search engine not cloud services Total Score 100.0 4.2 4.5 4.1
|
From page 103... ...
103 Table 27. GIS data processing and rendering alternatives scoring. Services Weight EIP technology alternatives Comments 1 2 3 GIS processing and rendering Commercial standalone GIS server Open Source scale out GIS server using cloud storage Commercial scale out GIS server using cloud storage Technical Criteria Functionality 3.7 5 4 5 Cloud or Open Source often offer less complete set of GIS functions Reliability 7.4 3 5 5 Cloud services are designed to handle failure by design Availability 3.7 4 5 5 Cloud services can scale up and down to accommodate demand Maintainability 3.7 3 5 3 Cloud services are design to avoid downtime and eliminate the need for repair Security 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Interoperability 7.4 3 4 3 Commercial GIDS solution often impose their own standard and formats reducing interoperability Usability 7.4 5 4 5 Open Source GIS solutions can be more difficult to use Supportability 3.7 4 3 4 Little support is needed for Cloud services Scalability 7.4 3 5 5 Cloud service are designed to scale by design, traditional GIS setup (RDBMS or flat files) can be limited Modifiability 7.4 4 5 4 Commercial GIS solutions are only modifiable through script or plugin addition Portability 3.7 3 4 3 Open Source GIS solution are more portable than Commercial alternatives Reusability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Integrability 7.4 3 4 3 Commercial GIS solutions rely on proprietary formats and can be difficult to integrate with other products not supported by vendor Testability 3.7 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Business Qualities Affordability 7.4 3 5 3 Open Source GIS cloud solution are the most affordable Marketability 3.7 5 4 5 Market is primarily dominated by commercial GIS solutions Appropriateness to the Organization 7.4 4 3 4 Commercial GIS solutions are currently most common solutions found in DOTs Total Score 100.0 3.8 4.3 4.1
|
From page 104... ...
104 Table 28. Data stream processing alternatives scoring. Services Weight EIP technology alternatives Comments 1 2 3 Data Stream Processing Cloud stream processing framework Open Source stream processing framework Commercial Hadoop based data stream processing framework Technical Criteria Functionality 3.7 5 5 5 All solutions provide similar functionalities Reliability 7.4 5 5 5 All solutions using a distributed architecture Availability 3.7 5 5 5 All solutions using a distributed architecture Maintainability 3.7 5 4 4 Cloud provided services require less Security 7.4 5 4 4 Cloud hosted solution are often more secure than custom solutions Interoperability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Usability 7.4 5 4 4 Cloud solutions are often easier to use Supportability 3.7 5 4 3 Cloud solutions are often easier to support Scalability 7.4 5 4 4 Cloud services can scale rather fast whereas custom solution often have limited cluster sizes Modifiability 7.4 4 5 4 Open Source often allows for Portability 3.7 3 4 3 Commercial and cloud solutions have often limited extension and additions Reusability 7.4 5 4 5 Custom solutions can sometimes be difficult to reuse Integrability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Testability 3.7 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Business Qualities Affordability 7.4 5 4 3 Cloud provided services are often the least expensive options Marketability 3.7 4 4 5 Commercial streaming solutions are more common on the market Appropriateness to the Organization 7.4 4 4 5 Commercial solutions are more likely to be adopted by DOTs than Open Source or Cloud services Total Score 100.0 4.6 4.3 4.2
|
From page 105... ...
105 Table 29. Messaging alternatives scoring. Services Weight EIP technology alternatives Comments 1 2 3 Messaging Open Source Enterprise Service Bus Commercial Enterprise Service Bus Cloud based messaging framework Technical Criteria Functionality 3.7 5 5 5 Solutions functionalities are similar Reliability 7.4 4 4 5 Standalone enterprise search platforms often use master‐slave architecture which has a higher risk of failure than distributed cloud architecture Availability 3.7 4 4 5 Standalone enterprise search platforms often use master‐slave architecture which has a higher risk of failure than distributed cloud architecture Maintainability 3.7 4 4 5 Cloud services are designed to handle failure by design Security 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Interoperability 7.4 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Usability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Supportability 3.7 3 3 4 Little support is needed for Cloud services Scalability 7.4 4 4 5 Cloud service are designed to scale by design, traditional master‐slave setup can become limited Modifiability 7.4 3 3 3 All solution allows the addition of plugins or scripts but no extensive modifications Portability 3.7 5 4 3 Cloud services are not really portable unless containerized, Open Source solution are the most portable Reusability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Integrability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Testability 3.7 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Business Qualities Affordability 7.4 4 3 5 Cloud services are the least expensive solutions Marketability 3.7 4 5 3 Commercial solutions are more predominantly used on the market Appropriateness to the Organization 7.4 4 5 3 Commercial solutions are more likely to be adopted by DOTs than Open Source or Cloud services Total Score 100.0 4.1 4.1 4.2
|
From page 106... ...
106 Table 30. Content delivery alternatives scoring. Services Weight EIP technology alternatives Comments 1 2 3 Content delivery Cloud provider content delivery network solution Commercial Distributed Content Delivery solution Plain cloud storage Technical Criteria Functionality 3.7 5 5 4 Plain cloud storage does not include some of the replication, load balancing and scalability features offered by the other two services Reliability 7.4 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Availability 3.7 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Maintainability 3.7 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Security 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Interoperability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Usability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Supportability 3.7 5 5 4 Plain cloud storage will require more support to compensate for the lack of features such as load balancing Scalability 7.4 5 5 4 Plain cloud storage is often limited to region when scaling Modifiability 7.4 3 3 3 All solutions offer limited possibilities of modification Portability 3.7 3 3 3 All solutions offer have limited portability Reusability 7.4 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Integrability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Testability 3.7 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Business Qualities Affordability 7.4 4 4 5 Plain cloud storage is the least expensive of the solutions Marketability 3.7 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Appropriateness to the Organization 7.4 3 3 3 DOTs currently are facing restriction when implementing cloud services Total Score 100.0 4.3 4.3 4.2
|
From page 107... ...
107 3.3.4 User Interface Table 31. Web applications -- design alternatives scoring. User Interface Weight EIP technology alternatives Comments 1 2 3 Web Application Design Commercial web service solution in combination with advanced client‐side framework Open Source web framework in combination with advanced client‐side framework Cloud based web framework solution with advanced client‐side framework Technical Criteria Functionality 3.7 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Reliability 7.4 4 4 5 Standalone enterprise search platforms often use master‐slave architecture which has a higher risk of failure than distributed cloud architecture Availability 3.7 4 4 5 Standalone enterprise search platforms often use master‐slave architecture which has a higher risk of failure than distributed cloud architecture Maintainability 3.7 4 4 5 Cloud services are designed to handle failure by design without interruption Security 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Interoperability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Usability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Supportability 3.7 4 4 5 Little support is needed for Cloud services Scalability 7.4 4 4 5 Cloud service are designed to scale by design, traditional master‐slave setup can become limited Modifiability 7.4 4 5 4 Commercial and cloud solutions are often less modifiable Portability 3.7 4 5 3 Cloud services are not really portable unless containerized, Open Source solution are the most portable Reusability 7.4 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Integrability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Testability 3.7 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Business Qualities Affordability 7.4 4 4 5 Cloud services are the least expensive solutions Marketability 3.7 5 4 3 Commercial solutions are more predominantly used on the market Appropriateness to the Organization 7.4 5 4 3 Commercial solutions are more likely to be adopted by DOTs than Open Source or Cloud services Total Score 100.0 4.3 4.3 4.4
|
From page 108... ...
108 Table 32. Web applications -- monitoring alternatives scoring User Interface Weight EIP technology alternatives Comments 1 2 3 Web Application Monitoring Distributed Open source Log analysis solution Distributed commercial log analysis solution Cloud monitoring service Technical Criteria Functionality 3.7 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Reliability 7.4 4 4 5 Equivalent across alternatives Availability 3.7 4 4 5 Equivalent across alternatives Maintainability 3.7 4 4 5 Cloud services are designed to handle failure by design without interruption Security 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Interoperability 7.4 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Usability 7.4 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Supportability 3.7 4 4 5 Little support is needed for Cloud services Scalability 7.4 4 4 5 Cloud service are designed to scale by design Modifiability 7.4 5 4 4 Open Source solutions allow for the most modifications Portability 3.7 5 4 3 Cloud services are not really portable unless containerized, Open Source solution are the most portable Reusability 7.4 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Integrability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Testability 3.7 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Business Qualities Affordability 7.4 4 3 5 Cloud services are the least expensive solutions Marketability 3.7 4 5 3 Commercial solutions are more predominantly used on the market Appropriateness to the Organization 7.4 4 5 3 Commercial solutions are more likely to be adopted by DOTs than Open Source or Cloud services Total Score 100.0 4.4 4.4 4.5
|
From page 109... ...
109 Table 33. Mobile applications -- design alternatives scoring User Interface Weight EIP technology alternatives Comments 1 2 3 Mobile Application Design Mobile web development framework Cloud mobile application development services Custom mobile web development Technical Criteria Functionality 3.7 5 5 4 Custom mobile web framework may not be able to contain all the features offered by Commercial or Open Source mobile framework Reliability 7.4 4 5 3 Standalone enterprise search platforms often use master‐slave architecture which has a higher risk of failure than distributed cloud architecture Availability 3.7 4 4 5 Depends how they are being set up Maintainability 3.7 4 5 3 Cloud services are designed to handle failure by design without interruption Security 7.4 4 4 3 Custom solutions can be more vulnerable Interoperability 7.4 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Usability 7.4 4 5 4 Cloud mobile services are often easier to use Supportability 3.7 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Scalability 7.4 4 5 4 Cloud service are designed to scale by design other mobile application framework may use traditional architecture and have limited scaling capabilities Modifiability 7.4 3 3 5 Custom solution offers the most ability for modifications Portability 3.7 5 3 4 Cloud services are not really portable unless containerized, Open Source solution are the most portable Reusability 7.4 5 5 4 Custom solution can be more difficult to reuse Integrability 7.4 5 5 4 Custom solution can be more difficult to integrate Testability 3.7 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Business Qualities Affordability 7.4 4 5 3 Cloud services are the least expensive solutions Marketability 3.7 4 4 3 Mobile framework and custom solutions are currently the main solutions found on the market Appropriateness to the Organization 7.4 4 3 4 Commercial solutions are more likely to be adopted by DOTs than Open Source or Cloud services Total Score 100.0 4.3 4.4 3.9
|
From page 110... ...
110 Table 34. Mobile applications -- monitoring alternatives scoring. User Interface Weight EIP technology alternatives Comments 1 2 3 Mobile Application Monitor Custom deployment solution using log analysis solution Cloud mobile application deployment services Commercial or Open Source NoSQL stack Technical Criteria Functionality 3.7 4 5 4 Custom and NoSql based solution may lack analytical features found in cloud mobile framework Reliability 7.4 4 5 5 Cloud or distributed services are typically more reliable than custom solutions Availability 3.7 4 5 4 Cloud or distributed services have typically a lesser risk of failure than custom solutions Maintainability 3.7 3 5 4 Cloud and distributed services are designed to handle failure by design without interruption Security 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Interoperability 7.4 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Usability 7.4 3 5 4 Cloud mobile services are easier to use than custom solutions Supportability 3.7 3 5 4 Little support is needed for Cloud services. Potentially a lot of support for custom solutions Scalability 7.4 4 5 4 Cloud service are designed to scale by design, custom and NoSQL solutions can be limited by design Modifiability 7.4 5 3 4 Custom solution is most open to modification, cloud service the least. Portability 3.7 4 3 4 Cloud services are not really portable unless containerized, Open Source solution are the most portable Reusability 7.4 5 5 4 Custom solution can be difficult to reuse Integrability 7.4 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Testability 3.7 4 5 4 Tons of devices available for testing Business Qualities Affordability 7.4 3 5 4 Cloud services are the least expensive solutions Marketability 3.7 3 4 4 Commercial and cloud solutions are found more predominantly on the market Appropriateness to the Organization 7.4 4 3 4 Commercial solutions are more likely to be adopted by DOTs than Open Source or Cloud services Total Score 100.0 3.9 4.5 4.2
|
From page 111... ...
111 Table 35. Desktop applications alternatives scoring. User Interface Weight EIP technology alternatives Comments 1 2 3 Desktop Application CMS based web application Custom Console or GUI application Web based desktop application framework Technical Criteria Functionality 3.7 5 4 5 Custom solution may have to develop features already available in CMS and application framework Reliability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Availability 3.7 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Maintainability 3.7 4 3 4 Custom solution may be more difficult to maintain Security 7.4 4 4 3 Web based desktop application framework are rather new and untested Interoperability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Usability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Supportability 3.7 4 4 3 Web based desktop application framework are support is not easily found Scalability 7.4 4 4 4 Relevant due to the required web backed Modifiability 7.4 4 5 5 CMS can limit modification possibilities Portability 3.7 3 4 5 CMS content can be difficult to port to another CMS Reusability 7.4 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Integrability 7.4 4 3 5 Custom solutions can be difficult to integrate Testability 3.7 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Business Qualities Affordability 7.4 5 4 5 Web framework and CMS are the least costly alternatives Marketability 3.7 5 4 3 CMS are the most widely used on the market Appropriateness to the Organization 7.4 5 4 4 CMS solutions are more likely to be adopted by DOTs than custom and novel web/desktop framework Total Score 100.0 4.3 4.1 4.2
|
From page 112... ...
112 3.3.5 Storage Table 36. Content archiving alternatives scoring. Storage Weight EIP technology alternatives Comments 1 2 3 Content Archiving Mix of On Premise and Cloud storage Commercial storage solution On Premise or cloud custom storage using Open source software Technical Criteria Functionality 3.7 5 5 4 Open Source solutions may lack advanced storage features such as compression and encryption Reliability 7.4 5 4 5 Cloud services are typically more reliable than custom solutions Availability 3.7 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Maintainability 3.7 4 4 3 Open Source solutions can lead to more maintenance Security 7.4 4 4 3 Open Source solutions may lack advanced storage features such as compression and encryption Interoperability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Usability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Supportability 3.7 4 4 3 Open Source solutions requires more support Scalability 7.4 5 4 5 Cloud solutions are often easier to scale Modifiability 7.4 4 3 4 Commercial and cloud solutions offer low modifications possibilities Portability 3.7 5 4 5 Cloud solutions are not really portable unless containerized, Open Source solution are the most portable Reusability 7.4 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Integrability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Testability 3.7 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Business Qualities Affordability 7.4 5 3 4 Commercial storage solutions are the most expensive option Marketability 3.7 4 5 3 Commercial storage solutions are the most found on the market Appropriateness to the Organization 7.4 4 5 3 Commercial storage solutions are more likely to be adopted by DOTs than cloud storage and open source solutions Total Score 100.0 4.4 4.2 4.0
|
From page 113... ...
113 Table 37. Content caching alternatives scoring. Storage Weight EIP technology alternatives Comments 1 2 3 Content Caching Commercial caching and load balancing solution on premise or cloud Cloud caching and load balancing solution Open Source caching and load balancing solution on premise or cloud Technical Criteria Functionality 3.7 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Reliability 7.4 5 5 4 Open source solutions may be less reliable Availability 3.7 4 5 4 Cloud solutions typically offer higher availability Maintainability 3.7 4 4 3 Open Source and on premise often require more maintenance Security 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Interoperability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Usability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Supportability 3.7 4 4 3 Open source solutions can be more difficult to support Scalability 7.4 4 5 4 Cloud solutions are easier to scale than on premise solutions Modifiability 7.4 3 3 4 Cloud and commercial solutions offer limited modifications possibilities Portability 3.7 4 3 5 Cloud services are not really portable unless containerized, Open Source solution are the most portable Reusability 7.4 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Integrability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Testability 3.7 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Business Qualities Affordability 7.4 3 5 4 Cloud solutions are the least expensive Marketability 3.7 5 4 3 Commercial solutions are the most common on the market Appropriateness to the Organization 7.4 5 3 4 Commercial solutions are more likely to be adopted by DOTs than Open Source or Cloud services Total Score 100.0 4.2 4.2 4.1
|
From page 114... ...
114 Table 38. Content tagging alternatives scoring. Storage Weight EIP technology alternatives Comments 1 2 3 Content Tagging Commercial metadata repository Custom user generated metadata repository semantic web solution Technical Criteria Functionality 3.7 5 4 5 Linking between concept is limited in user generated metadata Reliability 7.4 5 4 5 User generated terms can lead to erroneous selling and meaning Availability 3.7 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Maintainability 3.7 4 3 4 User generated metadata can be challenging to maintain Security 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Interoperability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Usability 7.4 4 5 4 User generated metadata is easier to implement and operate Supportability 3.7 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Scalability 7.4 4 5 5 Custom user generated metadata can generate conflict at large scale Modifiability 7.4 3 4 5 Semantic web based solutions offer the most modification possibilities Portability 3.7 4 5 5 Commercial solutions with proprietary indices and taxonomies format can be difficult to port Reusability 7.4 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Integrability 7.4 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Testability 3.7 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Business Qualities Affordability 7.4 3 4 3 User generated metadata is the least expensive to implement Marketability 3.7 5 4 3 Commercial metadata solutions are the most common on the market Appropriateness to the Organization 7.4 5 4 3 Commercial metadata solutions are the most likely to be adopted by DOTs Total Score 100.0 4.3 4.3 4.3
|
From page 115... ...
115 3.3.6 Database Table 39. GIS database services alternatives scoring. Database Weight EIP technology alternatives Comments 1 2 3 GIS Database Service Cloud or on premise open source GIS database Cloud or on premise commercial GIS database Cloud or on premise NoSqL geo‐ enabled database Technical Criteria Functionality 3.7 4 5 3 NoSQL geospatial solutions do not yet offer all the features offered by traditional commercial or open source geospatial solutions Reliability 7.4 3 4 5 Open source solutions may be less reliable Availability 3.7 4 4 5 Distributed cloud solutions typically provide higher availability Maintainability 3.7 3 4 5 Cloud solutions require less maintenance when deploy in the cloud Security 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Interoperability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Usability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Supportability 3.7 3 3 4 Cloud solutions require less support Scalability 7.4 4 4 5 Scalability is limited for non‐distributed architecture Modifiability 7.4 5 3 4 Commercial solutions have often limited possibilities for modifications Portability 3.7 5 4 3 Open Source solutions are often the most portable Reusability 7.4 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Integrability 7.4 5 4 5 Commercial solutions may require use of proprietary client tools Testability 3.7 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Business Qualities Affordability 7.4 4 3 5 Commercial solutions are the most expensive to implement Marketability 3.7 4 5 3 Commercial solutions are the most common on the market Appropriateness to the Organization 7.4 4 5 3 Commercial solutions are most likely to be adopted by a DOT Total Score 100.0 4.1 4.1 4.2
|
From page 116... ...
116 Table 40. Document database services alternatives scoring. Database Weight EIP technology alternatives Comments 1 2 3 Document Database Service Cloud search service on cloud storage Open Source Distributed Document analysis engine Commercial document management solution Technical Criteria Functionality 3.7 4 5 4 Open Source solutions offers advanced text mining capabilities that may require third party applications with the other solutions Reliability 7.4 5 5 4 Standalone enterprise search platforms often use master‐ slave architecture which has a higher risk of failure than distributed cloud architecture Availability 3.7 5 5 4 Distributed cloud solutions typically provide higher availability Maintainability 3.7 5 5 4 Standalone enterprise solutions are often more difficult to maintain than cloud or distributed solutions Security 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Interoperability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Usability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Supportability 3.7 5 3 4 Open Source solutions can have limited support Scalability 7.4 5 5 3 Distributed cloud solutions typically provide higher scalability Modifiability 7.4 3 5 4 Open Source solutions offer the most modification possibilities Portability 3.7 3 4 3 Cloud services are not really portable unless containerized, Open Source solution are the most portable Reusability 7.4 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Integrability 7.4 5 5 4 Commercial solutions often rely on proprietary standards or formats limiting integration Testability 3.7 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Business Qualities Affordability 7.4 5 4 3 Cloud solutions are often the least expensive Marketability 3.7 4 4 5 Commercial solutions are the most found on the market Appropriateness to the Organization 7.4 4 4 5 DOTs are more likely to invest in commercial solutions than cloud or open source ones Total Score 100.0 4.4 4.5 4.1
|
From page 117... ...
117 Table 41. Image, video, and binary files database services alternatives scoring. Database Weight EIP technology alternatives Comments 1 2 3 Inage, Video and Binary file Database Service Basic cloud storage solution Cloud or on premise custom hadoop based storage Commercial or Open Source NoSQL datastore in cloud or on premise Technical Criteria Functionality 3.7 4 5 5 Custom solutions will provide the most features Reliability 7.4 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives (all distributed solutions) Availability 3.7 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives (all distributed solutions)
|
From page 118... ...
118 Table 42. Financial data database services alternatives scoring. Database Weight EIP technology alternatives Comments 1 2 3 Financial Database Service Commercial on premise enterprise solution Commercial Cloud enterprise solution On premise or cloud custom enterprise solution using RDBMS Technical Criteria Functionality 3.7 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Reliability 7.4 4 5 3 Distributed cloud solutions typically provide higher reliability Availability 3.7 4 5 4 Distributed cloud solutions typically provide higher availability Maintainability 3.7 4 5 4 Standalone enterprise solutions are often more difficult to maintain than cloud or distributed solutions Security 7.4 5 5 4 Custom solutions can be more vulnerable Interoperability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Usability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Supportability 3.7 4 5 3 Custom solutions can be more challenging to support Scalability 7.4 3 5 3 RDBMS based solutions will limit scalability Modifiability 7.4 3 3 5 Custom solutions are allowing for the most modification possibilities Portability 3.7 3 3 4 Commercial and custom solutions often have limited portability Reusability 7.4 5 5 4 Custom solutions can limit reusability Integrability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Testability 3.7 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Business Qualities Affordability 7.4 4 5 3 Custom and commercial solutions are the most expensive Marketability 3.7 5 4 3 Commercial solutions on premise are the most common Appropriateness to the Organization 7.4 5 4 3 DOTs are more likely to invest in commercial on premise solutions Total Score 100.0 4.2 4.5 3.8
|
From page 119... ...
119 Table 43. Sensor data database services alternatives scoring. Database Weight EIP technology alternatives Comments 1 2 3 Sensor Data Database Service On premise or cloud open source Streaming framework Cloud Streaming framework solution On premise or cloud open source or commercial OLTP setup Technical Criteria Functionality 3.7 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Reliability 7.4 4 5 4 Distributed cloud solutions typically provide higher reliability Availability 3.7 4 5 4 Distributed cloud solutions typically provide higher availability Maintainability 3.7 4 5 4 Cloud solutions require less maintenance Security 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Interoperability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Usability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Supportability 3.7 3 5 4 Open Source and custom solutions can have limited support Scalability 7.4 4 5 4 On premise solutions even distributed will not be able to scale as easily as cloud solutions Modifiability 7.4 4 3 3 Cloud and commercial solutions often limit the possibilities of modifications Portability 3.7 4 3 3 Cloud services are not really portable unless containerized, Open Source solution are often the most portable Reusability 7.4 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Integrability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Testability 3.7 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Business Qualities Affordability 7.4 4 5 3 Cloud solutions are the least expensive Marketability 3.7 3 4 5 Commercial OLTP based solutions are the most common Appropriateness to the Organization 7.4 3 4 5 DOTs are more likely to invest in commercial on premise solutions Total Score 100.0 4.0 4.4 4.1
|
From page 120... ...
120 3.3.7 Management Tools Table 44. Resources and application monitoring alternatives scoring. Management tools Weight EIP technology alternatives Comments 1 2 3 Resource and Application Monitoring On premise or cloud open source monitoring solution Cloud monitoring solution Cloud or on premise Commercial monitoring solution Technical Criteria Functionality 3.7 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Reliability 7.4 4 5 4 Cloud solutions offer less failure risks Availability 3.7 4 5 4 Cloud solutions benefits from larger clusters Maintainability 3.7 4 5 4 Cloud solutions require little maintenance Security 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Interoperability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Usability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Supportability 3.7 4 5 4 Open Source and commercial solutions need the most support Scalability 7.4 4 5 4 On premise solutions even distributed will not be able to scale as easily as cloud solutions Modifiability 7.4 4 3 3 Cloud and commercial solutions often limit the possibilities of modifications Portability 3.7 4 3 3 Cloud services are not really portable unless containerized, Open Source solution are the most portable Reusability 7.4 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Integrability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Testability 3.7 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Business Qualities Affordability 7.4 4 5 3 Cloud monitoring solutions are the least expensive Marketability 3.7 4 3 5 Commercial monitoring solutions are the most commonly found Appropriateness to the Organization 7.4 4 3 5 DOTs are less likely to adopt open source or cloud services Total Score 100.0 4.2 4.3 4.1
|
From page 121... ...
121 Table 45. Resources provisioning and scaling alternatives scoring. Management tools Weight EIP technology alternatives Comments 1 2 3 Resources Provisioning and Scaling On premise or cloud commercial resource management solution Serverless architecture only pay‐as‐ you‐go functions Cloud or on premise container solution (ephemeral) Technical Criteria Functionality 3.7 5 5 5 Different but equivalent functionalities Reliability 7.4 4 5 5 Serverless architecture and container solutions offer less risk of failure Availability 3.7 4 5 5 Serverless architecture and container solutions can be quickly resumed or restarted at prior functioning states Maintainability 3.7 4 5 4 Serverless architecture require very little maintenance Security 7.4 4 3 3 Serverless architecture and container solutions are rather new and therefore more prone to security risks Interoperability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Usability 7.4 4 5 4 Serverless architecture solutions are easier to use Supportability 3.7 4 5 4 Cloud services require less support Scalability 7.4 4 5 4 Cloud services have better scaling capabilities than on premise Modifiability 7.4 4 4 5 Container based solution offer the most amount of flexibility with regard to modifications Portability 3.7 4 3 5 Cloud services are not really portable unless containerized Reusability 7.4 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Integrability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Testability 3.7 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Business Qualities Affordability 7.4 3 5 4 No server architecture solutions are the least expensive Marketability 3.7 5 3 4 Commercial solutions are most commonly found Appropriateness to the Organization 7.4 4 3 5 DOTs are more likely to invest in commercial solutions Total Score 100.0 4.2 4.4 4.4
|
From page 122... ...
122 Table 46. Content auditing alternatives scoring. Management tools Weight EIP technology alternatives Comments 1 2 3 Content Auditing Cloud based Commercial or open source content auditing and inventory software On premise commercial and Open Source Search Engine Optimization tools Custom reports using search engine solution Technical Criteria Functionality 3.7 5 4 5 SEO tools are often focused on marketing features Reliability 7.4 5 4 4 Cloud based software have higher reliability Availability 3.7 5 5 4 Cloud based software provide higher level of availability Maintainability 3.7 5 5 3 Custom solution requires the most maintenance Security 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Interoperability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Usability 7.4 5 5 3 Custom solutions are more difficult to use Supportability 3.7 5 5 4 Cloud services require less support Scalability 7.4 5 5 4 Cloud services have better scaling capabilities than on premise Modifiability 7.4 4 4 5 Custom solutions offer the most amount of flexibility with regard to modifications Portability 3.7 3 3 4 Cloud services are not really portable unless containerized Reusability 7.4 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Integrability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Testability 3.7 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Business Qualities Affordability 7.4 5 5 4 Cloud based solutions are the least expensive Marketability 3.7 5 5 4 Commercial solutions are most commonly found Appropriateness to the Organization 7.4 5 5 3 DOTs are more likely to invest in commercial solutions Total Score 100.0 4.6 4.5 4.1
|
From page 123... ...
123 3.3.8 Security and Identity Table 47. Identity and access management alternatives scoring. Security and Identity Weight EIP technology alternatives Comments 1 2 3 Identity and access management Cloud AIM solution Cloud or on premise Commercial AIM solution Custom on premise AIM solution Technical Criteria Functionality 3.7 5 5 4 Custom solutions may not provide all AIM features that commercial and cloud solutions offer Reliability 7.4 5 4 4 Cloud solutions are less likely to fail Availability 3.7 5 4 4 Cloud solutions benefits from larger clusters Maintainability 3.7 5 4 4 Cloud solutions require little maintenance Security 7.4 4 4 3 Custom solutions can be less secure Interoperability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Usability 7.4 4 4 3 Equivalent across alternatives Supportability 3.7 5 4 3 cloud solutions require less support Scalability 7.4 5 4 3 Cloud services have better scaling capabilities than on premise Modifiability 7.4 4 4 5 commercial and cloud solutions offer little possibilities of modifications Portability 3.7 4 3 4 Cloud services are not really portable unless containerized Reusability 7.4 5 5 4 Custom solutions can be difficult to reuse Integrability 7.4 4 4 4 Equivalent across alternatives Testability 3.7 5 5 5 Equivalent across alternatives Business Qualities Affordability 7.4 5 3 4 Cloud solutions are the least expensive Marketability 3.7 4 5 3 Commercial AIM solutions are the most commonly implemented Appropriateness to the Organization 7.4 3 5 4 DOTs are more likely to implement commercial on premise AIM solutions rather than cloud based ones Total Score 100.0 4.5 4.2 3.8
|
From page 124... ...
124 Table 48. Security audit alternatives scoring. Security and Identity Weight EIP technology alternatives Comments 1 2 3 Security Audit External party assessment and penetration testing Open Source or Commercial security evaluation and monitoring tools for network and software layer Internal assessment Technical Criteria Functionality 3.7 n/a 5 n/a Reliability 7.4 n/a 4 n/a Security software are often not distributed Availability 3.7 n/a 4 n/a Maintainability 3.7 n/a 4 n/a Ensure that threat patterns are up to date Security 7.4 n/a 4 n/a Interoperability 7.4 n/a 4 n/a Usability 7.4 n/a 4 n/a Supportability 3.7 n/a 4 n/a Security updates are numerous and frequent Scalability 7.4 n/a 4 n/a Commercial security software can have limited scalability Modifiability 7.4 n/a 3 n/a Few security Portability 3.7 n/a 4 n/a Reusability 7.4 n/a 5 n/a Integrability 7.4 n/a 4 n/a Testability 3.7 n/a 3 n/a Difficult to test against new threats Business Qualities Affordability 7.4 n/a 3 n/a Commercial security solutions are expensive Marketability 3.7 n/a 5 n/a Appropriateness to the Organization 7.4 n/a 5 n/a DOTs would most likely select commercial over open source solutions Total Score 100.0 n/a 4.1 n/a
|
From page 125... ...
3 I f p 3 3 A ( a h 3 3 A d s 3 A c a s 3 3 3 A D 3 A c 3 A p G 3 A p .4 Task 3 n Task 3.4, th eedback rece ractices. The .4.1 Gene Host.4.1.1 ccording to t i.e., cloud an nd reliability ouse. Dep.4.1.2 .4.1.2.1 Ap ccording to t eployment a ource config .4.1.2.2 Co ccording to t ontinuous in hosted cont hould be disc .4.2 Deta Serv.4.2.1 .4.2.1.1 AP ccording to t OT EIP API g .4.2.1.2 Se ccording to t apabilities fo .4.2.1.3 GI ccording to t rocessing an IS server fra .4.2.1.4 Da ccording to t rocessing ca .4 Summa e research te ived from th results and ral Recomm ing he surveyed d on‐premise of EIP applic loyment and M plication Dep he survey re nd server con uration mana ntinuous Inte he survey re tegration ser inuous integr ussed during iled Recomm ices I Gateway he survey re ateway was t arching he survey re r a sustainab S Data Proces he survey re d rendering c mework in co ta Stream Pr he survey re pabilities in a rize and R am reviewed e developer c recommenda endations respondents ) infrastructu ations while aintenance loyment and spondents an figuration w gement serv gration spondents an vices ranked ation service the Task 5 w endations spondents an he adoption spondents an le DOT EIP AP sing and Ren spondents an apabilities in mbination w ocessing spondents an sustainable eview EIP and ranked ommunity re tions of this , sustainable re. The mixe allowing sens Server Confi d after scori as either a cl ice used in co d after scori at the same l (software as orkshop. d after scori of a cloud AP d after scori I was the clo dering d after scori a sustainabl ith the use o d after scori DOT EIP API w Practice the scores of sponses, and analysis are s DOT EIPs sho d infrastructu itive data, su guration ng, the recom oud‐based co mbination w ng, all three r evel. The use a service)
|
From page 126... ...
3 A c o d 3 A d s 3 3 A a c 3 A a 3 A a d 3 A a d 3 A s D 3 3 A a s 3 A c lo .4.2.1.5 M ccording to t apabilities in btained by t uring the Tas .4.2.1.6 Co ccording to t elivery capab olution or th User .4.2.2 .4.2.2.1 W ccording to t pplication de ombination w .4.2.2.2 W ccording to t pplication m .4.2.2.3 Mo ccording to t pplication de evelopment .4.2.2.4 Mo ccording to t pplication m eployment s .4.2.2.5 De ccording to t ustainable D OT EIP API w Stor.4.2.3 .4.2.3.1 Co ccording to t rchiving capa torage and o .4.2.3.2 Co ccording to t aching capab ad‐balancin essaging he survey re a sustainable he open sour k 5 worksho ntent Deliver he survey re ilities in a su e adoption of Interface eb Applicatio he survey re sign capabili ith an advan eb Applicatio he survey re onitoring cap bile Applicat he survey re sign capabili service. bile Applicat he survey re onitoring cap ervice. sktop Applica he survey re OT EIP. The r as the use of age ntent Archivi he survey re bilities in a s n‐premise sto ntent Cachin he survey re ilities in a su g solution. spondents an DOT EIP AP ce and comm p. y spondents an stainable DO a commerci ns -- Design spondents an ties in a susta ced client‐si ns -- Monitor spondents an abilities in a ions -- Design spondents an ties in a susta ions -- Monit spondents an abilities in a tions spondents an ecommended a content‐m ng spondents an ustainable DO rage. g spondents an stainable DO d after scori I was the ado ercial ESB op d after scori T EIP API was al distributed d after scori inable DOT E de web deve ing d after scori sustainable D d after scori inable DOT E oring d after scori sustainable D d after scori approach to anagement‐s d after scori T EIP API wa d after scori T EIP API was ng, the recom ption of a clo tions were r ng, the recom the adoptio content deli ng, the recom IP API was th lopment fram ng, the recom OT EIP API w ng, the recom IP API was th ng, the recom OT EIP API w ng, no deskto providing de ervice‐based ng, the recom s the adopti ng, the recom either the ad mended app ud messagin ather close, t mended app n of either a very solution mended app e adoption o ework. mended app as the adopt mended app e adoption o mended app as the adopt p application sktop applic web applica mended app on of mixed s mended app option of a c roach to pro g framework his topic sho roach to pro cloud conten . roach to pro f a cloud‐bas roach to pro ion of a clou roach to pro f a cloud mo roach to pro ion of a clou should be d ation capabil tion. roach to pro torage capab roach to pro loud or com viding messa . Since the sc uld be discus viding conte t delivery ne viding web ed web fram viding web d‐monitoring viding mobil bile applicati viding mobil d mobile app eveloped as ities in a sust viding conte ility using clo viding conte mercial cachi 126 ging ores sed nt twork ework in service. e on e lication part of a ainable nt ud nt ng and
|
From page 127... ...
3 A t g 3 3 A s d 3 A d d 3 A a s 3 A d s 3 A d b 3 3 A a 3 A p s 3 A a s s .4.2.3.3 Co ccording to t agging servic enerated me Data.4.2.4 .4.2.4.1 GI ccording to t ervice capab atabase. .4.2.4.2 Do ccording to t atabase serv ocument ana .4.2.4.3 Im ccording to t nd binary file torage soluti .4.2.4.4 Fin ccording to t atabase serv olution. .4.2.4.5 Se ccording to t atabase serv ased solutio Man.4.2.5 .4.2.5.1 Re ccording to t pplication m .4.2.5.2 Re ccording to t rovisioning a erver‐less arc .4.2.5.3 Co ccording to t uditing servi ource conten cored right b ntent Taggin he survey re es ranked at tadata repos base S Database Se he survey re ilities in a sus cument Data he survey re ice capabiliti lysis engine. age, Video, a he survey re s database s on. ancial Data D he survey re ice capabiliti nsor Data Da he survey re ice capabiliti n. agement Too sources and A he survey re onitoring cap sources Prov he survey re nd scaling ca hitecture or ntent Auditin he survey re ce capabilitie t auditing an elow the rec g spondents an the same lev itory, or a se rvices spondents an tainable DOT base Service spondents an es in a sustai nd Binary File spondents an ervice capab atabase Serv spondents an es in sustaina tabase Servic spondents an es in a sustai ls pplication M spondents an abilities in a isioning and S spondents an pabilities in a a cloud or on g spondents an s in a sustain d inventory s ommended a d after scori el. The use of mantic web s d after scori EIP API was s d after scori nable DOT EI s Database S d after scori ilities in a sus ices d after scori ble DOT EIP es d after scori nable DOT EI onitoring d after scori sustainable D caling d after scori sustainable ‐premise con d after scori able DOT EIP oftware. Com pproach and ng, all three r a commerci olution shou ng, the recom the adoption ng, the recom P API was the ervices ng, the recom tainable DOT ng, the recom API was the a ng, the recom P API was the ng, the recom OT EIP API w ng, the recom DOT EIP API tainer‐based ng, the recom API was the mercial or o should be di ecommende al metadata ld be discuss mended app of a cloud o mended app adoption of mended app EIP API was mended app doption of a mended app adoption of mended app as the adopt mended app was the adop solution. mended app adoption of c pen source s scussed durin d approache repository, a ed during the roach to pro r on‐premise roach to pro an open sou roach to pro the adoption roach to pro commercial roach to pro a cloud‐strea roach to pro ion of a clou roach to pro tion of eithe roach to pro loud‐based c earch engine g the Task 5 s to providing custom user‐ Task 5 work viding GIS da NoSQL geo‐c viding docum rce distribute viding image of a basic clo viding financ cloud enterp viding senso ming‐framew viding resou d‐monitoring viding resou r a cloud‐bas viding conte ommercial o optimization workshop. 127 content shop. tabase apable ent d , video, ud ial data rise r data ork‐ rces and solution. rces ed nt r open tools
|
From page 128... ...
3 3 A a ( 3 A D s s t Secu.4.2.6 .4.2.6.1 Ide ccording to t ccess manag software as a .4.2.6.2 Se ccording to t OT EIP. Som urvey respon oftware laye esting) shoul rity and Iden ntity and Acc he survey re ement servic service)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.