Question
|
Response
|
Business Functions
|
| 1. |
What
are the business functions that this application performs? Check all that
apply. |
|
1.
Sales & Marketing Consumer |
|
1a.
Sales & Marketing Provider |
| |
|
2. Proposal
/ Quoting Consumer |
|
2a. Proposal
/ Quoting Provider |
| |
Consumer: Utilizes
a business function provided by another application
Provider: Provides
the business function with the application either for internal use or
for consumption by another application
|
|
3. New
Product Development Consumer |
|
3a. New
Product Development Provider |
| |
|
4. Compensation
& Commissions Consumer |
|
4a. Compensation
& Commissions Provider |
| |
|
5. Underwriting
Consumer |
|
5a. Underwriting
Provider |
| |
|
6. Case
Installation Consumer |
|
6a. Case
Installation Provider |
| |
|
|
7. Case
Administration Consumer |
|
7a. Case
Administration Provider |
| |
|
|
8. Eligibility
& Participant Record Keeping Consumer |
|
8a. Eligibility
& Participant Record Keeping Provider |
| |
|
|
9. Claim
Processing Consumer |
|
9a. Claim
Processing Provider |
| |
|
|
10. Billing
& Remittance Consumer |
|
10a.
Billing & Remittance Provider |
| |
|
|
11. Reporting
Consumer |
|
11a.
Reporting Provider |
| |
|
|
12. Customer
Service Consumer |
|
12a.
Customer Service Provider |
|
| 2. |
What would the
impact on your business be if this application was web-enabled?
Consider the
impact on revenues for products supported by this application or on
productivity.
Some criteria
to consider for web-enabled candidates:
large
user base; multiple sites; business-to-business external clients (vendors/suppliers);
end client data entry.
|
|
0. The
application is not appropriate for the web |
|
1. No
impact on sales or productivity |
| |
|
2. Minimal
impact on sales or productivity |
|
3. Some
impact on sales or productivity, but not critical |
| |
|
4. Significant
impact on sales or productivity |
|
5. Great
impact on sales or productivity |
|
| 3. |
How
would your business be impacted if this application could support cross-selling
your product to Institutional's customer base? |
|
1 Not
applicable; the function of the application is not appropriate for this
kind of effort |
|
2 Extremely
difficult; the development time and costs would be prohibitive |
| |
|
|
3 Difficult
but not impossible to develop |
|
4 Not
difficult; the development time and costs would not be prohibitive and
with some effort the application would be ready to support this effort
|
|
|
|
|
5 Very
easy; the application is ready to support this effort |
|
|
|
| 4. |
Is the application
involved in first sale or second sale processing?
First sale: Sale
to a MetLife client.
Second sale:
Sale to a MetLife participant in a plan.
|
|
|
|
|
Application Assessment
Maintainability
|
| 5. |
How
difficult is it to add additional functions or business processes to the
application? |
|
1. Extremely
difficult; highly unstructured, no separation of presentation, business
and data access logic |
|
2. Difficult;
little structure, little separation of presentation, business and data
access logic |
| |
|
|
3. Average;
some structure, some separation of presentation, business and data access
logic |
|
4. Fairly
simple; mostly structured, much separation of presentation, business and
data access logic |
| |
|
|
5. Easy;
highly structured, presentation, business and data access logic are separate
|
|
|
|
| 6. |
What
percentage of your negotiated SLA line items will not be completed this
year? |
|
|
|
|
Data and Report Information
Accuracy
|
| 7. |
Indicate whether
the application is considered to have accurate data.
|
|
1. Pervasive
problems with data accuracy and/or considerable time and effort is spent
cleaning up data |
|
2. Frequent
occurrences of wrong data |
| |
|
|
3. Occasional
problems with data accuracy |
|
4. Rarely
a problem, the data is relied upon |
| |
|
|
5. Never
a problem with data |
|
|
Application Reliability
|
| 8. |
How
often does the application fail during use? |
|
1. Failure
rate is totally unacceptable |
|
2. Frequently
fails |
| |
|
|
3. Occasionally
fails |
|
4. Rarely
fails |
| |
|
|
5. Never
fails |
|
|
|
| 9. |
Is
the application available when it is scheduled to be available? |
|
1. Lack
of availability is a major problem |
|
2. Frequently
unavailable |
| |
|
|
3. Occasionally
unavailable, could use improvement |
|
4. Acceptable
level of availability |
| |
|
|
5. Always
available |
|
|
Scalability
|
| 10. |
Do
you anticipate a significant increase in the number of users within the
next two years? |
|
|
|
|
|
| 11. |
What
is the anticipated growth of the business area that this application supports? |
|
|
|
|
|
| 12. |
Do
you anticipate needing the application more hours than are currently available? |
|
1. No |
|
2. Yes,
could increase availability to 7x12 |
| |
|
|
3. Yes,
could increase availability to 7x18 |
|
4. Yes,
could increase availability to 5x18 |
| |
|
|
5. Yes,
could increase availability to 7x24 |
|
|
Information Technology's
Perspective on Business Application Assessment
Mission Critical
|
| 13. |
What is the impact
on MetLife if this application is not available?
|
|
1. No
Impact; Workarounds & alternatives are in place |
|
2. Impact
would be minimal; Some users may not have certain information but workarounds
are in place |
| |
|
|
3. Impact
would be significant but workarounds are in place to mitigate the problem
|
|
4. Impact
would be significant and there are no workarounds |
| |
|
|
5. Impact
would be disastrous; MetLife would be at risk if this application did
not run |
|
|
Meets Business Needs
|
| 14.
|
Indicate whether
there are problems with non-routine processing.
Consider how
the application handles ad hoc requests or special runs for monthly,
quarterly or annual processes.
|
|
1.
Always a problem |
|
2.
Often a problem |
| |
|
3. Occasionally
a problem, could use improvement |
|
4. Rarely
a problem |
| |
|
|
5. Never
a problem, extremely reliable and smooth |
|
0. Not
applicable |
|
| 15. |
Rate the overall
usefulness or value of this application in meeting business needs.
Consider the
comprehensiveness and suitability of processing and reporting functions
performed by the application. Does the application currently satisfy
a business purpose?
|
|
1. The
application is useless and should be discarded |
|
2. The
application is of marginal value to the business, significant modifications
are necessary to meet current requirements |
| |
|
3. Minor
adjustments to functionality are needed to meet requirements |
|
4. The
application meets current requirements and is considered valuable to the
business |
| |
|
|
5. The
application meets current and anticipated future requirements and is considered
extremely valuable to the business |
|
|
|
| 16. |
How easy is it
to make enhancements to the application?
Consider the
application's track record for keeping pace with changes in the business
environment. Are enhancements made frequently enough to satisfy business
requirements?
|
|
1. Extremely
difficult, existing functions quickly become obsolete and new functions
cannot be added soon enough |
|
2. Difficult,
enhancements require long lead time and/or are very expensive |
| |
|
3. The
enhancement process is generally considered adequate, but it could be
improved |
|
4. The
enhancement process is acceptable, most changes can be made in a reasonable
amount of time with reasonable costs |
| |
|
|
5. The
enhancement process is excellent, when business rules or user requirements
change the application responds quickly and efficiently to incorporate
the new change |
|
|
Meets Performance
Needs
|
|
17.
|
Rate the adequacy
of response time for the average transaction.
Consider whether
the response time is satisfactory in relation to business requirements.
A transaction is an interactive display of a record
|
|
1. Response time
is totally unacceptable
|
|
2. Frequently unacceptable
|
| |
|
3. Occasionally
slow response time, needs some improvement |
|
4. Acceptable |
| |
|
|
5. Excellent
|
|
0. Not
applicable |
|
| 18. |
Indicate
your level of satisfaction with the quality and reliability of support
services for this application. Consider timeliness of response and suitability
of problem resolution (application team and/or the centralized help desk). |
|
1. Extremely
low level of satisfaction |
|
2. Unsatisfied
|
| |
|
3. Neutral
|
|
4. Satisfied
|
| |
|
5. Extremely
high level of satisfaction |
|
|
User Interface Quality
(Ease of Use)
|
| 19. |
Rate the overall
quality of the user interface.
Consider whether
there are too many or too few screens. Are field descriptions clear?
Are abbreviations understandable? Are screens cluttered and confusing?
Is it easy to navigate through the application? Do you like the look
and feel of what you see?
|
|
1. People
actively avoid the application because it is difficult to access and use
|
|
2. The
application interfaces are cumbersome and/or confusing |
| |
|
3. The
application interfaces are generally considered adequate, but some areas
could be improved |
|
4. The
application interfaces are acceptable |
| |
|
|
5. The
application interfaces are intuitive and easy to use |
|
0. Not
Applicable |
|
| 20. |
What
amount of training is required in order to become proficient in using
the application? |
|
1. Considerable
training and experience are required to use the application successfully.
Application users may require a month or longer before they become proficient.
|
|
2. Two
to three weeks of special training are required |
| |
|
3. A
week of special training is required |
|
4. Several
days of special training are required |
| |
|
|
5. The
application is intuitive and requires no special training |
|
0. Not
Applicable |
Ease of Access (Is
Application Effective?)
|
| 21. |
Rate
the ease of data entry (e.g., initial input, updates, etc.). |
|
1 Data
entry is extremely difficult |
|
2 Data
entry is difficult |
| |
|
3 Data
entry is generally considered adequate, even though some functions could
be improved |
|
4 The
application provides acceptable data entry capabilities |
| |
|
|
5 The
data entry function is efficient and facilitates accurate data entry |
|
0 Not
Applicable |
|
| 22. |
Rate
the ease of accessing and retrieving data (e.g. reports, views, queries,
extracts, etc.). |
|
1. Information
is extremely difficult to retrieve |
|
2. The
data retrieval functions have minimal value because they are difficult
to use |
| |
|
3. Data
retrieval is generally considered adequate, even though some functions
could be improved |
|
4. The
application provides acceptable data retrieval capabilities |
| |
|
|
5. The
application provides easy access to information |
|
0. Not
Applicable |
Value and Timeliness
of Reporting
|
| 23. |
Rate the overall
value of the reports that are the output of this application.
Consider whether
the reports are appropriate, comprehensive, timely and useful. Are there
too many or too few reports? Too much or too little information? Irrelevant
data? Is the format understandable or confusing? Do the reports satisfy
a business purpose? Does anyone use them?
|
|
1. Rarely
use, of little or no value |
|
2. Use
occasionally, may need to make adjustments to either data or presentation.
Often obtain needed information from other sources. |
| |
|
3. Use
frequently, but needs improvements to meet business requirements |
|
4. Reports
are useful |
| |
|
5. Reports
are highly valuable |
|
0. Not
applicable |
|
| 24. |
Indicate whether
the application is considered to have timely data.
Consider whether
the data is current enough. Or is it considered stale data?
|
|
1 Data
is so old, it cannot be relied upon |
|
2 Often
need to go elsewhere for more current data |
| |
|
3 Usually
data is timely, but sometimes need to use other sources |
|
4 Data
is timely, seldom need to use other sources |
| |
|
5 Data
always timely, never need to use other sources |
|
|
|
| 25. |
Please
enter any comments regarding the business assessment of this application |
|
|
|
|
SUBMIT
will send the survey as an email and will not be retrievable, therefore,
for your records, please print the completed form before submitting
Warning: If you
have not entered the Application Name and
Respondent name, the survey will need to be re-entered.
|