Evaluation enterprise pdf

One of architecture, and transition plan effectively [5], [9], [19], [24]. The reason for adding Process: As mentioned above, the modeling is considered as governance into the new edition of EAP model was: through a compulsory part of any EAIM. However, EAIM emphasizes effective governance possible to become a real portfolio of the set of process and parts performed as part of the EA life approved transition plan projects.

The revised EAP Wedding cycle. These activities and steps form the process, which guide Cake model is an important part of the refreshment of the EAP enterprise architect and business analyzer in EA approach.

This refreshment helps to strengthen and reconnect implementation. A useful EAIM should cover the following EAP to the continually evolving stream of EA methodologies stages, enterprise modeling, current architecture analysis, that are in use globally.

In EAP update, it has presented desired architecture analysis, managing and providing detailed several significant changes that reflect updates in how and design of projects, describing controlled transition plan, and when to do EA that it felt was needed to advance and refresh implementation.

This will help make EAP more development by considering EA concepts is a consistent and current and hopefully still very useful in understanding how to complete methodology [5], [9], [19], [24]. Enterprise architect must be determined some method is Model-driven, that is specific templates of data that features of TOGAF methodology such as: level of details, are used to aggregate and communicate data on a specific breadth of coverage, and extent of time horizon due to ADM architectural issue.

When these models are complete they does not provide prescription on those. Technology Architecture DODAF, by using given perspectives focuses on the is employed to build up the basis implementation. It comprises supporting decision makers guide the development of EA eight sub-phases comprising: formation of current, considering International Science Index Vol:9, No:1, waset.

Opportunities and D. Gartner Solutions comprises of assessment and choice of Gartner methodology believes that EA is about bringing implementing options. Migration Planning concerns on together three constituents: business owners, information prioritizing implementing projects in accordance with their specialists, and the technology implementers. Bringing given dependencies. Implementation Governance concerns on groups together and merge them into the one vision based on governing of EA project particularly on implementing and values of business, cause project has succeeded; otherwise deploying.

Architecture Change Management concerns on project has failed. In Gartner point of view success could be future changes by using repeated surveillance process in measured by pragmatic term [12]. According to Gartner point of view EA project must be Requirements Management provides the place for started with understanding enterprise direction on business, identifying and keeping requirements for other ADM Cycle not with finding its current position.

This activity needs to phases. In order to obtain pure and concise Enterprise Continuum EC. TRM model base on Application, information about enterprise, Gartner tries to achieve them in Application Platform and Communication Infrastructure and simple words, without concerning about recommended their interconnectivity depicts a system. Moreover, it describes standard document, or technical babbling.

The result of this quality of services that organized by the system and the method is providing common understanding about enterprise Standard Information Base in the EC provides integrated situation and strategic plan [12]. FEA way of EC as its knowledge base. Although, processes of each The Federal Enterprise Architecture FEA method is ADM phase are defined appropriately, ADM leaves flexibility mainly concentrated on creating architectural method for of implementation to EA architects to decide needed activities governmental agency and is described in the FEA Practice for EA project from distinct set of possible results.

In order to Guidance. The segment-architecture development process trace designing and deciding on architecture ADM suggests consists of four steps including [1], [8]: documenting of design rationale [23]. FEA is one of do not present a method for consistency and traceability.

Although Gartner does not progression through project launch, strategic intent, system consider all concepts attributes efficiently, it considers EA requirements, conceptual solutions, and preliminary planning. The following results are achieved based on this guidance to implement and adapt these initial plans to the research: specific context of the Federal Segment. Strategy and Artifacts are supported by most developing an EA. Based on the proposed framework a review on related In process: although, step by step structure, detailed design, research papers [1]-[3], [6], [7], [11], [12], [15], [16], [18], and implementation are most usable attributes in EAIMs, [20]-[23] and particular guideline of each selected EAIM was requirement, maintenance, and continual need to consider conducted in order to specify selected EAIMs based on more due to lack of consideration in most EAIM.

Table I shows the summary of results. Besides, the results of this study based on defined framework are: Concepts: TOGAF provides appropriate governance and repository rather than the other by utilizing a specific model for them.

However, EAP had some changes in , but significant part of EAP still is strategy plan that designed based on four architecture layers including: business, data, application, and infrastructure. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Computers in industry GAO highest grade in all mentioned aspects, they are still need to July 22, decrease complexities of process and modeling. IEEE, We will continue this research in future 7th International Conference on Business Information Systems.

Handler, Anne Lapkin, and Nicholas Gall. This research ai ms are useful for those who are "Gartner Enterprise Architecture Framework: Evolution IT Version 9. Related Papers. By Babak Darvish Rouhani. Managers and investors wish to receive all information necessary for better solutions and improved decision-making.

Therefore, the question of risk evaluation and chosen direction of scientific research are topical because of crucial need to optimize the financial provision structure of enterprise's innovation and investment activity.

Recent research and publications analysis. The nature of financial and other kinds of risk, peculiarities of risk management and methods of qualitative and quan- titative evaluation were explored by G. Cornuejols and R. Tuluncu Granaturov et al. Lintner , H. Markowitz , M. Melnikoff , R. Merton , L. Modigliani and F.

Modigliani , W. Sharpe 1 Sumy State University, Ukraine. Skliar, Anastasiia V. Le Sourd , V. Vitlinskiy and other domestic and foreign sci- entists. However, scientific and methodological approaches to riskiness quantifica- tion of financing enterprises' innovations and investments are investigated fragmen- tary, thus requiring further development and improvement.

The research objective is to investigate and improve scientific and methodologi- cal approaches to risk evaluation at enterprise innovation and investment activity financing. Key research findings. Risk is inherent to most economic activities depending on the attempt to predict the unknown. This is especially true of financial activities where results of decisions made today may have many possible different outcomes depending on future events.

In turn, innovative projects are considered to be the most high-risk ones for investment, so looking for investment and other commercial finan- cial resources innovators need to assess their chances realistically. To make the right investment decision it is necessary not only to determine the value of the expected income, the degree of risk, but also to assess whether the expected return compen- sates the perceived risk.

However, the difficulty here is related to the fact that risk evaluation in enterprise's innovation and investment activity is less formalized than other assessment methods Grzebyk, So, it is important to determine the essence of riskiness in enterprise's innovation and investment activity. In general sense, risk is a possibility of occurrence of certain adverse event entailing the emergence of various kinds of loss or in other words pos- sible danger of loss arising from specifics of certain natural phenomena and human activities Valinurova et al.

Risk is an event that may happen or may not hap- pen. In case of occurrence of such event there are 3 economic outcomes: negative loss, damage , zero and positive gain, profit Balabanov, Risk of innovative project is the risk of successful implementation of a project, characterized by the uncertainty and associated with the possibility of implementation of the project dur- ing adverse situations and consequences which point out cases of objective and sub- jective probabilities the project may fail, be ineffective or less effective than expect- ed Agarkov et al.

Summing up, we propose to determine riskiness of financing enterprise's inno- vation and investment activity as a complex concept covering the two aspects: 1 risk as a result of occurrence of certain event expressed in a possibility of receiving finan- cial benefits, loss or zero result; 2 risk as a certain event or process which may hap- pen or may not happen , included adverse situations and consequences which point out cases of objective and subjective probabilities in the field of enterprise's innova- tion and investment activity.

We find important to emphisize some peculiarities of risk evaluation of enter- prise's innovation and investment activity financing: 1 it should be taken into account a lot of risk factors, identified as many types of risks to trying minimize the overall risk of the innovation and investment activity economic and political insta- bility in the country, imperfect legislative base and government regulation, inflation, budget deficit, currency fluctuations, the rising cost of resources at the capital mar- ket, increase production costs, information asymmetry, ineffectiveness of personnel policy and management etc.

Generally, we share the idea of R. Merton that managers think through conse- quences of an innovation — how it will change the trade-offs people make and their behavior — they must be mindful of limitations of the models on which people base their decisions on how to use an innovation. The author says that some models turn out to be fundamentally flawed and should be jettisoned, while others can be improved upon. Some models are suited only to certain applications; some require sophisticated users to produce good results.

And even when people use appropriate models to make choices on how to use an innovation — striking the right balance between risk and performance — experience shows us that it is almost impossible to predict how their changed behavior will influence the riskiness of other choices and behaviors they or others make, often in apparently unrelated domains.

Indeed, many risks associated with innovations stem not from the innovation itself but from the infrastructure into which it is introduced. It is also interesting to note 5 rules to man- aging innovation risks as proposed by R.

Merton: 1 recognize that a model exists and needs to be developed for judging risk and return; 2 every innovation model has its own set of limitations; 3 expect the unknowns; 3 obtain intimate knowledge and understanding of the user; 4 consider the infrastructure the innovation will be placed in Merton, Since companies cannot usually insure themselves completely against risk, they have to manage it.

Obviously, it is a hard task even with the support of advanced ma- thematical tools. Different methods of risk analysis of investment and innovation projects are commonly used in the world practice of financial management: range, standard deviation, sensitivity analysis, breakeven analysis, simulation analysis, deci- sion tree analysis, value at risk analysis, cash flow at risk analysis, method of adjust- ing the discount rate, method of reliable equivalents, sensitive analysis of perform- ance criteria, scenario method, Monte Carlo method statistical tests , methods of analogy, scoring, expert methods etc.

A contemporary approach to risk management requires quantitative risk measures that adequately reflect the vulnerabilities of a company. Examples of risk measures include portfolio variance as in the H. Marko- witz MVO model Markowitz, , the Value-at-Risk and the expected shortfall also known as conditional Value-at-Risk , the capital asset pricing model developed by W.

Sharpe Sharpe ratio, information ratio, differential returns compared to benchmarks alphas Sharpe, and others. This ratio measures the return in excess of the risk-free rate compared to the total risk measured by standard deviation and is based on the total risk made up of market risk and unsystematic risk. One of the most common variations on this measure involves replacing the risk-free asset with a benchmark portfolio — the.

It should be noted that the Sharpe's model, which explains portfolio returns with the market index as the only risk factor, has quickly become restrictive. It now appears that one factor is not enough and other factors have to be considered. Factor models were developed as an alternative to CAPM, allowing a better description of portfolio risks and an accurate evaluation of managers' performance, in particular, a better evaluation of portfolio alpha. The next indicator is the J.

As we can see this ratio is drawn directly from CAPM. It is also interesting to note the method based on a conditional version of CAPM, which is consistent with the semi-strong form of market efficiency, where the beta is a conditional beta, i.

The next risk indicator is Jensen's alpha defined as the differential between the return on the portfolio in excess of the risk-free rate and the return explained by the market model Jensen, The statistical significance of alpha can be evaluated by calculating the t-statistics of the regression, which is equal to the estimated value of the alpha divided by its standard deviation. Unlike the Sharpe and Treynor measures the Jensen measure contains the benchmark. Besides, its value of alpha is actually proportional to the level of risk taken, measured by the beta.

Absolute risk-adjusted performance measures include a measure based on the Value-at-Risk VaR developed by financial engineers at "J. VaR measures the risk as the maxi- mum amount of loss that a portfolio can sustain for a given level of confidence Le Sourd, It is a measure related to percentiles of loss distributions and represents the predicted maximum loss with a specified probability level e.