NoSQL Application Redesign may be Unnecessary for Most Corporation Cloud Migration Deployments

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 36-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Curtis J. Muller ◽  
Aaron Christopher Davis
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Full Advantage ◽  
Business Models ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Effective Model ◽  
Cloud Infrastructure ◽  
Cloud Migration ◽  
Robust Model ◽  
Physical Resources ◽  
Legacy Application

A great deal of cloud research implies that application redesign is a necessity in order to take full advantage of migration to the cloud, and developers are urged to consider migrating legacy application onto various NoSQL architectures. It may be argued however, that many enterprises have non-web-centric business models and relatively few of their applications may need the database scaling capability that cloud deployment with NoSQL affords. The authors contend that these corporations, in the process of cloud migration, are less motivated by the promise of NoSQL than by gaining greater operational efficiencies and cost-effectiveness. Several Cloud Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) migration scenarios for five top cloud vendors were studied using cost versus effectiveness ratios (CE). The results show that the greatest cost-benefit was gained by simply moving off physical resources and onto the cloud. This was coined the 'simple yet effective' model, as opposed to continuing along the technology curve to fully implement NoSQL solutions, coined the 'complex and robust' model.

Avalanche Hazard Mitigation Strategies Assessed by Cost Effectiveness Analyses and Cost Benefit Analyses—evidence from Davos, Switzerland

2006 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sven Fuchs ◽  
Magdalena Thöni ◽  
Maria Christina McAlpin ◽  
Urs Gruber ◽  
Michael Bründl
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Hazard Mitigation ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Mitigation Strategies ◽  
Avalanche Hazard

scholarly journals ANN-Based Decision Making in Station Keeping for Geotechnical Drilling Vessel

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 596
Author(s):  
Murugan Ramasamy ◽  
Mohammed Abdul Hannan ◽  
Yaseen Adnan Ahmed ◽  
Arun Kr Dev
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Water Depth ◽  
Business Models ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Station Keeping ◽  
Operational Information ◽  
Effective Option ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Cost Factors

Offshore vessels (OVs) often require precise station-keeping and some vessels, for example, vessels involved in geotechnical drilling, generally use Spread Mooring (SM) or Dynamic Positioning (DP) systems. Most of these vessels are equipped with both systems to cover all ranges of water depths. However, determining which system to use for a particular operational scenario depends on many factors and requires significant balancing in terms of cost-benefit. Therefore, this research aims to develop a platform that will determine the cost factors for both the SM and DP station-keeping systems. Operational information and cost data are collected for several field operations, and Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) are trained using those data samples. After that, the trained ANN is used to predict the components of cost for any given environmental situation, fieldwork duration and water depth. Later, the total cost is investigated against water depth for both DP and SM systems to determine the most cost-effective option. The results are validated using two operational scenarios for a specific geotechnical vessel. This decision-making algorithm can be further developed by adding up more operational data for various vessels and can be applied in the development of sustainable decision-making business models for OVs operators.

Benefits and Challenges for Business Process Management in the Cloud

2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 80-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ute Riemann
Keyword(s):  
Cloud Computing ◽  
Business Process ◽  
Information Exchange ◽  
Business Process Management ◽  
Process Management ◽  
Business Models ◽  
Business Processes ◽  
Cloud Services ◽  
Cloud Infrastructure ◽  
Business Application

Business processes are not only variable they are as well dynamic. A key benefit of Business Process Management (BPM) is the ability to adjust business processes accordingly in response to changing market requirements. In parallel to BPM, enterprise cloud computing technology has emerged to provide a more cost effective solution to businesses and services while making use of inexpensive computing solutions, which combines pervasive, internet, and virtualization technologies (). Despite the slow start, the business benefits of cloud computing are as such that the transition of BPM to the cloud is now underway. Cloud services refer to the operation of a virtualized, automated, and service-oriented IT landscape allowing the flexible provision and usage-based invoicing of resources, services, and applications via a network or the internet. The generic term “X-as-a-Service” summarize the business models delivering almost everything as a service. BPM in the cloud is often regarded as a SaaS application. More recently, BPM is being regarded as a PaaS as it facilitates the creation and deployment of applications, in this case business process solutions. The PaaS landscape is the least developed of the four cloud based software delivery models previously discussed. PaaS vendors, such as IBM, Oracle, and Microsoft delivered an application platform with managed cloud infrastructure services however, more recently the PaaS market has begun to evolve to include other middleware capabilities including process management. BPM PaaS is the delivery of BPM technology as a service via a cloud service provider. For the classification as a PaaS a BPM suite requires the following capabilities: the architecture should be multi-tenant, hosting should be off premise and it should offer elasticity and metering by use capabilities. When we refer to BPM in the cloud, what we are really referring to is a combination of BPM PaaS and BPaaS (Business Process as a Service). Business Process as a Service (BPaaS) is a set of pre-defined business processes that allows the execution of customized business processes in the cloud. BPaaS is a complete pre-integrated BPM platform hosted in the cloud and delivered as a service, for the development and execution of general-purpose business process application. Although such a service harbors an economic potential there are remaining questions: Can an individual and company-specific business process supported by a standardized cloud solution, or should we protect process creativity and competitive differentiation by allowing the company to design the processes individually and solely support basic data flows and structures? Does it make sense to take a software solution “out of the box” that handles both data and process in a cloud environment, or would this hinder the creativity of business (process) development leading to a lower quality of processes and consequently to a decrease in the competitive positioning of a company? How to manage the inherent compliance and security topic. Within a completely integrated business application system, all required security aspects can be implemented as a safeguarding with just enough money. Within the cloud, however, advanced standards and identity prove is required to monitor and measure information exchange across the federation. Thereby there seems to be no need for developing new protocols, but a standardized way to collect and evaluate the collected information.

Abstract T P309: Cost Effectiveness for Intra-arterial Stroke Therapy Achieved with Image-based Selection and not with Type of Device

Stroke ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 45 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Brenda Reese ◽  
Scott Young ◽  
Kevin Stands ◽  
William Hicks ◽  
Jenniffer Mejilla ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Patient Selection ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Stroke Therapy ◽  
Entire Cohort ◽  
Good Outcome ◽  
Procedure Cost ◽  
The Individual

Background: Our aim was to determine if stentriever treatment results in cost effectiveness over Merci thrombectomy and to identify a cost-effective imaging threshold for intra-arterial treatment selection. Methods: With institutional approval, we retrospectively reviewed patients undergoing intra-arterial stroke therapy from March 2011 to March 2013 at our center. We collected the following data: stroke score, occlusion site, baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS), device used, reperfusion, hemorrhage, 90-day modified Rankin Score (mRS), and procedure cost. Using published criteria, a quality-adjusted life year (QUALY) value of 0.74 and 0.4 was ascribed to a mRS outcome 2 respectively. Using the procedural mean cost, we calculated an incremental cost efficiency ratio (ICER) for stentriever versus Merci embolectomy and for interventions done for a baseline ASPECTS above and below the following thresholds: > 6, > 7, > 8, and > 9. Using established criteria, we identified a cost effective patient selection if the ICER was positive and less than $50,000/QUALY. Results: Our cohort included 122 patients, 45 treated with Merci in the first year and 78 with stentrievers in year two. Reperfusion occurred in 79% (87% in the stentriever and 64% with Merci groups, p=0.002). The good outcome rate for the entire cohort was 40% (43% good outcomes in the stentriever and 33% in the Merci groups, p=0.21) respectively. Stentriever interventions were not cost effective compared to Merci embolectomy (ICER > $500,000/QUALY). Using baseline ASPECTS > 6 and > 7 as a selection criteria for intervention, the good outcome rate was 42% and 44% respectively but with a negative ICER due to higher costs in treating those with lower scores. For those with an ASPECTS > 8 and > 9, the good outcome rate was 44% and 54% with an ICER of $40,000/QUALY and $24,000/QUALY respectively. Conclusions: At our institution, despite better outcome and reperfusion rates, stentriever interventions are yet to show a cost benefit. Optimizing patient selection by using the ASPECTS scoring system has led to improved clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness. Further prospective study may validate this technique for greater value to the individual patient and the health system at large.

Wellbeing Cost-effectiveness Analysis and Existing Approaches

2021 ◽  
pp. 279-332
Author(s):  
Paul Frijters ◽  
Christian Krekel
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Current Practice ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Business Case ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Important Distinction ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Public Resource ◽  
The Individual

The fourth chapter is targeted mainly at readers who wish to quantify how much benefits and costs are generated by future or existing policies and programmes. The chapter compares the authors’ basic methodology for wellbeing cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) with existing approaches to decide on public resource allocations. The main comparison is with cost-benefit analysis (CBA), but they also compare it with multi-criterion approaches, social rates of return analyses, and business case scenarios or impact assessments. The authors start with a quick reminder of their basic methodology for wellbeing CEA, after which they sketch the current practice of CBA, highlighting the differences in a stylized, non-technical manner. They also sketch the relationship between WELLBYs (wellbeing years) and QALYs (quality-adjusted life-years), deriving a proper translation between the two measures, which will culminate in the important distinction between the individual willingness-to-pay for a WELLBY and the social costs of producing a WELLBY. They then answer some crucial questions as to how more wellbeing knowledge can be incorporated into existing approaches, including the question of the monetization of wellbeing effects for current-practice CBA. Apart from analysts, this chapter is also of interest to academics in the fields of health and wellbeing as it discusses in depth the differences between WELLBYs and QALYs. The discussion on wellbeing approaches from around the world is of importance to all those tasked with embedding wellbeing into their own country’s public-sector systems.

Benefits and Challenges for Business Process Management in the Cloud

2016 ◽  
pp. 2096-2121
Author(s):  
Ute Riemann
Keyword(s):  
Cloud Computing ◽  
Business Process ◽  
Information Exchange ◽  
Business Process Management ◽  
Process Management ◽  
Business Models ◽  
Business Processes ◽  
Process Development ◽  
Cloud Service ◽  
Cloud Infrastructure

Business processes are not only variable they are as well dynamic. A key benefit of Business Process Management (BPM) is the ability to adjust business processes accordingly in response to changing market requirements. In parallel to BPM, enterprise cloud computing technology has emerged to provide a more cost effective solution to businesses and services while making use of inexpensive computing solutions, which combines pervasive, internet, and virtualization technologies (). Despite the slow start, the business benefits of cloud computing are as such that the transition of BPM to the cloud is now underway. Cloud services refer to the operation of a virtualized, automated, and service-oriented IT landscape allowing the flexible provision and usage-based invoicing of resources, services, and applications via a network or the internet. The generic term “X-as-a-Service” summarize the business models delivering almost everything as a service. BPM in the cloud is often regarded as a SaaS application. More recently, BPM is being regarded as a PaaS as it facilitates the creation and deployment of applications, in this case business process solutions. The PaaS landscape is the least developed of the four cloud based software delivery models previously discussed. PaaS vendors, such as IBM, Oracle, and Microsoft delivered an application platform with managed cloud infrastructure services however, more recently the PaaS market has begun to evolve to include other middleware capabilities including process management. BPM PaaS is the delivery of BPM technology as a service via a cloud service provider. For the classification as a PaaS a BPM suite requires the following capabilities: the architecture should be multi-tenant, hosting should be off premise and it should offer elasticity and metering by use capabilities. When we refer to BPM in the cloud, what we are really referring to is a combination of BPM PaaS and BPaaS (Business Process as a Service). Business Process as a Service (BPaaS) is a set of pre-defined business processes that allows the execution of customized business processes in the cloud. BPaaS is a complete pre-integrated BPM platform hosted in the cloud and delivered as a service, for the development and execution of general-purpose business process application. Although such a service harbors an economic potential there are remaining questions: Can an individual and company-specific business process supported by a standardized cloud solution, or should we protect process creativity and competitive differentiation by allowing the company to design the processes individually and solely support basic data flows and structures? Does it make sense to take a software solution “out of the box” that handles both data and process in a cloud environment, or would this hinder the creativity of business (process) development leading to a lower quality of processes and consequently to a decrease in the competitive positioning of a company? How to manage the inherent compliance and security topic. Within a completely integrated business application system, all required security aspects can be implemented as a safeguarding with just enough money. Within the cloud, however, advanced standards and identity prove is required to monitor and measure information exchange across the federation. Thereby there seems to be no need for developing new protocols, but a standardized way to collect and evaluate the collected information.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document