Questionnaire completeness and dependenciesNot planned
I like the completeness feature in BlueDolphin to keep track of the needed information. But this has also a downside. Let’s take an Application Component as example.
When adding a regular Application Component, you also get the questionnaires (with their completeness fields). For the regular Applications you add, this is fine. But I often see more other Application flavors that are added among the Application Object (for example: an Azure Logic app, or a Azure Function). For those other flavors the regular questionnaires are irrelevant.
We don’t want to add another Application Component “type” with other questionnaires, cause that will blow up your repository with a lot of different objects.
So I thought about dependency on questionnaires:
Questionnaire – Regular (completeness)
-- Type of Application (1,2,3,4)
If type of Application is 1
then only Questionnaire Application Type 1 is Counting for completeness
If type of Application is 2
then only Questionnaire Application Type 2 is Counting for completeness
Also when adding Infrastructure Nodes and you define Virtual Servers, Clusters or even Physical Servers within this object, you should be able to add some kind of dependency in the questionnaires. Other wise you’ve got 1 Questionnaire which will never be complete, cause not everything is relevant.
Hoi Robert Kuijvenhoven,
Thanks for your feedback, I will discuss this wish with our product owner. When I have more information, I will give you an update in this post.0
I would like to respond to this with a tip: create separate object types.
I've also been working on this, and I've chosen to create different object types of the same Archimate type. This is a matter of old-fashioned data normalization: things with different properties are different things.
You don't get more objects through it (!), just a few more object types which are implicitly more unambiguous each. It makes life a lot clearer, I think, and you can also better control the use of relationships.
Process: business process, work process, activity.
Application component: Functional application, technical application component.
Node: server, firewall, endpoint, printer, etc.
With the right questionnaires you can reuse generic characteristics and still work with specific characteristics.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)0
Ray, I sometimes use your approach, and this works fine. But you can get into discussions about how many objects we allow, and it has become more complex. I work a lot with Azure, which can sometimes be real challenging to define which objects you will use. Therefore most of the time I prefer simple modeling, cause all of IT is already complex enough.
Don't get me wrong, different object types is a good approach, but at the moment the only approach.0
I think this is already possible, but quite some work to accomplish as you need to calculate your own completeness.
A part of the solution lies in filling in something. Filling in N/A (n.v.t.) for questions that aren't relevant is usually better than leaving them blank. The first reason is the completeness report of course, the second reason is you don't have to guess between "not relevant" and "forgot to fill in".
However, I'd like to have a "completeness" for each questionnaire instead of combined for all. Not for the exact scenario you have, but mainly to check if certain area's (e.g. AVG questionnaire, or security questionnaire) have been filled in completely.
In your scenario this could help as well by creating different Tab for each kind of "application". So being able to report on each kind seperately (even combining a "general" tab, with a specific tab).0
To create this report you need to create a calculated measure combining IF and Isnull statements.
IF("propertyname1"='value', TrueCondition, FalseCondition)
TrueCondition = ((IF(isNull("propertyname2"), 0, 1)) + (IF(isNull("propertyname3"), 0, 1)) + (IF(isNull("propertyname4"), 0, 1))) / NumberofProperties (here 3) * 100
FalseCondiontion = Repeat of IF statements checking the first property until all values have a calculation
Total it will look something like this:
IF("applicationtype"==1, ( (If isnull("app1q1),0,1) + (If isnull("app1q2),0,2) + (If isnull("app1q3),0,1)) /3 *100), (IF("applicationtype"==2, ( (If isnull("app2q1),0,1) + (If isnull("app2q2),0,2) + (If isnull("app2q3),0,1)) / 3 *100), (IF("applicationtype"==3, ( (If isnull("app3q1),0,1) + (If isnull("app3q2),0,2) + (If isnull("app2q3),0,1)) / 3 *100),<do when application type is not 1, 2 or 3 e.g. set it hardcoded to zero as no type has been selected for this application>)))0
Thanks for these insights into a possible workaround! I mostly used multiple questionnaires, that is working great with the completeness check.
But i really like to see this kind of functionality in the tool itself, instead of workarounds in other reporting tools. But to keep it simple, I thought this kind of functionality can help us all :-)0
This should work in BlueDolphin (well it's technically jaspersoft, but still inside of BlueDolphin).
I think your suggestion is a bit difficult to implement (well maybe not really, but still it would be a great configuration effort). Would it help you to have a completeness calculation per questionnaire? It might mean you need to reorganise things.0
Rob, as you know Jaspersoft will be phased out in the next years...so that isn't really a futureproof solution.
Completeness calculation per questionnaire isn't really achieving what I would like, but it will gives more flexibility at the moment.0
True we have plans to phase out Jaspersoft (not sure that's set in stone), in that sense it's not a futureproof solution. But i'm pretty sure you need to change this report a few times because of changing requirements as well. And before we do phase out Jaspersoft, we will have alternative reporting.
Kim van Rooijen Could you ask the product owner about completeness reporting per questionnaire instead of per object?0
Yes, I'm going to ask. If I have more information, I will update this post.0
I discussed this wish with the product owner, and it is now on our wish list! Unfortunately, this will not be a new feature in 2021; therefore, I cannot give you any time indication. When I have more information, I will update this item!1
Kim, that is very good news, thanks!0
Please sign in to leave a comment.