{"text_format":"2","workbook":"xls","n_sheets":3,"sheets":["Sheet1","Sheet2","Sheet3"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":0,"macros":0,"external_links":0,"defined_names":0,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"run_cost":"one","rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900","formulas":"cached_only"}

{"sheet":"Sheet1","index":0,"n_rows":160,"n_cols":8,"rows_kept":160,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[1,2,3,6],[1,1,3,1]],"flags":["formulas_cached_only"]}
[]
[null,"NOTE:","These allocation strategies are continously evolving, and in some areas incomplete. They are meant as a starting point for discussion and it is strongly recommended that you assess all potentially impactful allocation changes appropriately, particularly if Apptio resources are available for guidance. \nThese allocation strategies have not been officially endorsed by the TBM Council as industry standards."]
[]
[]
[]
["Release","Model","From Object","To Object","Strategy Type","Strategy Description","Data Required","Things to Consider"]
[11.8,"Cost","Data Centers","Mainframes","Good - Assumptive","Allocate all Data Center costs to Physical Servers, none to Mainframe (even spread)"]
[11.8,"Cost","Data Centers","Mainframes","Good - Assumptive","Apportion all Data Center costs across Mainframe, Physical Server, Storage Devices and Network Equipment based on % allocation; (even spread to devices in each object)"]
[11.8,"Cost","Data Centers","Mainframes","Better - Weighting","Apportion all Data Center costs across Mainframe, Physical Server, Storage Devices and Network Equipment based on % allocation; (weight to Mainframe based on MIPS)"]
[11.8,"Cost","Data Centers","Mainframes","Better - Weighting","Apportion all Data Center costs across Mainframe, Physical Server, Storage Devices and Network Equipment based on % allocation; (weight to Mainframe based on Avg Power per Mainframe)"]
[11.8,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Network Devices","Good - Assumptive","Allocate Network LAN, Network WAN and Network Voice costs to all Network Equipment (even spread)"]
[11.8,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Network Devices","Better - Weighting","Allocate Network LAN, Network WAN and Network Voice costs to all Network Equipment (weight by # Ports)"]
[11.8,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Physical Server","Good - Assumptive","Allocate Compute-Window, Compute-Linux, Compute-UNIX costs to all Physical Servers (even spread - not a preferred option, use as a fall back if weighting data not available)"]
[11.8,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Physical Server","Better - Weighting","Allocate Compute-Window, Compute-Linux, Compute-UNIX costs to all Physical Servers (weight by # CPU Cores)"]
[11.8,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Physical Server","Better - Weighting","Allocate Compute-Window, Compute-Linux, Compute-UNIX costs to all Physical Servers (weight by Avg Power per Device)"]
[11.8,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Mainframes","Good - Assumptive","Allocate Mainframe, Mainframe Database and Mainframe Middleware costs to all Mainframes (even spread)"]
[11.8,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Mainframes","Better - Weighting","Allocate Mainframe, Mainframe Database and Mainframe Middleware costs to all Mainframes (weight by MIPS)"]
[11.8,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Mainframes","Better - Weighting","Allocate Mainframe, Mainframe Database and Mainframe Middleware costs to all Mainframes (weight by GB storage)"]
[11.8,"Cost","Network Devices","Mainframes","Good - Assumptive","Allocate all Network Equipment costs to Physical Servers, none to Mainframe (even spread)"]
[11.8,"Cost","Network Devices","Mainframes","Good - Assumptive","Apportion all Network Equipment costs across Mainframe, Physical Server and Storage Devices based on % allocation; (even spread to devices in each object)"]
[11.8,"Cost","Network Devices","Mainframes","Better - Weighting","Apportion all Network Equipment costs across Mainframe, Physical Server and Storage Devices based on % allocation; (weight to Mainframe based on # Ports, Total Port bandwidth)"]
[11.8,"Cost","Data Centers","Network Devices","Good - Assumptive","Allocate all Data Center costs to Physical Servers, none to Network Equipment (even spread)"]
[11.8,"Cost","Data Centers","Network Devices","Good - Assumptive","Apportion all Data Center costs across Mainframe, Physical Server, Storage Devices and Network Equipment based on % allocation; (even spread to devices in each object)"]
[11.8,"Cost","Data Centers","Network Devices","Better - Weighting","Apportion all Data Center costs across Mainframe, Physical Server, Storage Devices and Network Equipment based on % allocation; (weight to Mainframe based on # Ports)"]
[11.8,"Cost","Data Centers","Network Devices","Better - Weighting","Apportion all Data Center costs across Mainframe, Physical Server, Storage Devices and Network Equipment based on % allocation; (weight to Mainframe based on Avg Power per Network Device)"]
[11.8,"Cost","Network Devices","Physical Server","Good - Assumptive","Allocate all Network Devices costs for Type = Data Center to Physical Servers, none to other areas (even spread)"]
[11.8,"Cost","Network Devices","Physical Server","Good - Assumptive","Apportion all Network Devices costs for Type = Data Center across Mainframe, Physical Server and Storage Devices based on % allocation; (even spread to devices in each object)"]
[11.8,"Cost","Network Devices","Physical Server","Better - Weighting","Apportion all Network Devices costs for Type = Data Center across Mainframe, Physical Server and Storage Devices based on % allocation; (weight to Physical Server based on # Ports)"]
[11.8,"Cost","Network Devices","End User Devices","Good - Assumptive","Allocate all Network Devices costs for Type = Office to End User Devices, (even spread)"]
[11.8,"Cost","Network Devices","End User Devices","Better - Weighting","Allocate all Network Devices costs for Type = Office to End User Devices, (weight by # ports)"]
[11.8,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Communications","Better - Weighting","Allocate Communication Circuits and Usage costs to all Communications (weight by amount)"]
[11.8,"Cost","Communications","End User Devices","Good - Assumptive","Allocate all Communication costs for Type = End User Device to End User Devices, (even spread)"]
[11.8,"Cost","Communications","End User Devices","Better - Weighting","Allocate all Communication costs for Type = End User Device to End User Devices, (weight by configured bandwidth)"]
[11.8,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","End User Devices","Good - Assumptive","Allocate End User-Workspace and End User-Mobile costs to all End User Devices (even spread - acceptable)"]
[11.8,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","End User Devices","Better - Weighting","Allocate End User-Workspace and End User-Mobile costs to all End User Devices (weight by support weighting, where No support = 1, Partial support = 2, Full support = 4)"]
[11.8,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","End User Devices","Better - Weighting","Allocate End User-Workspace and End User-Mobile costs to all End User Devices  (weight by Device Type, where Mobile phone = 1, Tablet = 2, PC = 3, Laptop = 4)"]
[11.8,"Cost","Network Devices","Storage Devices","Good - Assumptive","Allocate all Network Devices costs for Type = Data Center to Physical Servers, none to other areas (even spread)"]
[11.8,"Cost","Network Devices","Storage Devices","Good - Assumptive","Apportion all Network Devices costs for Type = Data Center across Mainframe, Physical Server and Storage Devices based on % allocation; (even spread to devices in each object)"]
[11.8,"Cost","Network Devices","Storage Devices","Better - Weighting","Apportion all Network Devices costs for Type = Data Center across Mainframe, Physical Server and Storage Devices based on % allocation; (weight to Storage Devices based on # Ports)"]
[11.8,"Cost","Network Devices","Storage Devices","Better - Weighting","Apportion all Network Devices costs for Type = Data Center across Mainframe, Physical Server and Storage Devices based on % allocation; (weight to Storage Devices based on # Ports) and apportion specific Fiber Optic Storage Array equipment to just Storage Devices; (weight to Storage Devices based on # Fiber Optic ports)"]
[11.8,"Cost","Communications","Servers","Good - Assumptive","Allocate all Network Devices costs for Type = Data Center to (logical) Servers, (even spread, acceptable)"]
[11.8,"Cost","Communications","Servers","Better - Weighting","Allocate all Network Devices costs for Type = Data Center to (logical) Servers, (weight by measured network I/O)"]
[11.8,"Cost","End User Devices","Business Services",null,"Allocate End User Device costs for Type = Mobile Phone, Tablet to Business Services - Mobile Workspace service; Allocate End User Device costs for type = Workspace, Laptop to Business Services - Fixed Workspace"]
[11.8,"Cost","Mainframes","Applications","Good - Assumptive","Allocate Mainframe costs across all mainframe hosted applications (even spread - not a preferred option, use as a fall back if weighting data not available)"]
[11.8,"Cost","Mainframes","Applications","Better - Weighting","Allocate Mainframe costs across all mainframe hosted applications (weight by memory)"]
[11.8,"Cost","Mainframes","Applications","Better - Weighting","Allocate Mainframe costs across all mainframe hosted applications (weight by batch processing time)"]
[11.8,"Cost","Communications","End User Services","Good - Assumptive","Allocate all Communication costs for Type = End User Device to End User Devices, (even spread, acceptable allocation)"]
[11.8,"Cost","Communications","End User Services","Better - Weighting","Allocate all Communication costs for Type = End User Device to End User Devices, (weight by configured bandwidth)"]
[11.8,"Cost","Communications","Business Services","Good - Assumptive","Allocate all Communication costs for Type = Business Services to specific Business Service (e.g. Retail Kiosk), (even spread, acceptable)"]
[11.8,"Cost","Communications","Business Services","Better - Weighting","Allocate all Communication costs for Type = Business Services specific Business Service (e.g. Retail Kiosk), (weight by configured bandwidth)"]
[null,"Cost","Cost Source","Labor","Good - Assumptive","Direct mapping to Resource Towers\n Groups labor costs by cost center in preparation for sending them up to IT Resource Towers/Sub-Towers based on a direct mapping.","Cost center to ITRT/ITRST mapping table. (No headcount information)","Without headcount data, several report components will not display correctly.  While this allocation method could be channeled through the Cost Source to ITRT Mapping object, we recommend using the Labor object to set the stage for eventually getting the headcount data."]
[null,"Cost","Cost Source","Labor","Better - Relationship","Implemented Allocation Method\nAllocate based on the association of employees (Contract or FTE) to cost centers. The labor costs for each cost center are allocated to the employees within that cost center, separated by whether they are contractors or employees.","List of all IT labor resources (FTE and contractor) mapped to Cost Centers and, if possible, a weighting factor such as a salary band or role-based rate.","Weighting this distribution by role or salary band creates an accurate and more defensible allocation based on employee data about the employee level rather than an even spread of costs to all employees within a cost center."]
[null,"Cost","Cost Source","Labor","Better - Managed","Allocation %’s for cost centers\nDescription:  For each cost center, this approach allows you to allocate the labor costs to IT Resource Towers/Sub-Towers based on manual percentages.  The percentages can be different for contractors and FTEs.","Cost center to ITRT/ITRST mapping table, including a FTE/contractor column and a percentage column. (No headcount information).","Manual table allocations containing the allocation percentages per cost center must be manually maintained on a regular basis. The considerations for the Direct Mapping option (Good) also apply here."]
[null,"Cost","Cost Source","Labor","Best - Measured","Detailed time reporting data\nDescription:  Allocate labor costs based on IT FTE time reported in Time Reporting system (weight by role-based rate). It assumes that there is an accurate time reporting system where effort can be mapped all the way up to the IT Resource Sub Towers. This approach provides the most accurate and most automated process.","Data Required: Accurate time reporting system where effort can be mapped to ITRST’s.","Things to consider:  Many time reporting systems do not have “good” data or categories that align to ITRST or services. It requires an automated feed to keep this data up to date."]
[null,"Cost","Labor","IT Resource Towers","Good - Assumptive","By estimated table allocations provided by cost center owner with service owner validation (e.g. 25% of Data Center labor cost is for Storage, 75% of Data Center labor is for Compute).","No additional data is required but it does require that there is a relationship between the Labor data and the IT Resource Towers object. Typically it’s mapping an employee (FTE or contractor) to their work in an IT Resource Tower.","The Labor object is expected to be used to stage the costs so that they can be allocated via data-based reference to the IT Resource Towers object.  However, if you chose to back the Labor object with one or only a handful of rows representing high-level categories of Labor costs, you could potentially use a table-based allocation to allocate those costs to the IT Resource Towers."]
[null,"Cost","Labor","IT Resource Towers","Better - Relationship","Implemented Allocation Method\nThe costs will flow through a relationship in the data that ties the Labor object and IT Resource Towers object together. It will be common to leave this allocation as a data-based reference since the allocation into the Labor object is expected to have subdivided the costs as necessary across the IT Resource Towers.","No additional data is required but it does require that there is a relationship between the Labor data and the IT Resource Towers object. Typically it’s mapping an employee (FTE or contractor) to their work in an IT Resource Tower.","Every row in the Labor Master dataset needs to have the IT Resource Tower and Sub-Tower columns populated with valid values in order for the costs to flow correctly."]
[null,"Cost","Labor","IT Resource Towers","Best - Measured","Allocate labor costs based on IT FTE time reported in Time Reporting system (weight by role-based rate). It assumes that there is an accurate time reporting system where effort can be mapped to IT Resource Sub Towers.","No additional data is required but it does require that there is a relationship between the Labor data and the IT Resource Towers object. Typically it’s mapping an employee (FTE or contractor) to their work in an IT Resource Tower or mapping the time reporting to an IT Resource Tower.","Every row in the Labor Master dataset needs to have the IT Resource Tower and Sub-Tower columns populated with valid values in order for the costs to flow correctly."]
[null,"Cost","Labor","Time Tracking"]
[null,"Cost","Time Tracking","Projects"]
[null,"Cost","Cost Source","Projects"]
[null,"Cost","Projects","IT Resource Towers"]
[null,"Cost","Cost Source","Fixed Assets","Good - Assumptive","Direct mapping by Cost Centers\n“Direct” mapping of depreciation by cost center to IT Resource Sub-Tower.","Detailed Cost center structure that maps to the IT Resource Sub-Tower structures. Depreciation is then allocated to cost centers. (No Fixed Assets data is used).","It is uncommon to have all cost centers cleanly line-up with a single ITRST.  Cost Centers can change annually and every time the cost centers change, this mapping has to be validated."]
[null,"Cost","Cost Source","Fixed Assets","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Direct mapping by Account Codes:\nDescription:  “Direct” mapping of depreciation by account code that aligns to IT Resource Sub-Tower. It assumes that depreciation is tracked by different asset types (e.g. servers, storage) with separate account codes.","GL Account codes with mapping table to ITRST for depreciation account codes.","Validate that the account codes map not only to the Tower but also to the Sub Tower. It’s not uncommon to find it mapped to just at the Tower level."]
[null,"Cost","Cost Source","Fixed Assets","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Allocation %’s for the Account Code\nIf there isn’t a direct mapping of depreciation costs by Cost Center or Account code to ITRST; allocate the cost to the ITRST object by %’s based on the cost center(s) estimates.","Reasonable allocation percentages by cost center(s).  May use asset management data to estimate.","This approach is only as accurate as the estimates for the %’s of cost centers to the different resource towers."]
[null,"Cost","Cost Source","Fixed Assets","Best - Measured","Implemented Allocation Method \nAllocate depreciation costs based on monthly depreciation amount in fixed assets register; asset category is mapped to ITRST. It assumes that there is an accurate fixed asset system where the asset category can be mapped to ITRST.","Fixed Asset register that has the asset categories that map to Resource Towers.","Many fixed asset systems may not be at the level needed to perform this allocation. One example is a group of different types of assets depreciated collectively as in a project or single, large purchase."]
[null,"Cost","Fixed Assets","IT Resource Towers","Good - Assumptive","Estimate %’s for the Resource Towers\nBy estimated table allocations provided by cost center owner with service owner validation (e.g. 25% of depreciation is for Storage devices, 25% of depreciation is for corporate financial application, etc.).","Reasonable allocation percentages by asset type.","This approach is only as accurate as the estimates for the %’s of asset types to the different  resource towers."]
[null,"Cost","Fixed Assets","IT Resource Towers","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Mapping of utilized Assets to Resource Tower\nDirect relationship of the asset to the IT Resource that utilizes the asset. In order to do this the data provided must track the usage of the different assets.","Detailed mapping assets to the Resource Towers.","Not all assets are going to map to a single Resource Tower.  It is also common to realize that the assets are not being tracked at the same level as the utilization of those assets."]
[null,"Cost","Fixed Assets","IT Resource Towers","Best - Consumption/Measured","Implemented Method: \nThe costs will flow through a link in the data that ties the Fixed Assets object and IT Resource Towers object together. It will be common to leave this allocation as a data-based reference since the allocation into the Fixed Assets object is expected to have subdivided the costs as necessary across the IT Resource Towers.","No additional data is required but it does require that there is a tie between the Fixed Asset data and the IT Resource Towers object.  This is typically an asset category to ITRST mapping.","Every row in the Fixed Asset Master dataset needs to have the IT Resource Tower and Sub-Tower columns populated with valid values in order for the costs to flow correctly."]
[null,"Cost","Cost Source","Other Cost Pools","Good - Assumptive","Direct mapping to Resource Towers\n\"Direct” mapping of the hardware, software, facility and other costs by cost center to IT Resource Sub-Tower (ITRST).  Not a preferred option unless clean alignment. It assumes that there is a detailed cost center structure that directly maps to the IT Resource Sub-Tower (ITRST) structure.","Cost Center  list with description; mapping file of Cost Center to the IT Resource Sub-Towers (ITRST).","Things to consider: It is uncommon to have all cost centers cleanly line-up with a single ITRST."]
[null,"Cost","Cost Source","Other Cost Pools","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Implemented Allocation Method\nEstimated percent table allocation of hardware, software, facility and other costs by cost center to one or more IT Resource Sub-Towers (e.g. 25% Wintel, 15% Unix, etc.).","Cost center to ITRT/ITRST mapping table, including a percentage column for cases where a cost center needs to be split between multiple ITRT/ITRST’s.","Manual table allocations containing the allocation percentages per cost center must be manually maintained on a regular basis. Any changes to cost centers requires new mapping and percentages to be updated."]
[null,"Cost","Cost Source","Other Cost Pools","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","List of maintenance/ Support by Vendor\nAllocate based on a financial schedule mapped to IT Resource Sub-Tower (ITRST).  For example, the annual financial schedule for all planned maintenance contracts by vendor (HW & SW), mapped to ITRST, weighted by contract amount. Allows for more accurate and defensible than estimated percent allocation by cost center.","It requires list of all expected maintenance & support contracts, by vendor.","Plan based and may not be aligned exactly to actuals.  Requires manual validation and updates of ITRST mapping."]
[null,"Cost","Cost Source","Other Cost Pools","Best - Consumption/Measured","Direct mapping to Resource Towers\n Allocate hardware, software, facility and other costs by cost center to IT Resource Sub-Tower based on detailed mapping of journal entries from AP sub-ledger. It assumes there is AP information that enables the mapping of journal entry to ITRST. This is the most accurate and automated process","Client has AP information that enables the mapping of journal entry to ITRST.","May require manual intervention to map specific journal entries (payments) to a specific ITRST"]
[null,"Cost","Other Cost Pools","IT Resource Towers","Good - Assumptive","Implemented Method\nThe costs will flow through a relationship in the data that ties the Cost Source to ITRT Mapping “magnet” object and IT Resource Towers object together. It will be common to leave this allocation as a data-based reference since the allocation into the “magnet” object is expected to have subdivided the costs as necessary across the IT Resource Towers.","No additional data is required but it does require that there is a relationship between the Cost Source mapping data and the IT Resource Towers object.","Every row in the Fixed Asset Master dataset needs to have the IT Resource Tower and Sub-Tower columns populated with valid values in order for the costs to flow correctly."]
[null,"Cost","Other Cost Pools","IT Resource Towers","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Allocate hardware, software, facility and other costs by cost center to IT Resource Sub-Tower based on detailed mapping of journal entries from AP sub-ledger.","Client has AP information that enables the mapping of journal entry to ITRST.","Pros: Most accurate and automated process.\nCons:  May require manual intervention to map specific journal entries (payments) to a specific ITRST."]
[null,"Cost","Cost Source","Vendors","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Direct Vendor spend to Vendor object using transaction level detail","Requires Vendor information (Vendor ID, Vendor Name)"]
[null,"Cost","Vendors","IT Resource Towers","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Allocate Vendor to ITRT\nVendor mapping\nMicrosoft goes 40% Workspace, 35% Windows Server, 25% Database\nVendor-Cost Center mapping\nMicrosoft for End User Services dept goes 100% to Workspace, \nMicrosoft for Wintel Server dept goes 70% Windows Server, 30% Database","Vendor mapping\n-Microsoft goes 40% Workspace, 35% Windows Server, 25% Database\nVendor-Cost Center mapping\n-Microsoft for End User Services dept goes 100% to Workspace, \n-Microsoft for Wintel Server dept goes 70% Windows Server, 30% Database"]
[null,"Cost","Vendors","Cloud Service Provider","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Direct Billing Detail (CSP in 11.4) to Cloud Service Provider object \nBack CSP object with bill detail\nSimilar approach for MSP object (future)\nAllocate to IT Tower/Sub-Tower (ITRT) by\nCSP service to ITRT taxonomy mapping\nOOB for AWS services\nMethod in place for others"]
[null,"Cost","Cloud Service Provider","IT Resource Towers","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","CSP service to ITRT taxonomy mapping\nOOB for AWS services, Azure, Century Link"]
[null,"Cost","Tickets","Applications","Good - Assumptive","Distribute Evenly to all Apps/ Services:\nDescription:  If app or service data is missing from tickets, or there is no ticket data, the Service Desk costs can be passed directly and spread evenly (or using  a weighting table)","Data Required: no additional data","Things to consider:  This is a crude and imprecise way of allocating Tickets costs but can be an interim step if a ticketing system may be added later."]
[null,"Cost","Tickets","Applications","Good - Assumptive","Distribute to Servers/Storage, etc.:\nDescription:  If a ticket is raised for a specific device or resource then the cost of that ticket can be allocated to that specific device","Data Required: Link between ticket and device","Things to consider:  This adds complexity to the model and assumes that any costs assigned to a server (for example) will flow to the correct app or service.  On the other hand, this is useful information for judging the true cost to run a specific device, although the same can be achieved by reporting on ticket costs by device. Bear in mind that by adding tickets costs into devices, you may skew unit costs for benchmarking"]
[null,"Cost","Tickets","Applications","Best - Consumption/Measured","Using a data-based reference, pass through the costs of a ticket to the application or service for which it was reported.","Link between individual tickets and the app or service, listing of apps and services","This method bypasses assigning ticket resolution costs to specific IT resources (like servers, storage), which might be required information."]
[null,"Cost","Storage Devices","Storage","Good - Assumptive","If no data exists that defines a relationship between Storage Devices and Storage, spread the costs evenly among all Storage units","Listing of all storage units","The capacity of the storage units may vary widely from one device to another.  As a result, using an even spread from IT Resource Towers to Storage Devices may not provide a very accurate view of costs."]
[null,"Cost","Storage Devices","Storage","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Using a Data-based reference, allocate costs from Storage Devices to associated Storage units, even spreading among the target Storage units","List of all logical storage units","In some cases, the storage devices may not trace directly to storage, so allocating costs might not be straight-forward."]
[null,"Cost","Storage Devices","Storage","Best - Consumption/Measured","Using a data-based reference between Storage Devices and Storage, allocate costs from Storage Devices to associated Storage units, but weight based on the total usable capacity of the logical unit.","Listing of  all logical storage units with total space for each.","It is important to used Total Usable Space, rather than Used space. If a large volume is partitioned to a particular Storage unit, but only a small amount is used, there is an opportunity cost of making more efficient use of the available space."]
[null,"Cost","Storage","Applications","Best - Consumption/Measured","Using a Data-based reference, allocate costs from Storage to associated Applications.","Data mapping storage units to Applications.","In order for the costs to flow accurately, every row in the master storage dataset would have to somehow map to the Application consuming the storage.  This method assumes that the Storage is linked only to Physical Servers. In some cases, storage is assigned directly to Virtual Servers. Additionally, when reporting on Server benchmarks, storage costs will need to be excluded from cost per server calculations."]
[null,"Cost","Storage","Physical Server","Good - Assumptive","Even spread to Physical Servers\nDescription: If no data exists that defines a relationship between Storage and Physical Servers, take the total cost of storage and the total number of physical servers, allocate costs evenly.\n\nData Required: The total cost of all storage devices and a listing of the total number of physical servers.\n\nThings to Consider: This method does not take into consideration the consumption or usage of a particular server."]
[null,"Cost","Storage","Physical Server","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Allocation Based on % Split\nDescription: Moving towards a more managed strategy, this method would leverage the business knowledge of subject matter experts that have familiarity with storage consumption by Servers to come up with “back of the  napkin” estimates of percentage of overall storage consumed by Physical Servers","Estimated percent consumption of storage by each Physical Server.","This type of mapping would require manual maintenance by the SME if storage consumption changes over time."]
[null,"Cost","Storage","Physical Server","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Allocate Directly to Servers or Applications\nDescription: In some cases depending on the customer’s configuration of storage and virtualization software, storage may link directly to virtual servers, rather than through physicals. In this case, use a data-based relationship to send costs up to the Servers object. \n\nAlternately, you may consider using data relationships to allocate directly to Applications. The approach is outlined in Storage to Applications","Mapping of storage units to either servers or applications.","Allocating directly to applications will prevent the need of removing storage costs from server benchmarks. But the allocation may require the use of intermediate objects."]
[null,"Cost","Storage Devices","Physical Server","Best - Consumption/Measured","Description: Using a Data-based reference, allocate costs from Storage to associated Physical Servers using a relationship based on Server ID, weighting to Physical Servers by CPU cores.","Within the Storage data, an association of Storage units to Server ID’s, and a list of physical servers that include the number of CPU cores per server.","In order for the costs to flow accurately, every row in the master storage dataset would have to have an associated server that is consuming storage.  This method assumes that the Storage is linked only to Physical Servers. In some cases, storage is assigned directly to Virtual Servers. Additionally, when reporting on Server benchmarks, storage costs will need to excluded from cost per server calculations."]
[null,"Cost","Service Allocations Indirect","Business Unit Allocation"]
[null,"Cost","Service Allocations Direct","Business Unit Allocation"]
[null,"Cost","Servers","Applications"]
[null,"Cost","Projects","Business Services","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Allocation %’s by cost centers and/or location \nAbsent a direct link between Projects and Apps or Services, if a specific org unit (cost center) or location serves only one (or a few) BU or Service, projects costs can be allocated and spread.","Cost center and or location to BU or Service mapping table.","It is rare that a department or cost center would be mapped only to one BU or service.  In that event, a defensible method of spreading each center across orgs must be devised."]
[null,"Cost","Projects","Business Services","Best - Consumption/Measured","Allocate based on the association of a project to an application or service","List of Projects mapped to Applications or Services","This is by far the most valid way of allocating project costs.  Without this mapping, a gross estimation has to be made, based on assumptions about organization structure, location or similar."]
[null,"Cost","Projects","Applications","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Allocation %’s by cost centers and/or location \nAbsent a direct link between Projects and Apps or Services, if a specific org unit (cost center) or location serves only one (or a few) BU or Service, projects costs can be allocated and spread.","Cost center and or location to BU or Service mapping table.","It is rare that a department or cost center would be mapped only to one BU or service.  In that event, a defensible method of spreading each center across orgs must be devised."]
[null,"Cost","Projects","Applications","Best - Consumption/Measured","Allocate based on the association of a project to an application or service","List of Projects mapped to Applications or Services","This is by far the most valid way of allocating project costs.  Without this mapping, a gross estimation has to be made, based on assumptions about organization structure, location or similar."]
[null,"Cost","Projects","Business Unit Allocation"]
[null,"Cost","Physical Server","Servers","Good - Assumptive",null,null,"If data is unavailable to distinguish between Physical, Hypervisor, and Virtual servers, an alternative would be to bypass the Physical Server and Hypervisor objects and allocate from IT Resource Towers to a single Servers object. However this will result in less accurate picture of the cost per virtual server."]
[null,"Cost","Physical Server","Servers","Best - Consumption/Measured","Description: Using a data-based reference, pass through the costs of Physical Servers directly to the subset of physical servers that are standalone.","Listing of Physical Servers and whether they are physical standalone or hypervisors.","Using a key such as Server ID, the costs from Physical Servers object are passed directly through to standalone physical servers. The two allocation lines coming out of Physical Server should add up to 100%."]
[null,"Cost","Physical Server","Hypervisor","Good - Assumptive",null,null,"If data is unavailable to distinguish between Physical, Hypervisor, and Virtual servers, an alternative would be to bypass the Physical Server and Hypervisor objects and allocate from IT Resource Towers to a single Servers object. However this will result in less accurate picture of the cost per virtual server."]
[null,"Cost","Physical Server","Hypervisor","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed",null,null,"If data is unavailable to distinguish between Physical, Hypervisor, and Virtual servers, an alternative would be to bypass the Physical Server and Hypervisor objects and allocate from IT Resource Towers to a single Servers object. However this will result in less accurate picture of the cost per virtual server."]
[null,"Cost","Physical Server","Hypervisor","Best - Consumption/Measured","Using a data-based reference, pass through the costs of Physical Servers directly to the subset of physical servers that are hypervisors.","Listing of Physical Servers and a flag that indicates whether they are standalone physical servers or hypervisors (a physical machine which hosts virtual guests).","The hypervisors dataset is a transform of the Physical Servers dataset with a filter applied on “Is Virtual Host”.  As such, Server ID can be used as a key pass costs through."]
[null,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Applications","Good - Assumptive","Allocate the total cost of the Application IT Resource Tower and even spread across all applications.","List of Applications.","Like any even spread, this method does not take into account differences that might drive different costs per application, such as volume of development and support labor, or number of users. However this method enables quick time to value for an approximated Application TCO."]
[null,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Applications","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Allocation Based on Users\nAllocate cost of Application IT Resource tower across all apps, but weight by the number of users per application.\n\nFROM GDP/PS WEST SYNC:\nWe think allocating based on user counts is no better than even spread.","Listing of all the applications with user counts per application.","Number of users is a viable proxy to differentiate application size and burden costs accordingly, however it may not take into consideration other drivers of per application cost such as volume of development/support labor or license and maintenance costs."]
[null,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Applications","Best - Consumption/Measured","Additional detail related to application costs may be available lower in the model. The most common examples are from the Software cost pool, where license and maintenance fees may be tied to specific applications, and from the Labor object, where Application Development and Support labor may be linked to specific applications.\n\n\t• For App Dev, weighting by timetracking or project spend is generally ideal (assuming projects tie to Apps).\n\t• For LOB Software, direct cost is generally best. Sometimes this needs to be added as an additional subfield under SubTower to maintain integrity of the spend going up the model (assuming info is available in GL).\n\t• For App Support, timetracking or tickets are generally best. Business Criticality could be a secondary option if this is unavailable.\n\t• For Cloud Apps, direct cost is generally best.","Listing of all vendor costs and the associated applications for each vendor.","This method assumes that additional detail related to Software is available, such as mapping Vendor from GL to Applications, or additional detail related to application labor, such as a percentage breakout per application of App Dev and App Support labor.\n\nHistorically, allocation using heritage costs involved advanced modeling techniques, namely manipulating the granularity of the IT Resource Tower object. After R11, allocation using heritage costs will be simplified.\n\nRelease 11.8 leverages new OOTB meta-fields in each master data set to carry additional granularity of cost up with model without manipulating or customizing the ITRT."]
[null,"Cost","OTHER??","Applications",null,"Allocate costs of IT domains – e.g., Servers, Storage, Tickets – using mapping of information about the specific resources to specific applications.  ."]
[null,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Projects","Good - Assumptive",null,null,"The Labor object is expected to be used to stage the costs so that they can be allocated via data-based reference to the IT Resource Towers object.  However, if you chose to back the Labor object with one or only a handful of rows representing high-level categories of Labor costs, you could potentially use a table-based allocation to allocate those costs to the IT Resource Towers."]
[null,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Projects","Best - Consumption/Measured","Allocate costs for each project out of IT Resource Towers using heritage allocation from Labor object.  \nAlthough the allocation into the Labor object is expected to have subdivided the costs as necessary across the IT Resource Towers, the details of specific labor resources working on specific projects would be lost, requiring that detail to be carried up via heritage costs.","A mapping of project labor to specific projects is required; otherwise a surrogate allocation mechanism (e.g., cost center) must be used, again via heritage costs","Every row in the Labor Master dataset needs to have the IT Resource Tower and Sub-Tower columns populated with valid values in order for the costs to flow correctly."]
[null,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Data Centers","Good - Assumptive","Even Spread to Data Centers\nIf square footage and rack unit capacity is unavailable spread the costs from IT Resource Towers to data centers evenly.  This would not support reporting on cost of unutilized data center space.","For this allocation strategy, we would only need to know the total costs associated with each data center.","The capacity of a data center can frequently become a limiting factor."]
[null,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Data Centers","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Allocate appropriate costs from the IT Resource Towers or other heritage objects to Data Centers weighted based on usable capacity (rack units or square feet if RU is unavailable).","List of data centers including rack unit capacity or square footage,  location or another appropriate metric for associating devices with the data center, and cost data associated to specific data centers.","Also, square footage or rack units may not represent the limiting resource at a data center.  Sometimes power or cooling capacity become a bottleneck before floor space or rack units.  In those cases, short of modeling those data center resources explicitly, “usable” square footage or RU might need to be used instead of totals."]
[null,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Data Centers","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Weighted by Square Footage\nDescription:  Allocation of costs to Data Centers would be weighted based on square footage.","Data Required: List of data centers including square footage,  location or another appropriate metric for associating devices with the data center, and cost data associated to specific data centers.","If device data includes rack unit information then conversion from $/sf to $/RU may be required prior to subsequent allocations."]
[null,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Data Centers","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Weighted by Rack Units\nDescription:  Allocation of costs to Data Centers would be weighted based on rack unit capacity.","Data Required: List of data centers including rack unit capacity,  location or another appropriate metric for associating devices with the data center, and cost data associated to specific data centers.","Most useful when rack unit information at device level is available."]
[null,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Servers"]
[null,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Physical Server","Good - Assumptive","Even Spread to Physical Servers\nIf no data is available related to Physical Server complexity (CPU cores, Memory, rack units, power consumption, etc), even spread Compute costs across all Physical Servers","Listing all Physical Servers","This method of allocating costs do not take into consideration the overall utilization or usage of the servers."]
[null,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Physical Server","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Allocate the total cost of the Compute IT Resource Tower and send to all Physical Servers, weighted based on CPU Cores","Listing of all Physical Servers and the associated CPU cores.","There may not be an accurate allocation if there is not a CPU core value included in the physical server master dataset. Other attributes may be considered for weighting, such as Power Consumption, Rack Units, or Total Memory. Additionally, the implemented method does not take into account other drivers of the total cost to provide Compute services, such as LAN and Data Center. If you will be implementing Benchmarking, consider what drivers need to be included versus excluded"]
[null,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Physical Server","Best - Consumption/Measured","Data-based Relationship Using Sub-Towers\nWithin the Compute IT Resource Tower, we also have Sub-Towers for Wintel, Linux, Unix, iSeries, Midrange, and Mainframe. If the Physical Servers data has a corresponding  attribute (typically via OS or Platform columns), it is possible to create a key and set up a data-based relationship so that each sub tower sends costs only to matching Physical Servers. Weight by CPU cores, Memory, etc).","An attribute in the Physical Servers list that identifies the platform (Wintel, Linux, Unix, etc).","When using a column such as OS or Platform from the Physical Server data, it may not come in a format which matches our Sub-Towers exactly (for example, OS might be Windows Server 2008, rather than simply “Wintel”); Therefore it might be necessary to implement business rules to normalize to the Physical Server data to our Compute Sub-Towers."]
[null,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Physical Server","Best - Consumption/Measured","Allocate Additional Compute-related Tower Costs\nIn addition to the Compute IT Resource Tower, bring in additional Towers related to providing the Compute Service, such as Data Center and Network","Consumption-based data related to usage of Data Center tower (number of CPU’s, Power Consumption) and LAN tower (number of Ports).","This is a viable method for getting Data Center and Network costs up to Services (through Servers, then Applications), but if you implement Benchmarking down the road, these costs will need to be excluded from calculations of Cost per Server."]
[null,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Hypervisor"]
[null,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Tickets","Good - Assumptive","Allocate the portion of the Internal/External personnel and/or Outside Services assigned to the Service Desk to tickets","Ticket data, labor data for Service Desk related cost centers","Without additional information about the  specific labor resources  - e.g., time tracking data or specific cost centers, there is no differentiation of the cost of the labor resource that processed a specific ticket.  The labor cost is spread evenly over all tickets.  Additional data (see below) adds specificity of the cost per ticket"]
[null,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Tickets","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Weight by Resource Cost and or Location\nUse the cost or location of the specific person/provider handling the ticket to weight the cost of the ticket.  This weighting can be in lieu of or in addition to weighting by time or priority.","Cost of Service Desk resources and which tickets they processed","There may be sensitivity to providing cost data at the individual level for matching against the specific person who processed a ticket.  The data may need to be anonymized externally (e.g., assigning an ID for each Service Desk person) or using a blended rate by cost center or other grouping."]
[null,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Tickets","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Allocate Additional Service Desk Related Costs\nIn addition to the labor component, costs of specific Help Desk software (or HW, if available) can be allocated evenly across tickets.","Cost data for Service Desk SW licenses/maint. And cost of servers , storage, etc. running the SW.","This complicates the allocation of servers, etc. up to applications and potentially introduces circular allocations, depending on how Ticket costs are allocated."]
[null,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Tickets","Best - Consumption/Measured","Weight by Time to Resolve or Priority (e.g., Tier 1/2/3)\nIf the ticket data contains time or effort to resolve, labor costs can be weighted by that time.  Resolution time can also be estimated via different weightings by severity/priority of the ticket.","Ticket resolution time and/or ticket priority.","This method still does not differentiate the cost of different labor resources."]
[null,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Storage Devices","Good - Assumptive","Even Spread to Storage Devices\nIf no data related to Storage Device volumes is available, take the total cost of Storage IT Resource Tower spread the cost evenly to all storage devices.  This would not take into account any potential storage amounts available on devices.","For this allocation strategy, we would only need to know the total cost of  the Storage IT Resource Tower and the number of storage devices utilized.","The capacity of the storage devices may vary widely from one device to another.  As a result, using an even spread from IT Resource Towers to Storage Devices may not provide a very accurate view of costs."]
[null,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Storage Devices","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Allocate the total cost of the Storage IT Resource Tower and send to all Storage Devices, weighted based on usable capacity (GB/TB) of Storage Devices.","List of Storage Arrays with total usable or raw capacity","Identify whether the client is measuring usage based on usable or raw capacity.  While many storage devices may have a similar rate of usable vs raw, how the capacity is measured may change cost allocation slightly.  It is also important to note that there are often times other  Tower costs associated with storage towers, such as Data Center, Network, and Security."]
[null,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Storage Devices","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Allocation Based on % Split\nMoving towards a more managed strategy, this method would leverage the business knowledge of subject matter experts that have knowledge of storage device costs. To make this assumptive % split,  the SME might leverage tribal knowledge based on known purchase price, labor required to support each device, etc.","List of storage devices and documented knowledge of storage device costs.","This method could be subjective depending on the methods and data used to determine  the percentage split.  There may be other associated costs such as security, bandwidth and other network towers."]
[null,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Storage Devices","Best - Consumption/Measured","Weighted by Storage Tier\nUsing knowledge of the tiered storage, cost allocation would be based on the particular storage levels.","List of all storage devices and documentation of storage tiers. If available, a bill from a vendor is storage is managed by a third party (this method would provide the most accurate TCO).","Getting information this granular may prove to be difficult.  Additionally, the allocation would be changed with any revision to the overall storage, so it would be easiest for a company to have an automated way to update the storage information.  Companies may not have all associated storage costs readily available."]
[null,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Business Services","Good - Assumptive","Using a table based allocation, spread the costs evenly from all IT Resource Towers across all Business Services","A listing of all IT Resource Towers and all Business Services","This default method is meant to be a starting point; the mapping grid used in the allocation can be updated to align IT Resource Towers to Business Services. Something to keep in mind is that many of the Towers will have already been allocated – namely Compute, Storage, and Application; the grid  should then exclude these to avoid double counting.  Of the remaining Towers, they can be mapped to Services. For example, the Voice Network tower might be mapped to a Telephony Service.  Some of the towers may not map cleanly to Business Services. For example, Data Center or Network.\nTherefore, it may be necessary to break these out into discrete model objects and allocate up through Servers and Applications. This is described below."]
[null,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Business Services","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Allocation Based on % Split\nUsing the default mapping grid as a starting point, map the IT Resource to Business Services based on company knowledge of what business services use resource towers.","Listing of all the resource towers, their related measures and the percentages applied to each Service.","Each specific business service may require a different measure and baseline since their nature and method of measurement may vary drastically."]
[null,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Business Services","Best - Consumption/Measured","Enhance Model with Additional Detail\nFor IT Resource Towers that are usually not directly attributable to Business Services, such as Data Center or Network, additional detail can be added to the model. Using Data Centers as an example, assuming that the customer can provide a information on Data Centers, and an association Servers/Storage Applications, Data Center costs could –and usually do – reach their way to Business Services through an indirect path in the model, rather than trying to allocate directly from IT Resource Towers.","Supporting detail for relevant Towers, i.e. Network line and device detail for networks, list of Data Centers with association to Servers, etc.","Supporting data may not be as readily available as it is for our default components (Storage, Server, and Applications)."]
[null,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Communications / Internet Lines","Good - Assumptive","Even Spread to Internet Line POPs\nIf bandwidth capacity is not available then an even spread to Line POPs may be used.","For this allocation strategy, we need to know total costs associated with each line, and the POP locations.","This allocation strategy is likely to confer some inaccuracy of cost to downstream objects"]
[null,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Communications / Internet Lines","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Allocate cost for each Points of Presence (POP) out of IT Resource Towers using heritage allocation from Cost Source line items to Internet Lines.","A list of lines, associated Points of Presence (POPs) including Location, and the associated GL cost lines.","Internet circuits have two Points of Presence (POPs) or places where the circuit terminates.  The list of circuits backing the Internet Lines object should represent all POPs and cost should be allocated to POP based on bandwidth at the POP as bandwidth capacity at any given POP may vary."]
[null,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Communications / Internet Lines","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Weighted by Bandwidth Capacity\nAllocation of total line cost to Line POPs weighting by POP bandwidth.","For this allocation strategy, we need to know total costs associated with each line, the POP locations, and the bandwidth capacity at each POP.","If the cost of lines varies then inaccuracy of cost may be conferred to downstream objects."]
[null,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Network Devices","Good - Assumptive","Even Spread to Network Devices\nIf no data associating GL and FA line items with Network Devices can be obtained, and no port count data is available then you may distribute costs evenly.","For this allocation strategy all we need is the list of devices.","This allocation strategy is likely to confer some inaccuracy of cost to downstream objects."]
[null,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Network Devices","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Description:  Using the OID metafields to tag associated costs, allocate costs to Network Devices through IT Resource Towers from Cost Source and Fixed Assets.","A list of devices and associated GL and Fixed Asset line items and a list of network devices.","It may be difficult to associate specific network devices with GL and FA line items in which case the second option below would be the next best option."]
[null,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Network Devices","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Weighted by Port Count\nDescription:  Allocation of costs to network devices weighting based on port count per device.","For this allocation strategy we need the list of devices and the number of ports each device has.","This overlooks the fact that per-port costs vary widely by device type, make, model, and vintage."]
[null,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","Network Devices","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Weighted by Port Type Count\nAllocation costs to network devices weighted by a combination of port count and port type (e.g. fiber vs. Ethernet and/or make/model/vintage).","For this allocation strategy we need a list of devices, and a list of ports with associated type and weighting information.  Further, the weighting by type may need to be informed by appropriate subject matter experts.","This can be difficult to obtain but provides the highest accuracy."]
[null,"Cost","Network Devices","Physical Server, Storage, and Desktop Devices","Good - Assumptive","Even Spread to Devices\nAllocate costs evenly to all end point devices.","For this allocation strategy all we need is populated Server, Storage, and Desktop devices data.","This allocation strategy is likely to confer some inaccuracy of cost to downstream objects."]
[null,"Cost","Network Devices","Physical Server, Storage, and Desktop Devices","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Allocate costs to Physical Server, Storage, and Desktop devices based on connectivity data taxing costs of indirectly associated devices across all end point devices.","Data associating server, storage, and desktop devices with specific network equipment and weighted by port count.","End point devices will typically be connected two one or two network devices.  If the end point device is connected to more than one network device then costs should be evenly distributed across the two ports which are connected.  It should be noted that this could require an intermediate object (e.g. Ports) ."]
[null,"Cost","Communications / Internet Lines","Physical Server, Storage Devices, Desktops","Good - Assumptive","Even Spread to Devices\nIf bandwidth capacity is not available then an even spread to devices may be used.","For this allocation strategy all we need is populated server, and/or desktop data including location.","This allocation strategy is likely to confer some inaccuracy of cost to downstream objects."]
[null,"Cost","Communications / Internet Lines","Physical Server, Storage Devices, Desktops","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Allocation of cost to Physical Servers, and Desktops based on Location weighted by WAN bandwidth utilization as measured at the LAN segment level.","Physical Server, Storage Device, and Desktop monthly bandwidth utilization as measured at the LAN segment level and is traversing the WAN.","Data about WAN utilization by LAN segment may be difficult to come by."]
[null,"Cost","Communications / Internet Lines","Physical Server, Storage Devices, Desktops","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Weighting Informed by SMEs\nAllocation of total Line POP cost to devices based on WAN utilization and informed by SME input.","For this allocation strategy we would need populated server, and/or desktop data including WAN utilization as measured at the POP.  Leverage knowledge of subject matter experts to apply customized weighting of costs to devices. Customized weighting might include things like input from SAN administrators as to how much data they are sending between SAN arrays at various sites.","Things to Consider: Consultation of SMEs may take some time so be careful to scope the work correctly."]
[null,"Cost","Communications / Internet Lines","Physical Server, Storage Devices, Desktops","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Weighted by Device Bandwidth Utilization\nAllocation of total Line POP cost to devices based on bandwidth utilization of the specific device.","For this allocation strategy we would need populated server, and/or desktop data including the WAN bandwidth utilization at the device level.","It is pretty unlikely that customers will be tracking WAN utilization at the device level."]
[null,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","End User Devices (Desktops, Etc.)","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Allocate the total cost of the User Service Workstations and Mobile Devices sub-towers to list of devices in Desktops (and other, if required)","List of all end user devices","If unit costs are not available at the device level, weighting by device type  (e.g., PC, laptop) will be required to distribute costs to individual devices."]
[null,"Cost","IT Resource Towers","End User Devices (Desktops, Etc.)","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Allocate Costs Based on More Granular Device Data\nDescription: Depending on what information can be gathered about each device, a more detailed rate card can be established, based on (for example), location, role of user, device manufacturer/model.","Attributes in the device list and an attribute-driven rate card.","ince end-user devices are so numerous and ubiquitous it may be unreasonable to assume that granular data will be available.  The trade-off between accuracy and the time/effort/data required to achieve it must be considered.  It is also possible that costs of devices will be organized by cost center or org which might allow backing into a per/device cost by using headcount as the divisor."]
[null,"Cost",null,"End User Devices (Desktops, Etc.)",null,null,null,"Desktops and other devices (e.g., mobility/cellphones) may also be receiving costs from Internet Lines and Network Devices.  Refer to the Voice/Data Network session materials for more details"]
[null,"Cost","End User Devices (Desktops, Etc.)","Business Unit Allocation","Good - Assumptive","Allocate Costs Directly to Business Units via BU Headcount\nAllocate all costs to End User Service, then allocate out to based on the BU membership of the owner. but assumes no direct link between devices and BU","Total cost of devices and BU headcount.","This approach is appropriate only if there I no way to link a specific device or group of devices to a specific end user or group, in which case the total cost of all devices is spread evenly by headcount.  This can also be accomplished by allocating devices to the End User Service and allocating the cost from there based on headcount."]
[null,"Cost","End User Devices (Desktops, Etc.)","Business Unit Allocation","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Implemented Allocation Method: \nAllocate all costs to End User Service, then allocate out to based on the BU membership of the owner.","Listing of device owners, with an attribute indicating their BU.","If individual device owners are not known or available, if a cost center or org has been assigned to a device then a mapping of cost center or org to BU will accomplish the same thing.    Allocating through the End User Service is not necessary, but may be useful if service TCO for End User Service is sought and other cost sources (e.g., labor) are rolling up to that service."]
[null,"Cost","End User Devices (Desktops, Etc.)","Business Unit Allocation","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Allocate Costs Directly to Business Units via Device Info\nThe IT Service ‘End User Service” may not be relevant for some organizations, in which case device costs are allocated directly to BUs.","Listing of devices, with owners (or cost centers/org)  and a mapping to the associated BU.","Since end-user devices are so numerous and ubiquitous it may be unreasonable to assume that granular data will be available.  The trade-off between accuracy and the time/effort/data required to achieve it must be considered.  It is also possible that costs of devices will be organized by cost center or org which might allow backing into a per/device cost by using headcount as the divisor."]
[null,"Cost","Hypervisor","Servers","Good - Assumptive","Even Spread to Virtual Servers\nIf no data exists which defines the size of a virtual sever (such as GB of memory or number of cores), hypervisor costs may be even spread across virtual servers.","List of virtual servers.","This does not take into consideration the relative size/complexity of virtual servers, and therefore may not burden virtual cost accurately."]
[null,"Cost","Hypervisor","Servers","Best - Consumption/Measured","Allocate costs from all Hypervisors to Virtual Servers within the servers object, weighted by the memory of the virtual server.","List of virtual servers, with associated memory.","This method assumes that there is not a specific relationship between hypervisors and virtual servers because depending on the virtualization platform and clustering strategy, virtual servers may be dynamically moved between physical hypervisors. In some cases, virtual servers are dedicated to a particular hypervisor, in which case a data-based reference may be considered. \n\nAn alternative weighting may also be considered, such as # of virtual CPU’s."]
[null,"Cost","Data Centers","Physical Server","Good - Assumptive","Even Spread to Servers\nDescription:  If rack unit data is not available for devices then spread costs evenly across all devices (i.e. by count).","Data Required: For this allocation strategy, we would only need to have device data loaded into the mastered transforms backing Physical Servers.","Things to Consider: This would not support reporting on amount of total data center capacity consumed.  This also ignores the potentially large differences in space/power consumed by different device types."]
[null,"Cost","Data Centers","Physical Server","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Allocate the total cost of Data Centers to Physical Servers, weighted by rack units and location.","Location and rack unit information in your Physical Servers master data sets and Data Center costs by location.","If rack unit specifics for devices are not available then it may be possible to leverage the knowledge of subject matter experts to construct a lookup table which associates device make & model, or class with an estimated RU requirement.  In the absence of RU information simple count may be used."]
[null,"Cost","Data Centers","Physical Server","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Even Spread to Servers by Location\nIf rack unit data is not available for devices then spread costs by location evenly across all devices (i.e. by count) at that location.","For this allocation strategy, we would need to have device data including location and Data Center costs broken out by location.","This would not support reporting on amount of total data center capacity consumed.  This also ignores the potentially large differences in space/power consumed by different device types."]
[null,"Cost","Data Centers","Physical Server","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Allocation by Utilized RUs at Location\nAllocate only cost of utilized RUs to servers.  Remaining cost (for unutilized DC capacity) can be taxed to servers or reported separately or both.","For this allocation strategy, we would need to have device data including location and Data Center RU capacity and costs broken out by location.","If breaking out the cost of unutilized DC capacity is not required then this approach provides no value over allocation weighted by RUs and location."]
[null,"Cost","Data Centers","to OTHER?",null,null,null,"Similar approaches can be used to allocate some DC costs to devices other than Servers. E.g., a manual or calculated split of DC costs to Servers and Storage, then assignment of costs to devices using one of these methods"]
[null,"Cost","Business Services","Service Allocations Direct"]
[null,"Cost","Business Services","Service Allocations Indirect"]
[null,"Cost","Applications","Business Services","Good - Assumptive","Using a table based allocation, spread the costs evenly from all Applications across all Business Services","A listing of all business services and all applications.","This default method is meant to be a starting point.; the mapping grid used in the allocation can be updated to align Applications to Services. For example, the PeopleSoft application might be mapped to an HR service."]
[null,"Cost","Applications","Business Services","Better - Relationship/Weighting/Managed","Trade Knowledge Based Allocation (% Split)\nDescription: Using the default mapping grid as a starting point, map the application costs to business services based on company knowledge of what business services use specific applications.\n\nData Required: A listing of business services and applications and the percentage of usage as estimated by someone who is knowledgeable of the business needs and application usage.  \n\nThings to Consider: Since this method is not based on specific data, it is subject to estimation by whoever is tasked with applying percentages.","Trade Knowledge Based Allocation (% Split)\nDescription: Using the default mapping grid as a starting point, map the application costs to business services based on company knowledge of what business services use specific applications.\n\nData Required: A listing of business services and applications and the percentage of usage as estimated by someone who is knowledgeable of the business needs and application usage.  \n\nThings to Consider: Since this method is not based on specific data, it is subject to estimation by whoever is tasked with applying percentages.","Trade Knowledge Based Allocation (% Split)\nDescription: Using the default mapping grid as a starting point, map the application costs to business services based on company knowledge of what business services use specific applications.\n\nData Required: A listing of business services and applications and the percentage of usage as estimated by someone who is knowledgeable of the business needs and application usage.  \n\nThings to Consider: Since this method is not based on specific data, it is subject to estimation by whoever is tasked with applying percentages."]
[null,"Cost","Applications","Business Services","Best - Consumption/Measured","Weighted by Usage\nUsing a table reference, allocating money from applications to business services based on the number of log-ins, users or headcount that uses a specific business service.","Listing of applications and business services and the related usage information.","It may be difficult to determine the best way to measure consumption depending on how the application is used and how users interact with the application."]

{"sheet":"Sheet2","index":1,"n_rows":0,"n_cols":0,"rows_kept":0,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[],"flags":["formulas_cached_only"]}

{"sheet":"Sheet3","index":2,"n_rows":0,"n_cols":0,"rows_kept":0,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[],"flags":["formulas_cached_only"]}