i

EDITORIAL PREFACE

A Framework for Measuring ROIof Enterprise Architecture

David F. Rico, Systems Engineer, USA

OVERVIEWEnterprise architecture is a compre-

hensive framework or taxonomy of sys-tems analysis models for aligning organiza-tional strategy with information technol-ogy. Strategies are plans to satisfy organi-zational goals and objectives by compet-ing, based on size, cost, variety, speed,quality, uniqueness, or innovation. Infor-

mation technology refers to the comput-ers, software, and networks used for safelystoring, processing, retrieving, and trans-mitting data and information. There is anexpectation that organizations can satisfytheir goals and objectives by aligning theirstrategy with their information technology.Enterprise architecture consists of definingan organization’s (a) scope, (b) business

ABSTRACT

This article illustrates useful techniques for estimating the return on investment orROI of enterprise architecture. Enterprise architecture is the premier approach forevaluating the information technology needs of local, state, and federal agencies, aswell as large corporations. The use of the enterprise architecture results in better,faster, and cheaper information technology, which satisfies organizational goalsand objectives. This article also provides an overview of enterprise architecturealong with its relevant background and organizing framework. Pertaining toenterprise architecture, it provides useful metrics and models, an exposition of itscosts and benefits, and a detailed return on investment analysis. Finally, it concludeswith useful principles for successful enterprise architecture and return on investment.

Keywords: benefits; breakeven point; costs; enterprise architecture; net presentvalue; return on investment

ii

model, (c) system model, (d) technologymodel, and (e) components, as shown inFigure 1.

RELEVANT BACKGROUNDZachman (1987) is credited with cre-

ating enterprise architecture, although ithas its foundations in systems analysisprinciples dating back to the 1960s. Earlysystems analysis techniques included flow-charting, structured design, structuredanalysis, and information engineering. TheZachman Framework and the U.S. De-partment of Defense Architecture Frame-work (DoDAF) have large followings.Zachman requires 30 unique models, whileDoDAF only requires 26 models. Today,more than 46 of the more than 100 U.S.federal agencies use enterprise architec-ture, a wide variety of maturity models toassess their progress, and a plethora ofnever-ending tools (see Table 1). Enter-

prise architecture has emerged as a largecottage industry among management con-sultants worldwide, along with a largebody of professionally certified enterprisearchitects.

ORGANIZING FRAMEWORKGenerically, enterprise architecture

has five major layers: (a) scope; (b) busi-ness model; (c) system model; (d) tech-nology model; and (e) components, asshown in Table 2 (Zachman, 1987). Thepurpose of the layers is to align anorganization’s strategy with its informationtechnology. Two basic assumptions arethat a strategy exists, and the result is afunctioning enterprise. A centralized strat-egy may not be defined for large organiza-tions (e.g., enterprise of enterprises), al-though it should be, which makes devel-oping models difficult. Enterprise archi-tects often start building information tech-

Figure 1. Major types of artifacts, models, and components for enterprise architecture

������

����

������������� ����

������������ ����

��������������

��������

����������������

����

������

���������

���������

������������

������� ����� �������� ������ ������������

�������!

iii

nology from the bottom up, because theycannot see the relevance of strategy andmodeling. It is important to realize what isin-scope and out-of-scope, especially fora large enterprise of enterprises (e.g., stra-tegic planning is not considered part ofenterprise architecture).

METRICS AND MODELSAs shown in Table 3, the impact of

enterprise architecture can be measuredusing six metrics: (a) costs; (b) benefits; (c)benefit to cost ratio; (d) return on invest-ment; (e) net present value; and (f)

breakeven point (Rico, 2004, 2005). Costsare simply the accumulation of expenses,such as labor, training, tools, creating thevarious models, verification and valida-tion, and compliance or maturity assess-ment. Benefits are the monetization ofincreased operational efficiency, reducedoperational costs and personnel numbers,increased customer satisfaction, and con-solidated legacy computer systems. Costsand benefits are the basic inputs to benefit-to-cost ratio, return on investment, netpresent value, and breakeven point. His-torically, organizations notoriously are ir-

Table 1. Explosion of enterprise architecture frameworks, maturity models, and tools

Item Description Frameworks C4ISR, U.S. Department of Defense, Extended Enterprise, Federal Enterprise,

Integrated, U.K. Ministry of Defense, Treasury Enterprise, The Open Group, and Zachman Architecture Frameworks

Maturity Models CIO Council, GAO, IFEAD, MIT, NASCIO, OMB, TIAC Tools Adaptive, Agilense, Alfabet, ASG, Casewise, Flashline, Forsight, GoAgile,

IDS Scheer, LogicLibrary, Mega, Popkin, Proforma, Select Business Solutions, Simon Labs, TeleLogic, Troux, Visible

Interrogatives (Product)

Form

What (Data)

Entity/Relation

How (Function) Process/IO

Where (Network) Node/Line

Who (Organization) Agent/Work

When (Schedule)

Event/Cycle

Why (Strategy)

End/Means Scope (Contextual) Planner

Business Priorities

Business Processes

Business Locations

Business Organizations

Business Cycles

Business Goals

Business Model (Conceptual) Owner

Semantic Model

Process Model

Logistics Model

Workflow Model

Schedule Model

Business Plan

System Model (Logical) Designer

Logical Data Model

Application Architecture

Distributed System Architecture

Human Interface Architecture

Processing Structure

Business Rule Model

Technology Model (Physical) Builder

Physical Data Model

System Design

Technology Architecture

Presentation Architecture

Control Structure

Rule Design

Components (Out-of-Context) Subcontractor

Data Definition

Computer Program

Network Architecture

Security Architecture

Timing Definition

Rule Specification

Table 2. Zachman framework for enterprise architecture

iv

responsible when it comes to keepingtrack of costs. Benefits are a little morechallenging to identify and monetize.

COSTS AND BENEFITSAs shown in Figure 2, there are also

five major classes of costs and benefits forenterprise architecture: (a) financial im-provement; (b) constituent services; (c)reduced redundancy; (d) economic de-velopment; and (e) fostering democracy(Meskell, 2003). Financial improvementsmean reducing the costs of organizationsand enhancing revenue collection. Con-stituent services mean improved service tocustomers, suppliers, and key stakehold-ers. Reduced redundancy means consoli-dating, reducing, or eliminating unneededlegacy computer systems. Economic de-velopment means to grow local, state, andfederal economies. Finally, fostering de-mocracy may mean offering a consistentlevel of customer service to all stakehold-ers, regardless of political affiliation. Un-fortunately, few organizations consistentlycollect cost and benefit data, and certainlynot according to a standard.

RETURN ON INVESTMENTEXAMPLES

Using enterprise architecture for align-ing the strategy with the information tech-nology of local, state, and federal agenciesand corporations has measurable returnon investment (Meskell, 2003). The firstpriority is to collect detailed cost data forenterprise architecture. Next, it is veryimportant to establish and to monetizemeasurable performance improvementobjectives. Finally, benefit-to-cost ratio,return on investment, net present value,and breakeven point are determined fromthe cost and benefit data, with no furtherdata collection. The projects in Table 4estimated the costs of enterprise architec-ture, identified measurable benefits, andthen monetized them. B/CR, ROI%, NPV,and Breakeven then were determined,using the metrics from Table 3.

The return-on-investment data inTable 4 were normalized and illustratedgraphically in Figure 3. Return on invest-ment is the simple ratio of benefits, less thecosts, of course, to the costs themselves.That is, benefits less the costs are the

Table 3. A framework of metrics and models for measuring return on investment ofenterprise architecture

Metric Description Formula Costs (sum of costs)

Total amount of money spent on enterprise architecture

∑=

n

iiCost

1

Benefits (sum of benefits)

Total amount of money gained from enterprise architecture

∑=

n

iiBenefit

1

B/CR (benefit-to-cost ratio)

Ratio of enterprise architecture benefits to costs Costs

Benefits

ROI% (return on investment)

Ratio of adjusted enterprise architecture benefits to costs

%100×−Costs

CostsBenefits

NPV (net present value)

Discounted cash flows of enterprise architecture ∑=

−+

Years

iYears

i CostsRateDiscount

Benefits

10)1(

BEP (breakeven point)

Point when benefits exceed costs of enterprise architecture

MonthsNPVCosts

60×

numerator, and costs are the denominator.Return on investment is large, if there weremore benefits than costs. As shown inFigure 3, Kentucky had very low costs,high benefits, and, thus, very high return oninvestment. Idaho, on the other hand, hadvery high costs, low benefits, and littlereturn on investment. This is seen by theincreasing costs and decreasing benefitsand the return on investment from left toright. Almost all of the enterprise architec-ture projects in this sample had somemeasure of return on investment, eventhough the benefits were discounted sharplyby the net present value formula.

The benefit equation in Figure 4 wasderived from actual cost-and-benefit datafrom 16 state-level e-government initia-tives (Meskell, 2003). It is based on a log-linear regression analysis of 16 actual cost-and-benefit data pairs. The 16 data pairscame from a database of 75 e-governmentinitiatives.

Only 21% of the e-government ini-tiatives reported cost-and-benefit pairs.Others reported only costs or benefits, oronly qualitative results. Valid cost datafrom eight federal enterprise architectureinitiatives were combined with the e-gov-ernment benefit model based on this log-

v

Figure 2. Categories of costs and benefits (actual) from 75 e-government initiatives(state-level)

����� �������

ConstituentServices

$110 million

ReducedRedundancy$6 million

EconomicDevelopment$69 thousand

FinancialImprovement$117 million

FosteringDemocracy

$10 thousand

ConstituentServices

$616 million

ReducedRedundancy$24 million

EconomicDevelopment

$2 million

FinancialImprovement$617 million

FosteringDemocracy

$0

Table 4. Detailed cost and benefit data (actual) from eight e-government initiatives(state-level)

State Costs Benefits B/CR ROI% NPV Breakeven KY $138,332 $24,740,000 179:1 17,785% $21,283,919 0 Mos. FL $211,200 $23,299,995 110:1 10,932% $19,964,157 1 Mos. NC $640,000 $20,000,000 31:1 3,025% $16,677,907 2 Mos. WI $400,000 $7,500,000 19:1 1,775% $6,094,215 4 Mos. DC $1,000,000 $9,000,000 9:1 800% $6,793,058 9 Mos. NM $167,550 $1,182,200 7:1 606% $856,111 12 Mos. IA $277,000 $1,320,000 5:1 377% $865,982 19 Mos. ID $1,770,000 $2,560,000 1:1 45% $446,692 238 Mos. Avg $575,510 $11,200,274 45:1 4,418% $9,122,755 36 Mos.

(e.g., $500 million). Some have yieldedimpressive enterprise architecture mod-els, some have yielded volumes of medio-cre results, and some are struggling to yieldany benefits at all.

The U.S. government designed aframework for assessing the maturity, state,status, and progress of federal enterprisearchitecture initiatives, as shown in Table 6(Hite, 2003). It consists of five levels andfour major attributes. The levels are (a)creating awareness, (b) building founda-tion, (c) developing products, (d) com-pleting products, and (e) leveraging prod-ucts.

Creating awareness means that fed-eral agencies are aware of the importanceof enterprise architecture but currently donot support its application. Building foun-

linear equation (Hite, 2002). Then, benefit-to-cost ratio, return on investment, netpresent value, and breakeven point wereestimated for the eight federal enterprisearchitecture initiatives, as shown in Table 5.

The return-on-investment data inTable 5 were normalized and illustratedgraphically in Figure 5. The cost data inTable 5 were taken from a database of 45federal enterprise architecture initiatives(Hite, 2002). As shown in Figure 5, theInternational Trade Administration had verylow costs and, thus, has the capability toyield a high return on investment. All of thefederal agencies in Figure 5 have moder-ate costs and, likewise, have the potentialto yield good results. There is a handful ofenterprise architecture initiatives with evenhigher costs than those illustrated here

vi

Figure 3. Return on investment results (actual) of eight e-government initiatives(state-level)

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

KY FL NC WI DC NM IA ID

Costs

Benefits

ROI%

Figure 4. Benefit model (log-linear) from 16 e-government initiatives (state-level)

Costs5853559.75792164 1.000000023Benefits = ×

dation means that federal agencies haveallocated resources and established com-mittees, program offices, chief architects,plans, and metrics for enterprise architec-ture. Developing products means that fed-eral agencies have an organizational policyand a configuration management system,and that they are developing and trackingthe enterprise architecture. Completingproducts means that there are a mainte-nance policy, ongoing verification, comple-tion, and quality measurement for enter-prise architecture. Leveraging productsmeans that there is a compliance policy forenterprise architecture and that its prod-

ucts are being used for making investmentdecisions and are being revised, and thattheir return on investment is measured.Forty-eight percent of federal agenciesare at level one, 36% are at level two, 11%are at level 3, 4% are at level 4, and 1% areat level five, based on this framework, asshown in Table 6 and Figure 6 (Hite,2002).

PRINCIPLES FOR SUCCESSFULENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE

Here are a few good tips, tricks, andtechniques for enterprise architecture. Theyare applicable to both small and large

vii

Table 5. Detailed costs and benefits (estimated) of eight enterprise architectureinitiatives (federal-level)

Agency Costs Benefits B/CR ROI% NPV Breakeven ITA $120,000 $5,869,907 49:1 4,792% $4,962,725 1 Mos. DLSA $194,000 $5,880,011 30:1 2,931% $4,897,474 2 Mos. FRA $194,000 $5,880,011 30:1 2,931% $4,897,474 2 Mos. FSA $200,000 $5,880,831 29:1 2,840% $4,892,184 2 Mos. BoP $276,000 $5,891,227 21:1 2,035% $4,825,186 3 Mos. CB $285,000 $5,892,459 21:1 1,968% $4,817,253 4 Mos. DCAA $358,000 $5,902,465 16:1 1,549% $4,752,917 5 Mos. OPM $400,000 $5,908,229 15:1 1,377% $4,715,908 5 Mos. Avg $253,375 $5,888,142 27:1 2,553% $4,845,140 3 Mos.

Figure 5. Return on investment (estimated) of eight enterprise architecture initiatives(federal-level)

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

ITA DLSA FRA FSA BoP CB DCAA OPM

Costs

ROI%

enterprise architecture initiatives but havespecial meaning for large ones. The jest ofthe matter is to have a clear understandingof what one is trying to achieve with enter-prise architecture. That is, what benefitsdoes one expect? Some organizations sim-ply may be doing enterprise architecture tocomply with state and federal regulations.These principles apply whether you aretrying to leverage your organization’s strat-egy to gain a competitive advantage,whether you are trying to reign in informa-

tion technology that is out of control, orwhether you simply are doing it out ofobligation. Encroaching upon the task ofstrategic planning or information technol-ogy implementation is a common error.But all is not well, even for those who staywithin the bounds of enterprise architec-ture. Oftentimes, the organization’s strat-egy is not well-defined; therefore, insuffi-cient data are available to proceed. Like-wise, too many models are produced thatare inconsistent and incompatible. Finally,

viii

Table 6. Maturity assessment framework for enterprise architecture

1. Creating Awareness

2. Building Foundation

3. Developing Products

4. Completing Products

5. Leveraging Products

Demonstrate Commitment

n/a Resources Committee

Policy Maintenance policy

Compliance policy

Capability for Commitment

n/a Program office Chief architect

Framework

Configuration management

Verification Change process Architecture

used Satisfaction of Commitment

n/a Plan Developing products

Complete Revisions Compliance

Approval Verification of Commitment

n/a Metrics Tracking Quality measured

ROI measured Assessment

No. of Agencies (percentage)

56 (48%)

42 (36%)

13 (11%)

4 (4%)

1 (1%)

Figure 6. Maturity assessment results (actual) of 116 enterprise architecture initiatives(federal-level)

56

42

13

41

CreatingAwareness(Level 1)

BuildingFoundation(Level 2)

DevelopingProducts(Level 3)

CompletingProducts(Level 4)

LeveragingProducts(Level 5)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

some models are completely unusable,and poor tools often hinder completion ofenterprise architecture.

Form a Clear Vision and Stick toIt. It is important to have a clear vision ofhow to approach enterprise architecture.Survey the field of world-class enterprisearchitecture initiatives, see the results foryourself, and use that as a basis to formyour vision. The worst thing you can do isto embark on a long and arduous enter-prise architecture initiative without a clearvision.

Define Early Measurable Objec-tives. Determine highly measurable goalsand objectives before starting enterprisearchitecture. Set measurable targets foroperating efficiency, cost reductions, staffreductions, customer satisfaction, com-puting budgets, and economic growth.Enterprise architecture without measur-able goals and objectives is a death march.

Think Small, Fast, and Lean.Whatever your scope, size, and objec-tives are, think small, fast, and lean. Keepyour scope well-defined, use small teamsof highly experienced experts, and set outto complete the enterprise architecture insmall, frequent, and near-term increments.Enterprise architecture means to design orarchitect, so you do not need an army ofbuilders.

Manage Like a Well-Run Project.Apply project management principles toenterprise architecture. Devise workbreakdown structures, activity networkdiagrams, and cost and resource esti-mates. Use earned value management,quality management, and return on invest-ment to track your progress. Don’t treatenterprise architecture like an endless jour-ney.

Apply Top-Down Systems Analy-sis. Stick to the business of developingenterprise architecture models. Remem-ber what is in scope and out of scope.Enterprise architecture assumes that anorganization’s strategic plan already ex-ists. Enterprise architecture is about deter-mining information technology needs, notimplementing the infrastructure itself.

Create Style Guides and Stan-dards. Establish crystal-clear style guidesand standards for enterprise architecturemodels very early. Consistency is of theutmost importance in enterprise architec-ture, especially on large projects. The goalis not to produce nonsensical models butaesthetically pleasing models that peopleactually can read, use, and understand.

Think Outside of the Box forTools. Try to identify a short list of best-in-class tools for enterprise architecture. Itis best to choose a tool that does a fewmodels really well rather than one thatdoes many models very poorly. Don’tdiscard the notion of using separate toolsfor each model, especially for complexenterprises. There are too many mediocretools in use.

PRINCIPLES FOR SUCCESSFULRETURN ON INVESTMENT

These return-on-investment prin-ciples go hand in hand with the tips, tricks,and techniques for enterprise architecture.Some people feel that measuring paybackis a principle for the industrial age, andsome believe it is a path toward the 21st

century. Some say that return on invest-ment is irrelevant in lieu of net presentvalue, the plethora of payback algorithms,or concepts in real options. The bottom

ix

line is that return on investment is a strate-gic approach to measuring the value of anyactivity, especially enterprise architecture.The goal of enterprise architecture is toenable an organization to realize its strate-gic goals and objectives by streamlining itsinformation technology infrastructure. Stra-tegic plans are simply a means of ensuringthe operational efficiency and effective-ness of organizations and firms alike. Theproblem is that few people apply return oninvestment, and few apply it in a consistentmanner. The way to avoid this is to elevatereturn on investment to center stage, toidentify measurable goals and objectives,and to strive to achieve them in every way.The fact is that enterprise architecture,information technology, and return on in-vestment are intimately and intricately linkedand are insufficient by themselves.

Use ROI as a Success Factor.Use return on investment to drive enter-prise architecture. By definition, the goalof enterprise architecture is to align anorganization’s strategy with its informationtechnology. By implication, a strategy can-not be realized without this alignment. Setout to measure the costs and benefits ofusing enterprise architecture for this align-ment.

Etch the Desired Benefits inStone. Identify a core set of benefits thatyou wish to realize from enterprise archi-tecture. Establish measurable goals foroperating efficiency, cost reductions, staffreductions, customer satisfaction, com-puting budgets, and economic growth.Monetize the benefits early (e.g., convertimprovements into money), which manydo not do.

Establish Early ROI Objectives.Establish ambitious return-on-investment

objectives for enterprise architecture basedon tangible measures of costs and benefits.Use return on investment to establish safetymargins. That is, given the risk of anyproject or initiative, ensure that the payofffar exceeds the cost of enterprise architec-ture, lest you end up with none.

Operationalize a Core Set ofMetrics. Define a set of clear, measur-able, and quantitative economic benefitsfor enterprise architecture. Examples in-clude people, time, budgets, customers,throughput, volume, bandwidth, comput-ers, and maintenance. Common mistakesare failing to define metrics, defining quali-tative ones, or defining far too manymetrics.

Continuously Measure the Pay-back. Measure the return on investment ofenterprise architecture early and frequently.Measure the payback at regular intervalsalong with normal project managementactivities, such as cost, time, and earnedvalue reporting. Payback can be estimatedsimilarly to cost and schedule performanceindices before it is too late.

Use Automated Tools to Do theWork. Use an integrated project manage-ment reporting system with built-in return-on-investment tracking and reporting.There is no sense in having to master all ofthe latest payback formulas or in designat-ing a return-on-investment manager. In-stead, collect payback data automaticallyand have the computer system help youalong.

Standardize ROI Reporting. Cre-ate a system for measuring and reportingmeasures for the return on investment ofenterprise architecture. It is virtually im-possible to do so with so many local, state,federal, and international enterprise archi-

x

xi

tecture initiatives in existence. It is just toodifficult to measure payback after the factwithout a standard system in place.

SUMMARYThis article covered several useful

topics in enterprise architecture that areclosely related. First, enterprise architec-ture was introduced, it identified who wasdoing enterprise architecture and why,and its organizing framework was de-scribed. Then, simple metrics and modelsfor return on investment were introduced,the benefits of enterprise architecture weredescribed, and return-on-investment datawere presented from real-world initia-tives. Finally, detailed principles for suc-cessful enterprise architecture and returnon investment were offered.

The goal of enterprise architecture isto improve the operational efficiency andeffectiveness of organizations by aligningtheir strategies with their information tech-nology. Return on investment is an excel-lent way to measure the success or failureof enterprise architecture. It was essentialto introduce and to describe the goals andobjectives of enterprise architecture be-fore introducing and describing how tomeasure payback, because they are soclosely related. Metrics and models camenext in order to establish the context and toset the stage for how to measure the returnon investment of enterprise architecture.From this, we observed that the funda-mental elements of measuring payback arecosts and benefits, and return on invest-ment flows naturally from these.

The most challenging aspect of mea-suring the payback of enterprise architec-ture is to identify, measure, and monetizeits economic benefits. That is why there

was a short but important discussion of theeconomic benefits of enterprise architec-ture. The most labor-intensive part of thisapproach was to broach the subject ofhow to clearly identify these benefits. Withenterprise architecture, return on invest-ment, and economic benefits as a founda-tion, we quickly solved the dilemma ofhow to illustrate the return on investment of16 real-world e-government and enter-prise architecture initiatives. As an aside,we introduced a brand new formula forestimating the benefits of enterprise archi-tecture and a new breakeven point model.

This article went far beyond merelyintroducing a framework of metrics andmodels for measuring the return on invest-ment of enterprise architecture. It identi-fied tangible principles for successful en-terprise architecture and return on invest-ment. Measuring return on investment isnecessary for enterprise architecture, es-tablishing measurable goals and objec-tives is necessary for measuring return oninvestment, and successfully applying en-terprise architecture and return on invest-ment is necessary to get payback fromenterprise architecture.

REFERENCESHite, R. C. (2002). Enterprise architec-

ture use across the federal govern-ment can be improved (GAO-02-6). Washington, DC: U.S. Govern-ment Accounting Office (GAO).

Hite, R. C. (2003). A framework forassessing and improving enter-prise architecture management(GAO-03-584G). Washington, DC:U.S. Government Accounting Office(GAO).

Meskell, D. (2003). High payoff in elec-tronic government: Measuring thereturn on e-government invest-ment. Washington, DC: U.S. Gen-eral Services Administration (GSA).

Rico, D. F. (2004). ROI of software pro-cess improvement: Metrics forproject managers and softwareengineers. Boca Raton, FL: J. RossPublishing.

Rico, D. F. (2005). Practical metrics andmodels for return on investment.TickIT International, 7(2), 10-16.

Zachman, J. A. (1987). A framework forinformation systems architecture.IBM Systems Journal, 26(3), 276-292.

David F. Rico has been in the field of computer programming since 1983. He workedfor NASA’s $20 billion space station in the 1980s, a $40 billion Japanese corporationin Tokyo in the early 1990s, and U.S. Navy fighters such as the F-18, F-14, and manyothers. He has also supported the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency(DARPA), Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), National ReconnaissanceOffice (NRO), National Security Agency (NSA), Space and Naval Warfare Center(SPAWAR), Air Force, and Army. In Japan, he supported the Ministry of InternationalTrade and Industry (MITI) and the Information Technology Promotion Agency (IPA).He has been an international keynote speaker, published numerous articles on threecontinents, and a textbook on computer science. He holds a bachelor’s degree incomputer science, a master’s degree in software engineering, and is pursuing adoctoral degree in information technology.

xii