In the Meta Model V4 LeanIX have introduced sub-types to the application fact-sheet; Business Application, Deployment and Microservice. You should check with your CSM but I understand that only the “Business Application” sub-types counts towards the number of applications metric.

https://docs-eam.leanix.net/docs/configure-workspace-with-meta-model-v4#add-fact-sheet-subtypes-to-several-fact-sheet-types

The Power Apps could be categorised as “Microservices” but be defined the same way as applications.

An alternative approach might be to consider them as “IT Components” of a parent application and configure a relation to Business Capabilities, to show which capabilities they provide.

Hope this helps.

Thank you Justin for your response.

I have the same question, and we’ve got some teams that if they had their way, they would say there are 1600 power apps, that are business critical.  we’ve pushed back, and stated “define business critical”.  We will introduce the framework Justin suggested above, and see where we get to.

@Charles bp are you going for the Microservices subtype option or modelling them as IT Components of the parent application?

we haven’t made a decision yet, but the working approach is to use subtypes: Business Application, Deployment and Microservice.  Most power apps would be microservices. 

Reason is that -- when i considered using “component”, the issue of mapping components to business capability had to be addressed (as you said, there isn’t a natural association between components & capability).  If we were to use “components” we would likely map all power apps (components - 1600 of them) to a few business apps, and keep the Capability mappings to applications (NOT map components to Capability).

Just a note that Microservices and Deployments sub-types should not have direct relations with Business Capabilities and Business Context fact sheets, as I believe this would not be in accordance to the LeanIX conditions of use.

Cheers.

Hi All. This is a topic of interest for me at the moment as well.

Q: @Helder.Luz - Just for my clarification, when you state above “...this would not be in accordance to the LeanIX conditions of use.”, does that mean that if an Application (Microservice) is mapped to business capabilities, then it would impact the way LeanIX does the licensing?
We have business capability as a mandatory attribute.
I plan on reaching out to my CSM to confirm licensing as well.

Q: What about adding a new Application Sub-type of “Power App” or something like that?

Thanks in advance.

Hi @MMurray ,

These is the applicable section from the current LeanIX documentation: 

• https://docs-eam.leanix.net/docs/application-modeling-guidelines#microservice
• https://docs-eam.leanix.net/docs/microservice-modeling-guidelines

In both of these sections you can see the following note:

There is a lot go good info on those pages about the intent of the Application sub-types of Microservice and Deployment, and the reasoning for being excluded from pricing.

You can define other subtypes if you wish, but I would say that if you maintain Business Capability or Business context relations for those, then they will not be excluded from price. 

Cheers 

We have the same challenge. We would like to model our AccessDBs, our BI Dashboards, our PowerApps Apps and our AppSheet Apps. At the moment, we are defining some criteria's to evaluate which ones are critical enough to add them to our Application Inventory. We would also be interested in an solution, because those are not microservices, some of them are real Applications and a lot of them are so small that they don’t have the value to be a full fledged Application...