Application Portfolio Management

Hello LeanIX Community 👋I’m currently working on Application Portfolio Lifecycle Management (APLM) and one of the most important steps I’ve found is to get the field model right before diving into deeper analysis or tool automation. To begin with - I’m going with below but, at this point I’m underconfident - given the new role. NameApplication StatusApplication TypeBudget OwnerFunctional OwnerBusiness CriticalityDescriptionHosting TypePerson ResponsiblesubtypeLifecycleBusiness CapabilitiesFunction User GroupGeography User GroupFunctional FitStrategic Application TypeTIME ClassificationTIME Classification DescriptionQuestion for the community: Which fields have been the most useful or impactful in your APLM journey? What do you think of above fields - good enough? Are there any fields you started with but later dropped as unnecessary noise? How did you drive cross-team agreement on field definitions? Looking forward to learning from your experiences. 

Hi everyone,We’re currently undertaking an initiative to review and reclassify our LeanIX inventory. During this process, we’ve identified a number of fact sheets currently classified as Applications that may be more appropriately categorized as IT Components.While we’ve reviewed the definitions provided in the LeanIX documentation, we’d really appreciate hearing from the community:What criteria do you use to distinguish between an Application and an IT Component? Are there any practical examples or decision frameworks you’ve found helpful?Additionally, for those who have gone through a similar reclassification effort:Did you manually create new IT Component fact sheets, or did you find the Export/Import method more efficient? Any lessons learned or pitfalls to avoid?Thanks in advance for your insights and experiences.  

Hi,We are trying to model our applications and I have one question.Let’s say I have a business application named xyz (this name is known all over the company).Inside of this application are embedded applications  (iFrame) ttt and ooo with different provider. We also have 2 “applications” that are part of xyz, but are actually not separate applications. Business and IT are referring to them as applications in xyz (let’s call them qqq and rrr). So for example if there is an incident, they report it under xyz and then they select qqq/rrr. as different teams are responsible for it (from business and IT side), even though are part of the main xyz.To make it more “strange”, part of this xyz application will now be migrate to Salesforce (qqq will migrate to operational CRM and rrr will migrate to marketing CRM).I understand i can model them as child/parent relationship, but Im not really sure if that is correct way to model as specially qqq/rrr are not standalone applications and can not exis

Dear community,We are currently trying to document how our applications are deployed, from a geographical and from a capability perspective. Of our our application factsheet type has a relationship to user groups and to business capabilities.What becomes tricky is that some applications might cover several business capabilities level 2, but not in an identical way (yet) in all locations. I had a quick look at the configuration options and I couldn’t find a way to represent that in leanIX.For example, application A covers business capabilities BC1 , BC2 and BC3, and is deployed in France, Germany, Italy.But A covers BC1, BC2, BC3 in Germany. But only BC1 , BC2 in France. And BC1 in Italy.How would you model that? 

Hi Reaching out to this forum to hear thoughts.A few times I have had LeanIX acknowledge a defect, I am not convinced with the resolution approach. It seems LeanIX add defects to the product backlog along with other product enhancements. This approach doesn’t give more weightage to defects, which I think in wrong. Ideally there should be a separate que for defects.Not sure what has been the experience with other members, happy to hear!ThanksHimanshu  

Hey LeanIX team.I create a Transformation such as Change Application Technology. I want to specify a New IT Component that does not already exist, so I type the name and click “+ Create new fact sheet...” in the popup menu, and that results in the fact sheet being created (as expected).If I delete the Transformation then the newly-created fact sheet gets automatically archived. This happened (in a simple test) even if I had added a description to the referenced fact sheet.Creating and then deleting a Transformation that references an existing fact sheet does not cause the referenced fact sheet to be archived (in my test, the existing fact sheet had lots of other data and relationships).Muy question is: What are the rules defining when fact sheets referenced by Transformations are auto-archived as part of deleting the Transformation? e.g. is it related to lifecycle dates or other data on the referenced fact sheet.Thanks

Hello everyone,we are currently in the process of categorizing our IT components using the LeanIX Tech Category Catalog. However, we often encounter difficulties in finding the right categories for certain technologies due to the predefined hierarchy based on the TBM Solutions Layer. For instance, we created a custom tech category called "Operating Systems" with subcategories "Mobile OS", "Server OS", and "Workstation OS" to better fit our needs. Additionally, we developed a separate category for "Languages and Frameworks".Since this approach diverges from the intended use of the catalog, I am curious about how others in the community handle these challenges. Do you adhere strictly to the catalog, adapt it to meet your specific needs, or create entirely new categories?I appreciate any insights and experiences you are willing to share!Best regards,Julian

We need to address four key scenarios within the Application Fact Sheet:Versions Instances Environments ModulesWhat would be the best practice to map these scenarios?I am considering the use of Application Subtypes — namely Business Application, Deployment, and Microservices (Application Modeling Guidelines | SAP Help Portal) — to represent these scenarios.Please confirm the following: If I utilize these subtypes, would they count towards the total number of applications under our current licensing model, especially if they are not linked to Business Capabilities? Additionally, by using these subtypes, would I be able to comprehensively map the application's relationships across the entire IT landscape — including IT Components, Data Objects, Interfaces, and Technology Categories?

In recent years, we have produced numerous blog posts, white-papers, and webinars on the topic of typical assessment approaches used with LeanIX: PACE, TIME & 6RWith this new blog series, we want to take you through this subject step-by-step and help you understand and apply these approaches and further complement our documentation. FundamentalsPace layering – a concept that challenges conventional thinking and provides a structured approach to thrive amidst continuous transformation journeys.  Pace layering is not just another buzzword, but a fundamental strategy that can allow businesses to prioritize IT investments and resources based on the needs of each layer.Pace Layering methodology is used in LeanIX EAM to classify business capabilities based on strategic value and pace of change. It enables the development of enterprise architecture strategies for each layer to effectively balance stability, agility, and innovation.Pace Layering facilitates informed decision-making during

I am creating a survey and based on the response of the survey i have added a calculated field that calculates a score. Based on the score, the code categorizes the score into three levels of High, Medium and Low. I want to store that categorization in an Application Fact Sheet. I added an option field which can take these three values. How can I automatically update this option field from the survey? Is it possible to do so? 

Hello everyone. A multinational company has sold one of its factories, which for a while will be using the multinational's applications, provided as a service with exclusive data from the now external factory. Does anyone know if, in this case, the Business Owner can be a person from the new external company?

Hi All,Do you know how I could create a custom field type that can be reused in multiple places.Giving you my example. I have to create a single select (enum) “Protocol” field with values like FTP, HTTP, RMI, etc. Obviously I want to use the same field in many places for instance on both ways of an Interface.Thank youPrzemek

What is the best way to represent the data flow with external companies. Let say I have an application A and that application gets its data from a company C. So there exists an interface between C and A. However since C is a company (with that company having an application for sending data) outside of our scope, it should not be represented as an application in LeanIX, however this information is quite interesting to know. So what would be the best way to represent such an scenario on LeanIX?

Hi All, We are facing the following issue for our application fact sheet. We have few tags as mandatory to approve the fact sheet but these are not part of the % completion calculation (nor can be added as per the out of the box settings) As a result, a user can see 100% completion and still be blocked to approve the fact sheet. Is someone else facing this issue? Many thanks!

Hello LeanIX Community,Hope you all are doing good.My organization has just started its LeanIX journey, and being a mid size firm, we have a small team of two people on administration side. We have been able to make good progress on factsheets.However, when it comes to architecture diagrams, we have been making slow progress. Our instance shows integration with Lucidchart and it shows up on the screen, when we go for new diagrams. My question is, is there a way to access LeanIX factsheets from Lucidchart.Like, if I am creating an application context diagram in Lucidchart, can I pull the applications from LeanIX factsheets. I would like our architects to use the repository instead of having it free-for-all, like everyone giving their own name to the Applications like Salesforce, Sales Force, Salesforce Platform etc. This is what has happened in the past.  

HelloI’m new to LeanIX and excited to be part of this community. We are in the process of capturing detailed operational and investment data (e.g., cost, hosting, services) as well as revenue generated by our digital applications.I’m looking for guidance or examples or best practices on how to best use LeanIX dashboards to communicate the big picture to executives—particularly around product portfolio health, ROI, and strategic alignment.

Dear all,I’m currently facing the issue, that we have applications which are end of life, but still in use. Its mainly the support which is out of date, but the application still works. We are currently not planning to use a new release as well, so there is no successor on that.In fact, the date at “end of life” affects my cost reportings. I added the costs to the corresponding IT Component and included the Provider, but as the Application is eol it dosen’t show up. But I still have costs on that. :(Is there any option to reflect such cases? I would love to add a new Lifecycle phase (“extended usage”) but there is no option to add such.Or did I miss something here? Any suggestions how to deal with this issue? ThanksChristina

Hi.Any on-premise application (let’s call one here ABC) is typically hosted on one or several physical or virtual servers (let’s have here 2 virtual servers SRV123 and SRV456). These servers have often but not always the same OS (let’s say here Windows Server 2019 for both SRV123 and SRV456) and different purposes with different components (let’s say here SRV123 is the web application server with IIS 10.0 and SRV456 the database server with SQL Server 2019). They also run on different pieces of hardware or a single one (let’s say here that SRV123 and SRV456 run on 2 different Dell PowerEdge R550 Rack Server units).In my example, Application ABC would have relations with the following IT Components in LeanIX:Software: Microsoft Windows Server 2019 + Microsoft IIS 10.0 + Microsoft SQL Server 2019, Hardware: Dell PowerEdge R550 Rack Server.But SRV123 and SRV456 servers actually appear nowhere in this model:Of course, they’re not Applications, They could be IT Components, but none of the s

I’m struggling with how to represent interfaces where multiple integration layers (middleware) are involved.We have opted to represent middleware as IT Components and link them to interfaces, however in the case of multiple integration layers that act in sequence this kind of representation does not reflect the sequenciality of the flow.Additional complexity is given by the fact that one portion of the interface (e.g. from Source App to Middleware 1) may have certain properties (frequency, mode, etc.), while another portion (e.g. from Middleware 1 to Middleware 2 or from Middleware 2 to Target App) may have different properties. There is no way to capture this variance in the Interface FS if we stick to the out-of-the-box metamodel.Any help would be greatly appreciated  

Is it possible to send Tag created in SAP LeanIX as CI through standard ServiceNow integration?

I read the informative thread regarding the two sets of lifecycle dates and reviewed the documentation Julia linked. What is the thought on showing components with blank lifecycle information as “No Risk”?I can understand that it may not be very common to have ‘blank’ IT components, but I would think the status should be “Missing Lifecycle Information”.  

Dear LeanIX Community, I am looking for a way to import ARIS XML models—potentially involving a conversion step—into LeanIX. Does any one has experience with this or even a solution or workaround? Thank you

I have a question regarding data management in LeanIX, specifically about representing weak coupling relationships. Currently, I can establish strong dependency relationships as follows:Create IT Components in the IT Component section. Link Applications to IT Components via the "Technology Stack" field in the Application Factsheet.This approach effectively represents strong dependencies where an Application relies on specific components to function properly.However, I also need to handle cases where a weak coupling relationship exists:The Application can use an IT Component, but it is not a strong dependency. The Application can still function normally without this component by using alternative components.In the current system, I can link the Application to the IT Component, but there is no way to explicitly indicate that this relationship is "replaceable" or "weakly coupled."My Request:Is there a way to visually represent weak coupling relationships in the Relation Explorer? Is there

Interested in a Roadmap report that includes Transformations. Any thoughts?

Creating an export template for Application fact sheet. I’m not seeing many of the fields (relationship, multi select, etc) in the field chooser (eye icon) in the table view. For example, I’d like to update TIME choices when importing metadata, but that’s not available in the selector.