SIMPLIFIED CBA CONCEPT AND EXPRESS CHOICE METHOD FOR INTEGRATED NETWORK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

International Journal of Computer Networks & Communications (IJCNC) Vol.8, No.3, May 2016
DOI: 10.5121/ijcnc.2016.8304 47
SIMPLIFIED CBA CONCEPT AND EXPRESS CHOICE
METHOD FOR INTEGRATED NETWORK
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Mohammad Al Rawajbeh1
, Vladimir Sayenko2
and Mohammad I. Muhairat3
1
Department of Computer Networks, Al-Zaytoonah University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
2
Kharkov National University of Radio Electronics (KhNURE) Kharkiv, Ukraine
3
Department of Software Engineering, Al-Zaytoonah University of Jordan, Amman,
Jordan
ABSTRACT
The process of choosing and integrating a network management system (NMS) to an existing computer
network became a big question due to the complexity of used technologies and the variety of NMS options.
Most of computer networks are being developed according to their internal rules in cloud environments.
The use of NMS requires not only infrastructural changes, consequently increasing the cost of integration
and maintenance, but also increases the risk of potential failures. In this paper, conception and method of
express choice to implement and integrate a network management system are presented. Review of basic
methods of cost analysis for IT systems is presented. The simplified conception of cost benefits analysis
(CBA) is utilized as a basis of the offered method. A final estimation is based on three groups of
parameters: parameters of expected integration risk evaluation, expected effect and level of completed
management tasks. The explanation of the method is provided via example.
KEYWORDS
Network Management; NMS; CBA; Integrated System; Cost Analysis; Efficiency Criterion
1. INTRODUCTION
It is early or late, but for any complexity computer network the updating process begins. This
process changes not only the hardware of computer network but also its infrastructure. The
software structure is changed, and functionality properties are changed too. This problem is
described very nice in [1, 4]. The responsibility on these actions is an administrator. He makes the
update operations according to the pre-determined network management concept. The basic
principals of those concepts are considered in [1, 2]. The simplest schema of this concept
according to [1] is FCAPS (Fault, Configuration, Accounting, Performance, and Security). The
more complex schema is Microsoft Framework MOF 4.0 [3]. For the considered task we can use
the simplest schema FCAPS and choose the Configuration Management functions. According to
MS MOF 4.0 and Management functions (SMF) we can choose "Change and Configuration
SMF". In the MS MOF 4.0 for C&C SMF we find a good description of the updating process for
the change procedure and the descriptions of the correspondence responsibilities roles. The
choose procedure for the alternative software elements is an administrator's decision.
For the existence computer network infrastructure any changes leads to changes of the computer
network state. These changes carried out the “positive” (A) and “negative” (B) effects. As a
result, for each Softi (Software updates) there are unique evaluations (A, B). The figure 1 shows
that the administrator has to chose the best optimal solution.

48
Figure 1. Choice solution for integrated software
And he has two main questions “How?” and “What?”. The question “How?” means the
evaluation method for (A, B). The methodology questions of that task is considered in [5]. The
question “What?” means the rules and criteria to chose the concrete system from the existence
set. This choice is dependent on the type of software updating service or apps Softi.
Let’s consider the task when Softi= NMS (Network Management System). It means that the
existence NMS should be changed or a new NMS should be implemented. The usage of
management tools becomes actual, and it improves network administration, automated storage
operations and management information analysis. The example of this tool is Network
Management System (NMS) [1, 2]. The complexity of the managed system increases the
complexity of the management system.
In this situation, infrastructural changes will not only increase the cost of integration and
maintenance, but will also increase the risk of potential failures. Integration of the NMS may
sometimes reduce the efficiency of the whole system as well.
Based on the above, the problem of estimating the efficiency of integrating the new network
management system into an existing infrastructure of information space is actual. In view of
certain situations, the decisions about the integration of a special system often must be taken
rapidly. It depends on the real financial condition of the company. These solutions could be
considered as an independent IT e-space [13] or within separate functions of network
management frameworks. Such frameworks are financial management MOF SMF [3] or ITIL
[16]. They are parts of the general complex concept of the functions and areas of network
management frameworks.
As a result, the considered task is presented as Figure 2.

49
Figure 2 .Choice solution for integrated network management system
The questions “How?” and “What?” are remained open, but the choice of NMS could be
done according to FCAPS demands. It means that the evaluation of “positive” and
“negative” effects could be considered according to FCAPS concepts: A(FCAPS),
B(FCAPS). The answers on the questions “How?” and “What?” are bound with the
evaluation procedures of A(FCAPS), B(FCAPS). They belong to the area of efficiency
and cost analysis for the implemented systems Softi. Additionally, there is the time
restriction to make optimal decision (Time < T*).
In such cases, the availability of methods that allow justifying such a decision is actual.
Such methods and techniques are Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) [7], Total Benefits of
Ownership (TBO) [8] and Return On Investment (ROI) [9]. These techniques were successfully
used in assessing the effectiveness of new information systems implementations, for example,
Cloud system [11] and Data Center.
Of course, these are good techniques, but they have one big disadvantage. Actually, they are the
ultimate economic methodologies that require qualified experts, high research level and time
expenses. Most of the techniques are based on three main approaches: estimation of costs
associated with the implemented systems, estimation of implementation risk, and estimation of
benefits.
Here are the examples of some popular techniques that can help estimate the impact of the new IT
solution integration for complex information systems. For example, TCO [7] allows us to
estimate the total costs, TBO [8] helps evaluate the benefits of such integration, IT IR (IT
Integration Risk) [12] allows analysing and evaluating the risk, ROI (ROI) [9] allows evaluating
the efficiency of an investment. In [19] proposed the several dimensions of complexity that have
to be considered during the building of cost management model (CM), and found that, the
reliability of the model is depending on the degree of complexity.
Out of all described concepts, two of them are the most widely used; namely TCO and TBO.
Both concepts are based on the determination of the purchase price of an asset plus the costs of
operation, but they possess opposite ideas under the hood. The TCO shows how the costs will
increase after integration of a new system, whereas the TBO points to the benefits of the
integration with the same system. The Cost-Benefit Analysis belongs to the ratio approach to
decision-making processes [18].

50
Another popular concept is Cost benefit Analysis (CBA) [6, 7]. It uses two components; one of
them considers the cost of integrated information technology and the problems that rise after the
main system configuration change (e.g., additional cost and effort associated with the
restructuring of the management, the staff adaptation period and so on.). The second one
considers the advantages that we get after the system integration. It appears that the CBA is a
more advanced approach for these tasks.
The article consists of the review part, formulation of the problem, description of the concept,
description of the parameters, proposed method of analysis and examples.
2. EVALUATION CONCEPT
2.1. PROBLEM FORMULATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDIED OBJECT
2.1.1. THE AIM
The aim of the article is to identify the ways of express (simplified) selection of Network
Management Systems implementation and their integration.
2.1.2. THE RESEARCH OBJECT
Assume that some company has deployed a computer network. There is a need for additional
integration of specialized network management system. The question of the implementation or
integration of complex (expensive) software is considered. At the same time, there are alternative
ways to purchase one of several types of such software systems. Suppose there is an IT-
department in the company. It is responsible for the network administration. The head of
department should take the decision about integration in limited time.
2.1.3. PROBLEM FORMULATION
It is necessary to have a method (technique) that allows making the decision of the NMS systems
selection from available alternatives. This method should be relatively easy to use. It should not
demand additional specialist involvement from other departments or companies. The number of
method parameters should be small, the criteria should take into account the level of solving the
basic problems; the results of the analysis should be understandable for managers and the network
administrator.
The basic approach of the problem solving is assessing the benefits of new system integration,
estimating the level of existing problems, and resolving and assessing the possible problems
arising from the new software (system) exploitation.
2.2. COMMON CONCEPT OF EVALUATION
Let us have three groups of criteria. The first group describes the level of probable risk
(Er(NMS)). It means that we highlight the most significant problems on administrator's mind.
These problems could appear in the network after new system integration.
The second group covers the effectiveness of the network maintenance (Ee(NMS)). We suppose
that after integration of the NMS, the general effectiveness is going to increase. In general the
effectiveness is characterized as, 0 1 0/D E E= , 1 0( , ) [0,1]E E ∈ , where 1 0,E E are the current and basic
variables. In this case, we use “time” and “money” as the main characteristics. This is a complex

51
problem for direct values estimation, so we should use the indirect characteristics such as the
maintenance of the network. We assume that if we improve the maintenance of the network, the
main characteristics will be improved as well. The maintenance and efficiency will be considered
for the independent management areas. There are several concepts of representation of
management areas [1, 6]. In accordance with the concept based on the OSI RM (ISO) the
management is divided into 5 areas or 5 basic management functions - FCAPS (Configuration,
Performance, Fault, Accounting, and Security) [1, 2]. It should be noticed that the proposed
division of Microsoft SMF MOF 4.0 suggests 18 functions [3]. In addition, there is also a TMN
(ITU-T) [1, 2] classification.
The third group evaluates the completion level of the general solutions on the system integration
(Ef(NMS)). It is possible that the integrated system will not solve all of the management problems
completely, and after the purchase of the system, we will have to buy another one (This is an
incomplete solution).
So that, instead of abstract “positive” (A) and “negative” (B) variables, we can evaluate the
effectiveness levels, completion and probable risk. The task is as evaluation of values for (Ee,
Er, Ef).
The Figure 3 shows that the task became clear for administrator. Instead of the question “How?”
he can use the evaluation procedures for each considered NMS.
Instead of the question “What?” he can use the analysis procedure and the set of criteria. All
solutions will be conformed to FCAPS and MS MOF 4.0 (C&C SMF). All previous demands will
be in force.
Figure 3. Choice concept for integrated network management system
The concept of a NMS comparison may be represented in the form of five stages:
1. Evaluation of the level of probable risk for the integrated system.
2. Evaluation of the benefits after system integration in the network maintenance.

52
3. Estimation of completion level after system integration.
4. Evaluation of the generalized criterion of selection expediency of the system to be integrated.
5. Estimation scale formation for comparative variables.
The generalized criterion should be an integrated variable. Estimation scale formation for
comparative variables means that for all variables we should have a single scale. It should be with
relative values on the interval [0, 2] with the control fixed points {0, 1, and 2} = {<bad>, <OK>,
<good>}.
This approach allows getting the normalization and standardization of all variable values and
makes them uniform.
3. EVALUATION CRITERIA
3.1. CRITERIA OF THE LEVEL OF PROBABLE RISK
Let us introduce four types of criteria for this group: load ( Load ), complexity of the
administration ( Adm ), network security ( Sec ) and cost of ownership for the system ( Cst ).
"Load" means the approximate amount of traffic that is generated by the new system throughout
on network. Actually, it is an evaluation of the additional network load, created by the service
management traffic. It is determined as the total generalized estimate, based on the average load
at the workstation ( )Load WS , the average load at the segment ( )Load Seg and the average load at
the server ( )Load Ser .
1
1
1
1
1
1
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
w
g
s
Nw
iN i
Ng
iN i
Ns
iN i
Load WS Load WS
Load Sg Load Sg
Load Sr Load Sr
=
=
=
 =


=

=
∑
∑
∑
(1)
Where Nw, Ng, Ns are the number of workstations, segments, and servers, respectively.
{ ( ), ( ), ( )} {( , , )} ={0,1,2}Load WS Load Sg Load Sr low medium high∈ < > < > < > , (2)
1 2 3( ) ( ) ( ) ( )Load Net l Load WS l Load Sg l Load Sr= + + , (3)
with the criterion ( ) minLoad Net → ,
1 2 3 1l l l+ + = , hence assuming same values of coefficients 1 2 3 1/ 3l l l= = = «Complexity of the
administration» ( Adm ),is an expert estimation.
{ , , } ={0,1,2}Adm low medium high∈ < > < > < > , (4)
with the criterion minAdm → .
The point is as follows. The integration increases the administration process and could increase
the complexity of the base network and its infrastructure.
«Network security» ( Sec ) means that using another’s NMS reduces the security level. This is an
expert estimation

53
{ , , } ={2,1,0}Sec low medium high∈ < > < > < > , (5)
with the criterion minSec → .
«Cost of ownership» is complexity estimation. It consists of three estimations: cost of purchase
( ( )Cst In ), cost of deployment ( ( )Cst Use ), and cost on supporting ( ( )Cst Sup ).
Each of criterions ( )Cst In , ( )Cst Use , and ( )Cst Sup will be estimated by an expert.
( ) { , , } ={0,1,2}, where { , , }Cst p low medium high p In Use Sup∈ < > < > < > ∈ < > < > < > .
There are three types of estimation: 1) each criterion ( )Cst p is considered separately, 2) only one
criterion is used, and 3) the average value of all criterions is used.
The type of estimation is given by parameter ic .
1 2 3( ) ( ) ( ) ( )Cst Net c Cst In c Cst Use c Cst Sup= + + , (6)
where 1 2 3 1c c c+ + = , hence assuming 1 2 3 1/3c c c= = = . To exclude type of estimation, use 0ic = .
The criterion ( ) minCst Net → .
Any system could be estimated by usage of the “Cost of ownership”.
1 2 3 4( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )rE NMS r Load Net r Adm Net r Sec Net r Cst Net= + + + , (7)
with the criterion ( ) minrE NMS → ,
1 2 3 4 1r r r r+ + + = , hence assuming 1 2 3 4 1/ 4r r r r= = = = .
3.2. GENERALIZED CRITERIA FOR THE EFFECTIVENESS
According to five Management areas (FCASP), it is recommended to use five criterions:
performance ( Pe ), configuration (Ce ), Fault tolerance ( Fe ), security (Se ) and accounting ( Ae ).
In this group, “Performance” means the state of data performance (real throughput) in case of the
integrated system usage. It is expected that the value of performance criterion will increase after
the integration. This is an expert estimation.
{ changed , , } {0,1,2}Pe not changed very high∈ < > < > < > = , (8)
with the criterion maxPe → .
“Configuration” means the fact of presence of Management configuration. Configuration is an
expert estimation. The configuration management is optional. In case of presence, it could have
different levels of depth and complexity, for example, logical and functional management
configuration. In this case, it is “multiple”.
{ , partially , } ={0,1,2}Ce no multiple∈ < > < > < > , (9)

54
with the criterion maxCe → .
“Fault tolerance” means the improvement in the detection, prediction and prevention of
possible failures elimination. It could be estimated by Minimum Time before Repairing
(MTBR) or by reducing the number of faults. It is recommended to use an expert
estimation.
{ improving , , } {0,1,2}Fe no partially very good∈ < > < > < > = , (10)
with the criterion maxFe → .
“Security” means that the integration of a new system will increase the security level.
This is an expert estimation.
{ , , good } ={0,1,2}Se no partially very∈ < > < > < > , (11)
with the criterion maxSe → .
“Accounting” means the possibility to maintain user access control and release control of
personal QoS. This is an expert estimation
{ , , } ={0,1,2}Ae no partially very good∈ < > < > < > ,
(12)
with the criterion maxAe → .
To sum up, we get estimation of generalized effectiveness criteria.
1 2 3 4 5( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )eE NMS e Pe Net e Ce Net e Fe Net e Se Net e Ae Net= + + + + , (13)
with the criterion ( ) maxeE NMS → .
1 2 3 4 5 1e e e e e+ + + + = , hence assuming same values of coefficients i.e.
1 2 3 4 5 1/5e e e e e= = = = = .
3.3. COMPLETION LEVEL CRITERIA
In general, this group can be represented by a list that does not coincide with the previous group;
it will be more suitable when the lists are the same.
“Performance” is a number of criterions that characterize the problems, which are being
resolved, and their level of completeness. Use the estimation
{ , , } ={0,1,2}fP no partially yes∈ < > < > < > , (14)
with the criterion maxfP → .
“Configuration” means the fact of solving the task of configuration management in the
network
{ , , } ={0,1,2}fC no partially all∈ < > < > < > , (15)
with the criterion maxfC → .

55
“Fault tolerance” means the fact of solving the task of fault management in the network. Use the
estimation
{ , , }={0,1,2}fF no partially all∈ < > < > < > , (16)
with the criterion maxfF → .
“Security” means the fact of solving the task of security management in the network. Use the
estimation
{ , , } ={0,1,2}fS no partially all∈ < > < > < > (17)
with the criterion maxfS → .
“Accounting” means the fact of solving the task of accounting management in the network. Use
the estimation
{ , , } ={0,1,2}fA no partially all∈ < > < > < > (18)
with the criterion maxfA → .
To sum up, we get a generalized criterion that shows the level of problem solving completion.
1 2 3 4 5( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )f f f f f fE NMS a P Net a C Net a F Net a S Net a A Net= + + + + + (19)
1 2 3 4 5=1a a a a a+ + + + , hence assuming same values of coefficients i.e.
1 2 3 4 5=1/5a a a a a= = = = .
3.4. GENERALIZED CRITERION
This final generalized criterion is estimated as the ratio of sums of efficiencies
( f eE (NMS) E (NMS)+ ) to the criterion of expected risk rE (NMS) . Since the value of criterion
rE (NMS) could be equal to 0, use a biased estimate r(1 E (NMS))+ . The final equation will be
( ) ( ( ) ( )) /(1 ( ))e f rQ NMS E NMS E NMS E NMS= + + (20)
with the criterion ( ) maxQ NMS → .
This final equation takes into account all criterions and allows to compare all decisions.
As a result, we have a convolution of the evaluations as it shown on Figure 4.

56
Figure 4. Convolution of the evaluations.
4. EVALUATION METHOD
The final method of estimation consists of six steps.
1. General analysis of all considered existing systems.
2. Evaluation of the level of probable risk for the integrated system. This step should cover the
following points: the evaluation of the additional network load created by service traffic (1), (2),
(3), the probable increase of complexity of administering process (4), the probable decrease of
security level (5), cost evaluation depends on integrated system such as: cost of purchase
( ( )Cst In ), cost of deployment ( ( )Cst Use ), cost on supporting ( ( )Cst Sup ) (6) and general
estimation of probable risk ( )rE NMS (7).
Figure 5 illustrates the flowchart for the method of “Evaluation of the probable risk level”.

57
Figure 5. Flowchart for the method of “Evaluation of the probable risk level”
3. Evaluation of the benefits after integrating the system in maintaining the network. This step
should cover the following points: the evaluation of the probable improving of performance (8),
configuration management (9), network in general (10), security level (11), accounting for users
(12) and evaluating the total value of expected efficiency ( )eE NMS (13).
Figure 6 illustrates the flow charts for the method of “Evaluation of the benefits” (a) and
“Evaluation of the completion level” (b).
4. Evaluation of the completion level after system integration. This step should cover the
following points: the evaluation of the supporting level for performance (14), for configuration
management (15), for fault tolerance (16), for security management (17), for user accounting
(18), and evaluation of the total value of expected completion level ( )fE NMS (19).
5. Evaluation of the total criterion value ( )Q NMS .
6. Processing of the final analysis and decision making on selection of the system to integrate
(20).
Figure 6 (c) illustrates the flow charts for general method.

58
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 6. Flowchart for the sub-methods: (a) for “benefits after integrating”, (b) for “completion level,
(c) “the general method”
5. ANALYSIS OF THE SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS
The backbone of the proposed method is based on the fact that this method and technique use
expert assessment and express evaluation of the complex technical and cost criteria. They are
oriented on the evaluation of total risk and benefits when there is a need of integration of a new
information system to the existing infrastructure of a computer network.
The proposed method and the concept should be compared to CBA analysis [1, 2], or other
methods of analysis, that are used for analysis of different information systems [10, 14, 15].
First of all, the proposed concept is a simplification of the existing one. There are three proposed
groups of criteria. These are the main features of the proposed method. The assessment
methodology is presented for each group of the criteria. In opposite to traditional methods [10, 7,
14, 15], it is proposed to use expert estimates. In this case, head of the IT department could make
the evaluation process. There is no need to do detailed cost analysis. The proposed method is
simple, flexible and allows performing the required analysis and justification in a short time. The
number of criteria parameters in the method is small. The criteria take into account the basic

59
network management problems. The results of the analysis are clear for managers and the
network administrator.
The proposed method is used for fast pre-assessment. TCO methods can be used as a supplement
to make more extended evaluation. One more additional implementation of this approach is
creating the different IT e-spaces [13]. This feature helps to manage infrastructure solutions.
The main features of the suggested solution are the following. Firstly, it offers a symbolic
language that is understandable by all of office managers. This approach helps to form the
development strategy of the computer network infrastructure, as well as to coordinate the strategy
according to the company's financial plans and policy of financial management.
The common terms and categories for proposed conceptions are shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7. Schema of the methodology
Secondly, it offers a simple method of different solutions comparative assessment. This allows
the network administrator to make a proper decision quickly for the required system selection.
This situation is very typical in real life.
Thirdly, the proposed solution is focused on the integration of NMS, although it can be applied to
the integration of any complex information system. In this case, however, it is necessary to
review a set of criteria.
Why should we choose the estimation scale [0, 2] instead of [0.1]? This is the choice of the
authors. We can affirm that values {0, 1, 2} are more suitable to interpret than fractional values.
They are integer, but in general, it would be possible to use a scale [0, 1]. All of the arguments
would stay in force.
For the final criterion, we should select a range [0, 4]. If we select a range [0, 2], we get the
values close to 0.5. In this case, it is difficult to determine and interpret the difference between
various values.
How do the changes of value for Er influence on the values of Q(NMS)? The diagram on the
Figure 8 shows these with conditions Er =(2, 1, 0) and Sum=Ee(NMS)+Ef(NMS)= (1, 2, 3, 4).

60
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
٢ ١ ٠
Q(NMS)
Er
Sum=1
Sum=2
Sum=3
Sum=4
Figure 8. Diagram for Q(NMS) by changing Er
For the final evaluation we can chose the basic values as a classification of general
estimation. These values are given in the Table 1.
Table 1. Basic values
Value Er+Ef Er Q (NMS)
very bad. 0 2 0
bad 1 2 0,33
middle 2 1 1
good 3 1 1,5
best 4 0 4
The diagram on the Figure 9 shows the general estimation.
.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
very bad. bad middle good best
Q(NMS)
Diagr 1
Figure 9. Diagram for general estimation Q(NMS)
Why does it put a limit on the number and type of criterions? The answer is that, all solutions are
offered for specific systems, NMS.

61
6. EXAMPLES
6.1. USING THE CRITERIA OF LEVEL OF PROBABLE RISK
Suppose there are three systems: C1− a simple multifunctional system, C2– a multifunctional
system, and C3– a full multifunctional system.
The first system does not make additional load on the network channels; 2
1
( ) 0
n
i
i
Load Net X
=
= ∑ ,
does not change the existing network administration; process ( ) 0Adm Net = , does not change the
existing level of security; ( ) 0Sec Net = and has a low cost; ( ) 0Cst Net = . The total estimation is
equal to ( ) 0rE NMS = .
The second system is a different one. The load of service traffic is an average of ( ) 1Load Net = ,
the complexity of administration process is an average of ( ) 1Adm Net = , the level of security is an
average of ( ) 1Sec Net = , and the cost is an average of ( ) 1Cst Net = . Therefore, the total estimation
is equal to ( ) 1rE NMS = .
Third system is a complex multifunctional system, perhaps like management platforms MS
System Center or IBM Tivoli. This system has an additional impact on the existing network
administration process and complicates it's ( ) 2Load Net = , ( ) 2Adm Net = . This can change the
security level; ( ) 2Sec Net = , and has a high cost; ( ) 2Cst Net = . Thus, the final estimate of the
expected risk is equal to ( ) 2rE NMS = .
6.2. USING THE CRITERIA FOR THE EFFECTIVENESS
For the first system, we find that the benefits will not be significant and they will not change the
performance, security faults or accounting criterion. Suppose that they are focused only on the
collection and monitoring processes are related to the state of network configuration. Then, we
have respectively:
For the first system,
e0, 1, 0, 0, 0 as total E (NMS)=0.2.e e e e eP C F S A= = = = = ,
For the second system,
e0, 2, 1, 0, 1, E (NMS)=0.8.e e e e eP C F S A= = = = =
For the third system,
e1, 2, 1, 2, 2, E (NMS)=1.6e e e e eP C F S A= = = = = .
6.3. USING THE CRITERIA OF THE COMPLETION LEVEL
The first system does not have high level of functionality, so the estimations will be:

62
0, 1, 01, 0, 0, E (NMS)=0.2f f f f f fP C F S A= = = = = .
The second system can solve only some tasks for configuration and accounting
management. Therefore, we have:
0, 1.3, 0, 0, 1 as total E (NMS)=0.46.f f f f f fP C F S A= = = = = .
A third system can completely solve the problem of configuration management and other
problems that have been solved in part. Therefore, we have
f1, 2, 1, 1, 1 as total E (NMS)=1.2.f f f f fP C F S A= = = = = .
All results and the final estimation ( )Q NMS are shown in Table 2.
It can be seen that this technique does not allow directly specifying which system to
choose, but it can help justify any choice.
Table 2. Comparative analysis
Name of
Criterion
Values for criterion Goal
C1 C2 C3
rE (NMS) 0 1 2 Min=0
eE (NMS) 0.2 0.8 1.6 Max=2
( )fE NMS 0.2 0.46 1.2 Max=2
( )Q NMS 0.4 0.63 0.7 Max=4
If we choose the first system, we spend the least amount of money and make ourselves the least
number of problems, but it solves a very small number of tasks. Often, it cannot give us the
possibility of functional extensions. This is a good solution when the IT-Department is small.
If we choose the second system, we restrict ourselves to a partial solution of basic problems. This
solution is good for common types of the administrative department: the risk is low and the
problem is alleviated.
If we choose the third system, then deliberately and consciously we are switching to higher risks
and costs, but the effect of the system integration will be much higher. This solution is good for
the IT-administration department of a large corporation.
In real life, there are no such particular situations such as Systems 1, 2, and 3. The most values of
criteria are very different, so in this case, the proposed method can be very useful.
The generalized criterion is effective for choosing an integrated system at the comparative
analysis. It can be seen that the result is not very different in all three cases (Recall that for this
method we have the border values Q = 4).
This means that in reality the overall efficiency dose not greatly increase because of the problems
with integrating or implementing required systems and because of the incompleteness of final
solutions.

63
7. DISCUSSION AND FUTURE WORK
The main advantage of the proposed method is the possibility of using it to make decisions at the
real-time operational mode. It uses only the resources of experts. One question is valid – is there a
risk of errors by experts? Yes, of course, the error is allowed, but the criteria are chosen in such
way that the error be minimized.
It is expected to develop the proposed method to optimize the infrastructure of computer
networks and extend these solutions for cloud systems.
8. CONCLUSION
The questions of express choice when integrating a new information system on the class of
Network Management Systems was covered in this article. All solutions are valid for a complex
computer network. A review of basic methods of IT systems cost analysis is discussed. The main
results include the presentation of the concept and method of express assessment of new
information system selection, which is going to be integrated to the existing one. The concept
describes a general framework to solve the problem, the method and how to solve it. The results
are scientific and novel.
General description of the scientific results can be presented in the following way. The simplified
method for evaluation of the appropriateness of the selection algorithm, based on the expert
express risk assessment of the system integration, was further developed. The level of the
completion and success of the problem solution is accelerated as well. This method can help
reduce the financial costs and decrease financial risk in integrating new systems.
The practical significance of the results is that they can be successfully used to solve problems of
computer networks infrastructure management and in the assessment of different kinds of
information system selection, not just the NMS ones. This reduces the investment risk and causes
a reduction of financial costs in general.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Special Acknowledgement to Al Zaytoonah University of Jordan, for supporting this research
paper.All solutions were obtained according to the research project in the “Network
Management” laboratory, Control Information System Department, Kharkov National University,
Kharkov, Ukraine.

64
REFERENCES
[1] Mani Subramanian, (2012). Network Management: Principles and Practices (2nd Edition. Prentice
Hall; 726 p
[2] Aleksander Clemm, (2007). Network Management Foundamentals. CISCO Press, 510 p.
[3] Microsoft Operations Framework (MOF) (2008). MOF Executive Overview version 4.0 Microsoft
Accelerators, 32 p. Web: http://microsoft.com/ technet/Solution .
[4] Manar Jammala, Taranpreet Singha, Abdallah Shamia, Rasool Asalb, , Yiming Lic, (2014),
Software defined networking: State of the art and research challenges. Computer Networks Volume
72, 29 October 2014, Pages 74–98.
[5] Shafi’i Muhammad Abdulhamid. Resource scheduling for infrastructure as a service (IaaS) in cloud
computing: Challenges and opportunities, (2016), Journal of Network and Computer Applications 68
(2016) 173–200.
[6] Scott Farrow & Richard O. Zerbe, Jr. (2013) Principles and Standards for Benefit-Cost Analysis.
Edward Elgar Pub.
[7] Per-Olov Johansson, Bengt Kriström, (2016) Cost-Benefit Analysis for Project Appraisal. Cambridge
University Press.
[8] Lambert M. Surhone, Miriam T. Timpledon, and Susan F. Marseken, (2010) 'Procurement: Total
Cost of Ownership, Scarcity, Cost-Benefit Analysis",Beta script Publishers 132 p.
[9] Supercharging Return on Investment with Rapid Application Development Tools, sponsored by
FileMaker, Inc., Apr. 2010, 5 р. Web://www.bitpipe.com/tlist/
[10] Caesar Wu, Raj Kumar Buyya, (2015) Cloud Data Centers and Cost Modeling, Morgan
Kaufmann,1st ed 848p.
[11] Matthew D. Adler, Eric A. Posner (2006) New Foundations of Cost-Benefit Analysis, Harvard
University Press 256p.
[12] Paul M. Duvall, Steve Matyas, Andrew Glover (2007) Continuous Integration: Improving Software
Quality and Reducing Risk. Addison-Wesley Professional, 336 p.
[13] Sayenko V.; Al Rawajbeh M.; Levikin V., (2005)- “The E-space and Models of the Services”, iNEER
Conference for Engineering Education and Research “iCEER-2005”. Taipei, Taiwan, CD
Proceedings of articles. Session paper N T27, 2005, p. 1-8.
[14] E.A. Capuano.(Sep 2005) “A TCO Analysis of Cluster Servers Based on TPC-H Benchmarks
cluster”, 2005 IEEE International Conference on Cluster Computing, pp.1.
[15] Luigi Lavazza. (Aug 2007) “Beyond Total Cost of Ownership: Applying Balanced Scorecards to
Open- Source Software”, International Conference on Software Engineering Advances (ICSEA
2007), Aug. 2007, pp. 34-40.
[16] ITIL service life cycle publication suite (2011) , 2nd ed 211 p. Web: (http://www.itil.org.uk/ ).
[17] Francisco Macia-Perez, Iren Lorenzo-Fonseca, Jose Vicente, Berna-Martinez (april 2014). A formal
framework for modelling complex network management systems. Journal of network and computer
application vol 40,april 2014.pp 255–269.
[18] Petra Marešováa&, Kateřina Půžováb (2014) "Application of Cost Benefit Analysis method in Cloud
Computing in the Czech Republic ".2nd World Conference On Business, Economics And
Management- WCBEM 2013.pp 674-678.
[19] Daniel Ellström, Jakob Rehme, Maria Björklund, Håkan Aronsson,( July 2012)" Logistics Cost
Management Models and Their Usability for Purchasing", Journal of Modern Accounting and
Auditing 2012, Vol. 8, No. 7, pp1066-1073

65
AUTHORS
Dr. Mohammad Al Rawajbeh is an associate professor at the Computer Network
Department, Faculty of Science and Information Technology, AL Zaytoonah University of
Jordan. Received the High Diploma Degree in Computer Technology from Yarmouk
University, Jordan in 1991. Received B.SC and Master Degree in computers and networks
from Kharkov National Polytechnic University, Ukraine from 1992-1996. Obtained his
Ph.D. degree in Computer Network Management from Kharkov National University of Radio-Electronic,
Ukraine. His research interests are in the fields of network management, performance evaluation, and
internet technology. He has more than 18 published articles in International Journals and Conferences.
Prof. Vladimir I. Sayenko. Professor of Information Control Systems department in
Kharkov National University of Radio Electronics, European Engineering Educator
IGIP (ING-PAED), Head of Network Management Laboratory. In 1979 graduated with
honours from the Control Systems Department, Kharkov Institute of Radio Electronics
(specialty — Automated Control Systems), then worked as engineer, junior scientific
associate, senior scientific associate.in 1987 defended the candidate dissertation (PhD)
on the topic: “Identification of Objects of Technical Systems with the Use of Patch
Functions". 1995 – Received an associate professor certificate. Since 2001 – has been working as a
professor, and at 2001 get the title “European Engineer-Educator” (ING-PAED IGIP). Supervised many
postgraduate dissertations. His research interests in Network Management, Computer Network
Optimization, Cloud Systems, and Internet of Things. He has more than 80 published papers.
Dr. Mohammed I. Muhairat received the M.Sc. degree in Computer Engineering from
Kharkov State Technical University of Radio Electronics, Ukraine in 1997, and the
Ph.D. degree in Information Technology from Kharkov National University of Radio
Electronics, Ukraine in 2002. Currently, he is Associate Professor of Software
Engineering Department and Deputy Dean of Scientific Research and Higher Studies
Deanship at Al Zaytoonah University of Jordan. His research interests in Software
Engineering field, such as, Requirements Specification, Software Architecture, Software Development
Process, Reverse Engineering, and Formal Methods. He has more than 20 published articles in International
Journals and Conferences.

SIMPLIFIED CBA CONCEPT AND EXPRESS CHOICE METHOD FOR INTEGRATED NETWORK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

More Related Content

What's hot (17)

Viewers also liked (18)

Similar to SIMPLIFIED CBA CONCEPT AND EXPRESS CHOICE METHOD FOR INTEGRATED NETWORK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (20)

More from IJCNCJournal (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

SIMPLIFIED CBA CONCEPT AND EXPRESS CHOICE METHOD FOR INTEGRATED NETWORK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM