Abstract :

This article explores the capacity of design thinking (DT) to transform corporate application rationalization in multinational companies. This article is broadly targeted at IT stakeholders, from expert levels to chief technology officers (CTOs) in large multinational companies with a mandate to make complex application portfolios easier. This case study was conducted at one of the world’s largest tobacco companies, with around 2,600 applications running across the world to cater to its 180 markets. In the context of thousands of applications in the IT landscape, simplifying the portfolio aids in maximizing efficiency and facilitating digital transformation objectives. We outline a user-focused application evaluation process that decommission, consolidation via design thinking via empathy, ideation, and prototyping. The study employs the UX Honeycomb model to quantify usability and user satisfaction within applications and proceeds to employ A/B testing to confirm its validity. The study reveals that the incorporation of end-user feedback within the rationalization process significantly raises adoption levels and aligns the IT environment with business objectives. The research establishes that a customer-centric approach is required in a bid to achieve long-term innovation and operational success.

---

Keywords :

A/B Testing, Application Rationalization, Design Thinking, IT Ecosystem, User-Centric Innovation, UX Honeycomb

---

References :

1. Brody and R. M. Costa, “Rationalization is a suboptimal defense mechanism associated with clinical and forensic problems,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol. 43, p. e31, Apr. 2020, doi: 10.1017/S0140525X19002073.
2. L. Veiga, E. Pinheiro de Lima, and S. E. Gouvea da Costa, “An Efficiency-Frontier Based Procedure to Improve Operations Strategy,” Journal of Industrial Integration and Management, vol. 07, no. 03, pp. 367–399, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.1142/S2424862221500275.
3. L. Mozsár, “Application Portfolio Management,” Research Papers in Economics, Jan. 2014.
4. , Shute, “Software system rationalisation: How to get better outcomes through stronger user engagement,” Oct. 2022.
5. Hirzy, D. Dellyana, H. Hirzy, and D. Dellyana, “The Impact of Consumer Purchase Behavior towards User Purchase at E-commerce (Tokopedia),” European Journal of Business and Management Research, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 154–162, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.24018/EJBMR.2023.8.4.2017.
6. , Mangan, “Method for application and infrastructure rationalization,” Sep. 2004.
7. Stoitsev, “End-User Driven Business Process Composition.,” Jul. 2009.
8. J. Kusuma, P. Sudarmaningtyas, and A. Supriyanto, “Factors Affecting the PeduliLindungi User Experience Based on UX Honeycomb,” Jurnal RESTI (Rekayasa Sistem dan Teknologi Informasi), vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 491–498, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.29207/resti.v6i3.4131.
9. Cushman, “Rationalization is rational,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol. 43, p. e28, May 2020, doi: 10.1017/S0140525X19001730.
10. Bocu and D. Bocu, “Conceptual Foundations of Code Rationalization Through a Case Study in Haskell,” 2022, pp. 116–128. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-99584-3_11.
11. Modina, M. Fedele, and A. V. Formisano, “Digital finance for SMEs and startups: a bibliometric analysis and future research direction,” Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.1108/JSBED-01-2024-0021.
12. Qiu and D. Li, “A study for end users’ perceptions of business strategic factors among different IS/IT contexts,” ACM SIGMIS Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 52–61, Jan. 2009, doi: 10.1145/1496930.1496938.
13. Nida-Rümelin and N. Weidenfeld, “Economic Rationality as a Software Program,” Digital Humanism, pp. 35–40, 2022, doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-12482-2_7.
14. Grave, R. van de Wetering, and L. Rutledge, “Strategy-IT Alignment: Assuring Alignment Using a Relation Algebra Method,” Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 319, pp. 352–361, 2018, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-94214-8_26.
15. Darmawan, M. Saiful Anwar, A. Rahmatulloh, and H. Sulastri, “Design Thinking Approach for User Interface Design and User Experience on Campus Academic Information Systems,” JOIV : International Journal on Informatics Visualization, vol. 6, no. 2, p. 327, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.30630/joiv.6.2.997.
16. Pruneau, V. Freiman, M. T. Léger, L. Dionne, V. Richard, and A.-M. Laroche, “Design Thinking and Collaborative Digital Platforms: Innovative Tools for Co-creating Sustainability Solutions,” 2021, pp. 207–226. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-78825-4_13.
17. Kosaka, J. Wu, K. Xing, and S. Zhang, “Overview: Perspectives and Structure,” in Business Innovation with New ICT in the Asia-Pacific: Case Studies, Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2021, pp. 1–10. doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-7658-4_1.
18. van de Sand, A.-K. Frison, P. Zotz, A. Riener, and K. Holl, “UXi Validation: How to Evaluate if Brand Values Can Be Experienced by Users,” 2020, pp. 151–166. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-29868-5_8.
19. Han et al., “The Impact of Task Abandonment in Crowdsourcing,” IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng, pp. 1–1, 2019, doi: 10.1109/TKDE.2019.2948168.
20. Afjal, “Bridging the financial divide: a bibliometric analysis on the role of digital financial services within FinTech in enhancing financial inclusion and economic development,” Humanit Soc Sci Commun, vol. 10, no. 1, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.1057/S41599-023-02086-Y.
21. Sahabuddin et al., “The Evolution of FinTech in Scientific Research: A Bibliometric Analysis,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 9, p. 7176, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.3390/su15097176.
22. K. M. Brika, “A Bibliometric Analysis of Fintech Trends and Digital Finance,” Front Environ Sci, vol. 9, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2021.796495.
23. Modina, M. Fedele, and A. V. Formisano, “Digital finance for SMEs and startups: a bibliometric analysis and future research direction,” Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.1108/JSBED-01-2024-0021.
24. Torres-Velasco, A. L. Laureano-Cruces, G. D. La Cruz-Martínez, and L. Sánchez-Guerrero, “The Importance of the Journey Map in the Design of a Playful Interactive-Interface,” Global Journal of Management and Business Research, pp. 9–17, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.34257/GJMBRGVOL21IS4PG9.
25. -L. Meiners, M. Schrepp, A. Hinderks, and J. Thomaschewski, “A Benchmark for the UEQ+ Framework: Construction of a Simple Tool to Quickly Interpret UEQ+ KPIs,” International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 104, 2024, doi: 10.9781/ijimai.2023.05.003.
26. Løje, “Experiences from using formative feedback in entrepreneurship course,” in Towards a new future in engineering education, new scenarios that european alliances of tech universities open up, Barcelona: Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Sep. 2022, pp. 2034–2040. doi: 10.5821/conference-9788412322262.1450.
27. B. dos Santos, C. Campese, R. M. Marcacini, R. A. Sinoara, S. O. Rezende, and J. Mascarenhas, “Prototyping for user involvement activities: How to achieve major benefits,” CIRP J Manuf Sci Technol, vol. 33, pp. 465–472, May 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.cirpj.2021.04.013.
28. A. M. Rocha et al., “Improving Usability by Better User Feedback,” in Proceedings of the 8th Latin American Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, New York, NY, USA: ACM, Nov. 2017, pp. 1–4. doi: 10.1145/3151470.3156634.
29. Ritter, “User Centered Design Methods as Applied to Manufacturing Methanol Cookstoves for Mushers in Arctic Climates,” Portland State University, Portland, OR, 2017. doi: 10.15760/honors.353.
30. Z. Ramli et al., “Assessing Usability of Learning Experience Prototype,” International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), vol. 17, no. 09, pp. 20–36, May 2022, doi: 10.3991/ijet.v17i09.29955.
31. W. S. Dewi, G. R. Dantes, and G. Indrawan, “User experience evaluation of e-report application using cognitive walkthrough (cw), heuristic evaluation (he) and user experience questionnaire (ueq),” J Phys Conf Ser, vol. 1516, no. 1, p. 012024, Apr. 2020, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1516/1/012024.
32. Lee, “Prototyping,” Cubic Journal, no. 3, pp. 54–73, Jul. 2020, doi: 10.31182/cubic.2020.3.024.
33. Dellyana, T. R. Fauzan, and A. P. Putri, “Creativity and Proactive Personality as Triggers for Entrepreneurial Alertness in Improving the Business Performance of the Creative Industry in Indonesia,” Journal of Small Business Strategy, vol. 34, p. 2024, doi: 10.53703/001c.94170.
34. Al Qaisi, G. Y. Quba, A. Althunibat, A. Abdallah, and S. Alzu’bi, “An Intelligent Prototype for Requirements Validation Process Using Machine Learning Algorithms,” in 2021 International Conference on Information Technology (ICIT), IEEE, Jul. 2021, pp. 870–875. doi: 10.1109/ICIT52682.2021.9491758.
35. Zhang, H. Shen, and Z. Lv, “Deployment optimization of multi-stage investment portfolio service and hybrid intelligent algorithm under edge computing,” PLoS One, vol. 16, no. 6, p. e0252244, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252244.
36. Beckmann, J. Till, and B. Bauer, “Endpoint-Performance-Monitoring for a better End-User Experience,” in 2022 The 3rd European Symposium on Software Engineering, New York, NY, USA: ACM, Oct. 2022, pp. 63–71. doi: 10.1145/3571697.3571706.