Feasibility Evidence Description

City of Los Angeles Personnel Department Mobile Device Application

Team 02

SHREYA KAMANI - Project Manager

ANUSHREE SHRIDHAR - Software Architect

DIVYA REDDY - Requirements Engineer

PATTRA THONGPRASERT - Operation Concept Engineer

ABHISHEK TRIGUNAYAT - Prototyper

TRAVIS JONES - Feasibility Analyst

WILLIAM EVERTON - IIV and V

Version History

Date / Author / Version / Changes made / Rationale
10/12/13 / TJ / 1.0 /
  • Sections 2 and 3 added
  • Section 5 updated
  • Decision process chosen
/
  • Completed analysis of business case and feasibility evidence
  • Risks updated from last phase

10/13/13 / TJ / 1.1 /
  • Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 updated
/
  • Information modified

Document Outline

  1. Feasibility Evidence Description (FED)
  2. Version History
  3. Document Outline
  4. Table of Tables
  5. Table of Figures
  1. Introduction
  2. Purpose
  3. Current Status
  4. Business Case Analysis
  5. Cost Analysis
  6. Personnel Costs
  7. Hardware and Software Costs
  8. Benefit Analysis
  9. ROI Analysis
  10. Feasibility Evidence
  11. Level of Service Feasibility
  12. Capability Feasibility
  13. Decision Process
  14. Risk Assessment

Table of Tables

Table # / Page #
  1. Program Model
/ 1
  1. Personnel Costs
/ 2
  1. Hardware and Software Costs
/ 2
  1. Benefits Analysis
/ 3
  1. ROI Analysis
/ 3
  1. LOS Feasibility
/ 4
  1. Capability Feasibility
/ 4
  1. Decision Process
/ 5
  1. Risk Assessment
/ 8

Table of Figures

Figure # / Page #
  1. ROI
/ 4

FED_FCP_F13a_T02_V1.11Version Date: 10/14/13

1Introduction

1.1 Purpose

The Feasibility Evidence Description (FED) is tasked with quantitatively proving that the proposed project is achievable within the various constraints associated with the project’s schedule, costs, benefits, and technological infrastructure. It is responsible for consistently tracking all the project’s elements and their corresponding risks in order to be used as a basis during each milestone review to provide evidence that all concurrently executed activities are stable and risk-assessed. The completion of this document aids the success-critical stakeholders in deciding whether or not to proceed with the project into the next phase of development. Evidence will be given mainlythrough models and prototypes.

1.2Current Status

  • Risks identified during the Valuation phase were reviewed and assessed by team members
  • Business case analyzed and first ROI analysis done
  • Feasibility evidence provided
  • Decision process decided

2Business Case Analysis

Table 1. Program Model

Assumptions (Under what Businessassumptions will this ‘model’ be true)
  1. Job seeker will prefer a mobile application for searching for jobs at city.
  2. Mobile application provides added value to city of LA, better than website.
  3. Having a mobile application will attract more candidates.

Stakeholders
(Who is accountable for the initiatives) / Initiatives
(What to do to realize benefits) / Value Propositions
(Benefits i.e Why) / Beneficiaries
(Who derives value)
  • Developers
  • Personnel department selection division
  • Personnel department IT division
  • Information Technology Agency (ITA)
  • Neo Gov website
/
  • Develop a system
  • Promote it
  • Training about maintenance (post deployment)
  • Sending notification to the job seekers
/
  • Provide easy access to job seekers
  • Attract qualified candidates to the city department
  • Better outreach for job seekers
  • Streamline recruiting process
/
  • Job seekers
  • Current employees for promotion

Cost
  • Text Message Notification
  • Apple Developer ID
  • Client Training
/ Benefits
  • Easy access to prospective jobseekers
  • Streamline recruiting process
  • Attract and draw more qualified candidates
  • Better outreach for jobseekers

2.1Cost Analysis

2.1.1Personnel Costs

Table 2. Personnel Costs

Activities / Time Spent (Hours)
Period (24 Weeks)
Initial Client Meeting + Win-Condition Meeting
1 meeting * 3 hours * 1 person / 3
Group Meeting (Win-Win Conditions)
(1 meeting * 2 hours * 2 people) + (1 meeting * 2 hours * 3 people) / 10
Client Meeting (Communication including email, phone, SMS, etc.)
2 hr./wk. * 12 weeks * 1 person / 24
Architecture Review Board Meetings
2 meetings * 1hr/each * 2 people / 4
Total Time: / 41
Cost: (Estimation of $40/hr) / $1640

2.1.2Hardware and Software Costs

The hardware and software costs presented here represent the known, established costs at this point in development. As development continues, these costs are subject to modification.

Table 3. Hardware and Software Costs

Type / Product Name / Cost / Rationale
Software / PhoneGap Build / $0 for 1 private app / Allows for cross-platform development
Software / Appery.io / $0 for basic subscription / Used to generate UI
Hardware / Application Server / $0 / Plan to utilize server client already has in place
Software / Apple ID / $99/year / Developer ID needed to deploy to iOS
Software / Nexmo / $24/year / Needed in order to send text message notification
Total / $123/year

2.1.3Benefit Analysis

Table 4. Benefits Analysis Table

Current activities / % Decrease / Time Saved (Hours/Year)
Supply applicants for each job
Time saved due to more experienced employee: 8 hrs/day * 260 days/year / 6.5% / 135
Total / 135
Worth ($40/Hour) / $5400

2.1.4ROI Analysis

Table 5. ROI Analysis

Year / Cost / Benefit
(Time Saved) / Cumulative Cost / Cumulative Benefit / ROI
2013 / 1763 / 0 / 1763 / 0 / -1
2014 / 135 / 5400 / 1898 / 5400 / 1.85
2015 / 148 / 5400 / 2046 / 10800 / 4.28
2016 / 162 / 5400 / 2208 / 16200 / 6.34

Figure 1. ROI Graph


3Feasibility Evidence

3.1 LOS Feasibility

Level of Service Requirement / Product Satisfaction
LOS-1: Server Downtime / Product Strategies:Product has no impact on server hardware or configuration
Process Strategies:Server is responsibility of maintainers
Analysis: As the development time has virtually no access to the servers that the product will be ultimately deployed on, it is up to the maintainers to determine when, if ever, the product will be unavailable to its users.

3.2 Capability Feasibility

Table 7. Capability Feasibility

Capability Requirement / Product Satisfaction
CR-1
View Currently Open Jobs / Software/Technology used: JSP,HTML, JAVA
Feasibility Evidence: CR supported by RSS Parser that reads feed published by Neogovand displays job information.
Referred use case diagram:
UC-02 and UC-04
CR-2
Notifications by text / Software/Technology used: JAVA,NEXMO
Feasibility Evidence: CR supported by ability to use SMS API in application back-end
Referred use case diagram:
UC-06
CR-3
Search for all jobs using keywords and job codes / Software/Technology used: JAVA,DB2,JSP
Feasibility Evidence: CR supported by prior prototyping of functionality
Referred use case diagram:
UC-03 and UC-04
CR-4
Save user profile information on device / Software/Technology used: JavaScript,PhoneGap
Feasibility Evidence: CR supported by PhoneGap’s ability to store files locally using JavaScript
Referred use case diagram:
UC-01
CR-5
Subscribe for notifications / Software/Technology used: HTML,JSP,JAVA,DB2
Feasibility Evidence: CR supported by ability to communicate with DB2 database
Referred use case diagram: CR-05

4Design Process Selection

Table 8. Decision Process Table

Criteria / Project Status / Rationales
30 % of NDI/NCS features / 1 / Project is not getting 30% or more of its features from any NDI or NCS in the market
Single NDI/NCS / 0 / There isn’t a single NDI/NCS that can handle all system features
Unique/ inflexible business process / 4 / Although the business process is not that unique, it is inflexible
Need control over upgrade / maintenance / 1 / Upgrading finished system isn’t required, but can be desired.
Rapid deployment / 0 / The system isn’t a necessity for the department to continue its regular duties.
Critical on compatibility / 3 / System must be compatible with database software currently used
Internet connection independence / 0 / Internet dependent
Need high level of services / performance / 3 / System down no more than 2 hrs. a day
Need high security / 4 / System does need high security. Account information is transmitted between client-server sides.
Asynchronous communication / 3 / System asynchronous communication has slightly high value
Be accessed from anywhere / 4 / The system must be accessed by mobile devices anywhere
Critical on mass schedule constraints / 0 / Aside from general project deadline, system need not meet any other constraints
Lack of personnel capability / 1 / Project employs technologies known by developers
Require little upfront costs / 2 / System does not need high performance infrastructure, reducing costs
Require low total cost of ownership / 3 / Reoccurring costs come to less than $200 a year.
Not-so-powerful local machines / 3 / System does not need high performance computers

5Risk Assessment

Table 9. Risk Assessment

Risks / Risk Exposure / Risk Mitigations
Potential Magnitude / Probability Loss / Risk Exposure
Unaware of client’s budget: Needed in order to decide how to implement SMS notification / 3 / 1 / 3 / Stakeholders will be contacted and final decision will be made and understood
Risk of Value: Ensuring project will increase pool of applicants / 7 / 5 / 35 / Client’s commitment to promote the app
Server Scalability: Ensuring server can handle user growth / 7 / 2 / 14 / Research into scalability is currently being conducted

FED_FCP_F13a_T02_V1.11Version Date: 10/14/13