Feasibility Evidence Description (FED)

City of Los Angeles Public Safety Applicant Resource Center

Team 9

Team Members

Divya Nalam: Operational Concept Engineer and UML Designer

Vaibhav Mathur: Project Manager, Life Cycle Planner

Arijit Dey: Requirements Engineer, Prototyper

Preethi Ramesh: Feasibility Analyst, Requirements Engineer

Gaurav Mathur: Builder, UML Designer

Shreyas Devaraj: Prototyper, Project Manager

Rakesh Mathur: IIV & V, Quality Focal Point

Version History

Date / Author / Version / Changes made / Rationale
09/26/13 / Preethi Ramesh / 1.0 / ●Add risks and program model / ●Initial draft of Feasibility Evidence Description (FED)
9/27/13 / Rakesh Mathur / 1.1 / ●Added more risks and identified NDI risks / ●Updated FED
9/27/13 / Rakesh Mathur / 1.2 / ●Added another NDI evaluation / ●Salesforce.com was added
10/15/13 / Rakesh Mathur / 1.3 / ●Added Business Case Analysis / ●Completing the document
10/20/13 / Preethi Ramesh / 1.4 / ●Edited the ROI table / ●Made after the ARB meeting

FeasibilityEvidenceDescription (FED)i

VersionHistoryii

TableofContentsiii

TableofTablesiv

TableofFiguresv

A.1. Introduction1

A.2. BusinessCaseAnalysis2

A.2.1 CostAnalysis2

A.2.2 BenefitAnalysis2

A.2.3 ROIAnalysis3

A.3. RiskAssessment4

A.4. NDI/NCSInteroperabilityAnalysis 5

A.4.1 Introduction5

A.4.2 EvaluationSummary5

Table of Tables

Table 1: Personnel Costs2

Table 2: Hardware and Software Costs2

Table 3: Benefits of the System2

Table 4: ROI Analysis3

Table 5: Risk Assessment4

Table 6: NDI Products Listing5

Table 7: NDI Evaluation5

Table of Figures

Figure 1: ROI Analysis Graph3

Introduction

This document discusses feasibility of developing the Safety Applicant Resource Center online Web System for the Department of Public Safety at the City of Los Angeles.

●V 1.4 – ROI analysis edited to reflect the changes made to it in the ARB meeting.

●V 1.3 - This document has been updated to reflect a more comprehensive review of the project.

●V 1.2 - The risk of only using Cold Fusion as the platform has been mitigated by identifying another possible platform – ASP.NET (using C#)

●V 1.1 - The risk of the difficulty of integrating the final product with existing LDAP (Lightweight Directory Access Protocol) at the Dept. of Public Safety was identified and Dept. of Public Safety reassessed “Business Value” and “Relative Penalty”

Business Case Analysis

Cost Analysis

Client costs include time spent meeting with Development team, efforts to coordinate personnel who will be effective in working on the project, communication within the Dept. of Public Safety with regards to project, effort spent to communicate with Development team.

Personnel Costs

Table 1: Personnel Costs

Activities / Time Spent (Hours)
Exploration Phase
Win-Win Negotiation Meetings (2 people * 4 hours + 3 people * 4 hours) / 20
Communication with Development team (2 people * 2 hour) / 4
Valuation Phase
ARB Meeting to review Progress / 2
Identify missing scope or requirements with Development Team / 10
Commit to Hardware/Software Costs of Project – meetings plus Communication / 10
Foundations Phase
Assess Prototype and give feedback about Prototype / 5
Plan for Development and Deployment of Project / 40
Development Phase
Develop Release Plan with Developer Team / 20
Develop Training Plan with Developer Team / 20
Perform Core Capability Drive-Through / 2
Give Feedback to Developer Team about Development iteration / 10
Deployment of Web System plus database Connectivity with Developer Team / 30
Provide Training for Support Staff & Background Investigators / 40
Maintenance of Database plus Web Application (recurring cost) per year ( 2 hours/week * 1 person * 52 weeks) / 104
Total (for one time costs) / 213

Hardware and Software Costs

Table 2: Hardware and Software Costs

Type / Cost / Rationale
Hosting Web Server running Windows Server with IIS / 01 / This is the server where the code will reside and where the users (both internal and external) will access the System
DMZ (De-Militarized Zone) / 03 / Network Security Setup needed (personnel cost for setting up subnet for Web Server)
Database Back-End DB2 instance which will allow for multiple connections / 04 / This is the database where all data will be stored.
Disk Space to store Database Back-End DB2 data / 05 / This is the disk space that will be needed to store database data
Hosting Environment with connectivity to the Internet and World Wide Web / 06 / Networking and Internet Services Provider costs

1 – This is assuming that a Server running Windows 8 with IIS on it be provided by the Dept. of Public Safety.3 – This is assuming that the only set up required is that of the Router and will be provided by Dept.of Public Safety. 4 – This is assuming that the Web System’s data will be hosted on an already existing DB2 Database server which the Dept. of Public Safety will provide. 5 – This is assuming that an appropriate production database infrastructure is already set up at the Dept. of Public Safety. 6 – This is assuming that a Hosting environment infrastructure is already set up at the Dept. of Public Safety for intake of applications via the web.

Benefit Analysis

Quantitative Benefits

Table 3: Benefits of Reference Request Web System

Current activities & resources used / % Reduce / Time Saved (Hours/Year)
For candidate, create (type and print) one or multiple ‘Reference Request’ letters / 100 / 10001
Post each letter by mail to the Reference / 100 / 5002
Gather (printed) Reference Request Responses in candidate physical folder / 100 / 5003
Track References and Reference Letters for candidates in candidate physical folder / 100 / 5004
Assigning Candidates to Background Investigators / 50 / 1675
Management of Background Investigators and Candidates (done by Managers) / 80 / 5336
Total / 3200

In our Win-Win negotiations, the Dept. of Public Safety estimated that they process 2000 (two thousand) applications per year. The values for the benefits derived are based on this number.

1 – Assuming 30 minutes for each application type and print, 2000* 30 minutes = 5000 hours per year.

2 – Assuming 15 minutes to put reference form into envelope and carrying to be posted, 2000 * 15 minutes = 500 hours per year.

3 – Assuming 15 minutes to open reference and properly file it, 2000* 15 minutes = 500 hours per year.

4 – Assuming 15 minutes to find candidate folder and find reference in folder by Background Investigator, 2000*15 minutes = 500 hours per year.

5 – Assuming 10 minutes to assign candidates and noting assignment in Excel Spreadsheets, 2000*10 minutes, but since assignment still needs to be done, saving is 50 % of that which is 50/100 * (2000*10 minutes) = 167 hours.

6 – Assuming 20 minutes to change/re-assign candidates by looking up physical file and Excel Spreadsheets, 2000*20 minutes, but since re-assignment decisions still need to be made, saving is 80 % of that which is 80/100 * (2000*20 minutes) = 533 hours.

Qualitative Benefits

●Redirect Support Staff Scheduling Cost

Table 4: Cost Benefit Analysis Worksheet

Cost Benefit Analysis Worksheet
Nonrecurring Costs
System Development & Deployment - $85203
Recurring Costs
Server Maintenance Personnel Cost – $4160 per year1
Total - $4160 per year / Tangible Benefits
Cost Avoidance - $48000 per year2

1 – Personnel cost = 104 hours per year * $40 per hour = $4160 per year
2 – Cost Avoidance is the number of hours saved per year (3200) * $15 / hr on average = $48000 per year
3 – For System Development/Deployment, assuming $40 per hour, total costs = 213 (from table 1) * 40 = $8520

ROI Analysis

Year / Cost / Benefit (Effort Saved) / Cumulative Cost / Cumulative Benefit / ROI
2013 / 8520 / 0 / 8520 / 0 / -1
2014 / 4160 / 48000 / 12680 / 48000 / 2.78548896
2015 / 4576 / 48000 / 17256 / 96000 / 4.56328234
2016 / 5033.6 / 48000 / 22290 / 144000 / 5.46041203

Table 4: ROI Analysis

Figure 1: ROI Analysis Graph

Risk Assessment

Table 5: Risk Assessment

Risks / Risk Exposure Potential Magnitude / Risk Mitigation Probability of Loss / Risk Exposure / Rationale
Use of LDAP for authentication and authorization of users / 7 / 6 / 42 / Develop a prototype for the suspected feature
Use of DB2 as the back-end database for the system / 9 / 5 / 45 / Training needs to be taken by Developers to be able to use DB2 with ASP.NET framework.
Need to be able to give privileges to an ‘administrator’ or a group of administrators who can add/delete investigators from the system. High Operational clarity needed / 9 / 5 / 45 / Clarify ‘Administrator’ Role with Dept. of Public Safety personnel
Interoperability of ASP.NET Application with DB2 / 8 / 6 / 48 / Learn about how ASP.NET interoperates with DB2 and how data can be passed between the application and the database.
Need to be able to securely log in to the system. High legal liability and highly reliable technology / 9 / 7 / 63 / Use SSL (Secure Sockets Layer), DMZ (De-Militarized Zone) and firewall security to ensure that data is safe within the system

NDI/NCS Interoperability Analysis

Introduction

We plan to use ASP.NET MVC Web Framework to develop the code for the project. This system will be completely independent of existing Dept. of Public Safety web systems.

COTS / GOTS / ROTS / Open Source / NCS

Table 6: NDI Products Listing

NDI/NCS Products / Purposes
Plan to use ASP.NET MVC (Model View Controller) framework to develop the code for the project ( / MVC is a well-known framework which facilitates building of various views and controllers.

Connectors

●In this project, we will use ODBC/DB2 Connector to enable the ASP.NET web application to retrieve and write data to the DB2 database.

Legacy System

●In this project, the developed system has to use a DB2 Database which is currently used for the rest of the applicant tracking process.

●In this project, the developed system should be able to authenticate administrators, investigators and support users based on an already existing LDAP system used by the Dept. of Public Safety.

Evaluation Summary

Table 7: NDI Evaluation

NDI / Usages / Comments
ASP.NET MVC Framework / Develop screens and workflow of site / Positives
-Some Developers are familiar with ASP.NET and C#
-Dept. of Public Safety has agreed to allow development in ASP.NET/C# instead of ColdFusion which no developer is familiar with
Negatives
-Developers are mostly familiar with Java and thus need to take training for ASP.NET (and C#) to be able to effectively develop the code
Salesforce.com / Develop system on the salesforce.com platform / Positives
-platform has most of the functionality built and can be developed quickly
Negatives
-Dept. of Public Safety does not want the data for the system stored outside the systems in their datacenter

Life Cycle Plan (LCP)

City of Los Angeles

Public Safety Applicant Resource Center

Team No. 09

Team members and roles:

Vaibhav MathurProject Manager

Preethi Ramesh Feasibility Analyst

Arijit DeyRequirements Engineer

Shreyas DevrajPrototyper

Gaurav MathurBuilder

Divya NalamOCE

Rakesh MathurIIV&V

10/20/2013

Version History

Date / Author / Version / Changes made / Rationale
09/26/13 / Vaibhav Mathur,Arijit Dey, Shreyas Devaraj / 1.0 /

First Draft of the Life Cycle Plan

To initiate the Life Cycle Planning process and discuss the skills required.

10/12/13 / Arijit Dey, Shreyas Devaraj / 1.1 /

Modification done to Section 2, Section 3.1, 4, 5.

First Revision before FC Package.

10/20/13 / Arijit Dey, Shreyas Devaraj / 1.2 /

Modification done to Section 3.1, 4, 5.

First Revision after FC Package which includes the review responses of the stakeholders from ARB session.

Table of Contents

Life Cycle Plan (LCP)

Version History

Table of Contents

Table of Tables

Table of Figures

1.Introduction

2.Milestones and Products

3.Responsibilities

3.1Responsibilities by Phase

3.2Skills

4.Approach

4.1Monitoring and Control

4.2Methods, Tools and Facilities

4.3Project Plan

5.Resources

6. Iteration Plan

6.1 Plan

6.1.1 Capabilities to be implemented

6.1.2 Capabilities to be tested

6.1.3 Capabilities not to be tested

6.1.4 CCD Preparation Plans

6.2 Iteration Assessment

6.2.1 Capabilities Implemented, Tested, and Results

6.2.2 Core Capabilities Drive-Through Results

6.3 Adherence to Plan

Table of Contents

Table of Tables

Table 1: Stakeholder's responsibilities

Table 2: COCOMOII Scale Driver

Table 3: COCOMOII Cost Driver

Table 4: Module lists and SLOC of each module - example

Table 5: COCOMOII Scale Drivers - example

Table 6: COCOMOII Cost Drivers of Module 1 - Plant Service Recording module - example

Table 7: Construction iteration capabilities to be implemented

Table 8: Construction iteration capabilities to be tested

Table 9: Capabilities implemented, tested, and results

Table of Figures

Figure 1: COCOMO Estimation Result

Introduction

1.1Purpose

The Life Cycle plan helps the stakeholders to get a clear picture of what are the objectives to be achieved, when are the milestones & deadlines and what are the products which needs to be delivered, what are the responsibilities and what should be our approach towards it, what resources we have and what are the assumptions in regard to this project.

1.2Status

The present status of the project is at the foundation phase. This LCP presently contains our future plans, updated responsibilities, and milestones to be encountered in the various phases. Also, an estimation of the project using COINCOMO is attached to analyze the project’s feasibility within 12 weeks.

1.3Assumptions

The system will be readily accepted by the City of Los Angeles Staff.
There needs to be no integration with the current Application System.
There is no integration with data of current manual applicant investigation process.

2.Milestones and Products

Overall Strategy

The City of Los Angeles Application Resource Center is an online system which built following the architected agile process as we have to develop the project from scratch with minimum COTS involvement.

Exploration phase

Duration: 09/11/13- 09/26/13

Concept:In the Exploration Phase the team was formed and the project was selected. The current system was analyzed. Team held several meetings to discuss on the requirements & initial scope of the project. The team had also held meetings with its stakeholders to clarify their doubts and establish a win-win state.The team also worked on what are the resources, project plan and skills required for the project to be done which are mentioned in the initial artifacts of the VC Package.

Deliverables: Client Interaction Report. Valuation Commitment Package which includes Operational Concept Design, Life Cycle Plan and Feasibility Evidence Description.

Milestone: Valuation Commitment Review

Strategy: One Incremental Commitment Cycle

Valuation phase

Duration: 09/26/13- 10/16/13

Concept:In the Valuation Phase, the team evaluated the win conditions to develop the operational concepts and implemented the prototype to mitigate major risks. The team had developed the initial prototype using the win conditions. The prototype had the following features of generating automated email to the references, and the reference on getting the email had the ability to click on the link, login using his credentials and fill out the background verification questionnaire.

Deliverables: Draft Foundation Commitment Package which includes Operational Concept Design, Life Cycle Plan and Feasibility Evidence Description.

Milestone: Foundation Commitment Review

Strategy: One Incremental Commitment Cycle

Foundation phase

Duration: 10/16/13- 11/12/13

Concept:In the Foundation Phase, the team will lay the foundations of product development. We need to check the interoperability of using NDI component, understand system architecture, design and test cases. Minimal requirement changes needs to be managed and, the highest priority requirements should be developed.

Deliverables: Foundation Commitment Package which includes Operational Concept Design, Life Cycle Plan and Feasibility Evidence Description and Draft Development Commitment Package.

Milestone: Development Commitment Review

Strategy: One Incremental Commitment Cycle

Development phase

Duration: 11/11/13- 12/02/13

Concept:In the Development Phase, the team will develop the system using the architecture and design mentioned in the operational concepts. The system will be integrated using the modules which are thoroughly tested using unit and integration testing. The team also has to prepare for transition plans, test case and train the support staff to maintain the system.

Deliverables: Development Commitment Package which includes Operational Concept Design, Life Cycle Plan and Feasibility Evidence Description.

Milestone: Transition Readiness Review

Strategy: One Incremental Commitment Cycle

3.Responsibilities

3.1Responsibilities by Phase

Table 1: Stakeholder's responsibilities

Name: Vaibhav Mathur
Role: Project Manager
Exploration / Schedule Meetings, Assign Tasks
Valuation / Plan Project Meeting, Manage Client Interaction, record Project Progress
Foundations / Coordinating Meetings with team members and clients.
Development- Construction Iteration / <responsibilities>
Development- Transition Iteration / <responsibilities>
Name: Arijit Dey
Role: Requirements Engineer
Exploration / Understanding Requirements, Life Cycle Planning
Valuation / Update Life Cycle Plan, Indentify Milestones, Indentify the features to be implemented
Foundations / Maintaining the Life Cycle Plan and keeping it updated.
Development- Construction Iteration / <responsibilities>
Development- Transition Iteration / <responsibilities>
Name: Divya Nalam
Role: Operational Concept Engineer
Exploration / Building the Operational Concept Design Report.
Valuation / Establishing New Operational Concept and Identify the alternative.
Foundations / Implement necessary changes to the OCD and Identify the operational concepts to be developed
Development- Construction Iteration / <responsibilities>
Development- Transition Iteration / <responsibilities>
Name: Preeti Ramesh
Role: Feasibility Analyst
Exploration / Checking for Feasibility Evidence and COTS
Valuation / Evaluate NDI and interoperability, Mitigation of Risks
Foundations / Implement necessary changed in the FED, update risks and recalculate ROI.
Development- Construction Iteration / <responsibilities>
Development- Transition Iteration / <responsibilities>
Name: Shreyas Devaraj
Role: Prototyper
Exploration / Project Plan and Progress Report Maintaining
Valuation / Develop the prototype based on top priority requirements & risks.
Foundations / Analyze the win conditions to be implemented, Assist in Life Cycle planning
Development- Construction Iteration / <responsibilities>
Development- Transition Iteration / <responsibilities>
Name: Gaurav Mathur
Role: Builder
Exploration / Building and maintaining Project Website
Valuation / Develop the proposed system using the Architecture.
Foundations / Laying the foundation of development and maintaining Project Website
Development- Construction Iteration / <responsibilities>
Development- Transition Iteration / <responsibilities>
Name: Rakesh Mathur
Role: IIV & V
Exploration / Validation and Verification of COTS Interoperability
Valuation / Analyze Business Cases to Validate the work product, Maintain Bugzilla.
Foundations / Assist to maintain FED, Maintain Bugzilla, Evaluating the development.
Development- Construction Iteration / <responsibilities>
Development- Transition Iteration / <responsibilities>

3.2Skills

Team members / Role / Skills
Vaibhav Mathur / Project Manager
Life Cycle Planner / Current- ASP.Net, C#, Javascript
Arijit Dey / Requirements Engineer
Prototyper / Current- JAVA, Oracle 10g, Visual Basic, HTML, UML.
Required- C#, MySQL
Shreyas Devaraj / Prototyper
Project Manager / Current- JAVA, MySQL, JavaScript
Required- ASP.Net, C#
Gaurav Mathur / Builder
UML designer / Current-JAVA, C++,MySQL
Required-C#
Preethi Ramesh / Feasibility Analyst
Requirement Engineer / Current-ASP.Net, C#
Divya Nalam / Operational Concept Engineer
UML designer / Current-C/C++, Python
Required- ASP.Net, C#
Rakesh Mathur / Validation and Verification of COTS Interoperability / Current- ASP.Net, C#, JavaScript

SKILLS REQUIRED FOR TEAM MEMBERS IN CSCI 577B