Feasibility Evidence Description (FED) for Architected Agile Version 1.0

Feasibility Evidence Description (FED) for Architected Agile Version 1.0

Feasibility Evidence Description (FED)

Newlette Coins

Team Number – 06

Members / Name / Email / Primary Role / Secondary Role
/ Akshaya Ravichandran / / Requirements Engineer / UML Modeler
/ John Leibowitz / / IIV&V / Quality Focal Point
/ Nitin Surana / / Life Cycle Planner / Software Architect
/ Remya Ramachandran / / Feasibility Analyst / Implementer
/ Santhoshi Priyanka Gooty Agraharam / / Project Manager / Tester
/ Theerapat Chawannakul / / Builder / Implementer
/ Vujjini Anuraag / / Implementer / Prototyper

Version History

Date Author Version Changes made Rationale

10/07/16 VA 1.0 Documented sections 1-5 Initial draft

Table of Contents

Feasibility Evidence Description (FED) / 1
Version History / 3
Table of Contents / 4
Table of Tables / 5
1. Introduction / 6
1.1 Purpose of the FED Document / 7
1.2 Status of the FED Document / 7
2. Business case Analysis / 8
2.1 Cost Analysis / 9
2.1.1 Personnel Costs / 9
2.1.2 Hardware and Software Costs / 9
2.2 Benefit Analysis / 10
2.3 ROI Analysis / 11
3. Architecture Feasibility / 12
3.1 Level of Service Feasibility / 12
3.2 Capability Feasibility / 13
3.3 Evolutionary Feasibility / 13
4. Process Feasibility / 14
5. Risk Assessment / 15
6. NDI/NCS Interoperability Analysis / 16

Table of Tables

Table 1: Personnel Costs 9

Table 2: Hardware and Software Costs 10

Table 3: Benefit Analysis11

Table 4: ROI Analysis11

Table 5: Level of Service Feasibility12

Table 6: Capability requirements and Their Feasibility Evidence 13

Table 7: Evolutionary Requirements and Their Feasibility Evidence13

Table 8: Rationales for Selecting Architected Agile Model14

Table 9: Risk Assessment15

Table of Figures

Figure 1: ROI Analysis Graph 12

1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the FED Document

The purpose of this FED document is to determine all possible strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, risks, resources, cost and benefits of the project.

1.2 Status of the FED Document

●Business case analysis has been added.

●Architecture feasibility has been added.

●Process feasibility has been added.

●Risk assessment has been added.

2. Business case Analysis

Assumptions

1. Users like to spend time to play online board games.
2. Only board game with such a concept in the market by the time of its release.

Stakeholders / Initiatives / Value Propositions / Beneficiaries
●Gamers/Users
●Developers/Maintainers
●Client
●Marketers
●Maintainers / ●Play the game.
●Design and develop the new game as per requirements.
●Provide requirements, oversee progress and interact with the marketing team.
●Extend support to maintain the system.
●Design brochures, campaigns and devise strategies to publicize the game. / ●Break from routine life by providing innovative gaming experience.
●Increase client’s current user-base.
●Increase company’s brand and market value. / ●Game lovers of any age group.
●Client- Crazy Cool Apps LLC
Cost
●Maintenance cost (1 half/full time person)
●Web Server (Amazon Servers)
●No licensing fees because open source technologies & frameworks are used.
●No development costs. / Benefit (Metrics):
●Increased percentage growth in the current user-base of the company.
●Increased market value of the company which can help in attracting potential investors.
●Increased revenue.

2.1 Cost Analysis

2.1.1 Personnel Costs

Table 1: Personnel Costs

Activities / Time Spent(Hours)
Valuation and Foundation phases: Time Invested(CS577a, 12 weeks)
Client: Meeting via email, phone, and other channels [6 hrs/week * 12 weeks * 1 person] / 72
Development Phase: Time Invested (CS577a, 12 weeks)
Client: Meeting via email, phone, and other channels [6 hrs/week * 12 weeks * 1 person] / 72
Deployment of system in operation phase and training
- Installation & Deployment [5 hrs * 2 times * 1 people]
- Support [5 hrs * 1 time * 1 people] / 15
Total / 159
Maintenance Period (3 months)
Maintenance [3 hr/week * 12 weeks] / 36
Total / 36

2.1.2 Hardware and Software Costs

Table 2: Hardware and Software Costs

Development

Type / Cost / Rationale
Hardware - Web Hosting / $0 / Student tier of amazon web services
Service – Private Version Control System / $0 / Free private Bitbucket git repositories for students under their academic plan.

Operation

Type / Cost / Rationale
Domain Name Service / $32.97 for 3 years / ICANN certified domain name provider - GoDaddy
Hardware - Web Hosting / 150$/year / Amazon Web Services (cost will grow as number of users scale)

2.2 Benefit Analysis

For our project we cannot estimate any monetary benefits at this point, unless the game is hosted on the client’s website and the users start playing. However, the overall objective of the system is:

●To provide an escape from mundane routine life for the user.

●Provide innovative gaming experience for the user.

●Increase brand recognition and Company’s market value.

●Hire more working personnel into the company.

●Increase client’s current user-base.

There are no existing numbers to base growth on.

Table 3: Benefit Analysis

Current Activities & Resources used / % Increase / Time Saved(Hours/ Year)
Increase user base for client / 25% / Not Quantifiable
Hire more working personnel
into the company. / 25% / Not Quantifiable
Increase brand recognition and
company’s market value. / 20% / Not Quantifiable
Total

2.3 ROI Analysis

As there is no existing current system or business model, calculating an ROI is extremely hard. The bottom line is that if the game does not generate increase in the user-base or the market value for the company, then it is not feasible to continue. The numbers below are a general assumption of when the amount of client hours and income will impact cost.

For our purposes, we converted personnel costs to currency to better understand costs and benefits. We will use $100/hour as the basis for labor cost estimation. For maintenance costs, we used 36 hours annually at an average of $40/hour. For Cost calculations, we estimate an increase in annual costs by 10% to accommodate for maintenance and growth. For Benefit calculations, as the game is free and the only objective is to increase the user-base and brand recognition there is no monetary benefit. But revenue can be generated using advertisements. We used an estimation of $10/day in advertisement revenue for the first year, and 10% growth year over year after that.

Table 4: ROI Analysis

Year / Cost(10%) / Benefit(10%) / Cumulative Cost / Cumulative Benefit / ROI
2016 / $14400 + $15 / 0 / $14415 / 0 / -1.00
2017 / $17 + $1440 / $3600 / $15872 / $3600 / -0.77
2018 / $19 + $1440 / $3960 / $17331 / $7560 / -0.56
2019 / $21 + $1440 / $4356 / $18792 / $11916 / -0.36
2020 / $23 + $1440 / $4792 / $20255 / $16708 / -0.17

Figure 1: ROI Analysis Graph

3. Architecture Feasibility

Table 5: Level of Service Feasibility

3.1 Level of Service Feasibility

Level of Service Requirement / Product Satisfaction
LOS-1: The system should have scalability for the growing amount of users in the future. (20 simultaneous users) / Product Strategies: Java, Spring, Hibernate, Spring Data
Process Strategies: Dependency injection (spring), Auto-scalable cloud deployment process (AWS)
Analysis: The system will be able to handle large user base as we’ve both frontend and backend deployed on different servers for load-balancing.
LOS-2: The system shall be compatible with all browsers (chrome, firefox, safari) and there shall not be any responsive issues with the game for different versions of the browser (last 3 releases) on different platforms including Windows 8/10, Mac OS 10+, Android 4+, iOS 9+. / Product Strategies: Phaser.js (html5)
Process Strategies: Write game states, import assets and show animations in phaser.js.
Analysis:
Analysis: Prototyping and Testing

3.2 Capability Feasibility

Table 6: Capability Requirements and Their Feasibility Evidence

Capability Requirement / Product Satisfaction
CR-1: User Management / Software/Technology used: Javascript, Jquery, Java, Spring, Hibernate
Feasibility Evidence: Develop functional prototype to check functionalities like user registration, account login and logout, edit user profile.
Referred use case diagram: Figure-3 in SSAD document.
CR-2: Gameplay / Software/Technology used: Javascript, Jquery, Phaser.js, Java, Spring, Hibernate
Feasibility Evidence: Develop functional prototype to check functionalities like paytable points calculation, leaderboard.
Referred use case diagram: Figure-3 in SSAD document.

3.3 Evolutionary Feasibility

Table 7: Evolutionary Requirements and Their Feasibility Evidence

Evolutionary Win Condition / Rationale
ER-1: Scalability of the System / The application should be set up on a paid hosted server after the application has been fully developed. This is not a difficult process as it simply needs monetary authorization.

4. Process Feasibility

Decision Criteria Rating Scale; 0:Very Low; 1:Low; 2:Medium; 3:High; 4:Very High

Importance Rating Scale: 1:Low; 2:Medium; 3:High

Table 8: Rationales for Selecting Architected Agile Process

Criteria / Importance / Project Status / Rationales
30% of NDI/NCS features / 1 / 0 / The libraries/frameworks used do not provide any components which satisfies product function/feature out of the box.
Unique/ inflexible business process / 3 / 3 / The business model and requirements are very flexible.
Need control over upgrade/ maintenance / 3 / 4 / The upgrade and maintenance can be done seamlessly without any external concerns.
Rapid deployment / 2 / 2 / There is no specific deadline in the deployment.
Critical on Compatibility / 3 / 2 / Use of standard-based html5 technology should reduce browser compatibility issues.
Internet connection dependence / 3 / 4 / This is an online system, so the internet connection is mandatory.
Need high level of services / performance / 3 / 4 / The system should be able to handle large user load.
Need security / 2 / 2 / The system handles user authentication so that he/she plays with his own account.
Critical on mass schedule constraints / 1 / 1 / There are no such constraints.
Lack of personnel capability / 1 / 1 / Team members are proficient in the required skills.
Require little upfront costs / 1 / 1 / No upfront cost is associated. All libraries/frameworks used are freely available or can be procured for free under academic license.
Require low total cost of ownership / 3 / 4 / All parts of the system are built on top of open-source technologies.
Not-so-powerful local machines / 2 / 2 / The system is not computation intensive on the client browser.

5. Risk Assessment

Table 9: Risk Assessment

Risks / Potential Magnitude / Probability Loss / Risk Exposure / Risk Mitigations
User attention capturing UI/UX / 7 / 5 / 35 / Analyze and research trending game UI/UX.
Button pressing animation / 5 / 6 / 30 / Refine photoshop design skills.
Reading source code of sample games on Phaser.js website and prototyping.
Game auto-scaling in mobile device / 5 / 5 / 25 / Prototyping and testing with multiple platforms (Mac OS, Windows, Android, iOS).

6. NDI/NCS Interoperability Analysis

NOT REQUIRED / NOT APPLICABLE

IICSMCw_FED_Architected Agile.doc 1 Version Date: 10/07/16