Version 7.0
Feasibility Evidence Description (FED)
SnapValet
Team 03
Team members
Name / RoleBrian Vanover / Project Manager, Developer
Brian Bousman / Operational Concept Engineer, Developer
Ditong Ding / System Architect, Developer.
Molly Karcher / IIV & V, Quality Focal Point, Developer.
Patrick Horng / Feasibility Analyst, Developer
Ridhima Manjrekar / Requirements Engineer, Life Cycle Planner, Developer.
04/19/15
Version History
Date / Author / Version / Changes made / Rationale /09/28/14 / Xiaoting Bi / 1.0 / · Original template v1.0 / · Initial draft of Feasibility Evidence Description (FED)
10/11/14 / Xiaoting Bi / 2.0 / · Draft FC Package / · All sections till section 5 are updated.
10/14/14 / Xiaoting Bi / 2.1 / · Draft FC Package / · Some details are updated.
10/18/14 / Xiaoting Bi / 3.0 / · FC Package / · Some details are updated.
11/24/14 / Xiaoting Bi / 4.0 / · Draft DC Package / · All sections are updated.
12/04/14 / Xiaoting Bi / 4.1 / · Draft DC Package / · Some details are updated.
12/07/14 / Xiaoting Bi / 5.0 / · DC Package / · Some details are updated.
02/09/15 / Patrick Horng / 6.0 / · Risk Assessment
· NDI/NCS Interoperability Analysis
· Architecture Feasibility / · Re-configured for RDC Package
04/14/15 / Patrick Horng / 7.0 / · Business Case Analysis
· Cost Analysis
· Capability Feasibility
· Evolutionary Feasibility
· Risk Assessment / · Updated for As Built Package
Table of Contents
Feasibility Evidence Description (FED) i
Version History ii
Table of Contents iii
Table of Tables iv
Table of Figures v
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Purpose of the FED Document 1
1.2 Status of the FED Document 1
2. Business Case Analysis 2
2.1 Cost Analysis 3
2.2 Benefit Analysis 3
2.3 ROI Analysis 4
3. Architecture Feasibility 5
3.1 Level of Service Feasibility 5
3.2 Capability Feasibility 5
3.3 Evolutionary Feasibility 6
4. Process Feasibility 7
5. Risk Assessment 8
6. NDI/NCS Interoperability Analysis 10
6.1 Introduction 10
6.2 Evaluation Summary 10
Table of Tables
Table 1: Personnel Costs 3
Table 2: Hardware and Software Costs 3
Table 3: Benefits of xxx System 4
Table 4: ROI Analysis 4
Table 5: Level of Service Feasibility 5
Table 6: Capability Requirements and Their Feasibility Evidence 5
Table 7: Evolutionary Requirements and Their Feasibility Evidence 6
Table 8: Rationales for Selecting Architected Agile Model 7
Table 9: Risk Assessment 8
Table 10: NDI Products Listing 10
Table 11: NDI Evaluation 10
Version Date: 04/19/15
Version 7.0
Table of Figures
Figure 1: ROI Analysis Graph 4
Version Date: 04/19/15
Version 7.0
1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose of the FED Document
The document provides necessary feasibility analysis for the SnapValet project. It reports the evidence of project feasibility in term of business case analysis and risk assessment.
1.2 Status of the FED Document
- This version corresponds to the As Built Package.
- Business Case Analysis and Cost Analysis had irrelevant data removed and fields have been updated.
- Updated Capability Feasibility and completely changed Evolutionary Feasibility
- Removed outdated risks from Risk Assessment section.
2. Business Case Analysis
Assumptions· Customers/Drivers prefer using mobile payment over a cash transaction.
· People trust mobile payment systems.
· Valet companies prefer mobile payments over cash transactions.
· There isn’t already a similar competitive functionality in other existing applications.
· SnapValet indeed speeds up facilitation of valet service.
· A noteworthy amount of customers often do not carry cash for valet.
Stakeholders / Initiatives / Value Propositions / Beneficiaries
· SnapValet
· Developers / · Develop system
· Direct sales
· Network
Conference / trade shows
· Market campaign
End user: social media / · To speed up the process of valet
· Improve cashless valet experience for customers.
· Expand potential customer base for valet.
· Better valet account / transaction management.
· Increase revenue / profits. / · Customers/drivers
· SnapValet clients
· Valet companies
Restaurants
Hotels
· Sponsors /investors
Cost
· Time.
· Marketing Costs.
· Maintenance Costs.
· Team building.
· Infrastructure:
Web server,
Third party transaction management. / Benefits
A faster, more convenient way to valet park.
Increase market share to include non cash-carrying customers.
2.1 Cost Analysis
2.1.1 Personnel Costs
Table 1: Personnel Costs
Activities / Time Spent (Hours)Development Period
Valuation and Foundations Phases: Time Invested (12 weeks, 577a)
Client: Meeting via email, phone, and other channels [1 hrs/week * 12 weeks * 1 people] / 12
Group: Meeting via email, phone, and other channels [1.5 hrs/week * 12 weeks * 7 people] / 126
Architecture Review Boards [1.5 hrs * 2 times * 1 people] / 3
Development and Operation Phases: Time Invested(12 weeks, 577b)
Client: Meeting via email, phone, and other channels [1 hrs/week * 6 weeks * 1 people] / 6
Architecture Review Boards and Core Capability Drive-through session [1.5 hrs * 3 * 1 people] / 4.5
Group: Meeting via email, phone, and other channels [3 hrs/week *12 weeks * 7 people] / 252
Deployment of system in operation phase and training
- Installation & Deployment [1 hrs * 1 times * 2 people]
- Training & Support [1 hrs * 2 times * 2 people] / 6
Total (hours) / 409.5
Maintenance Period (1 year)
Maintenance [1 hr/week * 52 weeks * 1 people] / 52
2.1.2 Hardware and Software Costs
Table 2: Hardware and Software Costs
Type / Cost / RationaleClever Cloud – Server / $920/year / The server has to be launched on cloud.
2.2 Benefit Analysis
Table 3.1: Benefits of SnapValet System (for client)
Current profit / Increase to / Profit gained by SnapValet0 / 3% of total valet service fee(6$/time * 20times a day/operator * 5 days/week * 52 weeks/year * 10 valet operators/company * 10 valet companies = 520,000$) / $93,600
Table 3.2: Benefits of SnapValet System ( for customers)
Current activities & resources used / % Reduce / Time Saved (Hours/Year)Picking a car
Driver (60 times * 20 mins/time = 1200mins) / 85 / 23.5
Payment
Valet operator (1 mins/time * 5000 times = 5000 mins) / 75 / 62.5
Driver (1 mins/time * 60 times = 60 mins) / 75 / 0.75
Total / 86.75
Worth(20$/hour) / 1735
2.3 ROI Analysis
Table 3: ROI Analysis
Year / Cost / Benefit(Effort Saved) / Cumulative Cost / Cumulative Benefit / ROI
2015 / 11120 / 0 / 11120 / 0 / -1
2016 / 13180 / 95335 / 24300 / 95335 / 2.92
2017 / 15396 / 104868.5 / 39696 / 200203.5 / 4.04
2018 / 17783.6 / 115355.4 / 57479.6 / 315558.9 / 5.49
Figure 1: ROI Analysis Graph
3. Architecture Feasibility
3.1 Level of Service Feasibility
Table 4: Level of Service Feasibility
Level of Service Requirement / Product SatisfactionLOS-1: Usability / Product Strategies: Develop a simple user interface.
Process Strategies: Test the usability by prototyping and user involvement.
Analysis: By prototyping and user involvement, we can make sure the interface is simple and easy to use for drivers.
LOS-2: Payment Security / Product Strategies: Usage of third party online money transaction system — Braintree.
Process Strategies: Thorough testing of all use cases through the usage of Braintree.
Analysis: Braintree provides a set of APIs and tools that enables businesses to accept and manage online payments.
3.2 Capability Feasibility
Table 5: Capability Requirements and Their Feasibility Evidence
Capability Requirement / Product SatisfactionCR-1: Check in location / Software/Technology used: Google Places API, Play Framework, Bootstrap
Feasibility Evidence: Location check-in is implemented. Customer is able to choose a location and check in on Google Places
Referred use case diagram: UC-9: Add a location
CR-2: Request a car / Software/Technology used: MySQL, Play Framework, Bootstrap
Feasibility Evidence: Requesting is implemented. There is a car retrieval queue and when a driver requests a car, this request will be added to the request queue.
Referred use case diagram: UC-4: Return and retrieve a vehicle
CR-3: Payment via mobile phone / Software/Technology used: Braintree API, MySQL, Play Framework, Bootstrap
Feasibility Evidence: The transaction will be implemented via Braintree API and all the transaction details will be stored in the MySQL database. This has been implemented.
Referred use case diagram: UC-6: Request and Pay
CR-4: Register / Software/Technology used: MySQL, Play Framework, Bootstrap
Feasibility Evidence: Register is implemented.
Referred use case diagram: UC-2: Register as Valet, UC-7: Register as Customer, UC-12: Register as Valet Company
CR-5: Check-in / Software/Technology used: MySQL, Play Framework, Bootstrap
Feasibility Evidence: Valet can check in to a location to make a location active for customers. Already implemented.
Referred use case diagram: UC-1: Check in as Valet
3.3 Evolutionary Feasibility
Table 6: Evolutionary Requirements and Their Feasibility Evidence
Evolutionary Requirement / Product SatisfactionER-1: Email Confirmation / Software/Technology used: MySQL, Play Framework
Feasibility Evidence: Registration is completed; however, email confirmation needs to be implemented for the login name. Currently in the works.
Referred use case diagram: UC-2: Register as Valet, UC-7: Register as Customer, UC-12: Register as Valet Company
ER-2: Notifications / Software/Technology used: MySQL, Play Framework, Bootstrap
Feasibility Evidence: Notifications can run when the app is still running. We need the notifications to continue to work when the app is not running or when the device is sleeping. Currently in the works.
Referred use case diagram: UC-4: Return and retrieve a vehicle
4. Process Feasibility
Table 7: Rationales for Selecting Architected Agile Model
Criteria / Importance / Project Status / Rationales30 % of NDI/NCS features / 3 / 4 / Using Braintree API and Google Places API which is an important part of the whole project.
Single NDI/NCS / 1 / 0 / There is no single NDI/NCS solution that satisfies a complete solution.
Unique/ inflexible business process / 2 / 2 / The business process is not very unique.
Need control over upgrade / maintenance / 3 / 4 / The project may need to add new functions in the future.
Rapid deployment / 3 / 3 / The valet parking industry is a great opportunity to the first movers.
Critical on compatibility / 3 / 3 / Our project should be compatible with Google Places and Braintree.
Internet connection independence / 3 / 3 / Our project is web based.
Need high level of services / performance / 1 / 1 / Our system does not need high performance.
Need high security / 3 / 4 / High security is required in the system while making transactions.
Asynchronous communication / 2 / 2 / System asynchronous communication does have nominal value
Be accessed from anywhere / 1 / 2 / This system is needed to be accessed from mobile phone.
Critical on mass schedule constraints / 2 / 2 / The system is developed according to ICSM schedule
Lack of personnel capability / 1 / 1 / Most team members do not have experience in android development.
Require little upfront costs / 2 / 2 / The major cost is the cost of server.
Require low total cost of ownership / 1 / 1 / This feature does not affect the system
Not-so-powerful local machines / 1 / 1 / System does not need high performance computers
5. Risk Assessment
Table 8: Risk Assessment
Risks / Risk Exposure / Risk MitigationsPotential Magnitude / Probability Loss / Risk Exposure
Developers schedules may prevent developers from completing the smaller requirements. (Inflated Expectations) / 1 / 3 / 3 / The team will have to meet up on certain days to hack out the smaller requirements. There is no way around this.
New requirements from recent ARB sessions may cause the project to fall out of scope and prevent developers from finishing the program on time and within budget / 5 / 5 / 25 / The team will only agree to develop the features that satisfy the minimum sufficient conditions.
6. NDI/NCS Interoperability Analysis
6.1 Introduction
6.1.1 COTS / GOTS / ROTS / Open Source / NCS
Table 9: NDI Products Listing
NDI/NCS Products / PurposesGoogle Place API / Fetch locations information and show them on the map.
Braintree API / Served as the third party transaction platform to realize mobile transaction.
MySQL / Store and retrieve data.
Play Framework / Framework to develop web apps.
Bootstrap / CSS for responsive web design.
6.1.2 Connectors
In this project, we use J/MySQL Connector to enable the android application to retrieve and update data from the database.
6.1.3 Legacy System
As there is no existing system, there is no legacy system for this project.
6.2 Evaluation Summary
Table 10: NDI Evaluation
NDI / Usages / CommentsGoogle Places / Interactively maps for searching and displaying places / Positive points:
- Freeware
- Widely used
Braintree / Mobile transaction platform / Positive points:
- Widely used and trustworthy for performance
MySQL / Database / Positive points:
- Freeware
- Suitable for Large/Small scale systems
- Widely used and trustworthy for performance
- Client’s requirement
Play Framework / Framework – app development / Positive points:
- Freeware
- Platform independent
- Web app development conforms to client requirement for iOS and Android development
Bootstrap / Styling responsive web design / Positive points:
- Freeware
- Widely used
Version Date: 04/19/15