Feasibility Rationale Description (FRD) Table of Contents
Feasibility Evidence Description (FED)
California Science Center Volunteer Tracking System
Team #3
Phongphan Danphitsanuphan / Project ManagerCharlie Lormanometee / Project Coordinator / QA
Deepak Pandey / System Analyst / Tester
Pongtip Aroonvatanaporn / System Architect / Programmer
Natachart Laoteppitak / Software Architect / Programmer
Amit Shah / Quality Focal Point Personnel
Jeremy Stoller / Client
Vincent Tsan / Maintainer
May 16, 2008
Version History
Date / Author / Version / Changes made / Rationale /10/11/05 / Ritesh Kothari / 1.0 / · Initial Draft for FRD using LeanMBASE v1.0 for FRD / · Draft version of FRD for submission as a part of LCO Draft
10/17/05 / RK / 1.1 / · Change in section 2.3, ROI Analysis / · Better version to present in ARB
10/22/06 / RK,
Deepak Pandey / 1.2 / · Change in section 4.0, Process Feasibility
· Add section 6.1, 6.2, 6.5
· Work upon section 5.0, Risk Assessment / · To present in LCO package
10/23/06 / RK, DP / 1.3 / · Add section 6.1, 6.2, 6.5 / · To present in LCO package
10/24/06 / RK / 1.4 / · Change some grammar errors in 2.1.2 / · After IV&V evaluation
11/05/06 / RK / 1.5 / · Change some errors in
section 3.0 / · After IV&V evaluation
11/19/06 / RK / 2.0 / · Add section 6.3, 6.4
· Add more evaluation in section 6.5 / · To present in LCA Draft
12/01/06 / RK / 2.1 / · Change Risk Assessment
· Change Benefit analysis
· Change ROI / · To present in ARB
12/03/06 / RK / 2.2 / · Change section 6.1, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5 / · To present in LCA package
02/01/07 / Phongphan Danphitsanuphan, Charlie Lormanometee / 6.0 / · Update section 1.2, 3 / · Update according to updated OCD and SSRD
01/15/07 / PD / 6.2 / · Update section 1.2, 2, 3, 5.3 / · Update according to OCD, Risk Management Tool
04/01/07 / PD / 7.0 / · Update section 1.1, 5 / · Update status of document to Construction phase
04/30/07 / PD / 8.0 / · Section 1.1, change status of document
· Section 1.2, change reference document version
· Section 1.3, change document-change summary
· Section 3 in table 4, take out CR5-award tracking and CR2-Gernerating certification out of core capability list.
· Session 4, update risks / · Final deliverables
05/16/08 / Itti Charoenthongtrakul, Pongtip Aroonvatanaporn / 9.0 / · Remove section 1.2, Reference
· Remove section 1.3, Change Summary
· Add section 1.1, Purpose of the FED Document
· Add section 2.1, Tables and H/W, S/W Costs
· Add section 3.2, 3.3
· Update section 4, Process Feasibility
· Update section 6, remove unnecessary subsections
· Update section 6.2, system structure diagram / · To comply with LeanICM guidelines
07/13/08 / IC / 9.1 / · Correct V8.0 author
· Update section 1.1 – Add “architecture, and plan”
· Update section 2.1.1 – Adjust numbers of person
· Update section 2.1.2 – add term “software”
· Update table 3 – Change from “Production” to “Operation”
· Update section 2.3 – Update ROI Calculation
· Update section 3.2, 3.3 – Add new table
· Update section 4 – Add table and descriptions
· Update section 5 – Change special note
· Update section 6.1.1.1 – Remove “Legacy product” from heading
· Update section 6.3 – Change from “ACR” to “VCR” and “COTS” to “NDI” / · Improve readability and correct outdated information
08/03/08 / IC / 9.2 / · Update Version History
· Update section 2.3
· Update Table 8 – Table layout
· Update Table 9 – table layout / · Improve readability and correct outdated information
Table of Contents
Feasibility Evidence Description (FED) i
Version History ii
Table of Contents v
Table of Tables vi
Table of Figures vii
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 2
2.2 Benefit Analysis 3
2.3 ROI Analysis 4
3. Architecture Feasibility 7
3.1 Level of Service Feasibility 7
3.2 Capability Feasibility 8
3.3 Evolutionary Feasibility 10
4. Process Feasibility 12
5. Risk Assessment 14
6. NDI Interoperability Analysis 15
6.1 Introduction 15
6.2 System Structure 16
6.3 Evaluation Summary 17
Table of Tables
Table 1: Personnel Costs 2
Table 2: Hardware and Software Costs – Development 3
Table 3: Hardware and Software Costs – Operation 3
Table 4: Benefits of California Science Center System 4
Table 5: ROI Analysis 4
Table 6: ROI Analysis (With Hardware and Software Cost) 5
Table 7: Level of Service Feasibility 7
Table 8: Capability Requirements and Their Feasibility Evidence 8
Table 9: Evolutionary Requirements and Their Feasibility Evidence 10
Table 10: Rationales for Selecting Architected Agile Model 12
Table 11: Requirement Prioritization (Must Have Only) 12
Table 12: Risk Assessment 14
Table 13: NDI Products Listing 15
Table 14: NDI Evaluation 17
FED_AsBuilt_S07b_T03_V9.2.doc iv Version Date: 05/16/2008
Feasibility Rationale Description (FRD) Table of Contents
Table of Figures
Figure 1: ROI Analysis Graph 5
Figure 2: ROI Analysis Graph (With Hardware and Software Cost) 6
Figure 3: Volunteer Tracking System Structure 16
FED_AsBuilt_S07b_T03_V9.2.doc iv Version Date: 05/16/2008
Feasibility Evidence Description (FED) Version 9.2
1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose of the FED Document
The purpose of the Feasibility Evidence Description document (FED) is to show evidence that the requirements, architecture, and plans presented in various artifacts can feasibly be developed in the delivered system.
This document indicates both completeness and consistency between the documents presented throughout the course, in the senses that all the satisfaction of the requirements will result in satisfaction of WinWin agreements and an implementation of the system will satisfy all the product-related requirements. It also demonstrates that the execution of the project will result in the production of the desired system architecture/design within budget and schedule.
1.2 Status of the FED Document
Due to the facts that two of the team members did not continue on to the CS577b class, and thus continue to participate in the project, and that we are using the SAIV (Schedule as Independent Variable) strategy, the current version of this document will reflect the capabilities that were reduced together with some that were moved from the core to lower priority capabilities in order to satisfy the expected schedule.
Also, due to the addition of team 0 and its integration with teams 1 and 2, the project schedule was delayed and an additional requirement, the person information management module, was added.
More details on the COCOMO size estimation are in the LCP document.
2. Business Case Analysis
2.1 Cost Analysis
There is no monetary budget for the project. The client will not be spending on the development, as the system is being developed by a team of students in an academic project. This budget includes the cost of any software or tools that might be required. In other words, the development team will either be using free COTS products, products available as open source, or products that are already being used in the client’s organization. It has been decided that the client would not spend any money on hardware, as there would be no extra hardware required for the deployment of the system. The software system will be deployed on their existing hardware.
2.1.1 Personnel Costs
The effort spent by the development team is not counted towards the personnel costs. However, there are personnel costs in terms of time resources that the clients spent. Those include the period that the client representatives spent during project development and also the time the client-appointed web engineer would spend on maintaining the system once it is deployed.
The following table describes the approximate personnel costs in the aspect of time spent by the client.
Table 1: Personnel Costs
Activities / Time Spent (Hours)Development Period (24 weeks)
Valuation and Foundation Phases: Time Invested (CS577a, 12 weeks)
Client: Meeting via email, phone, and other channels [3 hrs/week * 12 weeks * people] / 72
Client Representatives: Meeting via email, phone, and other channels [2 hrs/week * 12 weeks * 2 people] / 48
Architecture Review Boards [1.5 hrs * 2 times * 2 people] / 6
Development and Operation Phases: Time Invested (CS577b, 12 weeks)
Client: Meeting via email, phone, and other channels [5 hrs/week * 12 weeks * 2 people] / 48
Maintainer: Meeting via email, phone, and other channels [8 hrs/week * 12 weeks * 2 people] / 192
Architecture Review Boards and Core Capability Drive-through session [1.5 hrs * 3 times * 2 people] / 9
Deployment of system in operation phase and training
- Installation & Deployment [5 hrs * 3 times * 2 people]
- Training & Support [5 hrs * 2 times * 2 people] / 50
Total / 425
Maintenance Period (1 year)
Maintenance [3 hr/week * 52 weeks] / 156
Total / 156
2.1.2 Hardware and Software Costs
There is no hardware and software cost since the client will be using their current hardware and software.
Special Note: To demonstrate this section of the document, a made-up example of hardware and software costs is shown below. These are not related to the project.
The following table describes the hardware and software costs that would have been spent during the development period.
Table 2: Hardware and Software Costs – Development
Type / Cost / RationaleHardware – Web Server / $1500 / A new machine is needed to act as a web server for the system.
Hardware – Web Hosting / $200/year / Although the CSC already has its own host, this new system requires additional cost based on the annually hosting fee. Starting from fall 2006, until the end of spring 2007, this is an amount needed to be spent.
Software – Adobe Dreamweaver CS3 / $399 / Used in developing the system and the team website.
The following table describes the hardware and software costs spent after the development period.
Table 3: Hardware and Software Costs – Operation
Type / Cost / RationaleHardware – Web Server / $0 / Since the development machine can be used as an operation machine, no cost is required here.
Hardware – Web Hosting / $200/year / Although the CSC already has its own host, this new system still requires additional cost based on the annually hosting fee.
2.2 Benefit Analysis
With their current system, a significant amount of human resources is required to complete the process. The following table describes the benefits gained in the form of time that will be saved when the new system is launched.
Table 4: Benefits of California Science Center System
Application data entry
- Volunteer coordinator
50 applications * 10 mins = 500 mins / 90% / 7.5
Time sheet data entry
- Volunteer coordinator
5 hrs * 52 weeks / 90% / 234
Job request
- Supervisor (7 departments)
7 * 1 hr * 52 weeks / 50% / 182
- Volunteer coordinator
1 hr * 52 weeks / 50% / 26
Job assignment
- Volunteer coordinator
10 hr * 52 weeks / 60% / 312
Total / 761.5
Apart from the tangible benefits in the form of time saved, there are still some intangible benefits that could not be described as countable values. They are as follows:
- The increase of reliability and correctness of the system: Since all of the processes will be automated, human errors that previously might have occurred are now reduced.
- The ability for the volunteer to apply the application online: Not only would it be convenient for the volunteers, this ability also attracts more people to become volunteers due to the easiness of online application.
- The increase of system productivity: Due to the fact that assignments and reports can be done electronically, the supervisor will quickly receive useful information that would help improve the productivity of the system.
2.3 ROI Analysis
The following table summarizes the various costs incurred and benefits realized by the client at the end of each year. We assume that there is a 10% increase in maintenance cost based on a 10% yearly increase in web engineers’ salary. So, the 156 hours/year cost will be increased by 10% annually from the third year afterwards.
Table 5: ROI Analysis
Year / Cost / Benefit(Effort Saved) / Cumulative Cost / Cumulative Benefit / ROI
2007 / 425 / 0 / 425 / 0 / -1.00
2008 / 156 / 761.5 / 581 / 761.5 / 0.31
2009 / 171.6 / 761.5 / 752.6 / 1,523 / 1.02
2010 / 188.76 / 761.5 / 941.36 / 2,284.5 / 1.43
This table indicates numbers of costs and benefits which can be described as follow:
Cost: $425 is the amount invested during the development period
$156 is the amount invested in 2007 during the operation/maintenance
$171.6 is a 10% increased amount from 2007’s $156
$188.76 is a 10% increased amount from 2008’s $171.6
Benefit: $761.5 is the time saved annually when using the new system
Using the above information, the ROI Analysis Graph can be plotted as follow
Figure 1: ROI Analysis Graph
With the break-even analysis, the break-even point for the return on investment will be in the year 2009 since it has an ROI value equals to one.
Special Note: If you have hardware and software cost, it must be included in ROI calculation too. An example of ROI calculation with software and hardware cost is shown below.
The following cost and benefit data are calculated based on the $30 per hour salary for the resources used together with the hardware and software cost. A 10% annually increase in all expenses is also included.
Table 6: ROI Analysis (With Hardware and Software Cost)
Year / Cost ($) / Benefit($ Saved) / Cumulative Cost / Cumulative Benefit / ROI
2007 / 9449 / 0 / 9449 / 0 / -1.00
2008 / 4880 / 22845 / 14329 / 22845 / 0.59
2009 / 5368 / 22845 / 19697 / 45690 / 1.32
2010 / 5904.8 / 22845 / 25601.8 / 68535 / 1.68
This table indicates numbers of cost and benefits which can be described as follow: