Feasibility Evidence Description (FED) for NDI/ NCS Version 2.0
Feasibility Evidence Description (FED)
Mission Science Information and Data Management System 3.0
Team 03
Fei Yu: Project Manager, Life Cycle Planner
Yinlin Zhou: Prototyper, Operational Concept Engineer
Yunpeng Chen: Requirements Engineer
Jingwen Peng: Builder, UML Modeler
Chenguang Liu: System Architect
Steven Lee: Requirements Engineer, IIV&V, Quality Focal Point
27 September 2013
Version History
/ Date / Author / Version / Changes made / Rationale /09/27/13 / SL / 1.0 / · Add risks / · Initial Team 03 draft of Feasibility Evidence Description (FED)
10/13/13 / Yunpeng Chen / 2.0 / · Add assessment results section 4.2.3, 4.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.3, 5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.3 and 5.4 / · Consistent with ICSM EPG
Table of Contents
Feasibility Evidence Description (FED) 错误!未定义书签。
Version History 错误!未定义书签。
Table of Contents i
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. Process Feasibility 2
3. Risk Assessment 3
4. NDI/NCS Feasibility Analysis 4
4.1 Assessment Approach 4
4.2 Assessment Results 4
4.3 Feasibility Evidence 5
5. Business Case Analysis 7
5.1 Market Trend and Product Line Analysis 7
5.2 Cost Analysis 7
5.3 Benefit Analysis 错误!未定义书签。
5.4 ROI Analysis 错误!未定义书签。
6. Conclusion and Recommendations 7
Table of Tables
Table 1: Rationales for Selecting NDI/NCS Model 2
Table 2: Risk Assessment 3
Table 3: NDI/NCS Products Listing 4
Table 4: Evaluation Criteria – NDI /NCS Attributes 4
Table 5: Evaluation Criteria - NDI/NCS features 4
Table 6: Evaluation Results Screen Matrix 5
Table 7: Level of Service Satisfiability Evidence 错误!未定义书签。
Table 8: Level of Service Implementation Strategy 错误!未定义书签。
Table 9: Capability Feasibility Evidence 5
Table 10: Evolutionary Feasibility Evidence 6
Table 11: Market Trend and Product Line Analysis 7
Table 12: Personnel Costs 错误!未定义书签。
Table 14: Benefits of Mission Science Information and Data Management System 错误!未定义书签。
Table 15: ROI Analysis 错误!未定义书签。
FED_VCP_F13a_T03_V2.0.doc 6 Version Date: 10/14/13
Feasibility Evidence Description (FED) for NDI/ NCS Version 2.0
Table of Figures
Figure 1: ROI Analysis Graph 错误!未定义书签。
FED_VCP_F13a_T03_V2.0.doc 6 Version Date: 10/14/13
Feasibility Evidence Description (FED) for NDI/ NCS Version 2.0
1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose of the FED Document
FED document helps project planners and developers to know what are risks and plausibility of the project.
1.2 Status of the FED Document
- The unclear risks have been fixed and removed
- The propose and status of FED have been added
- Assessment approach, assessment results, and evaluation criteria have been added
2. Process Feasibility
Table 1: Rationales for Selecting NDI/NCS Model
Criteria / Importance / Project Status / Rationales30 % of NDI/NCS features / 3 / 3 / The project will use Microsoft Access as a NDI.
Single NDI/NCS / 3 / 4 / The project will use only Microsoft Access as a NDI.
Unique/ inflexible business process / 1 / 1 / The business process is very flexible.
Need control over upgrade / maintenance / 1 / 1 / This project does not need to be upgraded in the future.
Rapid deployment / 1 / 1 / The program will be used to improve working qualities so that it does not need to be deployed rapidly to the market.
Critical on compatibility / 3 / 2 / The new system needs to be compatible with the old system.
Internet connection independence / 1 / 1 / The system can be standalone system and connect to the database later.
Need high level of services / performance / 1 / 1 / The system does not need to perform in
Need high security / 2 / 2 / The system will be used by only by students and coordinator.
Asynchronous communication / 1 / 1 / The system does not need to communicate with others.
Be accessed from anywhere / 2 / 2 / The database will be used from several clients.
Critical on mass schedule constraints / 3 / 3 / The system will effect on several people schedule.
Lack of personnel capability / 1 / 3 / The system does not rely on individual.
Require little upfront costs / 3 / 3 / The project does not have any budget.
Require low total cost of ownership / 3 / 3 / The project does not have any budget.
Not-so-powerful local machines / 3 / 3 / The system can be run on a regular machine.
3. Risk Assessment
Table 2: Risk Assessment
Risks / Risk Exposure / Risk MitigationsPotential Magnitude / Probability Loss / Risk Exposure
Incorporate STEM subsystem into the existing system / 8 / 9 / 72 / Develop the STEM subsystem and use activity as the link between existing system and STEM subsystem
Multiple searching methods to get student data and output it / 8 / 7 / 56 / Use two listboxes and the input keyword to implement the searching methods
Add Reporting subsystem to the existing system / 6 / 7 / 42 / Create survey database table and interface and interact with activity and student worker.
Fix current bugs in the system / 6 / 3 / 18 / Get user feedback from the client on urgent fixes.
Upgrade GUI to be more user-friendly / 5 / 3 / 15 / Continually communicate with client for recommendations and feedback.
4. NDI/NCS Feasibility Analysis
4.1 Assessment Approach
According to this project objective, Microsoft Access will be used as the only NDI.
4.2 Assessment Results
4.2.1 NDI/NCS Candidate Components (Combinations)
Table 3: NDI/NCS Products Listing
NDI/NCS Products / PurposesMicrosoft Access / Database Management
4.2.2 Evaluation Criteria
Table 4: Evaluation Criteria – NDI /NCS Attributes
No. / Evaluation Criteria – NDI/NCS attributes / Weight1 / Product performance / 35
2 / Functionality / 30
3 / Training / 20
4 / Ease of maintain / 10
5 / Scalability / 5
Total / 100
Table 5: Evaluation Criteria - NDI/NCS features
No. / NDI/NCS Features/ sub features / Weight1 / For student to learn STEM / 25
2 / Decrease amount of time to manage program / 20
3 / Easy report of data for funding / 20
4 / Increase retention in the program / 15
5 / Improve critical thinking / 10
6 / Better track inventory / 5
7 / Increase flexibility to current lesson / 5
Total / 100
4.2.3 Evaluation Results Screen Matrix
Table 6: Evaluation Results Screen Matrix
No / W / Component 1 / AVG / TotalR1 / R2 / R3 / R4 / R5 / R6
1 / 35 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 350
2 / 30 / 9 / 8 / 7 / 10 / 9 / 8 / 8.5 / 255
3 / 20 / 8 / 8 / 9 / 9 / 8 / 9 / 8.5 / 170
4 / 10 / 10 / 8 / 9 / 10 / 8 / 8 / 9 / 90
5 / 5 / 8 / 9 / 7 / 8 / 8 / 40
Total / 100 / 300
4.3 Feasibility Evidence
4.3.1 Level of Service Feasibility
Availability: System must be available at least 12 hours a day. According to the win-win agreements of :
1. As an administrator, I can generate reports about every student survey and attendance data.
2. And as an administrator, I can see available reserve and future needs of inventory.
Interoperability: System must be available for every student worker to manipulate on the entire system and do his own operations. According to the win-win agreements of :
1. As a student worker, I can view the availability of material quantities and reserve them.
2. As a student worker, I can create lessons from the STEM modules created by Administrator.
3. As a student worker, I can check the completeness of students data. This system shall automatically tell me which fields are empty for every student.
4.3.2 Capability Feasibility
Table 7: Capability Feasibility Evidence
Capability Requirement / Product SatisfactionCR-1 : Create STEM Project / Software/Technology used: Microsoft Access
Feasibility Evidence: Microsoft Access is capable of matching STEM project interface and STEM project table together. And advisor can add STEM project data to database and system will automatically verify if an identical STEM project exists, if not, data added successfully.
Referred use case diagram: UC 1
CR-2 : Create Activity / Software/Technology used: Microsoft Access
Feasibility Evidence: Microsoft Access is capable of linking activity interface and Activity table together. And student workers can add activities to the existing STEM projects it belongs to.
Referred use case diagram: UC 3
CR-3 : Create Survey / Software/Technology used: Microsoft Access
Feasibility Evidence: Microsoft Access is capable of.matching survey interface and survey table together. And student workers can add to database, with owner relationship with STEM activity.
Referred use case diagram: UC 2
CR-4 : Searching Methods / Software/Technology used: Microsoft Access
Feasibility Evidence: Microsoft Access supports different searching queries to the database table and show result in the interface..
Referred use case diagram: UC 4
4.3.3 Evolutionary Feasibility
Table8: Evolutionary Feasibility Evidence
Evolutionary Win Condition / RationaleER-1: Data migration / The client gives the current database which will be used with the newly-developed systems–Reporting System and STEM Project System. This leads the developers to base the data structure with the database. So that, the developers can migrate the data accordingly.
5. Business Case Analysis
5.1 Market Trend and Product Line Analysis
Table 97: Market Trend and Product Line Analysis
Microsoft AccessMarket Trend / Microsoft Access is one of the most popular database management applications. It can be developed both the database itself and also user interface which enable ease of use for users.
Product Line / Microsoft Access is one application in the Microsoft Office pack which is broadened used all around the world. When generating reports from Microsoft Access, the users can export to Microsoft Word or Microsoft Excel which will be easier for further use.
5.2 Cost Analysis
5.2.1 Personnel Costs
Table10: Personnel Costs
Activities / Time Spent (Hours)Development Period
Valuation and Foundation Phases: Time Invested (CS577a, 5 weeks)
Client: Meeting via email, phone, in-person and other channels [3 hrs/week * 5 weeks * 2 people] / 30
Group: Meeting via email, gtalk, in-person and other channels [4 hrs/week * 5 weeks * 6 people] / 120
Architecture Review Boards [3 hrs * 2 times * 6 people] / 36
Development and Operation Phases: Time Invested (CS577a, 5 weeks)
Client: Meeting via email, phone, in-person and other channels [3 hrs/week * 5 weeks * 2people] / 30
Maintainer: Meeting via email, phone, and other channels [4 hrs/week * 5 weeks * 2 people] / 40
Architecture Review Boards and Core Capability Drive-through session [3 hrs * 4 times * 6 people] / 72
Group: Meeting via email, gtail, in-person and other channels [4 hrs/week * 5 weeks * 6 people] / 120
Development of system in operation phase and training
· Installation and deployment [1 hrs * 1 times * 2 people]
· Training and Support [1 hrs * 2 times * 2 people] / 6
Total / 454
Maintenance Period (3 years)
Maintenance (0.5 hrs/week * 156 weeks * 1 people) / 78
Total
5.2.2 Hardware and Software Costs
Table11: Hardware and Software Costs
Type / Cost / RationaleMS Access 2013 / $0 / Provided by the USC Viterbi School of Engineering through Microsoft Dreamspark.
MS Visual Studio 2013 / $0 / Provided by the USC Viterbi School of Engineering through Microsoft Dreamspark.
MS Windows 7 / $0 / Provided by the USC Viterbi School of Engineering through Microsoft Dreamspark.
Hardware / $0 / None
5.3 Benefit Analysis
5.3.1 Quantitative Benefits
Table 12: Quantitative Benefits
Current activities & resources used / % Reduce / Time Saved (Hours/Year)Checking the inventory (100 times * 30 mins) / 50 / 25
Create survey to STEM activity (100 times * 30 mins) / 50 / 25
Extract the survey reports as Excel files(100 times * 60 mins) / 90 / 90
Create STEM project (20 times * 30 mins) / 50 / 5
Create lesson plans for STEM project (100 times * 30 mins) / 50 / 25
Track material in the inventory for STEM project (50 times * 60 mins) / 50 / 20
Obtain searching results ( 50 times * 60 mins) / 50 / 25
Manage student information(50 times * 60 mins) / 50 / 25
Total / 240
5.4 ROI Analysis
< Calculate Return on Investment by using your cost and benefit analysis results and identify the breakeven point. Note, if you have hardware and software cost, it must be included in ROI calculation. For effort cost, if you use a salary as your calculation base, assume 10% annually increase. Example can be found at ICSM EPG>Task: Analyze Business Case>
Table13: ROI Analysis
Year / Cost / Benefit(Effort Saved) / Cumulative Cost / Cumulative Benefit / ROI
2013 / 454 / 0 / 454 / 0 / -1
2014 / 78 / 45 / 532 / 240 / -0.6
2015 / 78 / 90 / 610 / 480 / -0.2
2016 / 78 / 135 / 688 / 720 / 0.05
Figure 1: ROI Analysis Graph
FED_VCP_F13a_T03_V2.0.doc 6 Version Date: 10/14/13