Evidence Feasibility Description (FED)
Team # 6
The IGM on-line Art Gallery
Team Members Jay Shah Godfrey Duke Ramandeep Singh Amogh Paradkar Shreyas Nangalia Anveshak Akula Shivalika Goyal Vyom Caesar
Roles Project Manager IIV&V/Shaper(Off- campus) Life Cycle Planner System Architect Operational Concept Engineer Requirements Engineer Feasibility Analyst IIV&V/Quality Focal Point
Feasibility Evidence Description (FED)
Version 1.4
10/27/2008
3a99d894a90440da50e72f13106a2d314647c843.doc ii
Version Date: 10/27/2008
Feasibility Evidence Description (FED)
Version 1.4
Version History
Date 09/22/0 8 10/06/0 8 10/13/0 8 10/22/0 8 10/27/0 8 Author Shivalika Goyal Shivalika Goyal Shivalika Goyal Shivalika Goyal Shivalika Goyal Versio n 1.0 1.1 1.2 Changes made Original template for use with LeanMBASE v1.0 Changes made in section 5 Almost all the sections are completed All sections are updated Rationale Initial draft for use with LeanMBASE v1.0 Better version to present Risk Assessment. Changes made according to the minimum exit criteria for draft FC package. Changes made to some portions for better ROI analysis. Changes made after comments in the ARB session. Changes made after evaluation of IIV and Vers.
1.3
1.4
All sections are updated
3a99d894a90440da50e72f13106a2d314647c843.doc iii
Version Date: 10/27/2008
Feasibility Evidence Description (FED)
Version 1.4
Table of Contents
Version History ........................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... iv Table of Tables.............................................................................................................................. v Table of Figures........................................................................................................................... vi
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................1 Purpose of the FED Document.............................................................................................................................1 Status of the FED Document.................................................................................................................................1 Business Case Analysis...............................................................................................................................................2 Cost Analysis..........................................................................................................................................................2 Benefit Analysis......................................................................................................................................................4 ROI Analysis...........................................................................................................................................................5 Architecture Feasibility..............................................................................................................................................8 Level of Service Feasibility....................................................................................................................................8 Capability Feasibility.............................................................................................................................................9 Evolutionary Feasibility......................................................................................................................................10 Process Feasibility.....................................................................................................................................................12 Risk Assessment........................................................................................................................................................14 NDI Interoperability Analysis ................................................................................................................................16 Introduction..........................................................................................................................................................16 System Structure..................................................................................................................................................18 Evaluation Summary...........................................................................................................................................19
3a99d894a90440da50e72f13106a2d314647c843.doc iv
Version Date: 10/27/2008
Feasibility Evidence Description (FED)
Version 1.4
Table of Tables
Table 1: Personnel Costs.............................................................................................................. 2 Table 2: Hardware and Software Costs...................................................................................... 3 Table 3: Benefits of IGM online Art Gallery System................................................................. 4 Table 4: ROI Analysis.................................................................................................................. 5 Table 5: Level of Service Feasibility ............................................................................................ 8 Table 6: Capability Requirements and Their Feasibility Evidence..........................................9 Table 7: Evolutionary Requirements and Their Feasibility Evidence.................................... 10 Table 8: Rationales for Selecting Architected Agile Model..................................................... 12 Table 9: Requirement Prioritization (Must Have Only).......................................................... 13 Table 10: Risk Assessment........................................................................................................ 14 Table 11: NDI Products Listing ................................................................................................ 16 Table 12: NDI Evaluation .......................................................................................................... 19
3a99d894a90440da50e72f13106a2d314647c843.doc v
Version Date: 10/27/2008
Feasibility Evidene Description (FED)
Version 1.4
Table of Figures
Figure 2: IGM on-line Art Gallery Structure..............................................................................................14
Feasibility Evidence Description (FED)
Version 1.4
Introduction
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 and to illustrate the consistency and compatibility between the various documents of Foundation Commitment package. These include Operational Concept Description (OCD), System and Software Requirements Description (SSRD), System and Software Architecture Description (SSAD), Life Cycle Plan (LCP) and Prototype (PRO).This document also focuses on the issues related to risks involved and the feasibility in terms of time and budget is also shown.
Status of the FED Document
The Feasibility Evidence Description document (FED) is at version 1.4 stage and it is an exit condition for the Foundation Commitment package milestone in the project development stages. This version of FED document shows Business case analysis,
Architecture feasibility, Process feasibility, Risk assessment and risk management plan and Analysis of NDI interoperability.
3a99d894a90440da50e72f13106a2d314647c843.doc 1
Version Date: 10/27/2008
Feasibility Evidence Description (FED)
Version 1.4
Business Case Analysis
Cost Analysis
Limited funds are available for the development and support of the IGM Online Art Gallery, but the current approach (co-hosted with the IGM website and using free software) involves no additional hardware or software cost. Additionally, the client will not be spending on the development, as the system is being developed by a team of students in an academic project. Cost analysis thus focuses on the customer's role in development and any maintenance activities associated with the site.
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 maintainer would spend updating 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 [2 hrs/week * 12 weeks *3 people] Meeting with technical personnel of current system [1hrs*12weeks*3people] Architecture Review Boards [2 hrs * 2 times * 2 people] 8 36 72
3a99d894a90440da50e72f13106a2d314647c843.doc 2
Version Date: 10/27/2008
Feasibility Evidence Description (FED)
Version 1.4
Development and Operation Phases: Time Invested (CS577b, 12 weeks) Client: Meeting via email, phone, and other channels [4 hrs/week * 12 weeks * 3 people] Maintainer: Meeting via email, phone, and other channels [3 hrs/week * 12 weeks * 2 people] Architecture Review Boards and Core Capability Drive-through session [2 hrs * 3 times * 2 people] Deployment of system in operation phase and training - Installation & Deployment [4 hrs * 2 times * 3 people] - Training & Support [3 hrs * 2 times * 2 people] Total Maintenance Period (1 year) Maintenance [2 hr/week * 52 weeks] Total 104 104 380 24+12=36 12 72 144
Hardware and Software Costs
There is no additional hardware and software cost since, aside from the client's current hardware and software, only open source software (or customdeveloped software) will be used for the project. The IGM On-line Art Gallery will be co-hosted with the IGM website, so no additional hosting charges are anticipated. Moreover, it has been agreed in WINWIN negotiation that no hardware and software costs would be in included in the project.
Table 2: Hardware and Software Costs
Type Hardware-client side workstations Hardware Cost on setting up network Software cost
Cost $0
Rationale Current system is capable of deploying the software developed by the development team.
$0
All the workstations are connected to the local network so there no cost involved in setting up the network.
$0
All the software needed by the development team to deploy their system are available on
3a99d894a90440da50e72f13106a2d314647c843.doc 3
Version Date: 10/27/2008
Feasibility Evidence Description (FED)
Version 1.4
the client's machine.
Benefit Analysis
With their current system, a significant amount of human resources is required to format and display the online version of the gallery. The following table describes the benefits gained in the form of time that will be saved when the new system is launched.
Table 3: Benefits of IGM online Art Gallery System
Current activities & resources used Upload of images & text - Administrator 120 images * 1.5hr 120 text * 1hr (done manually on word then posted to admin and the simple tables for image and text) Report of Sales - IGM staff
% Reduce
Time Saved (Hours/Year)
80%
300
95%
104
3a99d894a90440da50e72f13106a2d314647c843.doc 4
Version Date: 10/27/2008
Feasibility Evidence Description (FED)
Version 1.4
3 hrs * 52 weeks Time for Sales Delivery Process - IGM Staff 5hrs * 52weeks Total 75% 260 664
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: - Increased accessibility of the On-line Art Gallery. Previously visitors needed Microsoft Word to view the artwork; now only a web-browser and Internet access are required. - Improved aesthetics: the site's design and interface will be appealing to visitors, complimenting the artwork it displays and furthering the mission of inspiring change in the community through art.
NOTE: Also, the sales profit is not considered in terms of dollars as the IGM art gallery is a non-profitable organization and all the money earned from sales is distributed to artists, staff members and rest is used for other charity work.
ROI Analysis
The following table summarizes the various costs incurred and benefits realized by the client at the end of each year. Maintenance cost reflects the cost to update templates for the system and not to manage the system's content. Management of the system content is reduced through application of the system and is thus reflected as a benefit rather than a cost in ROI calculations.
Table 4: ROI Analysis
Year
Cost
Benefit
Cumulativ
Cumulativ
ROI
3a99d894a90440da50e72f13106a2d314647c843.doc Date: 5
Version 10/27/2008
Feasibility Evidence Description (FED)
Version 1.4
(Effort Saved) 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 380 104 114.4 125.84 138.42 0 664 664 664 664
e Cost 380 484 598.4 724.24 862.66
e Benefit 0 664 1328 1992 2656 -1.00 0.37 1.21 1.75 2.07
This table indicates numbers of costs and benefits which can be described as follow: Cost: 380 is the amount invested during the development period 104 is the amount invested in 2008 during the operation/maintenance 114.4 is a 10% increased amount from 2008's 104 125.84 is a 10% increased amount from 2009's 114.4 138.42.84 is a 10% increased amount from 2009's 125.84 Benefit: 664 is the time saved annually when using the new system
Using the above information, the ROI Analysis Graph can be plotted as follow
ROI Analysis Graph
3a99d894a90440da50e72f13106a2d314647c843.doc 6
Version Date: 10/27/2008
Feasibility Evidence Description (FED)
Version 1.4
With the break-even analysis, the break-even point for the return on investment will be in the year 2010 since it has an ROI value equals to Zero. NOTE: As there are no additional hardware and software costs so there is nothing to be included in ROI analysis.
3a99d894a90440da50e72f13106a2d314647c843.doc 7
Version Date: 10/27/2008
Feasibility Evidence Description (FED)
Version 1.4
Architecture Feasibility
Level of Service Feasibility
Table 5: Level of Service Feasibility
Level of Service Requirement LOS-1: System up time
Product Satisfaction Product Strategies: Code optimization Process Strategies: Prototyping, Load testing, Performance Analysis. Analysis: 90% of system service uptime excluding network and server downtime.. References: SSRD , WikiWinWin negotiation agreement, SSAD
Level of Service Requirement LOS-2: Query correctness
Product Satisfaction Product Strategies: Verification of data from all entries. Process Strategies: Verification and validation, Test plan and Tools, Failure Modes and Effect Analysis. 90% correctness of data storage and retrieval. References: SSRD , WikiWinWin negotiation agreement, SSAD
Level of Service Requirement LOS-3: System response time
Product Satisfaction Product Strategies: Scoping, Error reducing, Accuracy Optimization, Monitoring & Control. Process Strategies: Performance Analysis, Tuning, Benchmarking, continuous process Improvement, User and Customer Involvement
3a99d894a90440da50e72f13106a2d314647c843.doc 8
Version Date: 10/27/2008
Feasibility Evidence Description (FED)
Version 1.4
Analysis: The system should have a response time of 3sec provided the internet connection speed is good and load on server is low. References: SSRD , SSAD
Level of Service Requirement LOS-4: Interoperability
Product Satisfaction Product Strategies: System should be developed for future evolution integration testing. Process Strategies: Prototyping, Specification verification, Interoperation Involvement. Analysis: The system should interface properly with the main website being developed by the Infinite 9 team. References: SSRD , WikiWinWin negotiation agreement, SSAD
Capability Feasibility
Table 6: Capability Requirements and Their Feasibility Evidence
Capability Requirement CR-1: Provide gallery for displaying images.
Product Satisfaction Software/Technology used: PHP Feasibility evidence: Images can be displayed online web page. The gallery would be on the web-page displaying all the images stored in database. Referenced use case diagram: Process Model/Boundary diagram, SSRD
Capability Requirement
Product Satisfaction Software/Technology used: PHP, MySQL
3a99d894a90440da50e72f13106a2d314647c843.doc 9
Version Date: 10/27/2008
Feasibility Evidence Description (FED)
Version 1.4
CR-2: Provide functionality for uploading images, text, directors and artist statement.
Feasibility evidence: The images stored in the database would be uploaded on the web-page of the IGM art gallery when the user clicks on a particular link on the IGM art gallery web site. These images should be uploaded by administrator for security reasons. Referenced use case diagram: Process Model/Boundary diagram, SSRD
Capability Requirement CR-3: Provide facility to archive past exhibitions.
Product Satisfaction Software/Technology used: PHP, MySQL Feasibility evidence: The exhibitions held in past should be displayed on the web-site of the IGM art gallery. All the information related to past exhibitions is stored in database from where the information is uploaded to the web site. Referenced use case diagram: Process Model /Boundary diagram, SSRD
Capability Requirement CR-4: Provide online payment system
Product Satisfaction Software/Technology used: PHP , MySQL, COTS(eg PayPal) Feasibility evidence: Various COTS products can be used to provide online payment system so that the end users could be able to buy the art online by creating a user account and providing the credit card information. References: Entity relationship diagram of OCD, SSRD
Evolutionary Feasibility
Table 7: Evolutionary Requirements and Their Feasibility Evidence
There are no evolutionary requirements till now.
3a99d894a90440da50e72f13106a2d314647c843.doc 10
Version Date: 10/27/2008
Feasibility Evidence Description (FED)
Version 1.4
3a99d894a90440da50e72f13106a2d314647c843.doc 11
Version Date: 10/27/2008
Feasibility Evidence Description (FED)
Version 1.4
Process Feasibility
The IGM On-line Art Gallery satisfies the third case from the process decision table. Following are the rationale given that provides the reasons of using the Architected Agile Model.
Table 8: Rationales for Selecting Architected Agile Model
Criteria Size, Complexity
Rationales Medium The system developed for IGM Art Gallery has a medium level of complexity.
Change Rate % /Month Criticality
The changes done in the project could be 8-10% per month. The criticality of the project would range between mediumhigh.
NDI Support Org/Personnel Capability
There is a good support of NDI. All the members are comfortable with an agile development. So it is Agile ready.
Key Stage I Activities : Incremental Definition Key Stage II Activities: Incremental Development, Operations Time per Build; Time per Increment
Valuation/Architecture Commitment Reviews.
Development/Rebaselined Development Reviews, Core Capability Drive-through, Transition Readiness/Operation Commitment Reviews. Time/Build = 2-4 weeks According to characteristics of 577 a/b class if the team comes up with lots of builds during the development.. Time/Increment = 2-6 months According to the characteristics of 577 a/b class if the team incrementally implement the system within 5-7 months.
3a99d894a90440da50e72f13106a2d314647c843.doc 12
Version Date: 10/27/2008
Feasibility Evidence Description (FED)
Version 1.4
So, by providing the above rationale it clearly specifies that the IGM On-line Art Gallery project fall under the 3rd category of process decision table. The above values have been taken from evaluation of LCP document.
The development team is taking schedule as independent variable so the development team is planning to implement the most necessary requirements in the first increment. The next important requirements would be taken care of in next increment. Following are the Capability requirements according to the prioritized capability.
Table 9: Requirement Prioritization (Must Have Only)
Priorit y 1 2 3 4
Requirements Provide gallery for displaying images. Provide functionality for uploading images, text, director and artist statement. Provide online payment system. Provide facility to archive past exhibitions.
Referenc es CR-1 CR-2 CR-4 CR-3
3a99d894a90440da50e72f13106a2d314647c843.doc 13
Version Date: 10/27/2008
Feasibility Evidence Description (FED)
Version 1.4
Risk Assessment
This section describes the risks involved in the project and the steps taken to mitigate the risks. ...