fed_fcp_f13a_t09_v1.5.docx.docx€¦ · web viewfeasibility rationale description (frd)...
TRANSCRIPT
Feasibility Rationale Description (FRD)
Feasibility Evidence Description (FED)
City of Los Angeles Public Safety Applicant Resource Center
Team 9
Team MembersDivya Nalam: Operational Concept Engineer and UML Designer
Vaibhav Mathur: Project Manager, Life Cycle PlannerArijit Dey: Requirements Engineer, Prototyper
Preethi Ramesh: Feasibility Analyst, Requirements EngineerGaurav Mathur: Builder, UML Designer
Shreyas Devaraj: Prototyper, Project ManagerRakesh Mathur: IIV & V, Quality Focal Point
10/15/2013
FED_DCP_F13a_T09_V1.6.doc 1 Version Date: 11/27/2013
Feasibility Rationale Description (FRD)
FED_DCP_F13a_T09_V1.6.doc 2 Version Date: 11/27/2013
Feasibility Rationale Description (FRD)
Version HistoryDate Author Versio
nChanges made Rationale
09/26/13 Preethi Ramesh 1.0 ● Add risks and program
model● Initial draft of Feasibility
Evidence Description (FED)
9/27/13 Rakesh Mathur 1.1 ● Added more risks and
identified NDI risks ● Updated FED
9/27/13 Rakesh Mathur 1.2 ● Added another NDI evaluation ● Salesforce.com was added
10/15/13 Rakesh Mathur 1.3 ● Added Business Case
Analysis ● Completing the document
10/20/13 Preethi Ramesh 1.4 ● Edited the ROI table ● Made after the ARB
meeting
10/22/13 Rakesh Mathur 1.5 ● Edited the Risk
assessment table
● Modifications made to implement the feedback after FED grading
11/27/13 Preethi Ramesh 1.6 ● Edited the Risk
assessment table● Risk Exposure modified
after development
FED_DCP_F13a_T09_V1.6.doc 3 Version Date: 11/27/2013
Feasibility Rationale Description (FRD)
Table of Contents Feasibility Evidence Description (FED) i
Version History ii
Table of Contents iii
Table of Tables iv
Table of Figures vA.1. Introduction 1A.2. Business Case Analysis 2
A.2.1 Cost Analysis 2A.2.2 Benefit Analysis 2A.2.3 ROI Analysis 3
A.3. Risk Assessment 4A.4. NDI/NCS Interoperability Analysis 5
A.4.1 Introduction 5A.4.2 Evaluation Summary 5
FED_DCP_F13a_T09_V1.6.doc 4 Version Date: 11/27/2013
Feasibility Rationale Description (FRD)
Table of TablesTable 1: Personnel Costs 2
Table 2: Hardware and Software Costs 2
Table 3: Benefits of the System 2
Table 4: ROI Analysis 3
Table 5: Risk Assessment 4
Table 6: NDI Products Listing 5
Table 7: NDI Evaluation 5
FED_DCP_F13a_T09_V1.6.doc 5 Version Date: 11/27/2013
Feasibility Rationale Description (FRD)
FED_DCP_F13a_T09_V1.6.doc 6 Version Date: 11/27/2013
Feasibility Rationale Description (FRD)
Table of FiguresFigure 1: ROI Analysis Graph 3
FED_DCP_F13a_T09_V1.6.doc 7 Version Date: 11/27/2013
Feasibility Rationale Description (FRD)
FED_DCP_F13a_T09_V1.6.doc 8 Version Date: 11/27/2013
Feasibility Rationale Description (FRD)
IntroductionThis document discusses feasibility of developing the Safety Applicant Resource Center online Web System for the Department of Public Safety at the City of Los Angeles.
- V 1.7 – Added new risk for no student continuing project in Spring, 2014 semester and thus it is highly like that the project will be being discontinued.
- V 1.4 – Business Case Analysis added.
- V 1.3 - This document has been updated to reflect a more comprehensive review of the project.
- V 1.2 - The risk of only using Cold Fusion as the platform has been mitigated by identifying another possible platform – ASP.NET (using C#)
- V 1.1 - The risk of the difficulty of integrating the final product with existing LDAP (Lightweight Directory Access Protocol) at the Dept. of Public Safety was identified and Dept. of Public Safety reassessed “Business Value” and “Relative Penalty”
FED_DCP_F13a_T09_V1.6.doc 9 Version Date: 11/27/2013
Feasibility Rationale Description (FRD)
Business Case Analysis
Cost AnalysisClient costs include time spent meeting with Development team, efforts to coordinate personnel who will be effective in working on the project, communication within the Dept. of Public Safety with regards to project, effort spent to communicate with Development team.
Personnel CostsTable 1: Personnel Costs
Activities Time Spent (Hours)
Exploration Phase
Win-Win Negotiation Meetings (2 people * 4 hours + 3 people * 4 hours) 20
Communication with Development team (2 people * 2 hour) 4
Valuation Phase
ARB Meeting to review Progress 2
Identify missing scope or requirements with Development Team 10
Commit to Hardware/Software Costs of Project – meetings plus Communication
10
Foundations Phase
Assess Prototype and give feedback about Prototype 5
Plan for Development and Deployment of Project 40
Development Phase
FED_DCP_F13a_T09_V1.6.doc 10 Version Date: 11/27/2013
Feasibility Rationale Description (FRD)
Develop Release Plan with Developer Team 20
Develop Training Plan with Developer Team 20
Perform Core Capability Drive-Through 2
Give Feedback to Developer Team about Development iteration 10
Deployment of Web System plus database Connectivity with Developer Team
30
Provide Training for Support Staff & Background Investigators 40
Maintenance of Database plus Web Application (recurring cost) per year ( 2 hours/week * 1 person * 52 weeks)
104
Total (for one time costs) 213
Hardware and Software CostsTable 2: Hardware and Software Costs
Type Cost Rationale
Hosting Web Server running Windows Server with IIS
01 This is the server where the code will reside and where the users (both internal and external) will access the System
DMZ (De-Militarized Zone) 03 Network Security Setup needed (personnel cost for setting up subnet for Web Server)
Database Back-End DB2 instance which will allow for multiple connections
04 This is the database where all data will be stored.
Disk Space to store Database Back-End DB2 data
05 This is the disk space that will be needed to store database data
Hosting Environment with connectivity to the Internet and World Wide Web
06 Networking and Internet Services Provider costs
1 – This is the average cost of a new HP Proliant Server running Windows 83 – This is assuming that the only set up required is that of the Router4 – This is assuming that the Web System’s data will be hosted on an already existing DB2 Database server which the Dept. of Public Safety will provide. 5 – This is assuming that an appropriate production database infrastructure is already set up at the Dept. of Public Safety.
FED_DCP_F13a_T09_V1.6.doc 11 Version Date: 11/27/2013
Feasibility Rationale Description (FRD)
6 – This is assuming that a Hosting environment infrastructure is already set up at the Dept. of Public Safety for intake of applications via the web.
Benefit Analysis
Quantitative Benefits
Table 3: Benefits of Reference Request Web System
Current activities & resources used % Reduce Time Saved (Hours/Year)
For each candidate, create (type and print) one or multiple ‘Reference Request’ letters 100 10001
Post each letter by mail to the Reference 100 5002
Gather (printed) Reference Request Responses in candidate physical folder 100 5003
Track References and Reference Letters for candidates in candidate physical folder 100 5004
Assigning Candidates to Background Investigators 50 1675
Management of Background Investigators and Candidates (done by Managers) 80 5336
Total 3200
FED_DCP_F13a_T09_V1.6.doc 12 Version Date: 11/27/2013
Feasibility Rationale Description (FRD)
In our Win-Win negotiations, the Dept. of Public Safety estimated that they process 2000 (two thousand) applications per year. The values for the benefits derived are based on this number. 1 – Assuming 30 minutes for each application type and print, 2000* 30 minutes = 5000 hours per year.2 – Assuming 15 minutes to put reference form into envelope and carrying to be posted, 2000 * 15 minutes = 500 hours per year. 3 – Assuming 15 minutes to open reference and properly file it, 2000* 15 minutes = 500 hours per year. 4 – Assuming 15 minutes to find candidate folder and find reference in folder by Background Investigator, 2000*15 minutes = 500 hours per year. 5 – Assuming 10 minutes to assign candidates and noting assignment in Excel Spreadsheets, 2000*10 minutes, but since assignment still needs to be done, saving is 50 % of that which is 50/100 * (2000*10 minutes) = 167 hours. 6 – Assuming 20 minutes to change/re-assign candidates by looking up physical file and Excel Spreadsheets, 2000*20 minutes, but since re-assignment decisions still need to be made, saving is 80 % of that which is 80/100 * (2000*20 minutes) = 533 hours.
Qualitative Benefits● Redirect Support Staff Scheduling Cost
Table 4: Cost Benefit Analysis Worksheet
Cost Benefit Analysis Worksheet
Nonrecurring CostsSystem Development & Deployment - $85203
Recurring CostsServer Maintenance Personnel Cost – $4160 per year1
Total - $4160 per year
Tangible BenefitsCost Avoidance - $48000 per year2
1 – Personnel cost = 104 hours per year * $40 per hour = $4160 per year2 – Cost Avoidance is the number of hours saved per year (3200) * $15 / hr on average = $48000 per year3 – For System Development/Deployment, assuming $40 per hour, total costs = 213 (from table 1) * 40 = $8520
FED_DCP_F13a_T09_V1.6.doc 13 Version Date: 11/27/2013
Feasibility Rationale Description (FRD)
ROI Analysis
FED_DCP_F13a_T09_V1.6.doc 14 Version Date: 11/27/2013
Feasibility Rationale Description (FRD)
<< 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>>
Year Cost
Benefit
Cumulative Cost
Cumulative Benefit ROI
(Effort Saved)
2013
8520 0 8520 0 -1
2014
4160 48000 12680 48000 2.78548896
2015
4576 48000 17256 96000 4.56328234
2016
5033.6
48000 22290 144000 5.46041203
Table 4: ROI Analysis
Figure 1: ROI Analysis Graph
FED_DCP_F13a_T09_V1.6.doc 15 Version Date: 11/27/2013
Feasibility Rationale Description (FRD)
Risk AssessmentThe team has realized that no members of the Development team plan to take CS577b in Spring, 2014. This means that there is a very high risk that the project will not move forward. This Risk has been discussed with the Client and the Client has been notified of the risk.
Table 5: Risk Assessment
Risks Risk Exposure
Risk Mitigation
Potential Magnitude
Probability of Loss
Risk Exposure
Developers not continuing course next semester 10 10 100
This risk cannot be addressed. The project is very likely to be terminated at the end of the Fall Semester.
Schedules for Fall Semester Deliverables 10 7 70
Incremental development, negotiate what is deliverable with the client at the end of Fall Semester
Interoperability with LDAP - - - Based on top two risks, this risk is now moot
Administrator Requirements incomplete - - - Based on top two risks this
risk is now moot.
FED_DCP_F13a_T09_V1.6.doc 16 Version Date: 11/27/2013
Feasibility Rationale Description (FRD)
NDI/NCS Interoperability AnalysisIntroductionWe plan to use ASP.NET MVC Web Framework to develop the code for the project.
COTS / GOTS / ROTS / Open Source / NCSTable 6: NDI Products Listing
NDI/NCS Products Purposes
Plan to use ASP.NET MVC (Model View Controller) framework to develop the code for the project (http://www.asp.net/mvc)
MVC is a well-known framework which facilitates building of various views and controllers.
Connectors
- In this project, we will use ODBC/DB2 Connector to enable the ASP.NET web application to retrieve and write data to the DB2 database.
Legacy System
- In this project, the developed system has to use a DB2 Database which is currently used for the rest of the applicant tracking process. - In this project, the developed system should be able to authenticate administrators, investigators and support users based on an already existing LDAP system used by the Dept. of Public Safety.
Evaluation Summary
FED_DCP_F13a_T09_V1.6.doc 17 Version Date: 11/27/2013
Feasibility Rationale Description (FRD)
Table 7: NDI Evaluation
NDI Usages Comments
ASP.NET MVC Framework
Develop screens and workflow of site
Positives-Some Developers are familiar with ASP.NET and C#-Dept. of Public Safety has agreed to allow development in ASP.NET/C# instead of ColdFusion which no developer is familiar withNegatives-Developers are mostly familiar with Java and thus need to take training for ASP.NET (and C#) to be able to effectively develop the code
Salesforce.com Develop system on the salesforce.com platform
Positives-platform has most of the functionality built and can be developed quicklyNegatives-Dept. of Public Safety does not want the data for the system stored outside the systems in their datacenter
FED_DCP_F13a_T09_V1.6.doc 18 Version Date: 11/27/2013