Get documents about "ARB_Slides_LCA_F06_T15_v1.0
Shared by: changcheng2
-
Stats
- views:
- 1
- posted:
- 1/5/2012
- language:
- pages:
- 55
Document Sample
LANI Database
Management System
Life Cycle Architecture
– Architecture Review Board Session
Tuesday, November 28th 2006
Introduction to Team 15
• Mayank Agarwal - Project Manager
• Abhishek Mehta - COTS Evaluator
• Aishwarya Goyal - Project Planner
• Mayank Gupta - Domain Analyst
• Saurabh Gupta - Project Planner
• Sona Malik - Requirement Analyst
Introduction to the Project
The Clients:
LANI–Los Angeles Neighborhood Initiative
• A non profit organization involved in the
revitalization of the neighborhood.
Represented by: Ms.Veronica Hahni
& Ms. Anna Apostolos
Introduction to the LANI Organization
A non – profit organization
Receives funds from organizations
Puts those funds to good use – takes up
enhancement projects in the neighborhood
Gives Los Angeles a better neighborhood
Introduction to the LANI Organization
Setup
Total staff size: 6
◦ One executive director, 5 Program Managers
The executive director heads the organization
Each Program Manager involved in some project
◦ Keeps track of funds, progress, schedule
COTS Assessment Background
CAB
By:
Mayank Gupta
Sona Malik
New Benefit Chain
LEGEND: – Outcome, -- Initiative, – Stakeholders
Added Stakeholders
Users – Project Managers and Executive Director of
LANI
Customer – Los Angeles Neighborhood Organization
Client – Veronica Hahni
Evaluators – CS577A Team 15,
IV & V – Delano Anderson & Patrick Stevens
CSCI 577a teaching staff- Instructors & Teaching
Assistants
COTS expert – Jesal Bhuta
COTS Vendor/System Maintainer – Larry
Madison- Owner of Corporate Niche
Organization Background
Users of the system
LANI
Maintainer of the system (Corporate Niche)
Clients:
Lower Hudson Technology, Inc. - New York City, NY
Carolina Inspection Seminars - Princeton, NC
Top 2 Bottom Real Estate Inspectors - Richmond, TX
Ritter Enterprises, Inc. - Des Moines, IA
The HUD GUY - Radford, NC
Value Home Inspections, Inc. - Glenside, PA
Minnesota's Real Estate Team - www.mnrealestateteam.com
Organizational Goals
Better Project record maintenance
Reduce manual overhead for project
report generation
Improve time management
Improved report generation
Process Diagram
Comparison between new and current
system
CURRENT SYSTEM NEW SYSTEM
Roles and Distributed Efforts Centralized Practices
Responsibilities
User Interactions Manual Overhead Automated efforts
Poor Time Management Improved Efficiency
Redundant Practices Minimum Redundancy
Infrastructure Inconsistencies in format Consistent Graphical User
Poor log maintenance Interface(GUI)
Better logs maintained
Stakeholder Essentials Lack of accurate figures Accurate data at hand for
and Amenities Marketing Executives
Analytical Data Interpretation
for Top Level Management
Intra Organization transparency
for Project Managers
System Capabilities
Capability to provide Fund/Budget summary sheet
Capability to provide multiple funds per contract sheet
Capability to provide multiple contracts per funding organization
Capability to provide Contract Reconciliation sheet
Capability to provide 10% retention tracking ability
Capability to provide Executive Director access to Project
Manager’s funding request details
System Capabilities (cont..)
Capability to provide integration of funding request draw and summary sheets
Capability to provide contract change order
Capability to provide integration of Insurance Log
Capability to provide closeout report
Capability to provide Project Manager access to Executive Director’s payout
details
Level of Services
LOS Desired Acceptable
Accuracy All the entries should be All fund related entries
properly validated should be properly
validated
Correctness Reports generated Same as desired
should list same
transaction and figures as
maintained by the
organization manually
Expandability System expandable System should
enough to incorporate incorporate evolutionary
any new features features
Usability System should not take Maximum of 3hrs of
more than 5 hours to be training
well versed with
Maintainability Monthly maintenance Reasonable maintenance
should not be more than required should not
2 hours exceed 4 hours
CAP
Assumptions
Overall Strategy
Down Selection Iterations
Evaluation Criteria
Stakeholder Responsibilities
Plans for Spring 2007
Assessment and Analysis
Risk Mitigation
Resources
- SAURABH GUPTA
- AISHWARYA GOYAL
Assumptions
The following assumptions must continue to be valid in order to implement
the plans below within the resources specified:
The Project Manager-GCT must be able to communicate with the server.
The client must be able to provide the assessment team full access to
application server.
The client continues the support contract with Corporate Niche after
project deployment, and Corporate Niche will serve as the primary
Database and System Maintainer.
Purchasing of all COTS products will be made by the Client.
Overall Strategy
Iterations for choosing COTS product
Iteration ONE Timed during LCO, involved looking at
the possible COTS products and initial filtering
Iteration TWO Timed at the end of LCO, select top
1-3 COTS product for the given set of requirements
Iteration THREE Timed during LCA, involved choosing
the best possible COTS product.
Main Evaluation Criteria’s for the COTS product
1. Functionality ->It is the most important criteria for assessing the COTS.
2. Cost ->Cost is an Independent variable for assessment since the maximum
available budget is $ 2000.
3. Vendor support ->Must provide support as clients do not have a
maintainer currently. The vendor must maintain the software
4. Ease of use ->Generally simple - not much scope for complexity
5. Ease of maintenance ->Does not hold much importance since the Vendor
would provide the maintenance.
6. Vendor viability/stability ->Since vendor is the maintainer, it is important
that he remains in business for the period the software will be used.
Stakeholder Responsibilities
Stakeholders Responsibilities When Where
Users- Project Participate in the Win-Win During Inception and Win-Win negotiations and
Managers and negotiations and ARBs. Elaboration phases ARBs
Executive Director of Evaluate the prototype and beta During Elaboration,
LANI(represented by versions of the system. Construction and Transition Pre installations and testing
Anna Apostolos) Provide feedback for system phase
(COTS) usability and accessibility. Throughout Client Meetings, emails
Review the artifacts produced by
the team and provide feedback on Throughout
it. Client Meetings, emails
Customer- LANI Actively participate in the Win-Win During Inception and Win-Win Negotiations and
Organization ( negotiations and ARBs Elaboration phases ARBs
represented by Assist in transitioning of the system. Transition phase Pre Installations
Review prototypes and provide
Veronica Hahni) feedback. During Construction phase Client Meetings and emails
Review the artifacts produced by Emails
the team and provide feedback on Throughout life cycle of
it. project as required.
Give a basic understanding
regarding the current system in Client and IV&V interactions
place.
Provide the resources necessary to During Inception phase
fund the project.
Emails
Submit formal Purchase Order to During Elaboration phase
COTS Vendor.
Responsibilities Continued
Evaluators( Team 15) Efficiently map win During Inception and Developer Interactions
conditions into Elaboration phases
requirements
Risk management Throughout Developer and Client
Prepare the artifacts for the Throughout Interactions
system
Participate in client and Throughout life cycle of ARBs, Client, IV&V and
IV&V interactions, ARBs project as required. developer interactions
and Prototyping.
Start constructing the
proposed system. Code key
system capabilities. Plan During Construction phase Developer Meetings
initial tests. Test system
capabilities.
Transition the proposed
system to the users.
Develop the system based
on SSAD. Prototype. Developer Meetings and
During Transition phase
Arrange the training Pre Installations
program for users. Deliver
all necessary documents to
the users, e.g. User Manual,
System Maintaining Manual.
Responsibilities contd.
Maintainer Provide technical support and remote Throughout life cycle of Emails & Phone
software updates and system project as required. conversations
maintenance.
Provide feedback on COTS prototype
feasibility.
IV & V( Check whether all the artifacts produced Throughout life cycle of IV&V and developer
Patrick are following Lean MBase Guidelines. interactions, regular emails,
Stevens and Check the documents for consistency and project as required. Team website
Delano correctness. Provide an independent
perspective to the developers through their
Anderson) regular feedbacks and reviews, create
quality management plans, Attend win-win
negotiations and ARBs.
COTS Providing COTS documentation, price Throughout life cycle of Phone conversations, email
Vendor model, possible future release info, and interactions, through the
helping to identify difficulty of meeting the project as required.
requirements gap. COTS website.
Provide the current market knowledge with
respect to various COTS products, their
costs, product details, their models,
documentation and alternatives for each
products/packages, if available.
Domain Explain the technology required for Throughout life cycle of Regular meetings with prior
Expert implementing the features of the system appointments.
and guide to appropriate COTS Vendors project as required.
and other researchers.
Explain the feasibility of providing certain
features, feasibility of integrating various
Plans for Spring’07
Plans to complete the project
First set of modifications for the COTS will be ready by the first
week of December
Then the project can head in three directions:
Either the client can go ahead with CS 577b team and then sign the
contract with the vendor
Or the As the client is very much involved in the development of the
project, the client can go ahead and deal with the modifications herself.
Or some team members of the CS 577a team takes Directed Research
under Prof. Boehm and continues the project.
Plan for the Spring’07
Milestone Date
LCA (Life Cycle Architecture) ARB 11/28/2006
LCA (Life Cycle Architecture) Package 12/04/2006
First set of modifications ready (provided by client) First week of December
Sign-up of contract with the vendor First week of January
Modifications given to the vendor for alteration Second week of January
Second Prototype ready from vendor side Fourth week of January
Prepare User Manuals & support documentation First week of February
for the transition
Installation and Transition( includes one week Second week of February
training of the LANI staff)
Final set of modifications/bug fixes(if any) First week of April
Final phase out of documents & completion of Third week of April
project
Plans for the TRANSITION phase
Transfer of DATA If data needs to be transferred for the existing
projects, it will be transferred by a LANI staff member during the
transition phase.
Training Manual The training manual will be prepared by the
team 577b during the first week of march. Much help will be
provided to the team 577b by the training manual provided by the
vendor.
Support The vendor is providing bug fixing in the software for
free and any additional features or modifications in the software
will cost $50 per hour. For support there will be only one point of
contact with the vendor.
For 577b Team
Artifacts- CAB, CAP & CAR. Also so that team 577b can have
better understanding of the system, the artifacts for the custom
development are also provided( OCD, SSRD, SSAD, LCP, FRD &
SID)
To aid Team 577b have a better understanding of the system, all of
the 577a team members have agreed to personally handover the
project to the team 577b through a transition meeting.
Assessment & Analysis
COTS Assessment Process
1 2
Define High Level COTS Absolute Analysis
Attributes based on Win- Identify possible COTS solution 3a
Win Negotiations Define Test
Procedures
3b
Perform Tests
&
Generate Test Results
3c
Substantiate the chosen COTS
product with evaluation scores
ASSESSMENT & ANALYSIS
Product Line Analysis
Explains how the Project manager GCT fit in for use in the LANI system.
Client Workstation
Project
Manager
GCT
LAN
Server
LAN Centralized
Client Workstation Database
Project
Manager
GCT
RISK MITIGATION
Risk Name: Failure of the server
Description: A failure in the Active Directory Server will affect the entire network and make
project manager gct useless.
Mitigation Plan: Mirror the AD server to a secondary server to serve as a backup in case the
primary server fails to avoid any client down time
Risk Name: COTS installation issues
Description:There might be some problems while installing the software on to the clients
side.
Mitigation Plan: We need to run the COTS demos on to the clients network.
RISK MITIGATION
Risk Name: COTS Vendor support
Description: In this case if there is lack of vendor support there might be significant delay in
the project deployment.
Mitigation Plan: The licensing of COTS products must account for vendor support
details.
Risk Name: Upgrading side-effects.
Description: Upgrading may result in re-tailoring of the COTS package.
Mitigation Plan: Ensure that features used to implement the capabilities still exist in the new
version before the upgrade.
Resources
Resources continued..
Hence the effort comes out to be 6.58 person
months , which satisfies our resources.
Thank You !
Questions???
COTS Assessment Report
Outline
• Background
• COTS Evaluation
• Evaluation Criteria
• Evaluation Results
• Business Case Analysis
•Cost analysis
•Benefits Analysis
•Return on Investment
- Mayank Agarwal
- Abhishek Mehta
Background
• Since at the end of the LCO Phase, a COTS Product on the basis
of cost & functionality, namely, Project Manager GCT was chosen
to be the solution for the client, the high level objectives of the
COTS Assessment has been to substantiate this choice and
provide results and conclusions.
• Hence, during the LCA Phase, a shift in track has occurred and
the documents have been shifted to COTS documents from the
earlier Lean MBASE documents.
• Therefore, a clean assessment of only the chosen COTS Product
has been carried out in an absolute manner. It has not been
compared to any other COTS Product due to time constraints.
COTS Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation
Criteria - COTS
S. No. Attributes Weight Rationale for assigning weights
1 Cost 20 Cost is an Independent variable for assessment
since the maximum available budget is $ 2000.
It is the most important criteria for assessing the
2 Functionality 50
COTS.
Product No performance requirements have been
3 5
performance specified.
Documentation Not much important since the software is very
4 5
Understandability basic.
Does not hold much importance since only the
5 Maturity of product 5
basic functionality is required.
Must provide support as clients do not have a
6 Vendor support 15 maintainer currently. The vendor must maintain
the software
Security is not a major concern. Basic login
7 Security 5
security must be provided
COTS Evaluation Criteria
Generally simple - not much scope for
8 Ease of use 10
complexity
Ease of Does not hold much importance since the
9 installation / 5 577 team or the Vendor would provide the
upgrade installation / upgrade.
Ease of Does not hold much importance since the
10 10
maintenance Vendor would provide the maintenance.
Evolutionary requirements are less. So this
11 Scalability 3
criterion does not hold much importance.
Since vendor is the maintainer, it is
Vendor
12 10 important that he remains in business for
viability/stability
the period the software will be used.
Evolutionary requirements are less. So this
13 Evolution Ability 3
criterion does not hold much importance.
Since this is a non-profit organization, a
Vendor
14 5 concession by the vendor is important to
Concessions
accommodate the costs within the budget.
COTS Feature Checklist
Importanc
e (from
Win Win
Report
v1.1) Weight* Features
The system should generate a project reconciliation report which lists all the
upto date transactions in a particular project viz. invoice details, draw details,
8.875 0.13 & check details.
3.875 0.06 The system should retain 10% of the allocated funds for a particular project.
The system should incorporate any change orders that may come up during
5.875 0.09 the course of a particular project
4.12 0.06 The system should generate a close out report at the end of each project
The system should generate a fund and budget summary sheet which gives
9.12 0.13 the summary of the funds spent out of the allocated budget
The system should maintain all the details( invoice details, check issue details,
8.75 0.13 draw request details, draw approval details)
COTS Feature Checklist
The system should incorporate multiple funding
organizations for each contract and multiple contracts for
8.5 0.12 each funding organization for a particular project.
The system should allow limited access to executive
director(read only rights to all the information and issue
6.87 0.10 checks right)
4.87 0.07 The system should maintain insurance log for each project
The system should provide a read only access to the project
7.625 0.11 manager for the executive director's payout details
68.48 1 = TOTAL
Features Evaluation Results
Weight* Features Rank Score Rationale
The system should generate a project
reconciliation report which lists all the upto date
transactions in a particular project viz. invoice Report is generated
0.13 details, draw details, & check details. 10 1.30 by the COTS.
The COTS provides
this functionality with
added benefit of
The system should retain 10% of the allocated modification of the %
0.06 funds for a particular project. 10 0.57 figure.
The system should incorporate any change
orders that may come up during the course of a Is provided by the
0.09 particular project 10 0.86 COTS
The system should generate a close out report Report is generated
0.06 at the end of each project 10 0.60 by the COTS.
The system should generate a fund and budget
summary sheet which gives the summary of the Report is generated
0.13 funds spent out of the allocated budget 10 1.33 by the COTS.
The system should maintain all the details(
invoice details, check issue details, draw Feature is provided by
0.13 request details, draw approval details) 9 1.15 the COTS.
Features Evaluation Results
The system should incorporate multiple Can be provided
funding organizations for each contract and after modifications
multiple contracts for each funding to the COTS
0.12 organization for a particular project. 5 0.62 Product.
Can be provided
The system should allow limited access to after modifications
executive director(read only rights to all the to the COTS
0.10 information and issue checks right) 6 0.60 Product.
Provides almost the
same functionality
with some different
The system should maintain insurance log name tags. Can be
0.07 for each project 7 0.50 modified.
Can be provided
The system should provide a read only after modifications
access to the project manager for the to the COTS
0.11 executive director's payout details 7 0.78 Product.
1 = TOTAL TOTAL 8.30
Evaluation Results
S. Weight (on
No Evaluation Criteria a scale of
. - COTS Attributes Weight 100) Rank Score Rationale for Rank
The cost of the COTS is well
1 Cost 20 13.2 9 119.2053 within the client's budget.
2 Functionality 50 33.1 8.3 274.8344 Refer to
Mostly bug free
Product performance. Quick
3 performance 5 3.3 7 23.17881 response.
Not much documentation
Documentation available. However, easy to
4 Understandability 5 3.3 5 16.55629 understand.
This is the first version of the
5 Maturity of product 5 3.3 0 0 product.
Vendor is ready to provide
support for bugs free of cost.
Maintenance charges are
6 Vendor support 15 9.9 6 59.60265 extra
Basic login functionality is
7 Security 5 3.3 5 16.55629 provided.
Evaluation Results
Pretty easy to use per client's
8 Ease of use 10 6.6 8 52.98013 feedback.
Ease of installation /
9 upgrade 5 3.3 8 26.49007 Basic .exe files are provided.
Vendor provides maintenance.
10 Ease of maintenance 10 6.6 6 39.7351 However, backups are easy.
Can be expanded to a certain
extent to incorporate evolving
11 Scalability 3 2.0 7 13.90728 features.
Vendor has a few other
products in the market with
frequent newer versions of
12 Vendor viability/stability 10 6.6 6 39.7351 each
Easy to add new features
since the COTS is based on
13 Evolution Ability 3 2.0 8 15.89404 MS Access.
14 Vendor Concessions 5 3.3 8 26.49007 Vendor has provided a
TOTAL: 151 100 725.16
Business Case Analysis
Costs Analysis
• Hardware is free
• Currently installed at the client’s site
• Software costs
• The COTS product cost is the only cost to the client.
• The cost of COTS has changed.
• One time cost has gone up while the recurring cost of
maintenance has been bargained and reduced.
Cost of COTS Product for 2 licenses $525
Therefore, Costs for procuring 6 licenses $1,575
Less 25% discount for Non Profit Organization $400
Net Cost of the COTS Product $1,175
Business Case Analysis
• Personnel Costs for Development and Transition
•Earlier we had targeted end of Fall 2006 as the completion
deadline.
•However due to delays in assessing the modifications required,
the implementation would be done in Spring 2007.
A Inception and Elaboration Time Invested (CS577a - Fall 2006) Hours
Preparation of requirements document for the developers & 4
1 prioritization
2 Discussion with the organization members on the requirements 3
3 Easy Win Win Sessions 4
Meetings with Full Team & Individual Members (4 hours time per
4 week for 12 weeks) 48
5 Email time (1 hr per week for 12 weeks) 12
6 Architecture Review Board(s) 6
Total (Inception and Elaboration Time) 77
Business Case Analysis
Construction and Transition Time Invested (CS577b - Spring
B 2007) Hours
Meetings with Full Team & Individual Members (5 hr per week for
1 12 weeks) 60
2 Email time (1 hr per week for 12 weeks) 12
3 Architecture Review Board(s) 6
4 Transition & Training (5hrs per member) 30
Total (Construction/Transition Time) 108
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT TIME (ONE TIME) 185
Assuming that each hour spent by the client is worth $ 40, we can
estimate the personnel cost for development phase to be: $ 185x40
= $ 7400
Hence total one time costs for 2006-07 = $ 1175 + $ 7400 = $ 8575.
Business Case Analysis
Operational & Maintenance Cost
Annual Maintenance Hours
Administrators' Maintenance Time - Granting rights,
1 managing accounts. (1 hr per week) 52
2 Working with maintenance team (1 hours per month) 12
Maintenance team's effort – (4 hours per month) -
Maintenance team is the same as the COTS Vendor- $ 50
3 per hour 48
4 Total (Maintenance Time) 112
Assuming each hour spent by the client is worth $ 40 and as quoted by
the Vendor, each hour spent in maintenance is worth $ 50, the
maintenance costs can be calculated as:
$ 52x40 + 12x40 + 48x50 = $ 4960 per annum.
Business Case Analysis
Maintenance Costs
• Bug fixing would be provided free of cost by the COTS Vendor.
• Hence, the maintenance would involve addition of features during the
course of usage & administrative maintenance.
Ho
C Annual Maintenance urs Amount
Administrators' Maintenance Time - Granting rights, managing
1 accounts. (1 hr per week) ($ 40 per hour) 52 $2,080
2 Working with maintenance team (1 hours per month) ( $ 40 per hour) 12 $480
Maintenance team's effort – (4 hours per month) - Maintenance team
3 is the same as the COTS Vendor- $ 50 per hour 48 $2,400
4 Total (Maintenance Time) 112 $4,960
Business Case Analysis
Benefits Analysis
• On a conservative estimate, the new software would save each staff member
at LANI at least 2 hours per week
•The savings per annum equals 2x6x52 = 624 person hours = $ 24960*
•Non financial benefits & Value added:
Some value is also added in the form of automated reports available for
marketing managers at LANI, which would help them in better fund raising.
*Assuming each staff member’s average cost per hour is $ 40
Business Case Analysis
ROI Analysis
Year ---> 2006 -
2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011
Costs(a) ($) 8575 4960 4960 4960 4960
Costs Paid for Externally (b) ($) 1175 2400 2400 2400 2400
Benefits ( c ) ($) 0 24960 24960 24960 24960
Net Costs ($) 8575 2400 2400 2400 2400
Net Benefit ( d = c - a - b ) ($) 0 17600 17600 17600 17600
Cum. Net Cost C ($) 8575 10975 13375 15775 18175
Cum. Net Benefit B ($) 0 17600 35200 52800 70400
ROI=Cum(B-C)/C -1.00 0.60 1.63 2.35 2.87
Business Case Analysis
R .O .I
R etrun on Inves tmnt (R O I)
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50 2006 - 2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011
-1.00
-1.50
Year
Business Case Analysis
- for COTS Product
Break Even Analysis
80000
70000
60000
50000
Benefits - Cost
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
2006 - 2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011
-10000
-20000
Year
Conclusions & Recommendation
Conclusion
Project Manager GCT is by far the most suited COTS Product
to suit the client’s requirements, within the available budget.
However, some critical functionality is missing in the COTS.
Recommendation
The COTS Product, Project Manager GCT can be modified by
the vendor to incorporate the critical functionality at a certain
charge. That would make it the most suitable COTS product for
the client.
Thank You !
Questions???
