CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10

Document Sample
CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10 Powered By Docstoc
					COTS Assessment Background                                     Version 7.10




      COTS Assessment Background (CAB)

       Pasadena High School Computer Network Study


                               Team # 3
        Ajithkumar Kattil           (Project Manager)
        Chris Yuan                  (Tester & Test Reviewer)
        Kunal Kadakia               (Business Process Analyst)
        Ashwin Kusabhadran          (Test Designer)
        Andrew Ha                   (Tester & Prototype)
        Devesh Thanvi               (Requirements Analyst)
        Vincent Chu                 (IV&V)
        Winston Kwong               (IV&V)
        Mrs. Jeanine Foote          (Client)
        Erin Shaw                   (Sponsor & Researcher)
        Pasadena High School        (Customer)




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10         I                                 12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                 Version 7.10

Version History
Date       Author        Version   Changes made
09/19/05   Andrew Ha,    1.0       Initial Draft Release
           Ajithkumar
09/19/05   Andrew Ha,    2.0       Made changes in the benefits chain, capability goals,
           Ajithkumar              ER diagram thus incorporating the Quality report.
09/30/05   Ajithkumar,   3.0       Changed the document format to COTS Assessment
           Kunal                   Background (CAB) to perform a COTS assessment
           Kadakia
09/30/05   Chris Yuan    3.1       Added Table of Contents, Table of Tables, Table of
                                   Figures
10/07/05   Ajithkumar,   4.0       Made changes in the Change Summary and the
           Kunal                   Benefits Chain sections as per the Quality Report
           Kadakia
                                   Added a more specific use-case diagram in Section
                                   3.2.3
10/07/05   Kunal         4.1       Made a table to represent the role, purpose,
           Kadakia                 responsibility and the interaction with other actors in
                                   Section 3.2.1
                                   Removed the non-artifacts from Section 3.2.2
10/07/05   Devesh        4.2       Made changes to the preconditions, post conditions
           Thanvi                  and the priorities in Section 3.2.3.X
10/19/05   Ajithkumar    5.0       Removed the Results chain and included Benefits
                                   chain after incorporating professor’s views given
           Ashwin                  during the ARB review.
           Kusabhadran             Made changes in the roles of team members to make it
                                   consistent with all artifacts ( ARB review feedback)
           Kunal
                                   Made changes in the key stakeholders roles and made
           Kadakia
                                   it consistent .( ARB review feedback)
                                   Measurable in LOS-3 has been changed (ARB review
                                   feedback)
                                   A new LOS (LOS-2) has been added
                                   Added a new project constraint PC-4 to section 2.4
                                   ( ARB review feedback)
                                   Revised the Artifacts diagram.
10/22/05   Chris Yuan    5.1       Revised TOC, TOT
10/23/05   Kunal         5.2       Revised Sections 2.1 (Results Chain Diagram), 2.2,
           Kadakia                 2.3, and section 5 (LOS-2: Relevant Section)
                                   Made changes in the COTS Assessment Boundary and
           Ashwin                  Environment Diagram
           Kusabhadran
                                   Maintained consistency in the roles of the
                                   stakeholders throughout the diagrams and tables
                                   present in the document.


CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                II                                      12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                   Version 7.10
Date       Author        Version   Changes made
10/25/05   Devesh        5.3       Revised Sections 1.1, 2.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3
           Thanvi
                                   Made appropriate changes in COTS Assessment
           Ashwin                  Boundary and Environment, Pre condition in section
           Kusabhadran             3.2.3.2, LOS 5(Section 5) and Artifact diagram
                                   (Section 3.2.2), based on IV&V Evaluations for LCO
           Ajithkumar              Draft
           Kattil
                                   Rearranged List of References in alphabetical order.
           Kunal
           Kadakia
11/10/05   Kunal         5.4       Revised Sections 3.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 4, 5 in order
           Kadakia                 to incorporate the IV & V comments on LCO Package

           Devesh
           Thanvi
11/20/05   Kunal         6.0       Revised Sections 1.1, 1.2, 2.1.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2.4, 4, 5 as
           Kadakia                 per the LCA Draft Quality Report

           Chris Yuan              Added Glossary section
11/27/05   Devesh        6.1       Revised Sections 1.2, 2.1.2, 2.2, 2.4, 3.2.1, 3.2.2,
           Thanvi                  3.2.3, 3.2.3.5, 3.2.3.7 & 5 to incorporate the TA’s
                                   comments on LCO Package
           Kunal
           Kadakia                 Revised Benefits Chain Diagram, System Boundary
                                   and Environment Diagram, Structure Diagram,
                                   Artifacts Diagram and Process Diagram to maintain
                                   consistency
11/30/05   Kunal         7.0       Revised Sections 3.2.3 & Section 5 to incorporate the
           Kadakia                 professor’s and TA’s comments given during LCA-
                                   ARB
           Ajithkumar
           Kattil
12/03/05   Ashwin        7.1       Revised Sections 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 4 & 5 to incorporate IV
           Kusabhadran             & V comments on LCA Draft

           Devesh
           Thanvi

           Kunal
           Kadakia




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10               III                                           12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                                                                                 Version 7.10


Table of Contents
VERSION HISTORY ....................................................................................................... II

TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................. IV

TABLE OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... V

TABLE OF FIGURES ................................................................................................... VII

1. Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................................8

      1.1 Purpose & Scope ..............................................................................................................................................8

      1.2 References ...................................................................................................................................................... 10

      1.3 Change Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 12

2. Overall System Objectives, Constraints, and Priorities ........................................................................................... 14

      2.1 System Objective Description ........................................................................................................................ 14

      2.2 Key Stakeholders ............................................................................................................................................ 17

      2.3 COTS Assessment Boundary and Environment ............................................................................................. 19

      2.4 Major Project constraints ................................................................................................................................ 20

3. Domain/Organization Description ........................................................................................................................... 24

      3.1 Organization Background ............................................................................................................................... 24

      3.2 Current Organization Environment ................................................................................................................ 26

4. Prioritized System Capabilities ................................................................................................................................ 43

5. Desired and Acceptable Levels of Service .............................................................................................................. 46

GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................. 53




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                                                       IV                                                                  12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                                                                               Version 7.10

Table of Tables
Table 1: Key Stakeholders ........................................................................................................................................... 18

Table 2: Limited Budget (PC-1) .................................................................................................................................. 20

Table 3: Limited Time (PC-2)...................................................................................................................................... 21

Table 4: Legacy servers and thin-client solution (PC-3)............................................................................................. 22

Table 5: Tangent Computers (PC-4) ........................................................................................................................... 23

Table 6: OG-1.............................................................................................................................................................. 25

Table 7: OG-2.............................................................................................................................................................. 25

Table 8: Organization Structure .................................................................................................................................. 28

Table 9: User & Administrator Profile (Artifact-01) .................................................................................................. 31

Table 10: User Manual (Artifact-02)........................................................................................................................... 31

Table 11 : Wyse Thin-client Network (Artifact-03) ..................................................................................................... 31

Table 12: TC-95 Server (Artifact-04) .......................................................................................................................... 32

Table 13: TC-96 Server (Artifact-05) .......................................................................................................................... 32

Table 14: Interactive Multimedia Applications (Artifact-06) ...................................................................................... 32

Table 15: Dedicated Server for Accelerated Reader Application (Artifact-07) .......................................................... 33

Table 16: Use Manual (Process 1) .............................................................................................................................. 35

Table 17: Maintain System (Process 2) ....................................................................................................................... 36

Table 18: Administer User Profile (Process 3) ........................................................................................................... 37

Table 19: Access Application Software (Process 4) .................................................................................................... 38

Table 20: Access Personalized Folders (Process 5) .................................................................................................... 39

Table 21: Software Evaluation (Process 6) ................................................................................................................. 40

Table 22: User Login Authentication (Process 7) ....................................................................................................... 41

Table 23: Thin client multimedia capability (CAP-1) ................................................................................................. 43

Table 24: Integrated network solution (CAP-2) .......................................................................................................... 44

CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                                                       V                                                                 12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                                                                      Version 7.10
Table 25: Network Load balancing (CAP-3) ............................................................................................................... 44

Table 26: Symmetric multiprocessing enabled (SMP) (CAP-4) .................................................................................. 45

Table 27: System Performance (LOS-1) ...................................................................................................................... 46

Table 28: CPU Usage (LOS-2).................................................................................................................................... 47

Table 29: Resource Availability (LOS-3) .................................................................................................................... 48

Table 30: System Login Time (LOS-4) ........................................................................................................................ 49

Table 31: Windows Platform Compatibility (LOS-5) .................................................................................................. 50

Table 32: Stakeholder Roles / Level of Service Concerns Relationship ...................................................................... 52




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                                                 VI                                                            12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                                                                          Version 7.10


Table of Figures
Figure 1: Benefits Chain Representation of PHS Computer Network Study ............................................................... 16

Figure 2: PHS System Boundary and Environment.................................................................................................... 19

Figure 3: Structure Diagram ....................................................................................................................................... 26

Figure 4: Artifacts Diagram ........................................................................................................................................ 30

Figure 5: Process Diagram ......................................................................................................................................... 34




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                                                   VII                                                              12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                   Version 7.10


1. Introduction
The project under consideration is Pasadena High School (PHS) Computer Network
Study which involves an analysis of the existing thin client network infrastructure at
PHS.
Pasadena High School needs a powerful server system to host and serve multimedia
intensive learning applications (such as Wayang Outpost, and Renaissance Place) in their
library and computer lab. The proposed new system will provide support for 40 plus thin
clients that will allow students to work simultaneously on the high-end multimedia
interactive applications. This system design, consisting of main servers and multiple thin
client stations will provide a low cost solution that would facilitate easy deployment and
necessitate minimal maintenance.
So, as per our client’s requirements, we realized that we need to build a system with the
pre-existing infrastructure at PHS and with the current COTS vendor – Tangent
Computer, with which the client is currently associated. Thus keeping the goals and
constraints imposed by our client, we decided to make use of a COTS based system as it
would involve less development time and lower development cost by taking advantage of
the other existing market driven, vendor supported products.

1.1 Purpose & Scope
This section summarizes the purpose of the CAB document, the scope of the COTS
assessment, and identifies the project stakeholders and possible COTS candidates.
The purpose of the document is to provide an essential set of objectives, constraints,
priorities, and organization background needed to perform COTS based assessment for
the Pasadena High School Computer Network.
Its scope covers the COTS assessment aspects of the PHS network system like
multimedia capabilities, network bandwidth, different network topologies and network
configurations.


Project Stakeholders
       Users – Students and Faculty members at Pasadena High School

       Customer – Pasadena High School (PHS)

       Client / Administrator– Jeanine Foote,

       Librarian at Pasadena High School

       Evaluators – CS577A Team 3,

       Students at University of Southern California (USC)


CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                     8                                    12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                  Version 7.10

       Sponsor & Researcher – Erin Shaw,

       Researcher at Center for Advanced Research in Technology for Education
       Information Sciences Institute at USC
       IV & V – Vincent Chu & Winston Kwong

       Review the COTS assessment documents and provide the evaluators with COTS
       assessment process feedback through peer review.
       COTS vendor/ COTS experts/ Authorized Representatives –

       Louise O’ Sullivan, Sales Department, Tangent Computer

       Provides COTS information such as functionality, performance, price model and
       possible future evolution of various COTS products.
       System Maintainer –
       Nick Haddad, Tech. Support Department at Tangent Computer
       Maintain the existing system and provide information and help concerning the
       COTS system, trial version (if available) and integration issues with the existing
       Wyse terminals etc.


The list of current COTS candidates selected so far are: Tangent Computer, Wyse,
Citrix Solutions, Sun thin client solutions, Neoware and HP.
CAB will provide a clear and concise documentation to the stakeholders and will ensure
that the current evaluation of the PHS Computer Network is understood correctly. The
CAB will also provide a clear understanding of how the stakeholders will interact with
the system and with each other.




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                    9                                    12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                    Version 7.10

1.2 References
      Citrix solutions (Thin client solution vendor):

      http://www.citrix.com/

      CS577a Archive-Fall 2004:

      http://greenbay.usc.edu/csci577/fall2004/projects/team14/LCO/CAB_LCO_F04a_T14_V
      06.00.pdf

      Easy WinWin Negotiation:

      http://greenbay.usc.edu/csci577/fall2005/projects/team3/LCA/EWW_LCA_F05a_T03_V
      03.0.pdf

      Guidelines for producing COTS Assessment Background, Process and
      Report documents:

      http://greenbay.usc.edu/csci577/fall2005/site/guidelines/CBA-AssessmentIntensive.pdf

      Information Sciences Institute:

      http://www.isi.edu/

      Pasadena High School:

      http://www.pasadena.k12.ca.us/staticpages/index.php?page=20030825101158969

      Renaissance Place (Accelerated Reader program):

      http://www.renlearn.com/RenaissancePlace/default.htm

      Tangent Computer (Company that provides servers to PHS and also
      maintains the students’ databases for them):

      http://www.tangent.com/

      Wayang Outpost, USC - ISI developed a flash-based software for online SAT
      and Geometry:

      http://kulit.isi.edu/




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                     10                                     12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                             Version 7.10

      Wyse Thin Client Specification:

      http://www.wyse.com/service/discontd/winterm/wint3000/3230.asp




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                 11                                12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                      Version 7.10

1.3 Change Summary
Version     Changes made
1.0         Initial Draft Release
2.0         Made changes in section 2.3 benefits chain, section 3.1 capability goals, and
            section 3.2.1 ER diagram thus incorporating the Quality report.
3.0         Changed the document format to COTS Assessment Background (CAB) to
            perform a COTS assessment
            The OCD version 2.0 was changed to the CAB version 3.0 to satisfy the
            Guidelines for COTS Assessment-intensive project    since the PHS
            Network Study is a COTS Assessment activity.
3.1         Added Table of Contents, Table of Tables, Table of Figures
4.0         Made changes in the Change Summary and the Benefits Chain sections as per
            the Quality Report
            Added a more specific use-case diagram in Section 3.2.3
4.1         Made a table to represent the role, purpose, responsibility and the interaction
            with other actors in Section 3.2.1
            Removed the non-artifacts from Section 3.2.2
4.2         Adjusted the preconditions, post conditions and the priorities in Section 3.2.3.X
5.0         Removed the Results chain and included Benefits chain after incorporating
            professor’s views given during the ARB review.
            Made changes in the roles of team members to make it consistent with all
            artifacts and taking the ARB feedback.
            Made changes in the key stakeholders roles and made it consistent.( ARB
            review feedback)
            Measurable in LOS-3 has been changed (ARB review feedback)
            Added a new project constraint PC-4 to section 2.4 ( ARB review feedback)
5.1         Revised table of contents and table of tables
5.2         Fixed the inconsistency between section 2.2 key stakeholder and 2.3 system
            boundary and environment diagram.
            Revised the Results Chain Diagram (Section 2.1.2)
            Added in Section 5: LOS-2 – Relevant.
            Also revised Section 5: LOS-5. Removed the inconsistency between CAB and
            CAP document.
5.3         Revised Sections 1.1 and 2.1
            Revised the Artifacts diagram and made changes in process numbers to keep the
            consistency between the Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3. Revised the pre condition of
            Section 3.2.3.2 and PHS system boundary and environment diagram
            Made changes in the Structure diagram (Section 3.2.1) to maintain consistency
            between stakeholder roles and diagram.
            Rearranged the List of References in alphabetical order.




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                    12                                       12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                          Version 7.10

Version     Changes made
5.4         Revised Sections 3.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 4, 5 in order to incorporate the IV & V
            comments on LCO Package


6.0         Revised Sections 1.1, 1.2, 2.1.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2.4, 4, 5 as per the LCA Draft
            Quality Report


6.1         Revised Sections 1.2, 2.1.2, 2.2, 2.4, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.3.5, 3.2.3.7 & 5 to
            incorporate the TA’s comments on LCO Package

            Revised Benefits Chain Diagram, System Boundary and Environment Diagram,
            Structure Diagram, Artifacts Diagram and Process Diagram to maintain
            consistency
7.0         Revised Sections 3.2.3 & Section 5 to incorporate the professor’s and TA’s
            comments given during LCA-ARB
7.1         Revised Sections 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 4 & 5 to incorporate IV & V comments on LCA
            Draft




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                      13                                         12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                   Version 7.10


2. Overall System Objectives, Constraints,
and Priorities
For COTS intensive projects, Overall System Objectives, Constraints & Priorities work
not only as the shared vision among all stakeholders, but also as the basis from which the
COTS evaluation criteria and testing scenarios are established. Since this is a COTS
assessment intensive project involving evaluation of different COTS based thin client
solutions, there is a high degree of requirements flexibility.
In this project, Pasadena High School has already got a network system set up in their
library which is running with the support of an existing thin client COTS vendor, Tangent
Computer. The client wants Team 3 to evaluate the existing thin-client network and
suggest solutions to improve the performance of the network.

Since this is a COTS assessment intensive project, the details of the Overall System
Objectives, Constraints & Priorities may need to be modified at every assessment cycle
and it is very important to keep the Overall System Objectives, Constraints & Priorities
clearly stated so that the COTS assessment can start with the essential set and the
stakeholders can negotiate and reexamine them when reviewing intermediate assessment
results. This way, the Overall System Objectives, Constraints & Priorities can be refined
continuously as the assessment goes on.

2.1 System Objective Description
This section provides a concise description of the system objectives with focus on critical
system capabilities in terms of customer’s needs, and relating them to evaluation criteria.
Our client from Pasadena High School needs a high performance computer network
system solution. It should support multimedia learning applications (such as Wayang
Outpost, and Renaissance Place) in their library and also help the students and staff
members in their interactive learning process. Our project would evaluate the existing
network and investigate the feasibility of different COTS packages (such as Tangent
Computer thin client solution, Citrix Meta frame solution - developed by Citrix etc.) and
verify if the capabilities of the system satisfy the requirements of the client. Our final
COTS recommendation to the client would be a report of different prototypes (as per the
client’s request) on the basis of the different tests conducted by the team on the system
and also by evaluating the cost benefit analysis of the different prototypes. A report
showing the degree to which the capabilities of the implemented system satisfy the
requirements of the client will also be presented.




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                     14                                   12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                 Version 7.10

2.1.1 Benefits Realized
The benefits realized by the successful completion of the PHS network study are as
follows. This, in turn, also represents our project goals –

      Enable 40 plus concurrent users to access high-end multimedia applications such
       as Wayang Outpost, Geometry-based learning software using the thin-client
       network, which will provide a better learning environment.
      Allow the students to access the Accelerated Reader application from the existing
       thin-client network rather than having a dedicated server and separate
       workstations for that application, which will provide better availability and
       improve resource utilization.
      Reduce the user’s login time and application launch time, thereby increasing the
       productivity of the users.

      Present a Cost Benefit Analysis of different prototypes on the basis of ROI
       (Return of Investment) so that PHS can have a much clear vision of their
       evolutionary goals.




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                   15                                   12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                                                                Version 7.10

2.1.2 Benefits Chain

       Assumptions:
       1.      The changes in multimedia technology in the future will be supported by thin-clients.
       2.      The selected COTS product is proved cost effective and also in compliance with the
               client’s requirements.
       3.      OC &P’s are flexible enough to match with the selected COTS features.


                              Decisions based on
                              different evaluation                                                   Increased performance and
                              attributes for selection                 Cost/ Benefit analysis        improved services at lower
                              of COTS product                                 report                            cost
                                                                                                                            1.        Increased Return of
                                                                        Best
                                                 1. Evaluators provide a solution selected                                            Investments for PHS
                                                    report to the clientby PHS
      Better understanding of
                                                  based on the different                                                    2.        Lower Total cost of
       system requirements                                                                 Increased network
                                                 tests performed on the                                                               ownership for PHS
       and capabilities and                                                                   utilization &
                                                      COTS products
       better project vision                                                                 increased user
                                                  2. Recommendations                           satisfaction                 3.        Better learning
                                                 are given that propose                                                               experience for
                                                     the best solution                                                                students


                                                                                                         Faster login, simultaneous               Improved network
                    Detailed                                       Filtering of available                user access for multimedia               infrastructure
                    assessment                                     COTS                                          applications
                                                                                                                                 1.      PHS implements the
                                                                                                                                         solution in different
                                                                                                                                         phases
                                                   Assess different COTS                                                         2.      Present results to the
            Evaluate the existing                       products, their                         PHS implements the                       budgetary board to get
             thin client network               cost/features/compatibility and                       solution                            more funds
                                                        other benefits                                                           3.      Move to the next phase
                                                                                                                                         as recommended in the
                                                                                                                                         evolutionary process




                 Client/Administrator                    COTS experts,                          Evaluators, COTS                      Customer (PHS), Users
                 , Evaluators, IV&V,                     System Maintainer,                     experts, Client
                 Sponsor &                               Evaluators and
                 Researcher                              IV&V




KEY LEGEND: Circle – Outcome, Rectangle-- Initiative, Parallelogram – Stakeholders

GLOSSARY: OC& P ------- Objectives, Constraints and Priorities


              Figure 1: Benefits Chain Representation of PHS Computer Network Study




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                                                16                                                         12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                  Version 7.10

2.2 Key Stakeholders
     Stakeholders          Organization               Role in Benefits Chain
 Evaluators – Team 3        University of       Explore different solutions/products
                         Southern California          through market survey
   Ajithkumar Kattil
                               (USC)
      Chris Yuan                                 Have a regular Q&A session with
                                                          COTS vendors
      Andrew Ha
                                                  Evaluate different COTS vendor
    Devesh Thanvi                                             solutions
    Kunal Kadakia                                 Perform Cost benefit analysis and
 Ashwin Kusabhadran                             provide a final evaluation report with
                                                          recommendations

Client / Administrator                           Provide feedback to solve domain
                                                        specific problems.
  Mrs. Jeanine Foote       Pasadena High
                               school          Helps in reconciling conflicts between
                                               COTS product and desired OC & P’s
                                                     during COTS assessment
                                               Beneficiaries of the evaluation process.
      Customer             Pasadena High       Beneficiaries of the evaluation process.
                               school
 Pasadena High School                          Customer will get benefits of increased
        (PHS)                                   return of investment, and lower Total
                                                    cost of investment with better
                                                       reputation for the school
         Users                                 Beneficiaries of the new system with a
                                                     better learning experience
  Students and Faculty     Pasadena High
       members                 school          Involved in the evaluation process by
                                                providing COTS usage information
                                                    ( if trial version is available)



   COTS Vendors/                                 Provide COTS information such as
                                                  functionality, performance, price
    COTS experts/        Sales Department at
                                                  model, possible future evolution,
      Authorized         Tangent Computer         compatibility/upgradeability etc.
    representatives
   Louise O’Sullivan




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                 17                                      12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                Version 7.10


     Sponsor &                  ISI           Have multiple roles of a Sponsor and a
     Researcher                                            Researcher
      Erin Shaw                                  Initiates the project by hosting the
                                                    Wayang Outpost multimedia
                                                application and providing it to PHS.
                                                Provides valuable inputs about the
                                                various system analysis conducted
                                                             before.


  System Maintainer     Tech. Support              Provides information and help
                        Department at           concerning the COTS system, a trial
     Nick Haddad
                       Tangent computer        version (if available) and the different
                                                 integration issues with the existing
                                                         Wyse terminals etc.

       IV & V            University of            Review the COTS assessment
                      Southern California      documents and provide the evaluators
     Vincent Chu
                                                  with COTS assessment process
         &                                        feedback through peer review.
    Winston Kwong


                             Table 1: Key Stakeholders




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                 18                                    12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                                                        Version 7.10

2.3 COTS Assessment Boundary and Environment




                                                                                                      Critical Interfacing System (ISI)
                                                                                                                 <<system>>
                                         System Maintainer(Nick Haddad, Tech.Support
                                               Department, Tangent Computers)




        Evaluators (CS577a Team-3)

                                                     <<System>>
                                                     Pasadena High School Network
                                                     Thin Client Multimedia Capability <<service>>
                                                     Integrated Network Solution <<service>>
                                                     Network Load Balancing <<service>>
                                                     Symmetric Multiprocessing Enabled <<service>>
                                                                                                                      Customer (Pasadena High School)
      Sponsor and Researcher(Erin Shaw)




                                                                                                                           IV & V



        Client/Admnistartor (Jeanine Foote)   COTS experts/ COTS Vendors (Sales Dept.,
                                                                                            Users (Students, Facluty members)
                                                       Tangent Computers)




                        Figure 2: PHS System Boundary and Environment




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                                       19                                                        12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                             Version 7.10

2.4 Major Project constraints


Identifier:                              PC -1
Name :                                   Limited budget for server and client
                                         maintenance.
Description :                            The Customer can afford a budget of only
                                         $3000 per year for server and client
                                         maintenance.
                                         Also the budget for capital investment has
                                         not been allocated
Influence on COTS Assessment :           While doing the COTS assessment, we
                                         need to filter out those COTS products
                                         that         involve        a        high
                                         setup/installation/upgrading cost as well
                                         as those that may require a high
                                         maintenance cost.
Measurable :                             In order to adhere to this, we need to
                                         ensure that the COTS product that we
                                         recommend must fall within their budget.
                                         Measured through the budget reviews
                                         with client / Administrator.
Relevant :                               COTS products are selected based on this
                                         budget criterion.
Specific :                               Budget for server and client maintenance
                                         should not exceed more than $3000 a
                                         year.

                         Table 2: Limited Budget (PC-1)




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10               20                                   12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                              Version 7.10




Identifier:                              PC -2
Name :                                   Limited time
Description :                            The project must be completed within 12
                                         weeks which is the duration of our
                                         semester.


Influence on COTS Assessment :           There may not be sufficient time to
                                         evaluate and assess different COTS
                                         products. Also there are few vendors who
                                         are coming up with very cost-effective
                                         thin client products within the next couple
                                         of months as per the current network
                                         analysis, and thus due to limited time
                                         these products cannot be considered. The
                                         demo version of the software is not
                                         available from vendors in such a short
                                         notice which preclude these vendors from
                                         our list.
Measurable :                             To adhere to this, we need to keep a count
                                         on the number of weeks spent for this
                                         project. Also we need to define and
                                         monitor each milestone and project
                                         deadline.
Relevant :                               Few COTS product would be evaluated as
                                         per minimum system requirements.
Specific :                                We may not be able to provide the best
                                         techno- commercially viable solution.

                          Table 3: Limited Time (PC-2)




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10               21                                    12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                 Version 7.10



Identifier:                                 PC -3
Name :                                      Legacy servers and thin client solution
Description :                               The proposed solution should integrate
                                            properly with the existing TC-95 and
                                            TC-96 servers and the Wyse thin client
                                            terminals, where:
                                            TC-95 is the Application Server where all
                                            the applications and software are loaded.
                                            TC-96 is the Authentication Server where
                                            the authentication of the users takes place.

                                            Wyse thin Clients (Winterm 3230LE)
Influence on COTS Assessment :
                                            have been discontinued by the
                                            manufacturer.

                                            Need to evaluate different COTS thin
                                            client products which can fully integrate
                                            with the legacy system and are 100%
                                            compatible.


Measurable :                                Measured by checking the compatibility
                                            of Legacy Servers (TC-95 & TC-96) with
                                            the new server ( named as TC-97) and
                                            also with the new Wyse thin-client
                                            terminals (that might be incorporated in
                                            the future)
Relevant :                                  Filter out the available COTS thin client
                                            solutions that are not compatible with the
                                            legacy system in COTS selection criteria.
Specific :                                  The present thin client Wyse box may not
                                            be compatible with the different COTS
                                            products like Tangent WebDT 166 or
                                            winterm V90.
                                            Different COTS product may have higher
                                            system requirement than legacy servers.

                Table 4: Legacy servers and thin-client solution (PC-3)




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                   22                                    12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                             Version 7.10



Identifier:                             PC -4
Name :                                  Current COTS vendor-Tangent Computer
Description :                           The client wants to continue with the
                                        current vendor, Tangent Computer and
                                        has clearly stated this during the WinWin
                                        negotiations.


Influence on COTS Assessment :          During the COTS assessment, the
                                        evaluators have to give more priority to
                                        the solutions that are being offered by the
                                        Tangent Computer.
                                        The range of COTS products that need to
                                        be being assessed are narrowed down due
                                        to this constraint.
                                        Also the client will be dependent on
                                        Tangent Computer for all future issues.
Measurable :                            We can make a list of different COTS
                                        solutions which we can use in the first
                                        level of assessment before applying this
                                        constraint and compare it with the list of
                                        COTS solutions after taking the constraint
                                        into consideration.
Relevant :                              We are filtering out those COTS thin
                                        client solution that are not being offered
                                        by Tangent Computer.
Specific :                              Tangent Computer promotes Wyse thin
                                        clients. Because of this constraint many
                                        other solutions in the market cannot be
                                        chosen.

                       Table 5: Tangent Computers (PC-4)




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10               23                                   12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                   Version 7.10


3. Domain/Organization Description
This section describes the domain/organization and specifies the organization goals.

3.1 Organization Background
Organization that will be users of the system
The new system will be used by the Pasadena High School. Our client Jeanine Foote is
the Librarian at Pasadena High School. The Pasadena High school’s library was started as
a result of the Digital Library Fund provided by the Pasadena Unified School District
(PUSD).


Organization that will be maintaining the system
Founded in 1989, Tangent has over 16 years of experience, focused on delivering
innovative computer products and technology solutions. Their customers include more
than 350 universities and colleges, 2,490 school districts, and 430 government agencies
and corporations. Tangent solutions include Spam filtering, Anti-Spyware/Adware
solutions, Network Vulnerability assessments, Active Directory tools, Migration services,
and SIF integration. Tangent Thin Client network offers a manageable computing
solution. Processing power, security, and applications are centralized on the server, where
functions are managed and data is stored.


Organization sponsoring the COTS assessment of the system

Over the last 30 years, the University of Southern California's Information Sciences
Institute (ISI) has emerged as one of the world's leading research centers in the fields of
computer science and information technology. ISI has long been a major contributor to
the nation's information technology knowledge base, and is actively engaged in a broad
spectrum of information processing research, as well as being heavily involved in the
development of advanced computer and communication technologies.




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                     24                                    12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                   Version 7.10

Organization Goals
Pasadena High School’s mission is to provide rigorous education in an environment that
engages and empowers all children to become lifelong learners. This project was
instantiated by the department as a means to achieve and further their organization goals.
We can list the organization goals for the school as follows.


 Goal Identifier:     OG-1
 Organization         To provide the best learning experience for the students by
 Goal:                providing effective technology and communication infrastructure
                      in the school.
 Description:         To provide the necessary resources in order to ensure an optimal
                      environment for teaching and learning and for achieving
                      academic success.
 Measurable:          Newer and better technologies to solve the throughput problems
                      of the computer network and provide students with latest
                      software.
 Relevant:            Being able to provide an effective technology and
                      communication infrastructure would result in a better learning
                      environment, which in turn, would increase the student
                      satisfaction.

                                      Table 6: OG-1


 Goal Identifier:     OG-2
 Organization         To raise the ranking of the school by investing in the current
 Goal:                infrastructure and thereby increasing the standard of education.
 Description:         The better IT infrastructure would not only improve the standard
                      of education but it would in turn increase the credibility of the
                      school among the students, parents and the entire community.
                      The students and faculties will be able to access various
                      interactive educational applications such as Wayang Outpost
                      which would provide a much improved learning experience.
 Measurable:          Through the feedback from the students, faculties, parents and
                      community by conducting surveys.
 Relevant:            Being able to provide a better learning environment would
                      increase the prestige and the ranking of the school.

                                      Table 7: OG-2




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                    25                                    12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                                           Version 7.10

3.2 Current Organization Environment
The current organization environment can be shown by the following sub sections.

3.2.1. Structure
The system shall interact with current workers and outside actors. The current workers of
the organization are the Sponsor & Researcher, System Maintainer and Administrator
(Client). The users play the outside actor. The users can be classified as the Students and
Faculty members.




                                                                                <<communicate>>




                                                                                                              Sponsor & Researcher




                                                                : <<System>>
                            <<communicate>>     Thin Client Multimedia Capability <<service>      <<communicate>>
                                                Integrated Network Solution <<service>>
                                                Network Load Balancing <<service>>
                                                Symmetric Multiprocessing Enabled <<service>>

                    Users                                                                                      System Maintainer


                                                                        <<communicate>>




                                                             Client/Administrator


       Students
                              Faculty members




                                   Figure 3: Structure Diagram




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                                26                                                 12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                       Version 7.10


Actor/role               Purpose/ Responsibility                   Interactions
                         Users can be students and faculty Users interact with the
3.2.1.1                  members.                               system     for    different
Users                                                           purposes depending on their
                         They will have different access rights
                                                                roles.
                         and privileges granted to them by
                         administrator.
3.2.1.1.1                Students are a specialization of the Students communicate with
                         User group.                               the faculty members using
Students                                                           the chat facility provided in
                         Student’s responsibility is to study, for
                                                                   the interactive learning
                         which they need to use this system.
                                                                   software.
                         They have only limited access rights Also    students    may
                         and privileges.                      communicate with faculty
                                                              members by email.
                         They can access all educational
                         software and other academic tools
                         installed on the network.
                         Each student is allocated a fixed disk
                         quota and will be granted only read and
                         write permissions on the data that is
                         stored in their folder.
3.2.1.1.2                Faculty members are a specialization Faculties communicate with
                         of the User group.                        the students using the chat
Faculty members                                                    facility provided in the
                         Faculties’ responsibility is to teach the
                                                                   interactive          learning
                         students, for which they need to use
                                                                   software.
                         this system.
                                                                   Also       faculties     may
                         They have their own access rights and
                                                                   communicate with students
                         privileges.
                                                                   by email.
                         They have a fixed disk quota.
                                                                   Faculties interact with the
                         They not only have read but also have administrator for obtaining
                         write permissions to the academic certain               rights      and
                         materials available.                      privileges.
                                                              Also faculties interact with
                                                              administrator when new
                                                              student leader or monitor
                                                              has been selected and
                                                              special rights need to be
                                                              granted to him/her.
                                                              Administrator grants certain
3.2.1.2              Administrator’s responsibility is to
                                                              rights to faculties and
                     monitor the various student activities
Client/Administrator and grant different access rights to the communicates with them.
                     users.                                   Administrator grant rights
                                                              or privileges to certain
                     Here the administrator is the librarian.
                                                              students like class monitor,


CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                     27                                       12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                 Version 7.10

                     All the user accounts are set up by the team leader etc.
                     librarian.
                                                             Administrator sends system
                     It is also the duty of the librarian to warning messages to all
                     assign user names and password to all users in case of any routine
                     the users of the system.                procedures like software
                                                             upgrades,         hardware
                                                             maintenance etc.
3.2.1.3              The system maintainer is responsible Communicates with the
                     for troubleshooting the system.       administrator regarding any
System Maintainer                                          issues with troubleshooting.
                     He will be responsible for all the
                     upgrades and any evolutionary changes
                     that may be required.
                     Here the maintainer is a part of
                     Tangent and all the database
                     maintenance is done remotely.



3.2.1.4              The sponsors & researchers at USC are    The sponsors & researchers
                     evaluating their software on the         interact       with       the
Sponsor &            Pasadena High School Computer            administrator and give
Researcher           network.                                 feedback     on     software
                                                              evaluation in the system.
                     During evaluations, the sponsors &
                     researchers have the responsibility to
                     give their feedback if the current
                     system is not capable enough to handle
                     their software. In this project, the
                     current system is not capable of
                     handling      high-end     multimedia
                     applications.




                        Table 8: Organization Structure




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                28                                       12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                    Version 7.10

3.2.2 Artifacts
The Artifacts diagram, shown below describes the current artifacts (e.g. documents,
products, resources) inspected, manipulated, or produced by the organization, and the
relation among the artifacts.
The client has provided Team 3 with the specification documents of TC-95 (Application
Server), TC-96(Authentication Sever) and Wyse Thin-client network. These artifacts not
only document the hardware and software specifications of these servers and thin-client
network, but also provide us with the different price quotations given by the COTS
vendor-Tangent Computer to our client.
So, in our project, these documents serve as the current artifacts for the TC-95, TC-96
servers and Wyse thin-client network. But as these servers and thin-client network can
also be considered as the current resources of the organization. Therefore, considering
both the aspects of the TC-95, TC-96 servers and thin-client network i.e. being
represented in the form of specification documents as well as resources of the
organization, we have modeled the relationship between these servers and thin-client
network as shown below.
The same aspects need to be considered for the Dedicated Server for Accelerated Reader
Application. The only way that this server differs from the other two TC servers is that it
is not integrated into the current system.
In case of Interactive Multimedia Applications (Hosted by ISI), the details of all the
applications such as Wayang Outpost, Choices etc. are provided by the client in the form
of documents, and thus, these documents model the artifacts related to the Interactive
Multimedia Applications.




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                     29                                    12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                 Version 7.10




                             Figure 4: Artifacts Diagram



CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                  30                   12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                   Version 7.10

3.2.2.1 Administrator & User Profile (Artifact-01)

             Description                   The user & administrator profiles stored in
                                           the database are used to authenticate the
                                           users and the administrator. For example,
                                           the user profile is checked during the login
                                           process to check if the user has been
                                           registered to use the system.
             Attributes                    Username, Password
  System behavior using the artifact       Process 7

                  Table 9: User & Administrator Profile (Artifact-01)




3.2.2.2 User Manual (Artifact-02)

             Description                   The user manual provides instructions and
                                           guidelines on how to use the system. This
                                           manual is also available in the form of
                                           offline help pages.
              Attributes                   None
  System behavior using the artifact       Process 1

                           Table 10: User Manual (Artifact-02)

3.2.2.3 Wyse Thin-Client Network (Artifact-03)


             Description                   This resource forms the existing thin-client
                                           network at Pasadena High School. It consists
                                           of 40 terminals and two servers:
                                           Authentication    Server    (TC-96)     and
                                           Application Server (TC-95).
             Attributes                    Number of         terminals   connected     &
                                           Throughput
  System behavior using the artifact       Process 2, Process 4, Process 6

                  Table 11 : Wyse Thin-client Network (Artifact-03)




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                    31                                   12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                   Version 7.10

3.2.2.4 TC-95 Server (Artifact-04)


             Description                   TC-95 is the Application Server where all
                                           the applications and software are loaded.
             Attributes                    Server_name, Server_type, Processor speed,
                                           Memory, Disk capacity, Graphics Card
  System behavior using the artifact       Process 2, Process 4, Process 6

                           Table 12: TC-95 Server (Artifact-04)

3.2.2.5 TC-96 Server (Artifact-05)


             Description                   TC-96 is the Authentication Server where
                                           the authentication of the users takes place
                                           while logging in to the terminals in the
                                           library as well as to the terminals in the
                                           computer laboratory.


             Attributes                    Server_name, Server_type, Processor speed,
                                           Memory, Disk capacity, Graphics Card
  System behavior using the artifact       Process 2, Process 6, Process 7

                           Table 13: TC-96 Server (Artifact-05)

3.2.2.6 Interactive Multimedia Applications (Artifact-06)


             Description                    This consists of various software
                                            applications such as Wayang Outpost,
                                            Typing Tutorial and CHOICES applications
             Attributes                     Type of Application
  System behavior using the artifact        Process 4, Process 6

              Table 14: Interactive Multimedia Applications (Artifact-06)




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                    32                                    12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                 Version 7.10

3.2.2.7 Dedicated Server for Accelerated Reader Application
         (Artifact-07)

             Description                  This resource is dedicated only for
                                          Accelerated Reader application. This
                                          resource is not connected to TC-95 & TC-
                                          96. It is an independent server.
              Attributes                  Processor Speed, Memory, Disk Capacity,
                                          Graphics Card
  System behavior using the artifact      Process 4

      Table 15: Dedicated Server for Accelerated Reader Application (Artifact-07)




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                   33                                    12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                                      Version 7.10


3.2.3 Processes
The Process Diagram describes the operational processes within the current organization
that are used to fulfill its business goals. For each process, the workers and outside actors
that participate in the process are identified and also the artifacts that are inspected,
manipulated or produced by the process are identified.




        Access Application   Access Personalized
                                                   User Login   Use Manual
            Software               Folders




                             Users                                              Administrator/Client




                                                                  Administer User Profile         User Login




     Faculty Members                               Students

                                                                                                          Software Evaluation

                                                                      Sponsor & Researcher




        System Maintainer                 Maintain System




                                                                             User Login




            User Login




                                       Figure 5: Process Diagram




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                               34                                               12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                 Version 7.10

3.2.3.1 Use Manual

Refer to the user manual to gain more information on the features of the system and how
to use them.


 Identifier                               Process 1
 Use-Case Name                            Use Manual


 Purpose                                  This process allows the users to refer to the
                                          user manual.
 Priority                                 Medium
 Flexibility                              Nice-to-Have
 Worker or Outside Actor                  Users
 Pre-Conditions                           The user may not have information or
                                          instructions on using the applications
                                          installed on the system.
 Post-Conditions                          The user has gained information from the
                                          manual.
 Actions Performed                        Read the manual.



                           Table 16: Use Manual (Process 1)




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                   35                                   12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                 Version 7.10

3.2.3.2 Maintain System

Maintain the existing system and perform periodic updates.


 Identifier                               Process 2
 Use-Case Name                            Maintain System
 Purpose                                  This process allows the system maintainer to
                                          troubleshoot the existing system and perform
                                          periodic updates such as updating the
                                          administrator & user profiles.
 Priority                                 High
 Flexibility                              Must-have
 Worker or Outside Actor                  System Maintainer
 Pre-Conditions                           The system has developed some problems
                                          and      is    malfunctioning   or  the
                                          administrator/user profiles need to be
                                          updated.
                                          The system maintainer needs to understand
                                          the system completely.
                                          The vendors should provide the steps to be
                                          followed for performing periodic updates.
 Post-Conditions                          After troubleshooting or updating, the system
                                          returns to the normal operation mode.
 Actions Performed                        Perform periodic updates and troubleshoot
                                          the system, when necessary.

                         Table 17: Maintain System (Process 2)




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                   36                                   12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                    Version 7.10

3.2.3.3 Administer User Profile

The administrator/client with the help of the system maintainer sets the access rights and
privileges for the user. The administrator/client can later on modify the access rights of
the user.


 Identifier                                   Process 3
 Use-Case Name                                Administer User Profile
 Purpose                                      This        process        allows        the
                                              administrator/client of the system to create
                                              an account for each and every user of the
                                              system. She can also delete a user account
                                              or change the access rights for particular
                                              class of users.
 Priority                                     High
 Flexibility                                  Must-have
 Worker or Outside Actor                      Administrator/Client
 Pre-Conditions                               In the system, few user accounts/profiles
                                              need to be created or updated.
                                              Administrator/Client acquires the required
                                              details (preferred usernames, passwords)
                                              from the users.
                                              Administrator/Client decides upon the
                                              rights and privileges to be granted to the
                                              users.


 Post-Conditions                              User accounts created and accessibility
                                              rights/permissions  granted  to    the
                                              respective users.
                                              Users can access different applications.


 Actions Performed                            Administrator/Client gives certain access
                                              rights to the user depending upon the role
                                              of the user i.e. Student or Faculty member

                       Table 18: Administer User Profile (Process 3)




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                     37                                    12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                  Version 7.10

3.2.3.4 Access Application Software

The users of the system use their username and password to login to the system in order
to access the various client applications that are installed on the system.


 Identifier                                  Process 4
 Use-Case Name                               Access Application Software
 Purpose                                     This process allows the students and
                                             faculty members to access various
                                             software and applications like MS Office
                                             Suite, Choice Applications, Wayang
                                             Outpost, Typing Tutorial
 Priority                                    High
 Flexibility                                 Must-Have
 Worker or Outside Actor                     Students & Faculty members
 Pre-Conditions                              The user is authorized to access the
                                             software by the administrator/client.
 Post-Conditions                             The students and the faculty members are
                                             able to access different applications
                                             software for learning/teaching purposes.
 Actions Performed                           Administrator/Client checks the user’s
                                             access rights and decides whether they
                                             should be given access to the various
                                             software installed on the system.

                   Table 19: Access Application Software (Process 4)




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                    38                                   12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                      Version 7.10

3.2.3.5 Access Personalized Folders

The administrator/client creates a personal folder for every user of the system which is
centrally stored on the server. The users are permitted to view and edit the files in their
folder.


Identifier                                      Process 5
Use-Case Name                                   Access personalized folders
Purpose                                         This process allows the students and
                                                faculty members to access their
                                                personalized folders which are centrally
                                                present on the server and prevents
                                                unauthorized access to their folders.
Priority                                        Medium
Flexibility                                     Nice-to-have
Worker or Outside Actor                         Students and Faculty members
Pre-Conditions                                  The TC-95 (Application Server) and TC-
                                                96 (Authentication Server) should be
                                                connected and mapped.
                                                A personalized folder of each and every
                                                user is created on the centralized database
                                                by the administrator/client.
Post-Conditions                                 The user will able to access the files in
                                                their own folders provided.
Actions Performed                               Administrator/Client creates a folder for
                                                each and every user; checks the user’s
                                                access rights and decide whether they
                                                should be given access to it or not.

                    Table 20: Access Personalized Folders (Process 5)




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                      39                                      12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                              Version 7.10

3.2.3.6 Software evaluation

The researcher/sponsor at USC is working with teachers at Pasadena High School to
evaluate the mathematics learning tool.


Identifier                                Process 6
Use-Case Name                             Software evaluation
Purpose                                   This        process       allows       the
                                          researcher/sponsor at USC to evaluate
                                          their mathematical learning applications
Priority                                  High
Flexibility                               Must-Have
Worker or Outside Actor                   Researcher & Sponsor
Pre-Conditions                            The hardware specifications of the server
                                          must satisfy the minimum software
                                          requirements.
Post-Conditions                           The researcher & sponsor come out with
                                          an evaluation report on the training
                                          software.
                                          The multimedia throughput of the system
                                          will be studied and documented


Actions Performed                         Enable the researcher/sponsor to evaluate
                                          the mathematics learning tool.

                     Table 21: Software Evaluation (Process 6)




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                 40                                  12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                    Version 7.10

3.2.3.7 User Login

The user login information entered is used for authenticating the user, who is trying to
login to the system


Identifier                                     Process 7
Use-Case Name                                  User Login
Purpose                                        This process is used to authenticate the
                                               login information entered by the user
                                               before allowing the user to have access to
                                               the system.
Priority                                       High
Flexibility                                    Must-Have
Worker or Outside Actor                        Users,   Administrator/Client,  System
                                               Maintainer, Sponsor& Researcher
Pre-Conditions                                 Authentication information of each and
                                               every user must be stored on TC-96
                                               (Authentication server).
Post-Conditions                                The users should be able to log in to the
                                               system using the assigned username and
                                               password.
Actions Performed                              The user enters his/her login information
                                               on to the login screen. If authenticated,
                                               user is granted access to system resources
                                               else an error message is displayed.

                     Table 22: User Login Authentication (Process 7)




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                     41                                    12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                   Version 7.10

3.2.4 Shortcomings
This section describes the limitations of the current organization environment and current
system. It also focuses on how the organization and current system needs to be improved,
or replaced by the proposed COTS solution, which will be finalized by the COTS
assessment effort.

       1. Current system: Maximum number of concurrent users is 8, above which the
       system freezes (hangs).


       Proposed system: In the proposed COTS solution, there will be 40 plus
       concurrent users.


       2. Current system: Less availability of network resources like applications,
       peripherals (such as printers, scanners etc) because the network is not integrated.


       Proposed system: In the proposed integrated COTS solution, the entire network
       with all its peripherals are connected together. Also the applications are loaded in
       the main servers, thus the users have a higher availability of entire network
       resources.


       3. Current system: It takes more than 30 minutes for the entire class of 30-40
       users to login.


       Proposed system: In the proposed COTS solution, it will take less than 30
       seconds for a single user to login and less than 5 minutes for the entire class of
       30-40 users to login.




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                    42                                    12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                   Version 7.10


4. Prioritized System Capabilities
PHS Computer Network study is a COTS assessment project and here, the system
capabilities broadly define the system behavior realizing the high level system objectives
described in COTS Assessment Boundary and Environment (CAB 2.3).



 CAP-1

 Title          Thin client multimedia capability

 Description    The proposed thin client network solution should be capable of
                handling high end flash based multimedia intensive applications which
                will allow students to work simultaneously on Wayang Outpost
                tutorial ( a geometric software hosted by ISI )


 Importance     Primary

 Rationale      Thin client multimedia capability is required in order to facilitate
                interactive mathematics learning applications such as Wayang Outpost,
                Accelerated Reader etc. for students
 Flexibility    Must Have

 Used In        Process 4 (CAB 3.2.3.4) “Access application software”.




                   Table 23: Thin client multimedia capability (CAP-1)




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                    43                                    12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                               Version 7.10




CAP-2
Title         Integrated network solution

Description   The system should integrate the existing thin client network with the
              proposed COTS solution so that applications like Accelerated reader
              would be available to all users across the network.


Importance    Secondary

Rationale     Integrated network solution (Standalone PC and Thin-client) will allow
              users to share network resources for higher availability.
Flexibility   Nice to have

Used In       Process 4 (CAB 3.2.3.4) “Access application software” and Process 5
              (CAB 3.2.3.5) “Access personalized folders”. Integration done between
              the Application Server, Authentication server, the existing WYSE thin
              client network and the proposed COTS.

                   Table 24: Integrated network solution (CAP-2)



CAP-3

Title         Network Load balancing

Description    Network Load Balancing services will enable multiple dual processor
              servers to be configured as a logical group which will balance user
              sessions across a multitude of servers and allow users to be dynamically
              routed to whichever server is least busy.


Importance    Optional

Rationale     Load balancing will increase the bandwidth of thin client users which
              will enable them to run multimedia applications optimally.
Flexibility   Nice to have

Used In       Process 4 (CAB 3.2.3.4) “Access application software”. Deployed in
              thin-clients’ Application sever.

                    Table 25: Network Load balancing (CAP-3)




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                 44                                   12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                Version 7.10


CAP-4

Title          Symmetric multiprocessing enabled (SMP)

Description    Upgrading the existing server to dual processors (SMP) will make use of
               hardware load balancing, which in turn, will increase the throughput of
               the user terminals.
Importance     Primary

Rationale      This will allow users to concurrently access the high bandwidth-
               demanding multimedia application.
Flexibility    Must Have

Used In        Process 4 (CAB 3.2.3.4) “Access application software”.

              Table 26: Symmetric multiprocessing enabled (SMP) (CAP-4)




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                  45                                  12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                             Version 7.10


5. Desired and Acceptable Levels of Service

Identifier          LOS-1
Level of Service:   System Performance


Description:        The desired level of system performance shall allow 40 plus
                    users to access Wayang Outpost application (Algebraic, flash
                    based learning application) concurrently.
                    The acceptable level of service is simultaneous access for 36
                    users.


Degree of           Desired
Flexibility:

Measurable:         The system should support 40 plus users simultaneously
                    running high-end multimedia applications using thin client
                    network.


Relevant:           Thin client multimedia capability (CAP-1).
                    Present thin client does not allow more than 8 users to use the
                    Wayang Outpost application.


Specific:           Specifically, the interactive multimedia application - Wayang
                    Outpost has not been supported by the current thin client
                    network for more than 8 concurrent users.


                     Table 27: System Performance (LOS-1)




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10               46                                   12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                            Version 7.10



Identifier          LOS-2
Level of Service:   CPU Usage


Description:        The desired CPU utilization should be less than a total of 60%
                    when the client is running high multimedia intensive
                    applications
Degree of           Desired – Less than 60%
Flexibility:

Measurable:         The CPU utilization will be measured by Windows 2003
                    performance tool.
Relevant:           Relevant to Network Load Balancing (CAP-3)


Specific:           When the interactive multimedia application Wayang Outpost is
                    run by more than 8 simultaneous users, the CPU utilization
                    shoots up to 100% causing the server to freeze.


                         Table 28: CPU Usage (LOS-2)




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10               47                                  12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                Version 7.10




Identifier          LOS-3
Level of Service:   Resource availability


Description:        The system resources (Software applications such as MS office
                    Suite, Accelerator Reader, Choices and publisher etc. and other
                    resources such as servers, printers, scanners etc.) should be
                    available for 96% of the time.


Degree of           Desired
Flexibility:

Measurable:         This can be measured by a step-wise evaluation of the resource
                    availability for specific increments of users at a stipulated time.


Relevant:           This is relevant to the capability Integrated network solution
                    (CAP-2)


Specific:           Specific to applications like Accelerator Reader which are
                    hosted on the application server and should be made available to
                    all logged-in users.


                     Table 29: Resource Availability (LOS-3)




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                 48                                    12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                              Version 7.10



Identifier          LOS-4
Level of Service:   System Login time


Description:        The desired login response time should be less than 1 minute for
                    a whole class of 35-40 students.
                    The acceptable login response time should be less than 5
                    minutes for the entire class.


Degree of           Acceptable
Flexibility:

Measurable:         Can be measured in terms of seconds for the users logging in.
                    The response time of the system should be low to an order of 30
                    seconds for a person to log in.
                    This can be measured as follows:
                    Let 40 students log in at the same time from 40 different thin
                    client terminals. We will measure the average login time of the
                    system by finding the end-to-end login time for the whole class.
Relevant:           Relevant to capability SMP (Symmetric multiprocessing)
                    enabled (CAP-4).


Specific:           SMP, when it is enabled will incorporate load balancing and
                    make the system response and consequently improve the
                    system login time


                      Table 30: System Login Time (LOS-4)




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                 49                                  12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                Version 7.10



Identifier              LOS-5
Level of Service:       Windows Platform Compatibility
Description:            The system should support all the available Windows platforms
Degree of               Desired
Flexibility:

Measurable:             It should run on all the available Windows platforms without
                        any error or crashes
Relevant:               COTS product flexibility was referred in the Win condition
                        (W86).


Specific:               The Evaluators have to choose a COTS product compatible with
                        Windows OS, especially with the Windows 2003 server, as per
                        the client’s requirements.


                    Table 31: Windows Platform Compatibility (LOS-5)




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                   50                                  12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                   Version 7.10

Stakeholder Roles / Level of Service Concerns Relationship


Stakeholder          Roles and Primary              Level of Service Concern
                     responsibilities
                                                    Primary             Secondary
Evaluators           Provide an effective           Evolvability &      Dependability,
                     evaluation on the new          Evaluation          Interoperability,
                     system. Avoid delay in         Schedule.           Usability,
                     assessment.                                        Performance
Customer             Avoid overrun schedule and     Evaluation          Dependability,
                     budget. Obtain a usable        Schedule,           Interoperability,
                     evaluation of system’s         Performance,        Usability
                     capabilities. Avoid low        Evolvability and
                     utilization of the system.     reusability
Users                Convey their requirements      Dependability,      Development
                     to the evaluators and also     Interoperability,   Schedule
                     provide a measure for          Usability,
                     COTS usage.                    Performance,
                                                    Evolvability &
                                                    Portability.
COTS Vendor/ COTS Provide the desired               Performance,        Dependability,
Experts           documentation on the new          Evolvability &      Interoperability,
                     system.                        Portability,        Usability
                                                    Reusability
                     Train evaluators and the
                     customer to use the new
                     system
Client /             Provide feedback to solve      Evaluation          Reusability and
Administrator        domain specific problems.      Schedule,           Interoperability
                                                    Performance,
                     Helps in reconciling
                                                    Evolvability,
                     conflicts between COTS
                                                    Dependability
                     product and desired OC &
                                                    and Usability
                     P’s during COTS
                     assessment
System Maintainers   Provide information            Dependability,      Performance,
                     concerning the COTS            Interoperability,   Evolvability &
                     system, a trial version (if    Usability,          Portability.
                     available) and different
                     integration issues with the
                     existing Wyse terminals etc.
Sponsor &            Have multiple roles of         Performance         Dependability,
Researcher           Sponsor and researcher                             Evolvability
                     Provides valuable inputs
                     about the various system
                     analyses conducted


CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                 51                                       12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                  Version 7.10

                        before.
                        Initiates the project by
                        hosting the Wayang
                        Outpost multimedia
                        application and providing
                        it to PHS.


IV & V                  Review the COTS             Dependability,      Evolvability &
                        assessment documents        Interoperability,   Evaluation
Vincent Chu &                                       Usability,          Schedule.
                        and provide the
Winston Kwong           evaluators with COTS        Performance
                        assessment process
                        feedback through peer
                        review.


         Table 32: Stakeholder Roles / Level of Service Concerns Relationship




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                  52                                     12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                 Version 7.10


Glossary
      1. Active Directory Services:
          Active Directory (codename Cascade) is an implementation of LDAP
          directory services by Microsoft for use in Windows environments. Active
          Directory allows administrators to assign enterprise wide policies, deploy
          programs to many computers, and apply critical updates to an entire
          organization. An Active Directory stores information and settings relating to
          an organization in a central, organized, accessible database. Active Directory
          networks can vary from a small installation with a few hundred objects, to a
          large installation with millions of objects.
      2. Black-box Testing
          Software testing technique whereby the internal workings of the item
          being tested is not known by the tester
      3   Citrix MetaFrame:
          Citrix Presentation Server (formerly Citrix MetaFrame) is a remote
          access/application publishing product built on the Independent Computing
          Architecture (ICA), Citrix Systems' thin client protocol. The Microsoft
          Remote Desktop Protocol, part of Microsoft's Terminal Services, is based on
          Citrix technology and was licensed from Citrix in 1997. Unlike traditional
          framebuffered protocols like VNC, ICA transmits high-level window display
          information, much like the X11 protocol, as opposed to purely graphical
          information.
      4   COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf)
          COTS software is defined as a software system that has been built as a
          composition of many other COTS software components (Vigder, 1998). Here
          the developer of the software act as the integrator who purchase the
          components from third party vendors and assembly them to build the final
          product
      5   COCOTS
          COCOTS is a cost estimation tool designed to capture explicitly the most
          important costs associated with COTS component integration. COCOTS is
          actually an amalgam of four related sub-models, each addressing individually
          what the authors have identified as the four primary sources of COTS
          software integration costs.
      6 Gantt Chart:
          A Gantt chart is a popular type of bar chart, which aims to show the timing of
          tasks or activities as they occur over time. Although the Gantt chart did not
          initially indicate the relationships between activities this has become more



CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                    53                                    12/03/05
COTS Assessment Background                                                      Version 7.10

          common in current usage as both timing and interdependencies between tasks
          can be identified.
      7   ISI :
          Part of the University of Southern California (USC), ISI is involved in a broad
          spectrum of information processing research and in the development of
          advanced computer and communication technologies.
      8. PHS: Pasadena High school
      9   ROI (Return of Investment):
          Return on Investment. A measure of a corporation's profitability, equal
          to a fiscal year's income divided by common stock and preferred stock
          equity plus long-term debt. ROI measures how effectively the firm uses
          its capital to generate profit; the higher the ROI, the better.
      10 SMP:
          Symmetric Multiprocessing, or SMP, is a multiprocessor computer
          architecture where two or more identical processors are connected to a
          single shared main memory. Most common multiprocessor systems
          today use SMP architecture. SMP systems allow any processor to work
          on any task no matter where the data for that task is located in memory;
          with proper operating system support, SMP systems can easily move
          tasks between processors to balance the work load efficiently.
      11 TC-95 : Application server at PHS maintained by Tangent computers
      12 TC-96 : Authentication server at PHS maintained by Tangent
         computers
      13 Thin client:
          A thin client is a computer (client) in client-server architecture networks
          which has little or no application logic, so it has to depend primarily on
          the central server for processing activities. The word "thin" refers to the
          small boot image which such clients typically require - perhaps no more
          than required to connect to a network and start up a dedicated web
          browser.
      14 White-box Testing
          A software testing technique whereby explicit knowledge of the internal
          workings of the item being tested are used to select the test data.




CAB_LCA_F05a_T03_V07.10                    54                                      12/03/05

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:0
posted:2/8/2012
language:
pages:54