Feasibility Evidence Description (FED) - Software … Evidence Description (FED) Cheng Zhang Life...

FED_DCP_F16_T10_V2.3.doc i Version Date: 12/02/16

Feasibility Evidence Description (FED)

<e-LockBox>

<Team 10>

<Team members and roles>

Cheng Zhang Life Cycle Planner/ Prototyper

Guancheng Li Project Manager/ Prototyper

Si Zhao Software Architect Yutong Guo Requirements Engineer/ Operational Concept Engineer

Rui Ma Feasibility Analyst/ Requirements Engineer

Qing Wei Prototyper/ Life Cycle Planner Stephen Hunt IV&V/Quality Focal Point

<12/02/2016>

Bowen

Sticky Note

-0.5

Feasibility Evidence Description (FED) Version 2.3

FED_DCP_F16_T10_V2.3.doc ii Version Date: 12/02/16

Version History Date Author Version Changes made Rationale

08/20/16 Rui Ma 1.0 • Tailored from ICSM OCD • Template to specify risks of the

current system

• Initial draft for use with e-LockBox v1.0

08/30/16 Rui Ma 1.1 • Add template table • Cost Analysis and feasibility

• Consistent format • Identify Personnel costs, Service

feasibility 09/06/16 Rui Ma 1.8 • Removed Section 1.1 • Section 1.1 was duplicated with

section 1.7 due to Format error 09/14/16 Rui Ma 1.9 • Updated Section 2 • Consistent with e-LockBox v1.9 09/25/16 Rui Ma 2.0 • Moved Section 1.1 to 1.2

• Add Section 1.2 • Updated Section 3 and add 3.1-

3.3

• Consistent with IICM-Sw

10/30/16 Rui Ma 2.1 • Embedded description in each table

• Removed Section 6.1.1 Definition

• To be consistent with ICM EPG • template set standard V2.1 • To leanify the artifact

11/17/16 Rui Ma 2.2 • Updated Section 2, 3, and 6 • Draft vision for TRR 12/02/16 Rui Ma 2.3 • Fix some parts based on the

suggestion • Final deliverable


FED_DCP_F16_T10_V2.3.doc iii Version Date: 12/02/16

Table of Contents Feasibility Evidence Description (FED) ...................................................................................................................... i Version History ............................................................................................................................................................ ii Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................................ iii Table of Tables ............................................................................................................................................................ iv Table of Figures .............................................................................................................................................................v

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Purpose of the FED Document ......................................................................................................................1

1.2 Status of the FED Document .........................................................................................................................1

2. Business Case Analysis ..........................................................................................................................................2

2.1 Cost Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................3

2.2 Benefit Analysis ..............................................................................................................................................4

2.3 ROI Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................4

3. Architecture Feasibility .........................................................................................................................................7

3.1 Level of Service Feasibility ............................................................................................................................7

3.2 Capability Feasibility .....................................................................................................................................8

3.3 Evolutionary Feasibility ...............................................................................................................................10

4. Process Feasibility ................................................................................................................................................115. Risk Assessment ...................................................................................................................................................13

6. NDI/NCS Interoperability Analysis ...................................................................................................................14

6.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................14

6.2 Evaluation Summary ....................................................................................................................................14


FED_DCP_F16_T10_V2.3.doc iv Version Date: 12/02/16

Table of Tables Table 1: Personnel Costs ................................................................................................................................................3Table 2: Hardware and Software Costs .........................................................................................................................4Table 3: Benefits of e-LockBox System ...........................................................................................................................4Table 4: ROI Analysis (Money) ......................................................................................................................................5Table 5: ROI Analysis (Time) .........................................................................................................................................6Table 6: Level of Service Feasibility ..............................................................................................................................7Table 7: Capability Requirements and Their Feasibility Evidence ................................................................................8Table 8: Evolutionary Requirements and Their Feasibility Evidence ..........................................................................10Table 9: Rationales for Selecting Architected Agile Model ..........................................................................................11Table 10: Risk Assessment ............................................................................................................................................13Table 11: NDI Products Listing ....................................................................................................................................14Table 12: NDI Evaluation .............................................................................................................................................14


FED_DCP_F16_T10_V2.3.doc v Version Date: 12/02/16

Table of Figures Figure 1: ROI Analysis Graph (Money) .........................................................................................................................5Figure 2: ROI Analysis Graph (Time) ............................................................................................................................6


FED_DCP_F16_T10_V2.3.doc 1 Version Date: 12/02/16

1. Introduction 1.1 Purpose of the FED Document The FED contains the feasibility study of the project, identifying possible risks, costs, benefits and NDI/NCS components in building the e-LockBox system. Our client is LivingAdvantage Inc., a public agency that helps foster youth manage their vital records and provide them with services and advice.

1.2 Status of the FED Document The status of the FED is currently at version 2.3 in the development phase, with clarification of risks and formatting fixes. The previous version is 2.2.



2. Business Case Analysis Our vision, in this project, is to realize a website that makes youths keep and download vital life documents conveniently and securely. Assumptions

• People will use this system with satisfaction in security and efficiency. • People will trust their case managers and this system in security of protecting their

personal information. Stakeholders Initiatives Value Propositions Beneficiaries

• Living Advantage staff

• Youth user • Developer • Maintainer

• Develop login verification code

• Maintain the system • Manage cases • Train staff and youth

users to use this system

• Take surveys

• Improve system security

• Improve information management process

• Better keep track of youth users

• Enable identification of youth users

• Living Advantage staff

• Youth user

Cost • Web services costs and website costs • Developers’ time • Clients’ time

Benefits • Provides an easy system tailored towards

foster youth management • Centralized, secure repository for foster

youth vital documents • Potential source of income through licensing

to public agencies.Cost (All costs drivers):

- Development Cost • $36/year Domain name – This is for mylaspace.com, mylaspace.net and

mylaspace.org. • $20/month Digital Ocean – This will host the system to ensure security. • $6/year Amazon S3 – This can store offsite secure file. • $149/year SSL certificate – This account is for secure login and transport

encryption. - Maintenance Cost

• $35-$40/hr Hire an IT engineer - Advertising



• TBD - COTS

• $0 for MySQL and iOS SDK Benefits:

- Make it easier for users - Increase security of the e-LockBox

• Use verification code to identify the identity of users. • Use secure questions to protect user’s files. • Use inactive function to protect user’s files and profile. • Use invisible function to ensure the youth users cannot see some special files.

2.1 Cost Analysis This part identifies all possible costs, either in monetary terms or non-monetary terms such as hours spent, qualitative benefits for the project.

2.1.1 Personnel Costs Table 1: Personnel Costs

Activities Time Spent (Hours)

Development Period(24 weeks) Valuation and Foundations Phases: Time invested (CS577A, 12 weeks)

Client: meeting via email, phone or other channels [2 hrs/week*12 weeks *2 people]

48

Client Representatives: Meeting via email, phone, and other channels [1 hrs/week*12 weeks *2people]

24

Architecture Review Boards [1.5 hrs*4 times* 2 people]

12

Re-Baseline, Development and Operation Phases: Time invested (CS577B, 12 weeks) Client: meeting via email, phone or other channels [2 hrs/week*12 weeks *2 people]

48

Client Representatives: Meeting via email, phone, and other channels [2 hrs/week*12 weeks *2 people]

48

Architecture Review Boards and Core Capability Drive-through session [1.5 hrs*3 times* 2 people]

9

Deployment of system in operation phase and training [3 hrs*3 times*2 people]

18

Total (5 weeks*2 persons) 207 Maintenance Period(1 year)

Maintenance [3 hr/week*52 weeks]

156

Total 156



2.1.2 Hardware and Software Costs Table 2: Hardware and Software Costs

Type Cost Rationale Domain name $36/year Including mylaspace.com

mylaspace.net mylaspace.org Hardware VPS hosting $20/month Digital Ocean Isolated hosting for the

system to ensure security Software- SSL certificate $149/year* Secure login and transport

encryption Software- Amazon S3 Free for up to 25000

documents at ~200kb each (4.7gb) for the first year. $6/year thereafter for 10gb of storage

Offsite secure file storage and/or backup

Total $431/year Maintenance $35-$40/hr and 10hr/month Hire an IT engineer to

maintain the system. Total: $4200-$4800/year

2.2 Benefit Analysis Table 3: Benefits of e-LockBox System

Current activities & resources used % Reduce Time Saved (Hours/Year) Case Management

Case creation and tracking (2471 cases *0.5 hrs = 1235.5 hrs) 25 309

User Management Manage users (5 hrs *52 weeks) 50 130

Activity Management Manage activities (6 hrs *52 weeks) 25 78

System Foundations Authentication, send email, log and secure questions (10hrs* 52 weeks) 12.5 65

Total 582 Worth($30/hour) 17460

2.3 ROI Analysis Live Advantage Inc. has one administrator and five case managers (60$/hour for the administrator and 35$/hour for a case manager). We assume 10% annually increase, one administrator and one case manager met us for the project for 56 hours (Table 1), so the personal cost is (60+35) *56=$5320(half year of the 2017 will be increased to $2926). And the Hardware



and Software Costs is $431 (Table 2)(2017 will be increased to $474). In this case, the total cost for year 2016 is $5751 and for year 2017 is $5650($2250 (maintenance for half year)+$474+$2926) . After we deliver the system by the summer of 2017, the cost will be only be the Hardware and Software Costs and the payment for the maintainer, which is $4200-$4800, we take a median to calculate and assume a 10% annually increase. Then we get the cost for the following years. After we deliver the system, it starts to save both administrator and case managers time. Because the saved time per year for each staff is 582 hours (half is 291 hours) (Table 3), so the website can reduce the cost of employment about 1 person. Thus, the money saved for 2017 is 35* 8*20*12*1.1=73920(half year 36960$), the ROI Analysis (time analysis and money analysis) is shown below:

Table 4: ROI Analysis (Money)

Year Cost Benefit (Effort Saved)

Cumulative Cost

Cumulative Benefit ROI

2016 5751 0 5751 0 -1 2017 5650 36960 11401 36960 2.24 2018 4950 73920 16351 110880 5.78 2019 5445 73920 21796 184800 7.48 2020 5990 73920 27786 258720 8.31

Figure 1: ROI Analysis Graph (Money)

The down arrow points to the breakeven point of the ROI Analysis Graph.

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

ROI

ROI



Table 5: ROI Analysis (Time)

Year Cost Benefit (Effort Saved)

Cumulative Cost

Cumulative Benefit ROI

2016 207 0 207 0 -1 2017 182 291 389 291 -0.25 2018 172 582 561 873 0.56 2019 189 582 750 1455 0.94 2020 208 582 958 2037 1.13

Figure 2: ROI Analysis Graph (Time)

The down arrow points to the breakeven point of the ROI Analysis Graph.

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

ROI

ROI



3. Architecture Feasibility In this section we provide evidence or rationale of why we think the following LOS, capability, and evolutionary requirements are satisfied.

3.1 Level of Service Feasibility Table 6: Level of Service Feasibility

Level of Service Requirement Product Satisfaction LOS-1 Security: All the documents must be stored securely. The security specification should include login-control (Verification Code), system-access-control, documents-storage and so on.

Product Strategies: Domain Architecture-driven. Process Strategies: Prototyping, Performance Analysis, Simulation, Test Plans & Tools. Analysis: Identify all possible attacks and vulnerability using information of similar system. Then we are able to select appropriate security strategies in the architecture.

LOS-2 Upgrade & Migration: All the existing functions should be migrated from Laravel 4.1 to Laravel 5.3.

Product Strategies: Interface Specification, UI Flexibility. Process Strategies: Prototyping, Analysis, Test Plans & Tools. Analysis: Self-learning on the website and migrate all the useful functions to the new version.

LOS-3 Performance: UI should be concise and smart. Management process should be efficient.

Product Strategies: Interface Specification, UI Flexibility. Process Strategies: Prototyping, Performance Analysis, Test Plans & Tools. Analysis: Design UI part, make it simple and easy to use by youth users. Test the management process, make it concise and simple to use.

LOS-4 Usability: The system shall be easy to use for youth users and case managers. The usability can be tested by questionnaire and actual operation.

Product Strategies: Interface Specification, UI Flexibility. Process Strategies: Prototyping, Usage Monitoring & Analysis. Analysis: Build a friendly interface for users offering high usability. Using prototyping, usage monitoring & analysis to guide the design process.

LOS-5 Data Size: This system should support large data. Currently, the Living Advantage

Product Strategies: Domain Architecture-driven Process Strategies: Performance Analysis, Simulation, Test Plans & Tools.



has 353 kids, each kid has at most 7 documents stored on e-Lockbox system, and each document is about 1MB, thus the total storage is around 2.5GB. Since Living Advantage predicts to have more foster youth in the future, they prefer to limit the storage capability for each case to be no more 15 documents. Suppose each document can be no more than 3MB, and there are 1000 kids, the total expected storage for documents will be no more than 44GB.

Analysis: Define database in the Architecture and using test strategies to test the system.

3.2 Capability Feasibility Table 7: Capability Requirements and Their Feasibility Evidence

Capability Requirement Product Satisfaction CR-1: User Login and Generating Verification Code

Software/Technology used: Using MySQL to store verification code, use access control. Feasibility Evidence: MySQL can handle the verification code. Referred use case diagram: UC-1

CR-2: Create a New Case Software/Technology used: Using MySQL to store local data Feasibility Evidence: Large user data are stored on Amazon S3 and MySQL can handle the local data. Referred use case diagram: UC-2

CR-3: Upload Vital Document

Software/Technology used: Using Apache and MySQL to store local data and Amazon S3 to store user data. Feasibility Evidence: Large user data are stored on Amazon S3 and MySQL can handle the local data. Referred use case diagram: UC-3

CR-4: Report Generation Software/Technology used: Using Apache, MySQL and Amazon S3 to report data. Feasibility Evidence: Data stored in database and Amazon S3, the system can get the data easily. Referred use case diagram: UC-4

CR-5: Log an Activity Software/Technology used: Using Apache, MySQL and Amazon S3 to store data. Feasibility Evidence: Large user data are stored on Amazon S3 and MySQL can handle the local data. Referred use case diagram: UC-5

CR-6: Create a Youth User Software/Technology used: Using Apache to store users’ data.



Feasibility Evidence: Large user data are stored on Amazon S3 and MySQL can handle the local data. Referred use case diagram: UC-6

CR-7: View Document Software/Technology used: Using Apache, MySQL and Amazon S3 to store data. Feasibility Evidence: Large user data are stored on Amazon S3 and MySQL can handle the local data. Referred use case diagram: UC-7

CR-8: Check Case Information Software/Technology used: Using Apache, MySQL and Amazon S3 to store data. Feasibility Evidence: Large user data are stored on Amazon S3 and MySQL can handle the local data. Referred use case diagram: UC-8

CR-9: Send Email to youth users

Software/Technology used: Get users’ email from local database and link to email. Feasibility Evidence: the user email data are stored on MySQL. Referred use case diagram: UC-9

CR-10: Create High-Level User Software/Technology used: Using Apache, MySQL and Amazon S3 to store data. Feasibility Evidence: Large user data are stored on Amazon S3 and MySQL can handle the local data. Referred use case diagram: UC-10

CR-11: Edit Case Software/Technology used: Using Apache, MySQL and Amazon S3 to store case data. Feasibility Evidence: Large user data are stored on Amazon S3 and MySQL can handle the local data. Referred use case diagram: UC-11

CR-12: Edit User Software/Technology used: Using Apache, MySQL and Amazon S3 to store user data. Feasibility Evidence: Large user data are stored on Amazon S3 and MySQL can handle the local data. Referred use case diagram: UC-12

CR-13: Activate User Software/Technology used: Using MySQL to change the situation of a user. Feasibility Evidence: Set the user’s active situation to be “yes”. Referred use case diagram: UC-13

CR-14: Inactivate User Software/Technology used: Using MySQL to change the situation of a user. Feasibility Evidence: Set the user’s active situation to be “no”. Referred use case diagram: UC-14



3.3 Evolutionary Feasibility Table 8: Evolutionary Requirements and Their Feasibility Evidence

Evolutionary Requirement

Product Satisfaction

ER-1: The system can adapt to the growth of customer number.

Software/Technology used: 1. Apache Web Server 2. MySQL Feasibility Evidence: Apache Web Server is of high quality and it can accept hundreds of customer simultaneously using very common server hardware and this concurrency is entirely enough for the user number in the company Referred use case diagram: UC-5



4. Process Feasibility Table 9: Rationales for Selecting Architected Agile Model

Criteria Importance Project Status Rationales 30 % of NDI/NCS features 3 4 The project uses MySQL

and Apache for the server side. Use Laravel to develop the PHP framework and Amazon S3 to store the documents.

Single NDI/NCS 1 1 There is no strong need for single NDI/NCS use.

Unique/ inflexible business process

1 1 All of the requirements are constant which assessed from the client meeting. So the change rate is really low.

Need control over upgrade/ maintenance

1 2 The system needs low level maintenance after delivery. The training sessions will be held for maintainers.

Rapid deployment 2 0 There is no need for rapid deployment for the project.

Critical on compatibility 1 1 Criticality is medium-low. There is no immediate or vital need for this system to begin operating. And there is strict constraint on platform selection.

Internet connection independence

3 2 The system will work on web-page so the internet connection is vital for the system.

Need high level of services/ performance

2 3 There is moderate level of services and performance for the project.

Need high security 3 3 The system need high security since the documents it stored are vital.

Asynchronous communication

1 1 There will be little synchronized communication between modules.

Be accessed from anywhere

3 0 The system has to have capability to be accessed anywhere since it is a web-based



Critical on mass schedule constraints

2 2 The project is a medium size project which we realized after analyzing the required system and client meetings. According to the COCOMO estimations

Lack of personnel capability

1 1 The project team members are capable with the tools and analyzing skill for the project.

Require little upfront costs 1 1 There will be little monetary cost for the project.

Bowen

Sticky Note

-0.5 Where are the evaluation for "Require low total cost of ownership" and "Not-so-powerful local machines"



5. Risk Assessment Table 10: Risk Assessment

Risks Risk Exposure

Risk Mitigations Potential Magnitude

Probability Loss

Risk Exposure

Server side problem, run project on server

8 4 32 Self-Learning, ask TA for help

Unrealistic schedule and budget

7 4 28 Project plan and follow the plan

Inaccurate understanding of software requirements

6 5 30 Make a checklist and ask clients specifically

Development commitment

5 3 15 Improve presentation skill

Team may run out of time before finishing project.

2 3 6 Make a feasible and practical plan, negotiate an appropriate scope with the client



6. NDI/NCS Interoperability Analysis 6.1 Introduction Our project is developed base on a former project, so we don’t have any choices on select NDI, we have to use the same NDI as the last team used.

6.1.1 COTS / GOTS / ROTS / Open Source / NCS Table 11: NDI Products Listing

NDI/NCS Products Purposes Open Source NDI - Apache Web server Open Source NDI - MySQL Database server Open Source NDI - Laravel PHP MVC framework Commercial NCS - Amazon S3 File storage web service Open Source NDI - Git Version control

6.1.2 Connectors We are using the official Amazon Web Services PHP SDK to perform storage and retrieval on Amazon S3. Composer (http://getcomposer.org) is used for installing and upgrading PHP packages, including the Laravel framework and the AWS SDK.

6.1.3 Legacy System There is no legacy system. However, the current storage is based on a former system which has proved to be unwieldy for the clients’ needs.

6.2 Evaluation Summary Table 12: NDI Evaluation

NDI Usages Comments Apache Web server Positive points

- Free and widely used - Documentation available Negative points - Heavier footprint than Lighttpd and Nginx which are good alternative servers. - Performs worse under very high loads

MySQL 5 Database server Positive points - Free and widely used



- Documentation available Negative points - No support except for commercial licensing - Differences in table definition when running in strict mode.

Laravel 5.3 PHP framework Positive points - Open source - Documentation available - Integrated unit testing - Database agnostic development and migrations - Light footprint compared to popular frameworks like Symfony and Zend. Negative points - Command line dependencies - Developers will have to learn how to use it - Relatively new framework

Amazon S3 File storage Positive points - Very low cost - Documentation available - Files stored offsite - Security tokens and limited access - Automatic versioning Negative points - Possible increased access time, especially if stored using reduced redundancy.

Bitbucket Version control Positive points - Open source - Documentation available - Multiplatform - Distributed version control Negative points - None

Feasibility Evidence Description (FED) - Software … Evidence Description (FED) Cheng Zhang Life...

Documents

Transcript of Feasibility Evidence Description (FED) - Software … Evidence Description (FED) Cheng Zhang Life...