Systems Engineering Final Presentation

7/28/2019 Systems Engineering Final Presentation

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/systems-engineering-final-presentation 1/33

1

Team Members:

Kenneth Bonek

Jeffrey Koscho

Rodney Morris

Atul Sharma

Christopher Ziemniak

Group #2

Voting Options Technical

Enterprise (iVOTE) System



2

Project Description

•Statistics have been compiled to stress rank of importance of key

factors in voter dissatisfaction in engagement with registration and

voting process

•The Federal Election Committee is overseeing the task of

modernizing the overall system to improve voter satisfaction

•

The mission of the Federal Election Committee is to propose,implement, and maintain new standardized multidimensional system

Problem Statement:

The current national voting system has caused a decrease in voter satisfaction

by 24.2% over the last five years, creating an anticipated 20% decrease invoter turnout over the next four years

Objective:

To be able to increase voter satisfaction by over 25%



3

Objectives Tree

3

3

Objectives Tree



4

Functional Decomposition

•Aids the requirement development process

•Describes what the system does (stays agnostic)

•Key challenge areas: authentication and securing information



5

Requirements Analysis

Unique Identifier Requirement Type

iVOTE-1.0-001-F The voting system shall allow at least 85% of voters to vote remotely Functional

iVOTE-1.0-002-F The voting system shall provide voters at least 3 different voting methods Functional

iVOTE-1.0-007-F The voting system shall protect the voter’s privacy by having less than one unauthorized

disclosure per 1,000,000 voters

Functional

iVOTE-1.0-008-F The voting system shall secure all voting information by having less than one unauthorized

disclosure per 1,000,000 voters

Functional

iVOTE-1.0-009-F The voting system shall secure the voting environment by having less than one

unauthorized disclosure per 1,000,000 voters

Functional

iVOTE-1.0-015-F The voting system shall authenticate the voter based on unique information that only the

voter knows with at least 99.9% accuracy

Functional

iVOTE-1.0-016-F The voting system shall store all voting information with an integrity failure rate of less

than 1.5%

Functional

iVOTE-1.0-018-F The voting system shall authenticate the voter with at least a two-factor authentication

method

Functional

iVOTE-1.0-001-P The voting system shall increase voter satisfaction by more than 25% Performance

iVOTE-1.0-003-P The voting system shall reduce manual recounts by at least 75% Performance

iVOTE-1.0-004-P The voting system shall decrease the amount of time voters spend at polling centers by atleast 20%

Performance

iVOTE-1.0-001-In The voting system shall accommodate at least 99% of disabled voters Interface

iVOTE-1.0-002-D The voting system shall use modern technology that has a TRL of at least 7 Design

iVOTE-1.0-001-O The voting system shall reduce the number of polling station facilities by at least 30% Operational

iVOTE-1.0-001-I The voting system shall maintain a reliability of at least 98.5% -ilities

iVOTE-1.0-001-C The voting system shall reduce maintenance costs by at least 40% Constraint



6

Functions-to-Requirements Matrix

i VOTE-1.0.004-F: The voting system

shall allow at least 85% of voters toremotely register to vote

i VOTE-1.0.004-F: The voting system

shall allow at least 85% of voters to

remotely register to vote

i VOTE-1.0.001-P: The voting system

shall increase voter satisfaction by

more than 25%

Func

Rqmt



Risk Assessment

•Overall A3 has least risk;

A1 has most risk

•Information security

poses most significant risk

•Mitigation against

information security risk

– Policy → protect

confidentiality, integrity, and

availability of information in

transmission, storage, and

processing states

– Threat and vulnerability

assessment

– Apply safeguards• access controls

• encryption

• authentication

• auditing and logging

• guards

• cameras

• alarms



Economic Analysis

ESSENTIAL COSTS A-1 A-2 A-3

Software Development

Web Application

Web ServicesSmartphone Application

$550,000 $550,000

$300,000

$200,000

$550,000

$300,000

$200,000

USB Authentication

Device $6B

Firewalls

Medium

$150,000

Medium

$150,000

High

$200,000

Intrusion Prevention

System

Medium

$60,000

High

$75,000

High

$75,000

Data CenterServers

Power

Cooling

RacksBuilding

$180M $200M $200M

SoftwareServer OS

Antivirus

Database

$350M $400M $400M

Internet ServiceT1

OC-3

$6000/yr

$300k/yr

$6000/yr

$300k/yr

$6000/yr

$300k/yr

• Cost comparison between historic voting

methods versus new modern technical options

• Virtualization can decrease data center costs by

30%; geographic location of datacenter can save

costs

•Data Center and network security costs are

comparable between A-1, A-2, and A-3

•USB Authentication only impacts cost of A-3

($6B) – not feasible with budget constraint

•Software costs for A-2 and A-3 ($1.05M) slightly

higher than A-1 web application cost ($550K)

•A-2 and A-3 cost more than A-1 to design and

develop, but provide more value

•Reduction of ‘Per Voter’ cost by 96.4%

Online vs. PaperOnline

$0.03

Paper

$0.83



Architecture Selection

•Evaluation criteria came from objectives and associated metrics

•Criteria values and weightings based on expert judgment

•Ratings based on 1-9 scale: 5-meets target; 1-completely misses target;

9-completely exceeds target

•Scores determined by multiplying each criterion rating by its associated

weight; final score for each architecture is addition of criteria scores

•A-2 has highest score; coincides with decisionmakers’ outcome from

Accord software

•Based on final score and findings in risk and economic analysis, A-2 was

chosen architecture



Sensitivity Analysis

Criteria Weights

% more voters satisfied since last election 4.5%

% remote voters 5%

% less polling station facilities 4.6%

Number of unauthorized disclosures per 1M voters of voter privacy 5.5%

Number of unauthorized accesses per 1M voters 5%

•Sensitivity analysis done on FEC top five most important objectives

•Analyzed each pair of these objectives by trading weights

•Also analyzed each of these against several lowest-weighted objectives

•Outcome of analysis showed that weightings for these criteria are not sensitive to weight change

BaselineBaseline



Functions-to-Components Matrix

•Matrix depicting functions from

functional decomposition mapped

to components

•Aids in verification that chosen

components incorporate all the

functions

•Depicts interrelationships

•Many functions are associated

with multiple components

•Contributes to traceability of

system

Func

Comp



OV-1

12



Architecture Diagrams

13

OV-5

SV-1

OV-2

SV-4a



QUALITY

ASSURANCE

TEAMS

V&V RESPONSIBILITIES

FEC Deliverable acceptance verification; process improvement verification

Voter Focus

Group

Product acceptance validation (customer satisfaction survey, functional and constraint

requirements check-off, validate that their votes were cast correctly post election)

iVOTE Team

Validate national data warehouse against local DBs for inconsistencies; validate that the system

works with minimal errors; validate that all functions are implemented from Functional

Decomposition document; validate network statistics against requirements; validate code

efficiency against requirements

FEC Validation Tool: Obj_1: To have voters spend 20% less time at polling centers

Obj_2: To be able to allow voters to spend 25% less time voting

Pre-i VOTE Post-i VOTE

Verification & Validation



Topics Factors Affecting Feasibility:

Finances Congress funding approval; identifying accurate projected system cost

Politics Regulating governing states participation

Technology Information protection; throughput management; computer monitor privacy guard software

Knowledge Base Retention of 'forced voting' practices prior to concealed booth voting; resistance to change

Topics Factors of a Successful Implementation, to be considered in Plan:

Probability of Failure Acquiring federal funding; handling high volumes of simultaneous ballot submissions

NecessaryResources

Funding; smart-phone licenses; data storage; DMV registered voter records; software licenses;hardware acquisition; contractors to develop system

Likely

Obstacles

Funding approval; throughput management; data protection advancements; malfunctioning

input devices

Implementation Overview

Schedule



Conclusions

•Modernized voting system will make voting more efficient, less error-

prone, and easier to use, therefore increasing voter satisfaction

•Traceability and integration between depictions

•Importance of information security and management of it

•Saving money and helping environment through virtualization of

servers

•Future :

– More advanced analysis

– Analyze registration process further

– Voter acceptance of new system

– Continually update FEC to secure congressional funding

– Maintain and upgrade system through its lifecycle – Using NSA to monitor security during elections

– Opening election to three days

16



Backup Slides



• Architecture Project Identification – Assumptions and Constraints: All voters can get access to the Internet; constrained by government funding and

bandwidth availability

• Scope: Architecture View(s) and Products Identification – Views and Products Developed: AV-1, OV-1, OV-2, OV-3, OV-5, (maybe OV-6b or c), SV-1, SV-5, (maybe SV-2 or 4)

– Time Frames Addressed: Present-2016

– Organizations Involved: FEC, voters, designers, developers

• Purpose and Viewpoint – Purpose, Analysis, Questions to be Answered by AoA: The purpose of this AoA is to derive the best solution from a

set of alternative architectures for the i VOTE system; Analyses to be performed include requirements analysis, riskanalysis, sensitivity analysis, and evaluation of the alternative architectures using selection criteria and weighting

• Context – Mission: To be able to increase voter satisfaction by designing a modern national voting system that is more

efficient, automated, less error-prone, standardized, and less confusing to use

– CONOPS: New national voting system in place by the 2016 elections; standardized registration and voting process

across all the states; new system will be more efficient, less error-prone, be easier to use, and use moderntechnology; preference toward a system that is green and is cheaper to maintain than the current system

– Information Assurance: Need to protect: Personal Identifiable Information (PII) and voting results information;i VOTE system network, hardware, and software from threats and vulnerabilities; confidentiality, integrity, andavailability of all information associated with the i VOTE system

– Rules, Criteria, and Conventions Followed: Federal and states’ regulations

• Findings – Recommendations: Voters can use home-based computers and smart phones to vote remotely

AV-1



19

OV-2



20

OV-3

20

OV 5 A ti it Hi h (1 f 2)



21

A0

Cast and Process Vote

A1

Authenticate Voter

A2

Capture Vote

A3

Protect Data

A1.1

Collect

Voter’s

Credentials

A2.1

Display Voting

InterfaceA2.2

Save Voting

Information

Locally

A2.3

Update the

National

Database

A2.4

Compile

Votes

A3.1

Encrypt

Data

A3.1.1

Encrypt Transmission

A3.1.2

Encrypt Storage

A3.2

Copy Info to

Offsite

Location

A3.3

Validate

Voting

Results

A3.4

Allow Admins

Access to Info

A3.5

Release

Results To

Media

OV-5 Activity Hierarchy (1 of 2)

A1.2

Grant

Appropriate

Access Upon

Validation

21

OV 5 A ti it Hi h (2 f 2)



22

OV-5 Activity Hierarchy (2 of 2)

A0

Register Voter

A1

Complete Registration

Process

A2

Complete Authentication

Process

A1.1

Collect Voter’s

Information

A1.2

Identify Voter

A1.3

Approve Voter’s

Registration

A2.1

Create

Credentials ForVoters

22

SV 1



23

SV-1

SV 4



24

SV-4a

SV 5b Di



25

SV-5b Diagram

A hit t D l t



26

Architecture Development

R d d A hit t



27

Reduced Architectures

A-1 A-2 A-3

VotingInterface

Web-based (SOA)

interface/application- web application

Web-based (SOA)

interface/application- web application

- smart phone

- web services

Web-based (SOA)

Interface/application- web application

- smart phone

- web services

Identification /

Authentication

Username/password

PIN

CAPTCHA

Username/password

PIN

CAPTCHA

Username/password

USB Device

CAPTCHA

Information

Protection

AES Encryption

Medium security

Firewall

Medium security IPS

AES Encryption

Medium security

Firewall

Maximum security IPS

AES Encryption

Maximum security

Firewall

Maximum security IPS

Pros / Cons

Lowest cost and easily

implemented within

schedule, but low

security and lack of

variety with remote

voting options

Little margin for a

schedule slippage, with

moderate cost and good

security

No margin for a

schedule slippage,

with high cost and high

security

Full Architecture Scoring



28

Full Architecture Scoring

CATWOE



29

CATWOECustomers: Voters

Actors: Administrators (booth workers, technicians), voters, government

regulators

Transformation: Manual voting process -> automated voting process

Inefficient voting process -> efficient voting process

Expensive voting process -> less expensive voting process

Error-pone voting process -> less error-prone voting process

Non-standardized voting process -> standardized voting process

Confusing voting process -> clear voting process

World View: Modernized technology will streamline & enhance voting processes

Standardized automated process will increase voter confidence

Voter turnout may increase due to an improved voting process

Standardized voting process may increase the efficiency and

timeliness of polling results

Automated voting system will save tax dollars

Modernized technology will decrease the current carbon footprint of

the voting system

Owner: Federal Election Committee (with representative from each state)

Environment Cost of implementing technology; technology availability;

Constraints: geographic area; weather; voting paradigm shift;bandwidth availability; government funding

S B d D fi i i



30

System Boundary Definition

State Government

Regulations

Decreasing

Voter

Satisfaction

FEC

Desire for

Standard

SystemVoters

Demand

Better

Polling

Process

INPUTS

OUTPUTS

Increased

Voter

Satisfaction

Modern

Voting

System

Increased

Voter

Turnout

Taxpayer

Savings

Positive

Environmental

Impact

FederalGovt.

Funding

Register AuthenticateCapture

Transformation Process

ProtectSystem Boundary

Brief CONOPS



31

Brief CONOPS

•The Federal Election Committee (FEC) wants to have a

new national voting system in place by the 2016 elections

•The Federal Election Committee wants us to provide the

design for the new national voting system within 2 years

and within a budget of $5,000,000

•The new voting system must have a standardized

registration and voting process across all the states

•The new system will be more efficient, less error-prone,

be easier to use, and use modern technology

•The FEC would prefer a system that is green and is

cheaper to maintain than the current system

SOW Details



32

SOW Details

Propose the Project

Define the problem statement and objective

State what is to be done (project tasks) - WBSProvide the schedule

Define the system

Define the lower level objectives, targets, and metrics

Create a functional decomposition

State the requirementsPerform risk assessment

Provide several system design alternatives and analyze them

Architect the chosen solution

Provide a detailed description of the solution

Create the architecture depictions

OV-1, 2, 3, 5

SV-1, 5

AV-1

Describe the testing, validation, and verification of the solution

Create the implementation plan

Provide the final report

Project Schedule



Project Schedule

Systems Engineering Final Presentation

Documents

Transcript of Systems Engineering Final Presentation