Feasibility Evidence Description (FED)

Transcription

1 Feasibility Evidence Description (FED) ShareWeb Team 5 Xuan Wang: Project Manager, Life Cycle Planner LiangHao Gao: Implementation Team member Xi Chen: Implementation Team member, UML Modeler, Tester Yuxuan Li: Operational Concept Engineer, Prototyper, System Architect Zhangbiaoge Tian: Implementation Team, NDI/NCS Acquier, Evaluator Chuhan Zheng: Feasibility Analyst, Requirements Engineer Sahar Pourmohammadhosseini: IIV&V, Quality Focal Point 10/15/16

2 Version History Date Author Version Changes made Rationale 10/08/16 CZ 1.0 Original template for use with ShareWeb v1.0 10/16/16 XW 1.1 Changed part 3.2 about feasibility evidence Initial draft for use with ShareWeb v1.0 Edited some of the Capability Requirements and Their Feasibility Evidence FED_FCP_F16a_T05_V1.1 ii Version Date: 10/15/16

3 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 Purpose of the FED Document Status of the FED Document Business Case Analysis Cost Analysis Benefit Analysis... 错误! 未定义书签 2.3 ROI Analysis Architecture Feasibility Level of Service Feasibility Capability Feasibility Evolutionary Feasibility... 错误! 未定义书签 4. Process Feasibility Risk Assessment NDI/NCS Interoperability Analysis Introduction Evaluation Summary FED_FCP_F16a_T05_V1.1 iii Version Date: 10/15/16

4 Table of Tables Table 1: Personnel Costs... 3 Table 2: Hardware and Software Costs... 3 Table 3: Benefits of xxx System... 错误! 未定义书签 Table 4: ROI Analysis... 错误! 未定义书签 Table 5: Level of Service Feasibility... 5 Table 6: Capability Requirements and Their Feasibility Evidence... 5 Table 7: Evolutionary Requirements and Their Feasibility Evidence... 错误! 未定义书签 Table 8: Rationales for Selecting Architected Agile Model... 8 Table 9: Risk Assessment... 9 Table 10: NDI Products Listing Table 11: NDI Evaluation FED_FCP_F16a_T05_V1.1 iv Version Date: 10/15/16

5 Table of Figures Figure 1: ROI Analysis Graph... 错误! 未定义书签

6 1. Introduction 1.1 Purpose of the FED Document There are usually 5 parts in a FED Document: business case analysis, architecture feasibility, process feasibility, risk assessment, and NDI/NCS analysis. The purpose of the document is to prove that the ShareWeb project is feasible and can be completed on schedule and within budget. 1.2 Status of the FED Document The v1.0 version is the Initial draft of FED Document. It is considered to be part of the preparation of the FCR ARB presentation (which is on 10/14/16). The v1.1 version is the first edited version of FED Document, part 3.2, some of the Capability Requirements and Their Feasibility Evidence have been refined. FED_FCP_F16a_T05_V1.1 1 Version Date: 10/15/16

7 2. Business Case Analysis Assumptions People want to share picture People want download the shared picture People want to upload a lot of pictures People want to download the picture but phone s storage is not enough People want to see high resolution People want to see picture on big screen Stakeholders Initiatives Value Propositions Beneficiaries Developers Developers Increase the Users Client develop the efficiency of the Client Users system. Share app. Software Maintainers Increase the size maintainers maintain the of picture people system. Users test and use the system. Client marketing the system. can upload. Increase the quality of the picture. Increase the set of potential users. Cost Development Cost Maintenance Cost COTS (server,...) (maybe Advertising) Benefits Makes upload and download easier Increase the size and quality of picture people can upload Attract more different types of users Cost : - Development Cost o Approx. $0.0025/GB/hour Linux server, database by AWS. Price is not constant as this is a Spot Instances Pricing. - Maintenance Cost o Approx. $0.0025/GB/hour Linux server, database by AWS. Price is not constant as this is a Spot Instances Pricing. - COTS/NDI o $0 for brackets, AngularJS, Bootstraps o AWS has been mentioned above FED_FCP_F16a_T05_V1.1 2 Version Date: 10/15/16

8 2.1 Cost Analysis Personnel Costs Table 1: Personnel Costs Activities Time Spent (Hours) Development Period (12 weeks) Valuation, Foundation, Development and Operation Phases: Time Invested (CS577a, 12 weeks) 2 Win Win sessions [1hr * 2 times * 1 person] 2 2 Architecture Review Boards [1.5hr * 2 times * 1 person] 3 Client meeting [3hr/wk * 12wks * 1 person] 36 Backend & App team meeting[4hr/wk * 6wks * 4 people] 96 Deployment of system in operation phase and training 10 - Installation and deployment [3hrs * 2 times * 1 person] - Training and support [2hrs * 2 times * 1 person] Testing [3hr/wk * 3wks * 3 people] Hardware and Software Costs Table 2: Hardware and Software Costs Total: 174 Worth($15/hour) $2610 Type Cost Rationale Hardware cost (AWS) $0.0025/GB/hour (Spot Linux server and DB. Instances Pricing) brackets, AngularJS, Bootstrap $0 Developing tool. In fact we will use the same AWS services with ShareApp, so maybe there would be also no hardware cost. But maybe we will attract a lot of new users and in that case extra charge should be occur. 2.2 Benefit Analysis - Makes upload and download easier o It is much more convenient to download or upload large amount of pictures using desktop or laptop. The storage management is also easier. - Increase the size and quality of picture people can upload o There is a limitation on the size of pictures users can upload. ShareWeb will increase the size and the resolution of pictures that people can upload. - Attract more different types of users FED_FCP_F16a_T05_V1.1 3 Version Date: 10/15/16

9 o Professional photographer or people who wants to share high quality or a mess of pictures would be interested in ShareWeb. We use the ShareApp's data as reference. We assume that our ShareWeb will attract 1/10 more users for the whole Share system. - Table 3 Benefits of Share System (in dollars) Year No. of Users Benefit (No. of users * $0.05 * 12) $ $ $ ROI Analysis As I have mentioned in 2.1.2, we may or may not have a hardware cost. But in general, the user number of share system is rising along with time, so client need to pay more each year. It is not likely to pay extra charge specially for our project. And we will also ask the backend team to change or add some APIs. However we are not sure about their contract - if they will be paid for our APIs (in fact we believe this is their job and will not be paid more). Even though client need to pay some extra money, it should be quite little. Thus a ROI Analysis is not necessary. FED_FCP_F16a_T05_V1.1 4 Version Date: 10/15/16

10 3. Architecture Feasibility 3.1 Level of Service Feasibility Table 4: Level of Service Feasibility Level of Service Requirement LOS-1: At least Supported Browsers: IE, Chrome, Firefox, and Safari. LOS-2: Format allowed to upload: at least JPG and RAW Product Satisfaction Product Strategies: Avoid using HTML5, CSS2/3 as they may not compatible to all these browser required. Process Strategies: Cross-template coding. Analysis: We will use Flex technology and test our website on all these 4 browsers. Product Strategies: New API may required. Process Strategies: AngularJS will judge the type of the uploading files and send to backend API. Analysis: It is easy to get the format of the uploading the picture, and the rest work will be done by backend API. 3.2 Capability Feasibility Table 5: Capability Requirements and Their Feasibility Evidence Capability Requirement CR-1: Log In CR-2: Log Out CR-3: Upload Picture CR-4: Delete Picture Product Satisfaction Feasibility Evidence: AngularJS sent all the information to backend API. If user want to log in with a Facebook account, call Facebook API. Bootstrap is using for the web style. Referred use case diagram: UC-1 Feasibility Evidence: AngularJS call the corresponding backend API. Bootstrap is using for the web style. Referred use case diagram: UC-2 Feasibility Evidence: AngularJS will judge if the uploading picture is larger than the limitation in ShareApp and call the corresponding backend API. Format is also checked by AngularJS. Bootstrap is using for the web style. Referred use case diagram:uc-3 FED_FCP_F16a_T05_V1.1 5 Version Date: 10/15/16

11 CR-5: Upload Multiple Pictures CR-6: Like Picture CR-7: Sort Pictures by number of Like or uploading time CR-8: Download Multiple Pictures CR-9: Report Pictures CR-10: Comment Picture CR-11: Search Event s Pictures CR-12: Create Private Event CR-13: Create Public Feasibility Evidence: AngularJS send a request to corresponding backend API. Bootstrap is using for the web style. Referred use case diagram:uc-4 Feasibility Evidence: AngularJS will in turn judge if the uploading picture is larger than the limitation in ShareApp and call the corresponding backend API. Format is also checked by AngularJS. Bootstrap is using for the web style. Referred use case diagram:uc-5 Feasibility Evidence: AngularJS send a request with picture's ID to corresponding backend API. Bootstrap is using for the web style. Referred use case diagram:uc-6 Feasibility Evidence: Sorting info have been recieved when the pictures list.angularjs sort the pictures. Bootstrap is using for the web style. Referred use case diagram: UC-7 Feasibility Evidence: AngularJS will collect all the IDs of the pictures user choose and send them to the backend. Afterwards backend API returns the download link (a zip file contains all those pictures). Bootstrap is using for the web style. Referred use case diagram: UC-8 Feasibility Evidence: AngularJS send a request with picture's ID to corresponding backend API. Bootstrap is using for the web style. Referred use case diagram: UC-9 Feasibility Evidence: There would be a HTML text area. AngularJS send the comment and the ID to corresponding backend API. Bootstrap is using for the web style. Referred use case diagram: UC-10 Feasibility Evidence: AngularJS send the query to corresponding backend API. The picture will be returned and listed. Bootstrap is using for the web style. Referred use case diagram: UC-11 Feasibility Evidence: For private event, password is needed. AngularJS send event name and password to corresponding backend API. Bootstrap is using for the web style. Referred use case diagram: UC-12 FED_FCP_F16a_T05_V1.1 6 Version Date: 10/15/16

12 Event CR-14: Delete Event Feasibility Evidence: AngularJS send event name to corresponding backend API. Bootstrap is using for the web style. Referred use case diagram: UC-13 Feasibility Evidence: AngularJS send event's id to corresponding backend API. Bootstrap is using for the web style. Referred use case diagram: UC-14 FED_FCP_F16a_T05_V1.1 7 Version Date: 10/15/16

13 4. Process Feasibility Decision Criteria Rating Scale; 0:Very Low; 1:Low; 2: Medium; 3:High; 4:Very High Importance Rating Scale: 1:Low; 2: Medium; 3:High Table 6: Rationales for Selecting Architected Agile Model Criteria Importance Project Status Rationales 30 % of NDI/NCS features 3 4 AngularJS and Bootstrap is very important in the project. Single NDI/NCS 1 0 Cannot using single NDI. Unique/ inflexible business 1 1 Not really unique. process Need control over upgrade / maintenance 2 2 Maintenance would be quite the same with ShareApp. Rapid deployment 3 4 One semester project. Critical on compatibility 3 3 The website should be compatible to at least Mainstream browser. Internet connection independence 1 0 The website need internet connection. Need high level of services / performance 3 3 Multiple users will be using and high resolution pictures are required. Need high security 3 3 Account and private event Asynchronous communication need high security. 2 2 ShareWeb requires asynchronous communication to upload pictures. Be accessed from anywhere 3 3 Should be accessed from somewhere that has internet. Critical on mass schedule constraints 3 3 Seems 1 semester should be counted. Lack of personnel capability 2 2 Some of our implementation members are not familiar with AngularJS and Bootstrap. Require little upfront costs 3 3 Nearly no costs (or it is no Require low total cost of ownership Not-so-powerful local machines cost). 3 3 Nearly no costs (or it is no cost). 3 3 Project does not require powerful machines. FED_FCP_F16a_T05_V1.1 8 Version Date: 10/15/16

14 5. Risk Assessment Risks Personnel Shortfalls: Some members in implementation team are not familiar with AngularJS and Bootstrap The APIs we will use may change, or we need to add/change Table 7: Risk Assessment Risk Exposure Potential Probability Risk Risk Mitigations Magnitude Loss Exposure Learn the framework by selves and exchange experience with veteran team members Interact with client. Commnicate with backend team or the app team to negotiate. APIs Requirement changes Design to cost, incremental development. Commnicate with client frequently. FED_FCP_F16a_T05_V1.1 9 Version Date: 10/15/16

15 6. NDI/NCS Interoperability Analysis 6.1 Introduction << Identify the Non-Developmental Item (NDI) and Net-Centric Services (NCS) including open source software or libraries that you are using/ plan to use in your project and analyze their interoperability. >> COTS / GOTS / ROTS / Open Source / NCS << Identify all candidate commercial off-the-shelf, government-off-the-shelf, research-off-theshelf, open source software, libraries, and net-centric services component that you are using/ plan to use. Also identify the purpose of each component. >> Table 8: NDI Products Listing NDI/NCS Products Purposes Connectors << Identify the connector, for example - In this project, we use PHP/MySQL Connector to enable the PHP web application to retrieve and query data from the database. >> Legacy System << Identify the connector, for example - In this project, the development system has to be able to interoperate and works well with BusinessWorks version 5.2, which is a software system that the client is currently using. >> 6.2 Evaluation Summary << Summarize the final selection of your interoperable NDI/NCS, its usage and its comment. Example can be found in ICSM EPG> Task: Analyze NDI Interoperability for NDI / NCS project. >> Table 9: NDI Evaluation NDI Usages Comments FED_FCP_F16a_T05_V Version Date: 10/15/16