Feasibility Evidence Description (FED)

ickybeetsInternet and Web Development

Dec 4, 2013 (3 years and 6 months ago)

98 views

FED_
IOC
2
_S12b_T14_V6
.0


i

Version Date: 0
4
/
2
7
/2012

Feasibility Evidence Description (FED)






Transportation Grant Fund Database



Team 14




Team Members

Roles

(Primary)

Karim Sacre

Project Manager

Kirill Khistyaev

Software Architect

Ayman Khalil

Builder

Zhanna Seitenova

Trainer

Darren Liu

Tester

Stephan Rice

IIV&V









Feasibility Evidence Description (FED) for NDI

Version
6
.0

FED_IOC
2
_S12b_T14_V6
.0

ii

Version Date: 04/27/2012

Version History

Date

Author

Version

Changes made

Rationale

09/22/11

RM

1.0



Created initial draft of Feasibility
Evidence Description document
v1.0



Created a first draft of
Feasibility Evidence
Description document
based on IC
SM
-
EPG
template

09/28/11

RM

1.1



Updated the document with peer
review comments and fixed the
bugs against the document



Created second version of
Feasibility Evidence
document with IIV & V
input and team comments

10/10/11

RM

2



Updated the document status

and
Risk assessment section



Updated the document with NDI
feasibility Analysis (Section
4.1, 4.2.1 and 4.2.2)



As part of Core FC package
deliverable, the current
status of this document and
the present Risk
assessment data is updated



The review input cap
tured in
evaluation of VC package
is addressed in this version
of document



The outcome of valuation
phase feasibility evidence
activities such as
identification of NDIs and
their evaluation criteria is
included in this version of
document.

10/14/11

RM

2.
1



Included process feasibility,
capability feasibility,
evolutionary feasibility, NDI
assessment result and Business
case analysis result



As part of Draft FC package
the mentioned changes are
made.

10/19/11

RM

2.2



Updated risk assessment section
and busin
ess case analysis



Incorporated review
comments from client



Incorporated peer review
comments

10/24/11

RM

2.3



Updated Business Analysis and
ROI calculation



Updated Risk assessment with
new risk



Incorporated Architecture
Review Board meeting
comments

Feasibility Evidence Description (FED) for NDI

Version
6
.0

FED_IOC
2
_S12b_T14_V6
.0

iii

Version Date: 04/27/2012

Date

Author

Version

Changes made

Rationale

11/2
1/11

RM

3



Updated Risk assessment section



Risk assessment section is
updated with latest risk
mitigation outcome and
Risk Exposure values



List of capabilities that
required custom code has
been updated



Generic changes in document
naming and versioning for

Draft DCP submission

11/29/11

RM

3.1



Fixed formatting issues in the
tables



Included an introductory notes for
section 4.0



Changes are done to fix the
defects filed on FED 2.3



Generic changes in document
naming and version for
DCR ARB review


12/05/11

RM


3.2



Recreated the tables to correct
font and formatting issues



Updated the personnel cost
section with enhancement and
development cost



DCR ARB review comments



Fixed bug 6537

12/12/11

RM

3.3



Updated document header and
footer



Added the package informati
on in
FED status update section



As per DCP review
comments

02/02/12

KS

4.0



Updated document header and
footer



Updated the risk assessment table



Updated
NDI/NCS Candidate
Components



The risks were updated with
our issues



Introduction of new team
members

0
2/17/12

KS

4.1



Update risk analysis table



Update version number and date
of the document



Some of the risks have been
mitigated so the order
changed.

02/27/12

KS

4.2



Update format issues



Fix document format issues
as per the IV&Vs
comments.

03/25/12

KS

5.
0



Update
d

risks



Updated conclusions and
Recommendations



Some risks have been
mitigated



Some new risks have
developed

04/27/12

KS

6.0



Updated risks



Updated conclusions and
Recommendations



Added new transition related
risks



Removed mitigated risks



Updated
the conclusion


Feasibility Evidence Description (FED) for NDI

Version
6
.0

FED_IOC
2
_S12b_T14_V6
.0

iv

Version Date: 04/27/2012

Table of Contents
Feasibility Evidence Description (FED)

................................
................................
................................
......................
i

Version History

................................
................................
................................
................................
...........................

ii

Table of Contents

................................
................................
................................
................................
........................
iv

Table of Tables

................................
................................
................................
................................
.............................

v

Table of Figures

................................
................................
................................
................................
..........................
vi

1.

Introduction

................................
................................
................................
................................
..........................

1

1.
1

Purpose of the FED Document

................................
................................
................................
.....................

1

1.2

Status of the FED Document

................................
................................
................................
........................

1

2.

Process Feasibility

................................
................................
................................
................................
................

2

3.

Risk Assessment

................................
................................
................................
................................
....................

7

4.

NDI/NCS Feasibility Analysis

................................
................................
................................
..............................

9

4.1

Assessment Approach

................................
................................
................................
................................
...

9

4.2

Assessment Results

................................
................................
................................
................................
......

10

4.2.1

NDI/NCS Candidate Components (Combinations)

................................
...............................

10

4.2.2

Evaluation Criteria

................................
................................
................................
.................

10

4.2.3

Evaluation Results Screen Matrix

................................
................................
.........................

11

4.3

Feasibility Evidence

................................
................................
................................
................................
.....

13

4.3.1

Level of Service Feasibility

................................
................................
................................
...

13

4
.3.2

Capability Feasibility

................................
................................
................................
.............

13

4.3.3

Evolutionary Feasibility

................................
................................
................................
........

14

5.

Business Case Analysis

................................
................................
................................
................................
.......

15

5.1

Market Trend and Product Line Analysis

................................
................................
................................

15

5.2

Cost Analysis

................................
................................
................................
................................
................

18

5.2.1

Personnel Costs

................................
................................
................................
.....................

18

5.2.2

Hardware and Software Costs

................................
................................
...............................

19

5.3

Benefit Analysis

................................
................................
................................
................................
...........

20

5.4

ROI Analysis

................................
................................
................................
................................
................

20

6.

Conclusion and Recommendations

................................
................................
................................
...................

22


Feasibility Evidence Description (FED) for NDI

Version
6
.0

FED_IOC
2
_S12b_T14_V6
.0

v

Version Date: 04/27/2012

Table of Tables
Table 1: Rationales for selecting the sp
ecific process model

................................
................................
........................

2

Table 2:
Process decision Criteria and Importance Rating Scale

................................
................................
.................

3

Table 3: Requirement Prioritization

................................
................................
................................
..............................

6

Table 4: Risk Assessment

................................
................................
................................
................................
...............

8

Table 5: NDI/NCS Products Listing

................................
................................
................................
............................

10

Table 6: Evaluation Criteria


NDI (CMS system) Attributes

................................
................................
.....................

10

Table 7: Evaluation Criteria


NDI (CMS system) features

................................
................................
........................

11

Table 8: Evaluation Results Screen Matrix for NDI Attributes (CMS system)

................................
............................

12

Table 9: Evaluation Results Screen Matrix for NDI features (CMS system)

................................
...............................

12

Table 10: Level of Service Feasibi
lity Evidence

................................
................................
................................
..........

13

Table 11: Capability Feasibility Evidence

................................
................................
................................
..................

13

Table 12: Evolutionary Feasibility Evidence

................................
................................
................................
..............

14

Table 13: Market Trend and Product Line Analysis

................................
................................
................................
...

15

Table 14: Personnel Costs

................................
................................
................................
................................
...........

18

Table 15: Hardware and Software Costs

................................
................................
................................
....................

19

Table 16: Benefits of the implemented System

................................
................................
................................
.............

20

Table 17: ROI Analysis

................................
................................
................................
................................
................

20

Feasibility Evidence Descrip
tion

(FED) for NDI

Version 6
.0

FED_IOC2
_S12b_T14_V6
.0


vi


Version Date: 04/27/2012

Table of Figures
Figure 1: ROI Analysis Graph

................................
................................
................................
................................
..

21

Feasibility Evidence Descri
ption (FED) Docu
ment

Version 6
.0

FED_IOC
2
_S12b_T14_V6
.0




1

Version Date: 04/27/2012

1.

Introduction


1.1
Purpose of the FED Document

Evidence and risk based decision making are one of the driving pr
inciples of Incremental
Commitment Spiral Model. The Feasibility Evidence Description (FED) documents the
evidences for making important strategic/non
-
strategic project decisions that values the WIN
propositions of all success critical stakeholders of the
project.


FED document builds enough proofs with the aid of different analysis techniques such as
Business case analysis, Return on Investment analysis and Risk assessment techniques in order
to ensure whether it is feasible to proceed with project implem
entation under the implied risks
and mitigation plans.



1.2


Status of the FED Document



The high level project risks in the system have been assesse
d periodically.
Risk
identification and risk assessment will be done every week and this document will b
e
updated with latest risk assessment result.




A brief on process feasibility assessment criteria, process decision driver result and the
rationale for selecting “NDI Intensive” process pattern is captured.




A brief on NDI identification and selection crit
eria with respect to the project context is
included in this document. This version of document is updated with NDI assessment
result by independent reviewers from the team.




Business case analysis and ROI result is included in this document.




As the proje
ct progresses on different phases this document will be updated with required
feasibility evidence study results.





This
is the last version of the FED Document. It is included in the final deliverable
package.





Feasibility Evidence Descri
ption (FED) Docu
ment

Version 6
.0

FED_IOC
2
_S12b_T14_V6
.0




2

Version Date: 04/27/2012

2.

Process Feasibility

Following table highl
ights the process selection criteria and the project rationale for each of the
criteria.


Table
1
: Rationales for selecting the specific process model

Criteria

Rationale

30% of NDI/NCS features

Microsoft Sharepoint provide more

than 30% of the features
required for the project

Single NDI/NCS

Microsoft Sharepoint provide more than 30% of the features
required for the project

Unique business process

The project implementation is the combination of Content
Management System and a

Project Management Website for
LADOT. Microsoft Sharepoint provide support for

Both of these main requirements.

Need control over upgrade

There needs to be a continuous maintenance and support after
the product deployed in production. LADOT IT team memb
ers
Would be engaged in these activities

Rapid deployment

Considering the length of the project, there needs a real need to
go for rapid development approach

Critical on compatibility

This system would be launched as a
standalone

server to which
the cl
ient browsers send request.

Internet connection
independence

The system will be part of LADOT intranet environment. It will
also be accessed by other City departments. The system rely On
central server for all the operations. There is nothing to do
offlin
e.

Need high performance

The proposed system will need to support not more than 100
users. It should cater standard response time. But

there is no
n
eed to say
that it provides

real time high performance.

Need high security

There is a need to allow sec
ure access to the project
management system. The system will be part of LADOT
firewall
protective Network
. Hence the security
requirement is

taken care
of
automatically considering the present deployment
environment.

Asynchronous communication

Clients int
eract with the server through standard HTTP
communication. There is no requirement for asynchronous
communication As of now.

Access data anywhere

As mentioned earlier, the system will be accessible to limited
LADOT users. But other city department users m
ay also need

Access to the system.

Feasibility Evidence Descri
ption (FED) Docu
ment

Version 6
.0

FED_IOC
2
_S12b_T14_V6
.0




3

Version Date: 04/27/2012

Critical mass schedule
constraints

As mentioned in rapid deployment criteria, we need a better and
faster implementation mechanism to complete the project

On time.

Lack of personnel capability

The team has a mix and m
atch of skilled engineers. Team
members haven't worked on Microsoft Sharepoint in their
career, But they have expertise in implementing similar project
for real world customers.

Little to no upfront costs

LADOT is having Windows system and SAN to support
required development and test environment. Thus the upfront
cost would Be minimal.

Low total cost of ownership

Total cost of ownership may vary based on the type of
Sharepoint license being purchased and the effort required to

Develop and customize the s
ystem (pre/post deployment)

Not
-
so
-
powerful local
machines

The
system needs

a thin client setup with browser in order to
access the system. There is no need for any high end systems.


On the basis of the above mentioned rationale, each of the process eva
luation criteria is graded
by “Decision Criteria Rating Scale” and “Importance Rating Scale”


Decision Criteria Rating Scale: How likely the given criterion fits the project?


0 (Very Low), 1 (Low), 2 (Medium), 3 (High) and 4 (Very High)


Impor
tance Rating Scale: How importance is this criterion for this project?


1 (Low), 2 (Medium) and 3 (High)


Following table lists the process selection criteria and associated Importance and Value
factors.

Table
2
:
Pr
ocess decision Criteria and Importance Rating Scale

Criteria

Importance

Value

30% of NDI/NCS features

3

3

Single NDI/NCS

3

3

Unique business process

1

1

Need control over upgrade

2

3

Rapid deployment

1

3

Critical on compatibility

1

2

Internet connec
tion independence

1

0

Need high performance

1

1

Need high security

2

2

Asynchronous communication

1

1

Feasibility Evidence Descri
ption (FED) Docu
ment

Version 6
.0

FED_IOC
2
_S12b_T14_V6
.0




4

Version Date: 04/27/2012

Access data anywhere

1

3

Critical mass schedule constraints

2

3

Lack of personnel capability

2

2

Little to no upfront cost

2

2

Low total cost of o
wnership

2

2

Not
-
so
-
powerful local machines

2

3





With the aid of process decision driver tool (accessible through the link given below), the
process decision graph is plotted.

http://greenba
y.usc.edu/pdd/index.php



Feasibility Evidence Descri
ption (FED) Docu
ment

Version 6
.0

FED_IOC
2
_S12b_T14_V6
.0




5

Version Date: 04/27/2012




Following lists the non
-
conforming points for each of the process pattern


A. Architected Agile


1. 30% of NDI/NCS features


2. Single NDI/NCS


3. Rapid Deployment


4. Critical mass schedule constraint


5. Low total cost of
ownership


6. Unique business process

B. Use Single NDI Process pattern


1. Single NDI/NCS


2. Need control over upgrade


3. Rapid deployment



4. Critical on compatibility


5. Lack of personnel capability

C. NDI
-
Intensive Process pattern

1.

Need Control Ove
r upgrade

D. Net
-
Centric Services Intensive Process pattern


1.

Need Control Over upgrade


2. Asynchronous communication


3. Access data anywhere


4. Little to no upfront cost



Feasibility Evidence Descri
ption (FED) Docu
ment

Version 6
.0

FED_IOC
2
_S12b_T14_V6
.0




6

Version Date: 04/27/2012



The rationale given per criteria reflects the actual project case. The crite
ria values and the
Importance factor
are

chosen based on
this rationale
. Thus the evaluation result is more or
less an accurate outcome.




As mentioned, Microsoft SharePoint provides more than 30% of the features required for
the project implementation. Con
sidering the schedule constraint, the
project needs

a rapid
and quick development focus. NDI
-
Intensive process highly caters to this need.




It is evident that NDI
-
Intensive Process pattern has least number of non
-
conforming
points compared to other process

patterns. The single non
-
confirming point “Need to control
over upgrade” is of medium importance. NDI
-
Intensive supports all the High Importance
criteria for this project. Thus NDI
-
Intensive process pattern would be a good fit for the
project.




NDI
-
Inten
sive process pattern is very promising as most of the evaluation criteria result
fall into its range. It addresses all the high importance criteria items.



Considering the above mentioned factors,
NDI
-
Intensive process pattern

is the most
appropriate pat
tern for LADOT Grant Fund Management Database project.

The table below lists the Win conditions that require some custom/glue code to be developed and
the project increments in which they will be handled.

Table
3
: Requirement Prio
ritization

Priority

Requirements

References

(Win Conditions in
WinWin

Sheet
)

Increment

1

System can create Metro Call quarterly
report
. (Converting to PDF)

WC_366


1

2

System can create other report

WC_370


2


Feasibility Evidence Descri
ption (FED) Docu
ment

Version 6
.0

FED_IOC
2
_S12b_T14_V6
.0




7

Version Date: 04/27/2012

3.

Risk Assessment

Risk management involves ri
sk assessment and control. There are different tools and techniques
available to perform the risk management. Risk Exposure calculation method
-

a simple and
effective risk assessment technique has been used to identify the top level risks in LADOT Grant
F
und Database management project.


The Risk Assessment table (Table
4
) lists the identified risks, the Potential Magnitude of
Loss on the scale of 1
-
10, the Probability of Loss on the scale of 1
-
10, the Risk Exposure (
Potential Magnitude of Loss * Probab
ility of Loss) and the Risk Mitigation plan corresponding
to the identified risk.


As the project progresses, the risk exposure will be re
-
evaluated for each risk item with
respect to the risk mitigation results, existing risk items will be reti
red once the Risk Exposure
value is 0 or significantly low and new risk items will be added.


Rationale for Probability of Loss (PL) and Potential Magnitude of Loss (PM): Following
summarizes the present rationale for computing PL and PM.



Accurate estimat
ion of PL and PM is a challenging portion of risk assessment exercise



Prototyping, benchmarking and simulation techniques may provide better estimates of PL
and PM. But these are tied to cost and time.



Computation of PL and PM also depends on the nature of

the risk items. For instance,
risk related to personnel short falls may need more of subjective analysis based on project
management experience rather on say prototyping in order to predict PL and PM values.



The frequency of risk assessment operation (in
this case weekly) also demands an easy
and faster technique to come up with PL and PM values.


Considering the above factors, Analogies and Group Consensus technique is being
followed to compute PL and PM values. Note that advanced risk asses
sment and analysis
techniques such as prototyping and simulation may be adopted in future based on the type of risk
items (say software architectural risk).


PL: Probability of Loss

PM: Potential Magnitude of Loss

RE: Risk Exposure = PL * PM

Feasibility Evidence Descri
ption (FED) Docu
ment

Version 6
.0

FED_IOC
2
_S12b_T14_V6
.0




8

Version Date: 04/27/2012


Table
4
: Risk Assessment

Risks

Risk Exposure

Risk Mitigation

PM

scale:
(0
-
10)

PL

scale:
(0
-
10)

RE

Migration to Production
Server

Given the time complexity
that we had in our last meeting
due to our class schedule and
exam period we were
not able
to fix all the bugs that
occurred when migrating the
system to production.

3

3

9

We are meeting with the Client again
next week to finalize the migration of
the system. Right now the system is
fully functional with the exception of
some minor bugs

such as broken links
that occurred when moving from one
server to another.

These bugs are minor issues and are
noted down.

We also asked some project managers
to try
out
the system and to give us
feedback.

Feasibility Evidence Descri
ption (FED) Docu
ment

Version 6
.0

FED_IOC
2
_S12b_T14_V6
.0




9

Version Date: 04/27/2012

4.

NDI/NCS Feasibility Analysis


Evidence based de
cision making is the driving factor of ICSM process. Building and
analyzing feasibility evidence is a continuous activity. This section of the document summarizes
the feasibility evidence for basing the project development activities on specific NDI and
ar
chitectural support for satisfying Core and Level
-
Of
-
Service capabilities. Approach followed
for NDI selection, the constraints, criteria used for NDI selection and assessment results are
shared in this section.


4.1
Assessment Approach

A brief summary o
f NDI identification, exploration, customer communication and the rationale
for present approach is given below.




During the exploration phase, the team recommended list of NDI options such as Apache
Lenya, Joomla and Microsoft SharePoint



Team members sta
rted to explore few of the NDIs like Apache Lenya and Microsoft
SharePoint to understand different capabilities provided by them.



The initial assessment comments shared during the development team meeting identified
both Lenya and Microsoft SharePoint as e
qually good options



In Subsequent meeting, LADOT management team mandated Microsoft SharePoint for
implementing Transportation Grant Fund Database project.



LADOT IT team also recommend Microsoft SharePoint as the only best option in terms
of future mainte
nance and support.



A further discussion with clients revealed that LADOT is migrating to Microsoft
SharePoint and the clients are ready to spend $100k for licensing and support.



Win condition 354 ( Refer WC_354 in Team14 of WinWin Ranking excel sheet)
rep
resents “Share point is a must” for the project and client's rating of 9/9 in business
value column.


Considering the above facts, Microsoft SharePoint is an unanimous choice in order to align with
LADOT strategic decision. Thus there is no further need to

explore and assess other different
NDIs. Such an activity would yield less/no ROI considering the current constraint.


The NDI evaluation criteria (Section 4.2.2) of this document is updated with most crucial
features that are expected out of Microsoft S
harePoint in order to satisfy the Win conditions of
the Success
-
Critical stakeholders. The evaluation result screen matrix (Section 4.2.3) will be
updated with independent evaluation of Microsoft SharePoint with respect to the evaluation
criteria. This wou
ld provide a quantitative feasibility evidence for going with Microsoft
SharePoint. There wouldn't be any comparative analysis with other NDIs.





Feasibility Evidence Descri
ption (FED) Docu
ment

Version 6
.0

FED_IOC
2
_S12b_T14_V6
.0



10

Version Date: 04/27/2012

4.2
Assessment Results


4.2
.1
NDI/NCS Candidate Components (Combinations)

Following are the list of dif
ferent NDIs that would be used for project implementation.


Table
5
: NDI/NCS Products Listing

NDI/NCS Products

Purposes

MS SQL Server 2008

Back end data base to centralize project
information and support Microsoft SharePoint
Serve
r

Microsoft SharePoint Server 2010

-
Content Management System for centralized
management of project documents

-
Designing and hosting of project website

PM Central (SharePoint Add
-
in)

Introduce more features to SharePoint and help
with Project Management

systems. It has some
built in functionalities.

Muhimbi PDF Converter (Sharepoint
Add
-
in)

This product allows us to convert our forms to
pdf which was one of our highest risks during
the last period

IIS on Windows Server 2008 x64

WebServer to host Micros
oft Share Point Server

Microsoft Visual Studio 2010

IDE to develop, build, debug and customize
Microsoft SharePoint solutions



4.2
.2
Evaluation Criteria

The following table lists the common attributes that would help to evaluate any NDI. These
attribu
tes form the basic criteria for evaluation. The weight value assigned for each evaluation
criteria would help the evaluator to assess the NDI quantitatively. The evaluator is free to choose
any number between 1 to the maximum value of weight given per crit
eria. The
higher

the weight,
the higher the satisfaction rate.


Table
6
: Evaluation Criteria


NDI (CMS system) Attributes

No.

Evaluation Criteria


NDI/NCS attributes

Weight

1.


Ease of deployment

10

2.


Availability of vendor supp
ort (present and
future)

10

3.


Availability of online help and training materials

5

Feasibility Evidence Descri
ption (FED) Docu
ment

Version 6
.0

FED_IOC
2
_S12b_T14_V6
.0



11

Version Date: 04/27/2012

4.


Vendor's brand name and product track records

5

5.


Ease of maintenance

10

6.


Availability of different licensing options

10

7.


Ease of development

10

8.


Technical feasibility
(Ability to support desired
functionality at required level of reliability)

10

9.


Strategic feasibility (Ability to be incorporated
into the client's environment within available
budget and schedule)

10

10.


Strategic feasibility (Alignment with LADOT
strategi
c decisions)

10

11.


Compatibility and interoperability

10


Total weight

100


The following table lists the common and important (project specific) features expected of a
Content Management System. The weight value assigned for each feature would help the
evaluator to assess the NDI feature quantitatively. The evaluator is free to choose any number
between 1 to the maximum value of weight given per feature. The more the weight, the higher
the satisfaction rate.

Table
7
: Evaluation
Criteria


NDI (CMS system) features

No.

NDI/NCS Features/
sub features

Weight

1.


Calendar and scheduling
functions

10

2.


Capability to design
websites and business
work
-
flow

10

3.


Report generation
capability

15

4.


Support for document
version and history

1
5

5.


Support for large scale
database

10

6.


Role based authentication

10

7.


Email notification

10

8.


Content syndication

10

9.


Searching

10


Total weight

100



4.2
.3
Evaluation Results Screen Matrix

As mentioned in the NDI assessment approach (Section 4.1),
the evaluation result screen matrix
tables (Table7 and Table8) lists the results of assessment of Microsoft SharePoint by 3
Feasibility Evidence Descri
ption (FED) Docu
ment

Version 6
.0

FED_IOC
2
_S12b_T14_V6
.0



12

Version Date: 04/27/2012

independent reviewers. Two of the reviewers are from On Campus team and One reviewer is
from IIV&V team.


Table
8
: Evaluation Results Screen Matrix for NDI Attributes (CMS system)

No

W

Microsoft
SharePoint

AVG

Total

R1

R2

R3

A1

10

7

6

8

7

21

A2

10

8

9

9

8.7

26

A3

5

4

4

4

4

12

A4

5

2

3

3

2.7

8

A5

10

8

7

8

7.7

23

A6

10

7

9

7

7.7

23

A7

10

9

7

6

7.3

22

A8

10

7

8

7

7.3

22

A9

10

9

9

9

9

27

A10

10

9

10

9

9.3

28

A11

10

7

6

6

6

18

Total

100

77

78

76

76.7

230


Table
9
: Evaluation Results Screen Matrix for NDI features (CMS system)

No

W

Microsoft
SharePoint

AVG

Total

R1

R2

R3

F1

10

5

5

5

5

15

F2

10

5

8

8

7

21

F3

15

10

12

12

11.3

34

F4

15

7

10

12

9.7

29

F5

10

6

7

8

7

21

F6

10

7

6

8

7

21

F7

10

9

8

8

8.4

25

F8

10

8

8

8

8

24

F9

10

8

9

8

8.4

25

Total

100

65

73

77

71.8

215





From the table7 and table8, it is evident that
Microsoft SharePoint satisfies more than 70% of
NDI attributes and features.



Though Microsoft SharePoint is a constraint (Unanimous choice by clients), this evaluation result
proves that SharePoint is a fair choice for the project.




Feasibility Evidence Descri
ption (FED) Docu
ment

Version 6
.0

FED_IOC
2
_S12b_T14_V6
.0



13

Version Date: 04/27/2012

4.3
Feasibility Evid
ence


4.3
.1
Level of Service Feasibility

The following table lists the level of service Win conditions and feasibility evidence that the NDI
support the WIN condition

Table
10
: Level of Service Feasibility Evidence

Level of Servic
e Win Condition

Rationale

WC_1042:The system will provide support
for a minimum of 100 users and 50
concurrent user access


Microsoft SharePoint supports at the
maximum of 100 concurrent users for
editing. The concurrent user access in the
Win condition r
efers to different user
interactions more or less at the same time.
These are set of user interactions like
editing a document, attaching a document,
viewing a document etc and it doesn't
mean the same type of operations.

As the SharePoint support 100 con
current
edits, 50 concurrent access is achievable.



4.3
.2
Capability Feasibility

The following table highlights the capability Win conditions and feasibility evidence to support
these Win conditions.

Table
11
: Capability Feasib
ility Evidence

Capability
Requirement

Product Satisfaction

WC_397: Role Based
(RBAC) and Data
Level Security (For
example, accounting
information should not
be modified by PM but
accountants should
able to do). Maximum
of 4 roles.

Software/Technology used
: C#, SharePoint Enterprise, SQL

Feasibility Evidence: All users have to log in to use the system.
Users have roles assigned by
the project coordinator
. Roles
define user privileges.

R
eferred use case diagram: UC
-
1, UC
-
2, UC
-
3, UC
-
4, UC
-
5

WC_392: Abil
ity to
upload (attach) any
files to the project

Software/Technology used: SharePoint Enterprise, SQL

Feasibility Evidence: SharePoint Programs Web Database
Template has this functionality.

Feasibility Evidence Descri
ption (FED) Docu
ment

Version 6
.0

FED_IOC
2
_S12b_T14_V6
.0



14

Version Date: 04/27/2012

Referred use case diagram:
UC13,
UC
-
14, UC
-
15

WC_366: System c
an
create Metro quarterly
report

Software/Technology used: C#, SharePoint Enterprise, SQL

Feasibility Evidence: System will select required information
form the database, fill out the report template and provide it to
the user.

Referred use case diagra
m: UC
-
12
, UC
-
20, UC
-
24

WC_977:
Project
coordinator

has a
capability to assign
fixed roles

Software/Technology used: C#, SharePoint Enterprise, SQL

Feasibility Evidence:
Project Coordinator

will add users to the
system and assign their roles.
Project Coo
rdinator

is able to
change
users’

roles through the Edit user page.

Referred use case diagram: UC
-
3, UC
-
4
, UC
-
5



4.3
.3
Evolutionary Feasibility

The following table highlights the evolutionary Win conditions and feasibility evidence to
support these Wi
n conditions

Table
12
: Evolutionary Feasibility Evidence

Evolutionary Win Condition

Rationale

WC_351: System Architecture must be
expandable

System is based on the SharePoint Enterprise
framework. This fact and the architecture of

the
system will allow
attaching

additional modules
to the system to implement new functionality.


Feasibility Evidence Descri
ption (FED) Docu
ment

Version 6
.0

FED_IOC
2
_S12b_T14_V6
.0



15

Version Date: 04/27/2012

5.

Business Case Analysis


5
.1
Market Trend and Product Line Analysis

The following table provides evidence for product popularity, strong market share and be
tter
support for Microsoft product components. The table also highlights list of related product lines
for each product component. The sources for the data is also given in Reference section

Table
13
: Market Trend and Product Line
Analysis

Feasibility Evidence Descri
ption (FED) Docu
ment

Version 6
.0

FED_IOC
2
_S12b_T14_V6
.0



16

Version Date: 04/27/2012


MS SQL Server
2008

Windows Server
2008

Microsoft
Visual Studio
2010

Microsoft
SharePoint
Server 2010

Market
Trend

Product
Popularity
:

* SQL Server is
the uncontested
leader in TPC
-
E
Performance
Benchmarks

* SQL Server
delivers a 460%
savings in

annual
cost of
administration per
database over
Oracle.

* Microsoft is
positioned as a
leader in Magic
Quadrant for
Business
Intelligence
Platforms

* Virtualization
and cloud support

Market Share:

* Microsoft
outpaced the
Business
Intelligence
software
market
with 23.6%
growth based on
revenue in 2010

* As per Top 10
RDBMS vendor


license revenue
survey on
Windows
operating system,
Microsoft SQL
Server is
positioned at
second place.


Product
Popularity
:

* very stable
server operating
system

* support OS
virtualization

* Foundations on
cloud computing

* Enhanced
administrati
on and
power
management
capabilities



Future road
map
:

* Periodic releases
of service packs
and minor versions

Product
popularity

* Widely used
Integrated
Development
Environment on
Microsoft
Windows
Operating system


Future road
map
:

* Periodic
releases
of
service packs

* Likely
availability of
Visual Studion
vNext (2012)

Product
popularity
:


* Forrester
analysis indicates
that Microsoft
SharePoint enables
organization to
drive productivity
and saves cost

* Well known for
Document
management, Site
manage
ment,
Workflow
management and
task management

* Variety of
licensing options
(Foundation,
Standard and
Enterprise)
available



Market Share
:

* 125 million
licenses sold to
over 65,000
customers

* Yielded $1bn
revenue for the
year 2010


Future road map
:

*

Continuous
support through
Service pack
releases (SP2 is
expected to be
available in 2012)

* Predictions on
Microsoft
SharePoint 2013

Feasibility Evidence Descri
ption (FED) Docu
ment

Version 6
.0

FED_IOC
2
_S12b_T14_V6
.0



17

Version Date: 04/27/2012

Future road
map
:

* New capabilities
are added into
existing produc
t
line (MS SQL
Server 2008 R2)

* The next release
SQL Server 2012 is
very promising in
terms of new
capabilities









Related
Product
Line

* Microsoft
Access

* Microsoft visual
Foxpro

* Microsoft SQL
Server Compact
(Embedded
Databa
se)





* Windows
Essential Business
Server 2008

* Windows HPC
Server 2008

* Windows
Multipoint Server

* Windows Home
Server 2011

* Visual Studio
Ultimate

* Visual Studio
Professional

* Visual Studio
Professional

* Visual Studio
Light
Switch2011

* Team
Fo
undation
Server

* Visual Studio
Test Professional

* Microsoft
SharePoint Search

* Microsoft
SharePoint
Sandboxed
solutions

* Microsoft
SharePoint
Foundation

* Microsoft
SharePoint
Standard

* Microsoft
SharePoint
Enterprise

Reference
s

http://www.micro
soft.com/sqlserver
/en/us/product
-
info/why
-
sql
-
server.aspx


http://en.
wikipedi
a.org/wiki/Compa
rison_of_relationa
l_database_mana
gement_systems


http://www.micros
oft.com/en
-
us/server
-
cloud/windows
-
server/default.aspx



http://www.micr
osoft.com/visuals
tudio/en
-
us/roadmap


http://SharePoint.
microsoft.com/en
-
us/Pages/default.as
px

http://blogs.msdn.c
om/b/natebaum/arc
hive/2011/10/11/S
harePoint
-
conference
-
2011
-
it
-
s
-
a
-
wrap.aspx

http://www.slidesh
are.net/jonathamda
niels/enterprise
-
software
-
roadmap
-
microsoft
-
8664242

http://msdn.micros
oft.com/en
-
us/gg620703

Feasibility Evidence Descri
ption (FED) Docu
ment

Version 6
.0

FED_IOC
2
_S12b_T14_V6
.0



18

Version Date: 04/27/2012

5.2
Cost Analysis


5.2
.1
Personnel Co
sts

Following table highlights the personnel cost involved with the project.

Table
14
: Personnel Costs




Activities
Development Period (24 weeks)
36
72
6
24
48
96
9
80
371
Maintenance Period (1 year)
104
Time Spent
(Hours)

Valuation and Foundations Phases: Time Invested (CS577a, 12 weeks)

Client: Time spent for internal meetings, meetings with development team, email and
mobile communication and followup activities [3 hrs/week * 12 weeks * 1 person]

Client Representatives:Time spent for internal meetings, meetings with development team,
email and mobile communication and followup activities [2 hrs/week * 12 weeks * 3
persons ]

Architecture Review Boards [1.5 hrs * 2 times * 2 persons ]

Development and Operation Phases: Time Invested (CS577b, 12 weeks)

Client: Time spent for internal meetings, meetings with development team, email and
mobile communication and followup activities [2 hrs/week * 12 weeks * 1 person ]

Client Representatives:Time spent for internal meetings, meetings with development team,
email and mobile communication and followup activities [2 hrs/week * 12 weeks * 2
persons ]

Maintainer: Time spent for internal meetings, meetings with development team, email and
mobile communication and followup activities [4 hrs/week * 12 weeks * 2 persons]

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

Deployment of system in operation phase and training

- Installation & Deployment [5 hrs * 3 times * 2 people]

- Training & Support [5 hrs * 2 times * 5 people]

Total Initial Investment

Maintenance [Average of 2 hr/month * 12 months = 24 hrs]

Enhancement and development [ 10 days * 8 hrs = 80 hrs]
Feasibility Evidence Descri
ption (FED) Docu
ment

Version 6
.0

FED_IOC
2
_S12b_T14_V6
.0



19

Version Date: 04/27/2012


5.2
.2
Hardware and Software Costs

Following table summarizes the hardware and software costs associated with the project

T
able
15
: Hardware and Software Costs

Hardware and Software cost
-

Development Type

Cost

Rationale

Hardware


x64 system for
development and test environment

$0.00

Assuming that customer would use existing
Windows 2008 server setup

for development and
testing purpose

Microsof
t

SharePoint 2010 Server

$0.00

Assuming that customer will use existing
license/procured license as part of the migration
activity for development and testing

PM Central

$0.00

Assuming the customer will use e
xisting licenses
on our production servers

Muhimbi PDF Converter

$0.00

Assuming the customer will use existing licenses
on our production servers

SAN Storage

$0.00

Assuming that the customer would rely on existing
SAN to cater to the storage needs of imp
lemented
system

MS SQL 2008

$0.00

Assuming that the customer will use existing
license for development and testing

Hardware and Software cost
-

Operation Type

Cost

Rationale

Hardware


x64 system to host
Microsoft SharePoint and MS SQL

$0.00

Assuming tha
t customer would use existing
Windows 2008 server setup for development and
testing purpose

Hardware


x64 system for
development and test environment

$0.00

Assuming that customer would use existing
Windows 2008 server setup for development and
testing pu
rpose

PM Central

$0.00

Assuming the customer will use existing licenses
on our production servers

Muhimbi PDF Converter

$0.00

Assuming the customer will use existing licenses
on our production servers

Microsoft SharePoint 2010 Server

$0.00

Assuming that

customer will use existing
license/procured license as part of the migration
activity for development and testing

MS SQL 2008

$0.00

Assuming that the customer will use existing
license for development and testing

SAN Storage

$0.00

Assuming that the cust
omer would rely on existing
SAN to cater to the storage needs of implemented
system

Total

$0.00



Feasibility Evidence Descri
ption (FED) Docu
ment

Version 6
.0

FED_IOC
2
_S12b_T14_V6
.0



20

Version Date: 04/27/2012

5.3
Benefit Analysis

Following table summarizes the benefits in terms of number of hours of work saved mainly
through automation of activities. Note that th
e values used are yet to be confirmed by the clients.
Thus there will be changes after incorporating client's input.

Table
16
:

Benefits of the implemented System

Current activities & resources used (Following
data is based on team'
s assumption.
More
reliable estimate yet to be obtained from client)

% Reduce

Time Saved (Hours/Year)

Quarterly Report Generation (25 projects * 3 hrs * 4
times a year = 300hrs)

70.00%

210

Time spent on gathering project docs from various
sources ( 50 ma
nagers * 1 hrs/month * 12 months =
600 hrs)

90.00%

480

Project Progress Report Generation ( 50 projects * 2
hrs * 6 times a year = 600 hrs)

70.00%

420

Total Time Savings in hours


1110



5.4

ROI Analysis

Following table summarizes the Return on Investm
ent by implementing the project.

Note: Assuming that the investment on maintenance is same starting the year 2013 till 2016.

Table
17
: ROI Analysis

Year

Cost (Effort
Spent) hrs

Benefit

(Effort Saved)
hrs

Cumulative
Cost (hrs)

Cumu
lative
Benefit (hrs)

ROI
(Cumulative
Benefit


Cumulative
Cost)/Cumulat
ive Cost

2012

371

0

371

0

-
1

2013

104

1110

475

1110

1.34

2014

104

1110

579

2220

2.83

2015

104

1110

683

3330

3.88

2016

104

1110

787

4440

4.64


Feasibility Evidence Descri
ption (FED) Docu
ment

Version 6
.0

FED_IOC
2
_S12b_T14_V6
.0



21

Version Date: 04/27/2012

The ROI results are captured in ROI A
nalysis Graph (Figure1). This shows a high
positive trend on Investment Returns.






Figure
1
: ROI Analysis Graph




LADOT would have invested around 371 man hours at the mid of year 2012. ROI for this
period would be a
-
ve v
alue (
-
1) as the benefit would not have been yet realized.



Starting the mid of 2012, the system brings in effort savings of around 1110 hrs and
LADOT invests around 104 hrs for maintaining the system.



The Return On Investment starts showing a positive tr
end at the mid of year 2012 and it
grows every year by a factor of 1.


The ROI graph shows a very good positive trend on Investment Returns. The ROI graph is a
solid proof to demonstrate that LADOT will reap great benefit by investing on this project work
.


2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
ROI Result
Year
ROI
Feasibility Evidence Descri
ption (FED) Docu
ment

Version 6
.0

FED_IOC
2
_S12b_T14_V6
.0



22

Version Date: 04/27/2012

6.

Conclusion and Recommendations

As per the feasibility evidence result following is the list of recommendations.



NDI Intensive process pattern is the most suitable process for the project



Microsoft SharePoint turns to be a fair choice that matches custom
er WIN condition



Evidence for meeting Core Capability Requirements proves that the project work will
meet major goals set by clients



The business case analysis shows a very positive trend on Investment Returns



PM Central was a positive add
-
in to our system



Development of the system is 100% complete.



Most of the risks have been removed because they are no longer risks. We are left with 2
minor risks that should be resolved by end of next week.



The system has been migrated to production
.