Feasibility Rationale Description (FRD) s5

Feasibility Evidence Description (FED)

Transportation Grant Fund Database

Team 14

Roles Team Members (Primary) Kirill Khistyaev Software Architect Karim Sacre Project Manager Darren Liu Tester Stephan Rice IIV&V Zhanna Seitenova Life Cycle Planner Ayman Khalil Operational Concept Engineer

FED_RDCP_S12b_T14_V4.1.doc i Version Date: 02/17/2012 Feasibility Evidence Description (FED) for NDI Version 4.1

Version History

FED_RDCP_S12b_T14_V4.1.doc ii Version Date: 02/17/2012 Feasibility Evidence Description (FED) for NDI Version 4.1

Date Author Versio Changes made Rationale n  Created a first draft of  Created initial draft of Feasibility Feasibility Evidence 09/22/11 RM 1.0 Evidence Description document Description document v1.0 based on ICSM-EPG template  Created second version of  Updated the document with peer Feasibility Evidence 09/28/11 RM 1.1 review comments and fixed the document with IIV & V bugs against the document input and team comments  As part of Core FC package deliverable, the current status of this document and the present Risk assessment data is updated  Updated the document status and  The review input captured in Risk assessment section evaluation of VC package 10/10/11 RM 2 is addressed in this version  Updated the document with NDI of document feasibility Analysis (Section 4.1, 4.2.1 and 4.2.2)  The outcome of valuation phase feasibility evidence activities such as identification of NDIs and their evaluation criteria is included in this version of document.  Included process feasibility, capability feasibility,  As part of Draft FC package 10/14/11 RM 2.1 evolutionary feasibility, NDI the mentioned changes are assessment result and Business made. case analysis result  Incorporated review comments from client 10/19/11 RM 2.2  Updated risk assessment section and business case analysis  Incorporated peer review comments  Updated Business Analysis and ROI calculation  Incorporated Architecture 10/24/11 RM 2.3 Review Board meeting  Updated Risk assessment with comments new risk  Risk assessment section is updated with latest risk mitigation outcome and Risk Exposure values  List of capabilities that 11/21/11 RM 3  Updated Risk assessment section required custom code has been updated  Generic changes in document naming and versioning for Draft DCP submission

FED_RDCP_S12b_T14_V4.1.doc iii Version Date: 02/17/2012 Feasibility Evidence Description (FED) for NDI Version 4.1

Date Author Versio Changes made Rationale n  Changes are done to fix the  Fixed formatting issues in the defects filed on FED 2.3 tables 11/29/11 RM 3.1  Generic changes in document  Included an introductory notes for naming and version for section 4.0 DCR ARB review

 Recreated the tables to correct font and formatting issues  DCR ARB review comments 12/05/11 RM 3.2  Updated the personnel cost  Fixed bug 6537 section with enhancement and development cost  Updated document header and footer 12/12/11 RM 3.3  As per DCP review  Added the package information in comments FED status update section  Updated document header and footer  The risks were updated with our issues 02/02/12 KS 4.0  Updated the risk assessment table  Introduction of new team  Updated NDI/NCS Candidate members Components  Update risk analysis table  Some of the risks have been 02/17/12 KS 4.1  Update version number and date mitigated so the order of the document changed.

FED_RDCP_S12b_T14_V4.1.doc iv Version Date: 02/17/2012 Feasibility Evidence Description (FED) for NDI Version 4.1 Table of Contents

Feasibility Evidence Description (FED)...... i

Version History...... ii

Table of Contents...... iv

Table of Tables...... 5

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...... 11 4.1 Assessment Approach...... 11 4.2 Assessment Results...... 12 4.2.1 NDI/NCS Candidate Components (Combinations)...... 12 4.2.2 Evaluation Criteria...... 12 4.2.3 Evaluation Results Screen Matrix...... 13 4.3 Feasibility Evidence...... 15 4.3.1 Level of Service Feasibility...... 15 4.3.2 Capability Feasibility...... 15 4.3.3 Evolutionary Feasibility...... 16 5. Business Case Analysis...... 17 5.1 Market Trend and Product Line Analysis...... 17 5.2 Cost Analysis...... 20 5.2.1 Personnel Costs...... 20 5.2.2 Hardware and Software Costs...... 21 5.3 Benefit Analysis...... 22 5.4 ROI Analysis...... 22 6. Conclusion and Recommendations...... 24

FED_RDCP_S12b_T14_V4.1.doc v Version Date: 02/17/2012 Feasibility Evidence Description (FED) for NDI Version 4.1

Table of Tables

Table 1: Rationales for selecting the specific 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...... 12 Table 6: Evaluation Criteria – NDI (CMS system) Attributes...... 12 Table 7: Evaluation Criteria – NDI (CMS system) features...... 13 Table 8: Evaluation Results Screen Matrix for NDI Attributes (CMS system)...... 14 Table 9: Evaluation Results Screen Matrix for NDI features (CMS system)...... 14 Table 10: Level of Service Feasibility Evidence...... 15 Table 11: Capability Feasibility Evidence...... 15 Table 12: Evolutionary Feasibility Evidence...... 16 Table 13: Market Trend and Product Line Analysis...... 17 Table 14: Personnel Costs...... 20 Table 15: Hardware and Software Costs...... 21 Table 16: Benefits of the implemented System...... 22 Table 17: ROI Analysis...... 22

FED_RDCP_S12b_T14_V4.1.doc vi Version Date: 02/17/2012 Feasibility Evidence Description (FED) for NDI Version 4.1

Table of Figures Figure 1: ROI Analysis Graph...... 23

FED_RDCP_S12b_T14_V4.1.doc vii Version Date: 02/17/2012 Feasibility Evidence Description (FED) Document Version 4.1 .1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose of the FED Document

Evidence and risk based decision making are one of the driving principles 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 implementation under the implied risks and mitigation plans.

1.2 Status of the FED Document  The high level project risks in the system have been assessed periodically. Risk identification and risk assessment will be done every week and this document will be 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 criteria 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 project progresses on different phases this document will be updated with required feasibility evidence study results.

 This version of FED is part of Rebase-lining Development Commitment Package (RDCP)

FED_RDCP_S12b_T14_V4.1.doc 1 Version Date: 02/17/2012 Feasibility Evidence Description (FED) Document Version 4.1

.2 Process Feasibility

Following table highlights 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 members 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 stand alone server to which the client browsers send request. Internet connection The system will be part of LADOT intranet environment. It will independence also be accessed by other City departments. The system rely On central server for all the operations. There is nothing to do offline. 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 Need to say provide real time high performance. Need high security There is a need to allow secure access to the project management system. The system will be part of LADOT firewall protective Network. Hence the security requirement are taken care automatically considering the present deployment environment. Asynchronous communication Clients interact 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 may also need

Access to the system. Critical mass schedule As mentioned in rapid deployment criteria, we need a better and constraints faster implementation mechanism to complete the project On time. Lack of personnel capability The team has a mix and match 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 system (pre/post deployment) Not-so-powerful local The system need a thin client setup with browser in order to machines access the system. There is no need for any high end systems.

On the basis of the above mentioned rationale, each of the process evaluation 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)

Importance 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: Process 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 connection independence 1 0 Need high performance 1 1 Need high security 2 2

Asynchronous communication 1 1 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 ownership 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://greenbay.usc.edu/pdd/index.php

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 Over 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

 The rationale given per criteria reflects the actual project case. The criteria values and the Importance factor is chosen based on these 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. Considering the schedule constraint, the project need 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-Intensive 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 pattern 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 Prioritization

References Priority Requirements (Win Conditions in Increment WinWin Sheet)

System can create Metro Call quarterly WC_366 1 1 report. (Converting to PDF)

WC_370 2 System can create other report 2

.3 Risk Assessment

Risk management involves risk 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 Fund 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 * Probability 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 retired 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 estimation 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 assessment 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

Table 4: Risk Assessment

Risk Exposure PM PL Risks Risk Mitigation scale: scale: RE (0-10) (0-10) Converting the quarterly 8 4 32 We already found some COTS that report form to PDF handle that issue but we are trying to One of the Win conditions minimize the cost and build it states that the form should be ourselves. This issue has been our main saved in PDF or any readable development concern. The builders are format. This is still our main trying to overcome that issue and do development concern. It is more research about the topic. We challenging since PDF is not a already have some idea of how to solve Microsoft product so no it but it is still a risk in our system for integration with Microsoft now. SharePoint.

Unfamiliarity with the new Closely work with clients and read add-in to the SharePoint 5 5 25 documentation about the new COTS Server: PM Central. and explore all the functionalities During Rebase-lining the offered by this new add-in. All clients informed us that they documentations are available online. have purchased a new add-in LADoT are working with us to try to to SharePoint and asked us to mitigate this risk the soonest possible to try to develop our system be able to start our implementation. using this plug-in. This is We have already met with the clients actually our higher risk so far three times regarding this new feature because we have to still and so far it is looking positive but we explore the functionalities still need to study that case more before given by this addition and try we commit to such a change. to learn more about what it offers and how it could help us with our development. The clients gave us the option to use PM Central or to continue using SharePoint by itself. Approach towards security 5 4 20 More brief required to understand the The customer is treating present LA infrastructure and various pieces of security in a underlying security policies. peace-meal fashion (SSO, Implemented System architecture Authorization, Role Design, (Deployment view) must focus security etc.) while there must exist aspects of the deployment environment. some architectural approach (Team had a technical brief with

within the customer's LADOT IT contact. We got a good organization to insight into LADOT production security. This creates the risk environment.) that it'll be very difficult to integrate the solution down the road to the enterprise-wide security infrastructure. Unfamiliarity with 6 2 12 There are a lot of actions to be taken. Microsoft SharePoint Few are listed here. Team don't have in-depth - We already have 2 running working knowledge of SharePoint servers. One at USC and the Microsoft SharePoint. The second at LADOT. This is helping us in present understanding is based learning more about the product. on readings and market (Done) analysis. There is a high risk - Team are well knowledgeable about in avoiding Microsoft SharePoint now and the prototype got SharePoint for prototyping some positive feedback and we are and analyzing feasibility for currently trying to respond to all sort of capability requirements. comments given to us by the clients. (Done) - Some of the risky modules have been already implemented and we are still working on the rest of the risky modules. (In Progress) -Considerable training and learning activities instantiated for learning SharePoint 2010 (In Progress)

Team Change between 5 2 10 Had 3 team meetings from the semesters: beginning of the semester. During these 2 team members did not meetings we introduced our new team continue with us to 577b class: member Darren to the rest of the team Muru (Project Manager) and and to the clients. Reza (IV&V). We divided the new roles on all the 1 new team member was team members especially the Project introduced to the team. Manager’s role which was our biggest The team has to fill the roles impact. of the people that left and has This risk will probably be resolved and to introduce the project to the mitigated soon. new team member as soon as possible.

There is a lack of clarity 2 2 4 Host discussions with the customer around development, test, around environment specifications and production environment availability.

availability (Team have setup SharePoint2010 in Given the complex Microsoft USC lab. Team started to use the server infrastructure expected setup. to be executed upon by the LADOT also provided access to customer, the development SharePoint 2010 setup which is in team will need server(s) LADOT infrastructure. to do development and unit Thus there is no major risk with respect testing on, there will need to to availability SharePoint2010 server be a test environment for development and test activities.) for QA, and a production environment once work is done. This risk is still present until we make sure that our production servers are ready.

.4 NDI/NCS Feasibility Analysis

Evidence based decision 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 architectural 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 of 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 started 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 equally 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 maintenance 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) represents “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 SharePoint 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 would provide a quantitative feasibility evidence for going with Microsoft SharePoint. There wouldn't be any comparative analysis with other NDIs.

4.2 Assessment Results

4.2.1 NDI/NCS Candidate Components (Combinations)

Following are the list of different 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 Server 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. IIS on Windows Server 2008 x64 WebServer to host Microsoft 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 attributes 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 criteria. 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. 10 Ease of deployment 2. Availability of vendor support (present and 10 future) 3. 5 Availability of online help and training materials

4. 5 Vendor's brand name and product track records 5. 10 Ease of maintenance 6. 10 Availability of different licensing options 7. 10 Ease of development 8. Technical feasibility (Ability to support desired 10 functionality at required level of reliability) Strategic feasibility (Ability to be incorporated 10 9. into the client's environment within available budget and schedule) 10. Strategic feasibility (Alignment with LADOT 10 strategic decisions) 11. 10 Compatibility and interoperability 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/ Weight sub features 1. Calendar and scheduling functions 10 Capability to design 2. websites and business work-flow 10 3. Report generation capability 15 4. Support for document version and history 15 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 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)

Microsoft No W 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)

Microsoft No W 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.

4.3 Feasibility Evidence

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 Service Win Condition Rationale WC_1042:The system will provide support Microsoft SharePoint supports at the for a minimum of 100 users and 50 maximum of 100 concurrent users for concurrent user access editing. The concurrent user access in the Win condition refers 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 concurrent 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 Feasibility Evidence

Capability Product Satisfaction Requirement WC_397: Role Based Software/Technology used: C#, SharePoint Enterprise, SQL (RBAC) and Data Feasibility Evidence: All users have to log in to use the system. Level Security (For Users have roles assigned by administrator. Roles define user example, accounting privileges. information should not be modified by PM but accountants should able to do). Maximum Referred use case diagram: UC-1 - UC-5, UC-15 of 4 roles. WC_392: Ability to Software/Technology used: SharePoint Enterprise, SQL upload (attach) any Feasibility Evidence: SharePoint Programs Web Database files to the project Template has this functionality.

Referred use case diagram: UC-14, UC-15 WC_366: System can Software/Technology used: C#, SharePoint Enterprise, SQL create Metro quarterly Feasibility Evidence: System will select required information report form the database, fill out the report template and provide it to the user. Referred use case diagram: UC-12 WC_977: Software/Technology used: C#, SharePoint Enterprise, SQL administrator has a Feasibility Evidence: Administrator will add users to the system capability to assign and assign their roles. Administrator is able to change users fixed roles roles through the Edit user page. Referred use case diagram: UC-3, UC-4

4.3.3 Evolutionary Feasibility

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

Table 12: Evolutionary Feasibility Evidence

Evolutionary Win Condition Rationale WC_351: System Architecture must be System is based on the SharePoint Enterprise expandable framework. This fact and the architecture of the system will allow to attach additional modules to the system to implement new functionality.

.5 Business Case Analysis 5.1 Market Trend and Product Line Analysis

The following table provides evidence for product popularity, strong market share and better 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

MS SQL Server Windows Server Microsoft Microsoft 2008 2008 Visual Studio SharePoint 2010 Server 2010 Market Product Product Product Product Trend Popularity: Popularity: popularity popularity: * SQL Server is * very stable * Widely used the uncontested server operating Integrated * Forrester analysis leader in TPC-E system Development indicates that Performance * support OS Environment on Microsoft Benchmarks virtualization Microsoft SharePoint enables * SQL Server * Foundations on Windows organization to delivers a 460% cloud computing Operating system drive productivity savings in annual * Enhanced and saves cost cost of administration and Future road * Well known for administration per power map: Document database over management * Periodic management, Site Oracle. capabilities releases of management, * Microsoft is service packs Workflow positioned as a Future road * Likely management and leader in Magic map: availability of task management Quadrant for * Periodic releases Visual Studion * Variety of Business of service packs vNext (2012) licensing options Intelligence and minor versions (Foundation, Platforms Standard and * Virtualization Enterprise) and cloud support available Market Share: * Microsoft Market Share: outpaced the * 125 million Business licenses sold to Intelligence over 65,000 software market customers with 23.6% * Yielded $1bn growth based on revenue for the revenue in 2010 year 2010 * As per Top 10 RDBMS vendor Future road map: license revenue * Continuous survey on support through Windows Service pack operating system, releases (SP2 is Microsoft SQL expected to be Server is available in 2012) positioned at * Predictions on second place. Microsoft SharePoint 2013

Future road map: * New capabilities are added into existing product line (MS SQL Server 2008 R2) * The next release SQL Server 2012 is very promising in terms of new capabilities

Related * Microsoft * Windows * Visual Studio * Microsoft Product Access Essential Business Ultimate SharePoint Search Line * Microsoft visual Server 2008 * Visual Studio * Microsoft Foxpro * Windows HPC Professional SharePoint * Microsoft SQL Server 2008 * Visual Studio Sandboxed Server Compact * Windows Professional solutions (Embedded Multipoint Server * Visual Studio * Microsoft Database) * Windows Home Light SharePoint Server 2011 Switch2011 Foundation * Team * Microsoft Foundation SharePoint Server Standard * Visual Studio * Microsoft Test Professional SharePoint Enterprise Referenc http://www.micro http://www.micros http://www.micr http://SharePoint.m es soft.com/sqlserver oft.com/en- osoft.com/visuals icrosoft.com/en- /en/us/product- us/server- tudio/en- us/Pages/default.as info/why-sql- cloud/windows- us/roadmap px server.aspx server/default.aspx http://blogs.msdn.c om/b/natebaum/arc http://en.wikipedi hive/2011/10/11/S a.org/wiki/Compa harePoint- rison_of_relationa conference-2011- l_database_manag it-s-a-wrap.aspx ement_systems http://www.slidesh are.net/jonathamda niels/enterprise- software-roadmap- microsoft-8664242 http://msdn.micros oft.com/en- us/gg620703

5.2 Cost Analysis

5.2.1 Personnel Costs

Following table highlights the personnel cost involved with the project.

Table 14: Personnel Costs

Time Spent Activities (Hours) Development Period (24 weeks) 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] 36 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 ] 72

Architecture Review Boards [1.5 hrs * 2 times * 2 persons ] 6

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 ] 24 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 ] 48 Maintainer: Time spent for internal meetings, meetings with development team, email and mobile communication and followup activities [4 hrs/week * 12 weeks * 2 persons] 96 Architecture Review Boards and Core Capability Drive-through session [1.5 hrs * 3 times * 2 persons] 9 Deployment of system in operation phase and training - Installation & Deployment [5 hrs * 3 times * 2 people] - Training & Support [5 hrs * 2 times * 5 people] 80 Total Initial Investment 371 Maintenance Period (1 year) Maintenance [Average of 2 hr/month * 12 months = 24 hrs] Enhancement and development [ 10 days * 8 hrs = 80 hrs] 104

FED_RDCP_S12b_T14_V4.1.doc 21 Version Date: 02/17/2012 Feasibility Evidence Description (FED) Document Version 4.1 5.2.2 Hardware and Software Costs

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

Table 15: Hardware and Software Costs

Hardware and Software cost- Cost Rationale Development Type Hardware – x64 system for Assuming that customer would use existing development and test environment $0.00 Windows 2008 server setup for development and testing purpose Microsoft SharePoint 2010 Server Assuming that customer will use existing $0.00 license/procured license as part of the migration activity for development and testing PM Central Assuming the customer will use existing licenses $0.00 on our production servers SAN Storage Assuming that the customer would rely on existing $0.00 SAN to cater to the storage needs of implemented system MS SQL 2008 Assuming that the customer will use existing $0.00 license for development and testing Hardware and Software cost- Cost Rationale Operation Type Hardware – x64 system to host Assuming that customer would use existing Microsoft SharePoint and MS SQL $0.00 Windows 2008 server setup for development and testing purpose Hardware – x64 system for Assuming that customer would use existing development and test environment $0.00 Windows 2008 server setup for development and testing purpose PM Central Assuming the customer will use existing licenses $0.00 on our production servers Microsoft SharePoint 2010 Server Assuming that customer will use existing $0.00 license/procured license as part of the migration activity for development and testing MS SQL 2008 Assuming that the customer will use existing $0.00 license for development and testing SAN Storage Assuming that the customer would rely on existing $0.00 SAN to cater to the storage needs of implemented system Total $0.00

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 the 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 % Reduce Time Saved (Hours/Year) data is based on team's assumption. More reliable estimate yet to be obtained from client) Quarterly Report Generation (25 projects * 3 hrs * 4 70.00% 210 times a year = 300hrs) Time spent on gathering project docs from various 90.00% 480 sources ( 50 managers * 1 hrs/month * 12 months = 600 hrs) Project Progress Report Generation ( 50 projects * 2 70.00% 420 hrs * 6 times a year = 600 hrs) Total Time Savings in hours 1110

5.4 ROI Analysis

Following table summarizes the Return on Investment by implementing the project.

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

Table 17: ROI Analysis

ROI (Cumulative Benefit Cost (Effort Cumulative Cumulative Benefit – Year (Effort Saved) Spent) hrs Cost (hrs) Benefit (hrs) Cumulative hrs 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

FED_RDCP_S12b_T14_V4.1.doc 23 Version Date: 02/17/2012 Feasibility Evidence Description (FED) Document Version 4.1 The ROI results are captured in ROI Analysis Graph (Figure1). This shows a high positive trend on Investment Returns.

Figure 1: ROI Analysis Graph

ROI Result

2 I O R 1

0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 -1

 LADOT would have invested around 371 man hours at the mid of year 2012. ROI for this period would be a -ve value (-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 trend 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.

.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 customer 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  The team reformation was successful and the ARB went very well. Darren merged well with the team.

FED_RDCP_S12b_T14_V4.1.doc 25 Version Date: 02/17/2012