Feasibility Evidence Description (FED)
SnapValet
Team 03
Team members
Brian Vanover: Project Manager, Feasibility Analyst Abhinandan Patni: Operations Concept Engineer, Prototyper Xiaoting Bi: Feasibility Analyst, Prototyper Ditong Ding: System Architect, UML Modeler Ridhima Manjrekar: Requirements Engineer, Prototyper Saikarthik Desiraju: Life Cycle Planner, Prototyper Molly Karcher: IIV&V, Quality Focal Point
12/07/14 Version 5.0
Version History
Date Author Version Changes made Rationale Initial draft of Feasibility 09/28/14 Xiaoting Bi 1.0 Original template v1.0 Evidence Description (FED) All sections till section 5 are 10/11/14 Xiaoting Bi 2.0 Draft FC Package updated. 10/14/14 Xiaoting Bi 2.1 Draft FC Package Some details are updated. 10/18/14 Xiaoting Bi 3.0 FC Package Some details are updated. 11/24/14 Xiaoting Bi 4.0 Draft DC Package All sections are updated. 12/04/14 Xiaoting Bi 4.1 Draft DC Package Some details are updated. 12/07/14 Xiaoting Bi 5.0 DC Package Some details are updated.
Version Date: 12/07/14 Version 5.0
Table of Contents
Feasibility Evidence Description (FED)...... i
Version History...... ii
Table of Contents...... iii
Table of Tables...... iv
Table of Figures...... v 1. Introduction...... 1 1.1 Purpose of the FED Document...... 1 1.2 Status of the FED Document...... 1 2. Business Case Analysis...... 2 2.1 Cost Analysis...... 3 2.2 Benefit Analysis...... 3 2.3 ROI Analysis...... 4 3. Architecture Feasibility...... 5 3.1 Level of Service Feasibility...... 5 3.2 Capability Feasibility...... 5 3.3 Evolutionary Feasibility...... 6 4. Process Feasibility...... 7 5. Risk Assessment...... 8 6. NDI/NCS Interoperability Analysis...... 10 6.1 Introduction...... 10 6.2 Evaluation Summary...... 10
Version Date: 12/07/14 Version 5.0
Table of Tables
Table 1: Personnel Costs...... 3 Table 2: Hardware and Software Costs...... 3 Table 3: Benefits of xxx System...... 4 Table 4: ROI Analysis...... 4 Table 5: Level of Service Feasibility...... 5 Table 6: Capability Requirements and Their Feasibility Evidence...... 5 Table 7: Evolutionary Requirements and Their Feasibility Evidence...... 6 Table 8: Rationales for Selecting Architected Agile Model...... 7 Table 9: Risk Assessment...... 8 Table 10: NDI Products Listing...... 10 Table 11: NDI Evaluation...... 10
Version Date: 12/07/14 Version 5.0
Table of Figures
Figure 1: ROI Analysis Graph...... 4 Version 5.0
A.1.Introduction A.1.1 Purpose of the FED Document
The document provides necessary feasibility analysis for the SnapValet project. It reports the evidence of project feasibility in term of business case analysis and risk assessment. A.1.2 Status of the FED Document - This version corresponds to the Draft FC Package.
- The propose and status of FED have been added.
- Cost analysis, benefits analysis and Return-on-Investment analysis are performed and added.
Version Date: 12/07/14 Version 5.0 A.2.Business Case Analysis
Assumptions Customers/Drivers prefer using mobile payment over a cash transaction. People trust mobile payment systems. Valet companies prefer mobile payments over cash transactions. There isn’t already a similar competitive functionality in other existing applications. SnapValet indeed speeds up facilitation of valet service. A noteworthy amount of customers often do not carry cash for valet. Stakeholders Initiatives Value Propositions Beneficiaries SnapValet Develop system To speed up the process of Customers/drivers Developers Direct sales valet SnapValet clients Network Improve cashless valet Valet companies Conference / trade experience for customers. Restaurants shows Expand potential customer Hotels Market campaign base for valet. Sponsors End user: social media Better valet account / /investors transaction management. Enable direct advertising. Increase revenue / profits.
Cost Benefits Time. A faster, more convenient way to valet park. Marketing Costs. Increase market share to include non cash- Maintenance Costs. carrying customers. Team building. 3% revenue / transaction. Infrastructure: Web server, Third party transaction management.
Version Date: 12/07/14 Version 5.0 A.2.1 Cost Analysis .2.1.1 Personnel Costs
Table 1: Personnel Costs
Activities Time Spent (Hours) Development Period Valuation and Foundations Phases: Time Invested (12 weeks, 577a) Client: Meeting via email, phone, and other channels [1 hrs/week * 12 weeks * 2 24 people] Group: Meeting via email, phone, and other channels [1.5 hrs/week * 12 weeks 126 * 7 people] Architecture Review Boards [1.5 hrs * 2 times * 2 people] 6 Development and Operation Phases: Time Invested (12 weeks, 577b) Client: Meeting via email, phone, and other channels [1 hrs/week * 12 weeks * 2 24 people] Maintainer: Meeting via email, phone, and other channels [1.5 hrs/week * 12 36 weeks * 2 people] Architecture Review Boards and Core Capability Drive-through session [1.5 hrs 6 * 12 weeks * 1 people] Group: Meeting via email, phone, and other channels [1.5 hrs/week *12 weeks * 126 7 people] Deployment of system in operation phase and training 6 - Installation & Deployment [1 hrs * 1 times * 2 people] - Training & Support [1 hrs * 2 times * 2 people] Total 354 Worth(30$/hour) 10620 Maintenance Period (1 year) Maintenance [1 hr/week * 52 weeks * 1 people] 52 Worth(30$/hour) 1560
.2.1.2 Hardware and Software Costs
Table 2: Hardware and Software Costs
Type Cost Rationale Hardware – Server $500/year The server has to be launched on cloud. A.2.2 Benefit Analysis
Table 3.1: Benefits of SnapValet System (for client)
Current profit Increase to Profit gained by SnapValet
0 3% of total valet service fee(6$/time * 20times $93,600 a day/operator * 5 days/week * 52 weeks/year
Version Date: 12/07/14 Version 5.0
* 10 valet operators/company * 10 valet companies = 520,000$)
Table 3.2: Benefits of SnapValet System ( for customers)
Current activities & resources used % Reduce Time Saved (Hours/Year) Picking a car Driver (60 times * 20 mins/time = 85 23.5 1200mins) Payment Valet operator (1 mins/time * 5000 times 75 62.5 = 5000 mins) Driver (1 mins/time * 60 times = 60 75 0.75 mins) Total 86.75 Worth(20$/hour) 1735 A.2.3 ROI Analysis
Table 3: ROI Analysis
Benefit Cumulative Cumulative Year Cost ROI (Effort Saved) Cost Benefit 2015 11120 0 11120 0 -1 2016 13180 95335 24300 95335 2.92 2017 15396 104868.5 39696 200203.5 4.04 2018 17783.6 115355.4 57479.6 315558.9 5.49
Figure 1: ROI Analysis Graph
6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 2015 2016 2017 2018 -2
Version Date: 12/07/14 Version 5.0
A.3.Architecture Feasibility
A.3.1 Level of Service Feasibility
Table 4: Level of Service Feasibility
Level of Service Requirement Product Satisfaction LOS-1: Usability Product Strategies: Develop a simple user interface. Process Strategies: Test the usability by prototyping and user involvement. Analysis: By prototyping and user involvement, we can make sure the interface is simple and easy to use for drivers. LOS-2: Payment Security Product Strategies: Usage of third party online money transaction system — Braintree. Process Strategies: Thorough testing of all use cases through the usage of Braintree. Analysis: Braintree provides a set of APIs and tools that enables businesses to accept and manage online payments. A.3.2 Capability Feasibility
Table 5: Capability Requirements and Their Feasibility Evidence
Capability Requirement Product Satisfaction CR-1: Check in location Software/Technology used: Google Places API Feasibility Evidence: Location check-in is prototyped. Customer is able to choose a location and check in on Google Places Referred use case diagram: UC-3: Valet retrieve CR-2: Request a car Software/Technology used: MySQL Feasibility Evidence: Requesting is prototyped. There is a car retrieval queue and when a driver requests a car, this request will be added to the request queue. Referred use case diagram: UC-3: Valet retrieve CR-3: Payment via mobile Software/Technology used: Braintree API, MySQL phone Feasibility Evidence: The transaction will be implemented via Braintree API and all the transaction details will be stored in the MySQL database. Referred use case diagram: UC-3: Valet retrieve CR-4: Register Software/Technology used: MySQL Feasibility Evidence: Register is prototyped.
Version Date: 12/07/14 Version 5.0
Referred use case diagram: UC-6: Register
CR-5: Login Software/Technology used: MySQL Feasibility Evidence: Login is prototyped. Referred use case diagram: UC-5: Log in A.3.3 Evolutionary Feasibility
Table 6: Evolutionary Requirements and Their Feasibility Evidence
Evolutionary Product Satisfaction Requirement ER-1: Valet operator Software/Technology used: Google Places API, MySQL check-in Feasibility Evidence: Valet operator check-in is prototyped. The first valet operator is able to choose a location and check in on Google Places. And other operators can be added to this location. Referred use case diagram: UC-1: Valet operator check in
Version Date: 12/07/14 Version 5.0
A.4.Process Feasibility
Table 7: Rationales for Selecting Architected Agile Model
Criteria Importance Project Status Rationales 30 % of NDI/NCS features 3 4 Using Braintree API and Google Places API which is an important part of the whole project. Single NDI/NCS 1 0 There is no single NDI/NCS solution that satisfies a complete solution. Unique/ inflexible business 2 2 The business process is not process very unique. Need control over 3 4 The project may need to add upgrade / maintenance new functions in the future. Rapid deployment 3 3 The valet parking industry is a great opportunity to the first movers. Critical on compatibility 3 3 Our project should be compatible with Google Places and Braintree. Internet connection 3 3 Our project is web based. independence Need high level of services 1 1 Our system does not need high / performance performance. Need high security 3 4 High security is required in the system while making transactions. Asynchronous 2 2 System asynchronous communication communication does have nominal value Be accessed from 1 2 This system is needed to be anywhere accessed from mobile phone. Critical on mass schedule 2 2 The system is developed constraints according to ICSM schedule Lack of personnel 1 1 Most team members do not capability have experience in android development. Require little upfront costs 2 2 The major cost is the cost of server. Require low total cost of 1 1 This feature does not affect the ownership system Not-so-powerful local 1 1 System does not need high
Version Date: 12/07/14 Version 5.0 machines performance computers
Version Date: 12/07/14 Version 5.0
A.5.Risk Assessment
Table 8: Risk Assessment
Risk Exposure Risks Potential Probabilit Risk Risk Mitigations Magnitude y Loss Exposure Inexperience with mobile 10 1 10 Each developer will complete the development may hinder system Android tutorials at development (Personnel http://www.developer.android.com/t Shortfalls) raining/index.html Developers schedules may 10 1 10 The team will take advantage of prevent developers from group development sessions such as completing Android training in a team meetings and hack nights to reasonable time (Inflated complete the android tutorials Expectations) Uncertainties surrounding profile 2 5 10 Information gathered from user management may cause the interviews will be used in interface to be too conjunction with interface and complex/confusing (Human- profile architecture prototyping System Integration Shortfalls) Client uncertainties and changes 4 4 16 The team will conduct multiple regarding system workflow rounds of win negotiations to ensure requirements i.e. admin console that both clients and developers are and/or web application may cause satisfied with the agreed the project to expand out of scope deliverables and system (Underdefined Plans and requirements Requirements) There is uncertainty surrounding 5 2 10 The team will evaluate various the selection of a transaction mobile transaction management management NDI/COTS which NDIs and choose two that will be may lead to selection of an prototyped in parallel in a mobile improper or mobile incompatible development environment. product (NDI Conflicts) Mobile transactions may create 6 2 12 The team will learn and apply best an insecure environment and practices for securing the foster the breach of sensitive data application. (Value Conflict) Unclear full understandings of 2 6 12 The client and project manager will the current process model for conduct user interviews of valet valet parking may cause companies and operators. The team developers and acquirers to fall will develop various workflow out of sync with user win solutions and discuss these with the conditions (SCS Lack of users. Involvement) Valet operations at unofficial 1 9 9 The team will apply risk avoidance events/venues such as pending client approval. concerts/football games or large house parties may not be locatable by geolocation APIs (NDI Conflict) Current valet business process 8 5 40 The client and project manager will
Version Date: 12/07/14 Version 5.0 regarding transaction discuss current transaction management may be management practices with two incompatible with proposed large, Los Angeles-based valet SnapValet transaction companies. management solutions (SCS Lack of Involvement / Value Conflict)
Version Date: 12/07/14 Version 5.0
A.6. NDI/NCS Interoperability Analysis A.6.1 Introduction .6.1.1 COTS / GOTS / ROTS / Open Source / NCS
Table 9: NDI Products Listing
NDI/NCS Products Purposes Google Place API Fetch locations information and show them on the map. Braintree API Served as the third party transaction platform to realize mobile transaction. MySQL Store and retrieve data.
.6.1.2 Connectors
In this project, we use Java/MySQL Connector to enable the android application to retrieve and update data from the database.
.6.1.3 Legacy System
As there is no existing system, there is no legacy system for this project. A.6.2 Evaluation Summary
Table 10: NDI Evaluation
NDI Usages Comments Google Places Interactively maps Positive points: for searching and - Freeware displaying places - Widely used Braintree Mobile transaction Positive points: platform - Widely used and trustworthy for performance MySQL Database Positive points: - Freeware - Suitable for Large/Small scale systems - Widely used and trustworthy for performance - Client’s requirement
Version Date: 12/07/14