Project risks and feasibility assessment

Project risks and feasibility assessment tài liệu, giáo án, bài giảng , luận văn, luận án, đồ án, bài tập lớn về tất cả...

Project Risks and Feasibility Assessment

Advanced Systems Analysis and Design

Project Risk Factors

Project Risk Classification

 Feasibility is the measure of how beneficial or practical

the development of an information system will be to an organization.

measured.

 Feasibility should be measured throughout the life cycle

 The scope and complexity of an apparently feasible project can change after the initial problems and opportunities are fully

analyzed or after the system has been designed

 Thus, a project that is feasible at one point in time may become infeasible at a later point in time

Feasibility Assessment

 Why feasibility assessment?

 Information systems are major investments

 IS projects are subject to the same cost justifications as any other capital investments

 Business value paradox

 Avoid "black hole" projects

1 Survey

2 Study

3 Definition

4 Configuration

5 Design

6 Procurement

7 Construction

Feasibility Analysis

 Systems Analysis -Survey Phase

 ``Do the problems (or opportunities) warrant the cost of a detailed study of the current system?''

 Systems Analysis - Study/Definition Phase

 Better estimates of development costs and the benefits to be obtained from a new system.

 Requirements often prove to be more extensive that originally stated.

 If feasibility is in question, scope, schedule, and costs must be rejustified.

 Systems Analysis - Selection Phase

 A major feasibility analysis evaluating options for the target systems design.

 Typical options that are evaluated include

• Do nothing! Leave the current system alone

• Reengineer the (manual) business processes, not the computer-based processes

• Enhance existing computer processes.

• Purchase a packaged application.

Four Tests for Feasibility

 Operational feasibility is a measure of how well a specific solution will work in the

organization It is also a measure of how people feel about the system/project.

 Does management support the system?

 How do the end-users feel about their role in the new system?

 What end-users or managers may resist or not use the system? Can this problem be overcome? If so, how?

 Usability analysis

• Ease of use, Ease of learning, User satisfaction

 Technical feasibility is a measure of the practicality of a specific technical solution and

the availability of technical resources and expertise.

 Is the proposed technology or solution practical? Is the technology mature?

 Do we currently possess the necessary technology?

 Do we possess the necessary technical expertise, and is the schedule reasonable?

 Schedule feasibility is a measure of how reasonable the project timetable is.

 Economic feasibility is a measure of the cost-effectiveness of a project or solution This

is often called a cost-benefit analysis.

Cost Benefit Analysis

Payback analysis

Return on investment

Net present value

PV = 1(1+i)^n

 Developed by Barry Boehm (1981)

 Predicts the effort & duration of a project

 Based on size of the system & a number of “cost drivers,”

Constructive Cost Model (COCOMO)

Constructive Cost Model (COCOMO)

WM = Work-Months; TDEV = Time of Development

KDSI = Thousands of delivered source instruction

contracted Semidetached

Organic

Schedule Effort

Description Mode

CoCoMo Basic Equations

Cost Drivers in COCOMO

Factors not Included in COCOMO

Function Point Analysis

 Developed by Allan Albrecht at IBM (1979)

 Based on estimation of inputs, outputs, queries, interfaces, and files

 Main advantages

 Possible to estimate function points early in the

development life cycle

 Can be estimated by non-technical personnel

Function Point Analysis

FC = Count * Weight

6 4

3 Applications Interfaces

10 7

5 Files

15 10

7 Inquires

7 5

4

Output (eg, reports,

screens)

6 4

3 Input

Complex Average

Feasibility Analysis of Candidate Systems

 The candidate systems matrix documents similarities and differences between candidate systems; however, it offers no analysis.

 The columns of the matrix represent candidate solutions

 The rows of the matrix represent characteristics that serve to differentiate the candidates The breakdown is as follows:

Candidate 1 Name Candidate 2 Name Candidate 3 Name

Portion of System Computerized

Brief description of that portion of the

system that would be computerized in

this candidate

COTS package PlatinumPlus from EntertainmentSoftware Solutions would bepurchased and customized tosatisfy Member Servicesrequired functionality

Member Services andwarehouse operations inrelation to order fulfillment

Same as candidate 2

Benefits

Brief description of the business benefits

that would be realized for this

candidate

This solution can beimplemented quicklybecause its a purchasedsolution

Fully supports user requiredbusiness processes forSoundstage Inc Plus moreefficient interaction withmember accounts

Same as candidate 2

Servers and Workstations

A description of the servers and

workstations needed to support this

candidate

Technically architecturedictates Pentium pro, MSWindows NT class serversand Pentium, MS Windows

NT 4.0 workstations(clients)

Same as candidate 1 Same as candidate 1

Software Tools Needed

Software tools needed to design and

build the candidate (e g., database

management system, emulators,

operating systems, languages, etc.) Not

generally applicable if applications

software packages are to be purchased

MS Visual C++ and MSACCESS for customization

of package to provide reportwriting and integration

MS Visual Basic 5.0System Architect 3.1Internet Explorer

MS Visual Basic 5.0System Architect 3.1Internet Explorer

Application Software

A description of the software to be

purchased, built, accessed, or some

combination of these techniques

Package Solution Custom Solution Same as candidate 2

Method of Data Processing

Generally some combination of: on-line,

batch, deferred batch, remote batch, and

real-time

Client/Server Same as candidate 1 Same as candidate 1

Output Devices and Implications

A description of output devices that

would be used, special output

requirements, (e.g network, preprinted

forms, etc.), and output considerations

(e.g., timing constraints)

(2) HP4MV departmentLaser printers(2) HP5SI LAN laserprinters

(2) HP4MV departmentLaser printers(2) HP5SI LAN laserprinters

(1) PRINTRONIX bar-codeprinter (includes software &

drivers)Web pages must be designed

to VGA resolution Allinternal screens will bedesigned for SVGAresolution

Same as candidate 2

Input Devices and Implications

A description of Input methods to be

used, input devices (e.g., keyboard,

mouse, etc.), special input requirements,

(e.g new or revised forms from which

data would be input), and input

considerations (e.g., timing of actual

inputs)

Keyboard & mouse Apple “Quick Take” digital

camera and software(15) PSC Quickscan laserbar-code scanners(1) - HP Scanjet 4C FlatbedScanner

Keyboard & mouse

Same as candidate 2

Storage Devices and Implications

Brief description of what data would be

stored, what data would be accessed

from existing stores, what storage media

would be used, how much storage

capacity would be needed, and how

data would be organized

MS SQL Server DBMS with100GB arrayed capability Same as candidate 1. Same as candidate 1.

Feasibility Analysis of Candidate Systems

 This matrix complements the candidate systems matrix with an analysis and ranking of the candidate systems It is called a

feasibility analysis matrix.

 The columns of the matrix correspond to the same candidate solutions as shown in the candidate systems matrix

 Some rows correspond to the feasibility criteria presented in this chapter

 Rows are added to describe the general solution and a ranking

of the candidates

 The cells contain the feasibility assessment notes for each candidate

Feasibility Analysis of Candidate Systems

 Each row can be assigned a rank or score for each criteria (e.g., for operational feasibility, candidates can be ranked 1, 2, 3,

etc.)

 After ranking or scoring all candidates on each criteria, a final ranking or score is recorded in the last row

Candidate 1 Name Candidate 2 Name Candidate 3 Name Description

Feasibility Criteria Wt Candidate 1 Candidate 2 Candidate 3 Candidate Operational Feasibility

Functionality A description of to what

degree the candidate would benefit the

organization and how well the system

would work.

Political A description of how well

received this solution would be from

both user management, user, and

organization perspective.

30% Only supports Member Services requirements and current business processes would have to be modified to take advantage of software functionality

Technology An assessment of the

maturity, availability (or ability to

acquire), and desirability of the

computer technology needed to support

this candidate.

Expertise An assessment to the

technical expertise needed to develop,

operate, and maintain the candidate

system.

30% Current production release of Platinum Plus package is version 1.0 and has only been

on the market for 6 weeks.

Maturity of product is a risk and company charges an additional monthly fee for technical support.

Required to hire or train C++

expertise to perform modifications for integration requirements.

Score: 50

Although current technical staff has only Powerbuilder experience, the senior analysts who saw the MS Visual Basic demonstration and presentation, has agreed the transition will be simple and finding experienced VB programmers will be easier than finding Powerbuilder programmers and at a much cheaper cost.

MS Visual Basic 5.0 is a mature technology based on version number.

Score: 95

Although current technical staff is comfortable with Powerbuilder, management is concerned with recent acquisition of Powerbuilder

by Sybase Inc.

MS SQL Server is a current company standard and competes with SYBASE in the Client/Server DBMS market Because of this we have no guarantee future versions of Powerbuilder will “play well” with our current version SQL Server.

Score: 60 Economic Feasibility

Cost to develop:

Payback period (discounted):

Net present value:

An assessment of how long the solution

will take to design and implement.

10% Less than 3 months.