More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (16)
Similar to Feasible
Similar to Feasible (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Feasible
- 1. Project Risks and Feasibility Assessment Advanced Systems Analysis and Design
- 4. Feasibility is the measure of how beneficial or practical the development of an information system will be to an organization. Feasibility analysis is the process by which feasibility is 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.
- 5. 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
- 7. Feasibility Analysis Feasibility Checkpoints During 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.
- 8. 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.
- 9. System Costs Costs Development cost Consulting fees Hardware/ software Conversion/ installation Training/ Documentation Operation/ Production costs Personnel costs System usage/ maintenance cost System upgrades Supplies
- 10. System Benefits Benefits Tangible benefits Reduced processing errors Increased throughput Decreased response time Manpower reduction Cost elimination Increased sales Reduced credit losses Intangible benefits Improved customer satisfaction Improved employee morale Better decision making
- 11. Cost Benefit Analysis Payback analysis Return on investment Net present value PV = 1(1+i)^n
- 12. 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)
- 13. Constructive Cost Model (COCOMO) WM = Work-Months; TDEV = Time of Development KDSI = Thousands of delivered source instruction TDEV= 2.5(MM)0.32 WM= 3.6(KDSI)1.20 Very Large Size, Contractor developed Embedded TDEV= 2.5(MM)0.35 WM= 3.0(KDSI)1.12 Intermediate-Large Size, Partial In-house & contracted Semidetached TDEV= 2.5(MM)0.38 WM= 2.4(KDSI)1.05 Small-Medium Size, In-house Dev. Organic ScheduleEffortDescriptionMode CoCoMo Basic Equations
- 14. Cost Drivers in COCOMO Product attributes software reliability, database size, software complexity Hardware/platform attributes execution time constraints, main storage constraints, virtual machine volatility, turnaround time Personnel attributes Analyst capability, applications experience, programmer capability, virtual machine experience, language experience Project attributes use of modern programming practices, use of software tools, development schedule constriants
- 15. Factors not Included in COCOMO Application type Language level Requirements volatility Personnel continuity Management quality Customer interface quality Amount of documentation Hardware configuration Security and privacy restrictions
- 16. 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
- 17. Function Point Analysis FC = Count * Weight 643Applications Interfaces 1075Files 15107Inquires 754Output (eg, reports, screens) 643Input ComplexAverageSimple Basic Equation: FP = FC (PCA) PCA = 0.65 + (0.01) Σci PCA – Processing Complexity Adjustment; C – Complexity Factors
- 18. Feasibility Analysis of Candidate Systems Candidate Systems Matrix 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: TECHNOLOGY INTERFACES DATA PROCESSES GEOGRAPHY
- 19. Candidate 1 Name Candidate 2 Name Candidate 3 Name Technology Interfaces Data Processes Geography
- 20. Characteristics Candidate 1 Candidate 2 Candidate 3 Candidate ... Portion of System Computerized Brief description of that portion of the system that would be computerized in this candidate. COTS package Platinum Plus from Entertainment Software Solutions would be purchased and customized to satisfy Member Services required functionality. Member Services and warehouse operations in relation to order fulfillment. Same as candidate 2. Benefits Brief description of the business benefits that would be realized for this candidate. This solution can be implemented quickly because its a purchased solution. Fully supports user required business processes for Soundstage Inc. Plus more efficient interaction with member accounts. Same as candidate 2. Servers and Workstations A description of the servers and workstations needed to support this candidate. Technically architecture dictates Pentium pro, MS Windows NT class servers and 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 MS ACCESS for customization of package to provide report writing and integration. MS Visual Basic 5.0 System Architect 3.1 Internet Explorer MS Visual Basic 5.0 System Architect 3.1 Internet 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 department Laser printers (2) HP5SI LAN laser printers (2) HP4MV department Laser printers (2) HP5SI LAN laser printers (1) PRINTRONIX bar-code printer (includes software & drivers) Web pages must be designed to VGA resolution. All internal screens will be designed for SVGA resolution. 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 laser bar-code scanners (1) - HP Scanjet 4C Flatbed Scanner 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 with 100GB arrayed capability. Same as candidate 1. Same as candidate 1.
- 21. Feasibility Analysis of Candidate Systems Feasibility Analysis Matrix 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.
- 22. Feasibility Analysis of Candidate Systems Feasibility Analysis Matrix 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.
- 23. Candidate 1 Name Candidate 2 Name Candidate 3 Name Description Operational Feasibility Technical Feasibility Schedule Feasibility Economic Feasibility Ranking
- 24. 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 Score: 60 Fully supports user required functionality. Score: 100 Same as candidate 2. Score: 100 Technical Feasibility 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: Detailed calculations: 30% Approximately $350,000. Approximately 4.5 years. Approximately $210,000. See Attachment A. Score: 60 Approximately $418,040. Approximately 3.5 years. Approximately $306,748. See Attachment A. Score: 85 Approximately $400,000. Approximately 3.3 years. Approximately $325,500. See Attachment A. Score: 90 Schedule Feasibility An assessment of how long the solution will take to design and implement. 10% Less than 3 months. Score: 95 9-12 months Score: 80 9 months Score: 85 Ranking 100% 60.5 92 83.5
Editor's Notes
- In today’s business world, it is becoming more and more apparent that analysts must learn to think like business managers. Computer applications are expanding at a record pace. Now more than ever, management expects information systems to pay for themselves. Information is a major capital investment that must be justified, just as marketing must justify a new product and manufacturing must justify a new plant or equipment. Systems Analysts are called on more than ever to help answer the following questions: Will the investment pay for itself? Are there other investments that will return even more on their expenditure? Few topics are more important. Feasibility analysis isn't really systems analysis, and it isn't systems design either. Instead, feasibility analysis is a cross life cycle activity and should be continuously performed throughout a systems project.
- Figure C.1 Feasibility Checkpoints in the Systems Development Lifecycle Feasibility checkpoints can be installed into any SDLC that you are using. The figure above shows feasibility checkpoints for a typical life cycle (similar to, but not identical to, the life cycle used in this book). The checkpoints are represented by red diamonds. The diamonds indicate that a feasibility reassessment and management review should be conducted at the end of the prior phase (before the next phase). A project may be canceled or revised at any checkpoint, despite whatever resources have already been spent so far. This idea may bother you at first. Your natural inclination may be to justify continuing a project based on the time and money you've already spent. Those costs are sunk. A fundamental principle of management is never to throw good money after bad — cut your losses and move on to a more feasible project. That doesn't mean the costs already spent are not important.
- After estimating benefits of solving the problems and opportunities, analysts will estimate costs of developing the expected system. Experienced analysts routinely increase these costs by 50 percent to 100 percent (or more) because experience tells them that the problems are rarely well-defined and that user requirements are typically understated. Do nothing! Leave the current system alone. Regardless of management's opinion or your own opinion of this option, it should be considered and analyzed as a baseline option against which all others can and should be evaluated. Reengineer the (manual) business processes, not the computer-based processes. This may involve streamlining activities, reducing duplication and unnecessary tasks, reorganizing office layouts, and eliminating redundant and unnecessary forms and processes, among others.
- Operational and technical feasibility criteria measure the worthiness of a problem or solution. Operational feasibility is people oriented. Technical feasibility is computer oriented. Economic feasibility deals with the costs and benefits of the information system. Actually, few systems are infeasible. Instead, different options tend to be more or less feasible than others. Let's take a closer look at the four feasibility criteria.
- During the systems selection and procurement phases of systems design, the systems analyst identifies candidate system solutions and then analyzes those solutions for feasibility. We discussed the criteria and techniques for analysis in this chapter. In this concluding section we evaluate a pair of documentation techniques that can greatly enhance the comparison and contrast of candidate system solutions. Both use a matrix format. We have found these matrices useful for presenting candidates and recommendations to management. The rows of the matrix represent characteristics that serve to differentiate the candidates. The breakdown is as follows: TECHNOLOGY — Brief description of the technical solution represented by the candidate system. INTERFACES — Identify how the system will interact with people and other systems. DATA — How will data stores be implemented (e.g., conventional files, relational database(s), other database structures)? How will inputs be captured (e.g., on-line, batch, etc.)? How will outputs be generated (e.g., on a schedule, on demand, printed, on screen, etc.)? PROCESSES — How will (manual) business processes be modified? How will computer processes be implemented? For the latter, we have numerous options, including on-line versus batch processes and packaged versus built-in-house software. GEOGRAPHY — How will processes and data be distributed? Once again, we might consider several alternatives — for example, centralized versus decentralized versus distributed (or duplicated) versus cooperative (client/server) solutions.
- Figure C.6 Candidate Systems Matrix Template No additional notes provided.
- Figure C.7 Sample Candidate Systems Matrix Before considering any solutions, we must consider any constraints on solutions. Solution constraints take the form for architectural decisions intended to bring order and consistency to applications. For example, a technology architecture may restrict solutions to relational databases or client/server networks. A sample, partially completed candidate system matrix listing three of the five candidates is shown in the figure above. The matrix is used to provide overview characteristics concerning the portion of the system to be computerized, the business benefits, and software tools and/or applications needed. Subsequent pages would provide additional details concerning other characteristics such as those mentioned previously. Two columns can be similar except for their entries in one or two cells. Multiple pages would be used if we were considering more than three candidates.
- Be careful. Not all feasibility criteria are necessarily equal in importance. Before assigning final rankings, you can quickly eliminate any candidates for which any criteria is deemed ``infeasible.'' In reality, this doesn't happen very often.
- Be careful. Not all feasibility criteria are necessarily equal in importance. Before assigning final rankings, you can quickly eliminate any candidates for which any criteria is deemed ``infeasible.'' In reality, this doesn't happen very often.
- Figure C.8 Feasibility Analysis Matrix Template No additional notes provided.
- Figure C.9 Sample Feasibility Analysis Matrix A completed feasibility analysis matrix is presented in the figure above. The feasibility assessment is provided for each candidate solution. In this example, a score is recorded directly in the cell for each candidate's feasibility criteria assessment. Again, this matrix format can be most useful for defending your recommendations to management.