FIREANT SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

10/2/2012 Team Vector Spring, 2012

Outline
Purpose Business Value Context Tailored processes Project plan decisions Risk management plan Call to action

2
Team Vector <spring-2012-vector@west.cmu.edu>

Purpose
Report on FireAnt development process Discuss our methodology selection Present a software development plan Present risks and mitigation plans Seek approval from senior management

3
Team Vector <spring-2012-vector@west.cmu.edu>

Business Value

Market growth for PPM software

2008 $2.9B 2013 $4.2B Expected

Industry standard profit margin: 10% FireAnt potential profit margin: over 25%

Team Vector <spring-2012-vector@west.cmu.edu>

FireAnts Contextual Analysis

Size
Governance
4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

Criticality

Age of System

Business Model

Rate of Change Team Distribution 5

Stable Architecture FireAnt Value

Team Vector <spring-2012-vector@west.cmu.edu>

FireAnt Hybrid Approach

Processes are tailored for hybrid approach Two context attributes favor RUP practices:

Stable Architecture Business Model

The rest favor Agile practices

Team Vector <spring-2012-vector@west.cmu.edu>

Adopted RUP practices

Model Usage Context Process

Contextual inquiry Paper mock-up interviews Interaction and visual design Create a robust executable structure Communicate to key stakeholders
Team Vector <spring-2012-vector@west.cmu.edu>

Architect Software Process

Project plan decisions

Release Roadmap

Version 1.0 4 months Version 1.1 3 months Version 1.2 3 months

7 Iterations 4 weeks + 2 weeks * 6 Recruit an Architect and a Senior Software Engineer Mitigate risks
Team Vector <spring-2012-vector@west.cmu.edu>

Release 1 Plan

Iteration 1 Plan

Release Roadmap
Release 1
Jul 2012 Nov 2012 - Monetize the product as soon as possible - Stable requirements of high priority - API support

Release 2
Nov 2012 Feb 2013 - Increase user satisfaction - Remaining high priority requirement and medium priority requirements

Release 3
Feb 2013 May 2013 - Deliver a fullfeatured product - All remaining requirements

Team Vector <spring-2012-vector@west.cmu.edu>

Release Roadmap
Release 1 Duration ~4 mo. Theme Deliver a version that satisfies stable high priority requirements with API support in order to monetize the product as soon as possible. 2 ~3 mo. Add remaining high priority features and stable medium priority features to further increase user satisfaction. 3 ~3 mo. Finish remaining medium priority features and low priority features to achieve a full-feature product. UR11, SWR7, SWR9, SWR10, UR5, UR13, SWR1, SWR5, SWR8 UR12, UR14, SWR2, SWR3, SWR4, UR4, SWR11, SWR12, SWR13, SWR16, SWR20 Objectives UR15, UR16, UR1, UR2, UR3, UR6, UR7, UR8, UR9, UR10, SWR6, SWR14, SWR15, SWR7 SWR17, SWR18, SWR19,

10

Team Vector <spring-2012-vector@west.cmu.edu>

Release 1 Plan
500 450 400 350 Hours 300 250 200 150 100 50 Resource Workload

0
Itr 1 Itr 2 Itr 3 Itr 4 Itr 5 Itr 6 Itr 7

11

Team Vector <spring-2012-vector@west.cmu.edu>

Release 1 Plan
2500 2000 Hours 12 1500 1000 500 0

Team Vector <spring-2012-vector@west.cmu.edu>

Release 1 Plan
Itr. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Duration 4 weeks 2 weeks 2 weeks 2 weeks 2 weeks 2 weeks 2 weeks Goal(s) Recruit an Architect and a Senior Software Engineer, Mitigate risks, Requirement review Recruiting, Architecture design Finish requirements SWR19 and SWR14, Trainings Finish requirements SWR18, UR1 UI implementation, Finish requirements UR3, UR15, UR16, UR2 Finish requirements SWR7, UR7, UR6 Finish requirements UR8, UR9, UR10, SWR15 148 441 446 408 400 327 Total Effort (Hours) 70

13

Team Vector <spring-2012-vector@west.cmu.edu>

R1 Iteration 1 Plan
Work Package Hiring activities (Architect) Tasks T1 Write job description (2) T2 Review candidates resume (5) T3 Interview (10) T4 Decision meeting (3) Hiring activities (Senior Software Engineer) T1 Write job description (2) T2 Review candidates resume (5) T3 Interview (10) T4 Decision meeting (3)

Identify project stage in case of schedule slip

T1 Project schedule sync-up meeting (2)

14

Team Vector <spring-2012-vector@west.cmu.edu>

R1 Iteration 1 Plan (contd)

Work Package Identify project budget and associated risk at each iteration Meet with sales and marketing to come up Tasks T1 Project budget review meeting (2) T2 Project risk mitigation plan meeting (2) T1 Financial model review meeting (2)

with pricing model that ensures product

viability Use case review

T2 Financial model document update (6)

T1 Use case review meeting with customer representatives (4) T2 Update requirement document (4)

Front-end requirement review

T1 Front-end requirement review meeting with customer representatives (4) T2 Draft front-end requirement document (4)

15

Team Vector <spring-2012-vector@west.cmu.edu>

Project plan decisions staffing year 1

The initial team includes:

Project manager 6 developers 2 test engineers

1" Salary% $75,000" $100,000" $90,000" $80,000" $73,000" $79,000" $62,000" $42,000" N/A" Inflation% Quantity% 1" 1" 1" 2" 2" 1" 1" 0" 9" 3.16%" Months% 5" 4" 4" 3.5" 3.5" 3.5" 3.5" 0" N/A" Money% Cost% 0.15" Labor% Cost% PV% Cost% of% $31,250" $31,250" $33,333.33" $33,333" $30,000" $30,000" $46,666.67" $46,667" $42,583" $42,583" $23,041.67" $23,042" $18,083.33" $18,083" $0" $0" $224,958" $224,958"

Year% Position% Project"Manager" Software"Architect" Senior"Software"Engineer" Software"Engineer"III" Software"Engineer"I" QA"Lead" Test"Engineer" Support"Specialist" Total%

16

Team Vector <spring-2012-vector@west.cmu.edu>

Project plan decisions staffing years 2-4

Changes in team:

One software engineering contracts expire One test engineer contract expires Two support specialists are hired
2" Salary% $77,370" $103,160" $92,844" $82,528" $75,307" $81,496" $63,959" $43,327" N/A" Inflation% Quantity% 1" 1" 1" 2" 1" 1" 0" 2" 9" 3.16%" Months% 12" 12" 12" 12" 12" 12" 0" 12" N/A" Money% Cost% 0.15" Labor% Cost% PV% Cost% of% $77,370" $67,278" $103,160" $89,704" $92,844" $80,734" $165,056" $143,527" $75,307" $65,484" $81,496" $70,866" $0" $0" $86,654" $75,352" $681,888" $592,946"

Year% Position% Project"Manager" Software"Architect" Senior"Software"Engineer" Software"Engineer"III" Software"Engineer"I" QA"Lead" Test"Engineer" Support"Specialist" Total%

17

Team Vector <spring-2012-vector@west.cmu.edu>

Risk Management Plan

Risk Identification & Assessment

Risk
Prob. (P) 95% 75% 75% 30% 40% 65% 10% Schedule/ Avg. Metric Impact Budget/Sales Impact Value Priority (V) Impact Level (R=PxV) 5 4 1 3 1 2 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 2 4 1 4 1 1 1 1 4.33 38.94 2.67 2.67 2.33 2 2 2 6.24 6.24 4.33 3 3 3 36.99 4.68 4.68 1.3 1.2 1.95 0.3 High High High Med Med Med Low

Project completion date affected due to schedule slip No support or development experience for NDSS in a large-scale, distributed environment Product sales could be affected due to NDSS's weak market position Not having skilled personnel to work on the project
Chance of low revenue getting generated Legal & security issues storing data in the cloud Complex requirements could lead to constant refactoring

18

Team Vector <spring-2012-vector@west.cmu.edu>

Risk Identification & Assessment

Thresholds
Brackets Sales Impact Budget Impact Budget/Revenue/ ($) ($) Sales (%) Schedule Impact (Months)
0.12 0.37

Level 1 Level 2

0-1.22 1.23-3.67

30,177 89047

22,555 67,664

Level 3
Level 4 Level 5
19

3.68-11
12-33 34-100

272,089
816,268 2,473,541

202,993
608,979 1,826,938

1.11
3.33 10

Team Vector <spring-2012-vector@west.cmu.edu>

Risk Mitigation Strategy

Comprehensive risk planning & action items

Action Items Hours 6 When should it happen This should be checked throughout the project A bi-weekly check is the best case 1-month delay translates to a level 3 risk Beginning of Iteration 1 and mid iteration End of iteration 1 at the minimum. Repeat for other iterations Must happen after hiring

Identify project stage in case of schedule slip

Involve stakeholders to identify possible schedule lags that are permissible and within the acceptable risk threshold
Training for personnel

2 20 4 4

Identify project budget & associated risk Conduct budget status during project Set milestones for customer change order, scope changes, or functionality change orders that can lead to delays

Beginning of iteration 1 At the end of each iteration

At the end of each iteration

20

Team Vector <spring-2012-vector@west.cmu.edu>

Call to Action
Request for the project plan approval Begin the hiring process

21

Team Vector <spring-2012-vector@west.cmu.edu>

References

Alex Kurilin, Jason Goldsmith, Shekar Pasumarthi, Padma Narasimha Murthy, Sion Chaudhuri. Managing Risks. PPM Task 1, Moffett Field, CA, 2012.

Amit Kumar, Anitha Loganathan, Ed Mondragon, Francis Kurupacheril, Mayuri Kulkarni. Manage Testing. PPM Task 1, Moffett Field, 2012.
Armour, Phillip G. Project Portfolios: Organizational Management of Risk. Association for Computing Machinery, 2005, 20. Ashwin Arun, Brian Bailey, Bruno Torres, Sean Samenfeld-Specht, Victor Marmol. Plan Project. PPM Task 1, Moffett Field, 2012. Bharathi Swaminathan, Borys Boyko, Rity Upadhyaya, Yuan Tian. Monitor Project. PPM Task 1, Moffett Field, 2012. careerbliss. Salaries. Feb 17, 2012. http://www.careerbliss.com/salary/ (accessed Feb 17, 2012). Carina Zheng, Charu Aggarwal, Himani Ahuja, Swapna Varghese, Surbhi Dangi. Software Configuration Management. PPM Task 1, Moffett Field, 2012.

Cook, Rick. "How to Spot a Failing Project." CIO (CXO Media Inc.), 2012: 4.
Craig Kokanson, Chris Oentojo, Deiva Jesuraj, Jason Leng. Architect Software. PPM Task 1, Moffett Field, 2012. Daniel Lee, George Dean, Judy Zhang, Mike Vrooman. Manage Requirements. PPM Task 1, Moffett Field, 2012. Team Vector <spring-2012-vector@west.cmu.edu>

22

References

Ferguson, Robert W. A Project Risk Metric. Research Paper, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburg: Software Engineering Institute, 2004.

glassdoor. Salaries. Feb 17, 2012. http://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/index.htm (accessed Feb 17, 2012).
InflationData.com. Current Inflation. 2012. http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/currentinflation.asp (accessed Feb 17, 2012). Investopedia. Present Value - PV. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/presentvalue.asp (accessed Feb 21, 2012). James Ricks, Mikel Perez, Minh Pham, Omid Saadati, Sutapa Maity. Manage Project Environment. PPM Task 1, Moffett Field, 2012. Johnson, Scott. How to spot a failing project. AsTask Inc, 2007. Kruchten, Philippe. "Contextualizing Agile Software Development." Kruchten Engineering Services Ltd, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2010.

Lundak, Jiri, and Joseph Perline. "Why Scrum Projects Fail."

MJ Lee, Joshua Bond, Tim Zaitsev, Linda Avendano, Tristan Hoffman. Implementing Code Process. PPM Task 1, Moffett Field, 2012.

23

Team Vector <spring-2012-vector@west.cmu.edu>

References

Morgan Brown, Garry Chan, Bash Sun-Basorun, Madhuri Chandoor. Integrate Components. PPM Task 1, Moffett Field, 2012. Peraire, Cecile, Patricia Collins, and Gladys Mercier. Project and Process Management FAQ. Feb 20, 2012. http://rails.sv.cmu.edu/pages/ppm_faq (accessed Feb 20, 2012). Sheng-Hao Tsao, Neha Sinha, Eila Ibildayeva, Isak Sky, Xiao Pan. Manage Quality. PPM Task 1, Moffett Field, 2012. Stephen Chan, Cecilia Chen, Markus Lachinger, Saul Perez, Ashwin Upadhyaya. Design Software. PPM Task 1, Moffett Field, 2012. Trin Chavalittumrong, Pavel Fomin, Sanjay Gavagal Gundu, Leo Guo. Manage Change. PPM Task 1, Moffett Field, 2012. Williams, Laurie, Robert R. Kessler, Ward Cunningham, and Rob Jeffries. Strengthening the Case for Pair-Programming. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University, 2000. Xianheng Ma, Nishith Nand, Kristoffer Pantic, Trevor Umeda. Model Usage Context. PPM Task 1, Moffett Field, 2012. Yahoo! Finance. Industry Browser. Feb 22, 2012. http://biz.yahoo.com/p/sum_qpmd.html (accessed Feb 22, 2012). Stacy Goff. The Future of IT Project Management Software. Jan 6, 2010. http://www.cio.com/article/512876/The_Future_of_IT_Project_Management_Software (accessed Feb 25, 2012).

24

Team Vector <spring-2012-vector@west.cmu.edu>