DAR_US22233 - Event Delivery Application Framework Decision

7/28/2019 DAR_US22233 - Event Delivery Application Framework Decision

1/47

I nstructions for using Key Decision Record

1. Replace the default field values, manually for those in brackets [ ] and using the variables tab for those in angl

a. On the Variables tab, enter values for the first six fields listed. Once entered on that tab, fields are automatically

b. On the Variables tab, enter a value for the 'Template version' ONLY when updating a template, not when updatin

c. On the Document Control tab, update all fields surrounded by brackets [ ].

4. If changes to the organization logo, copyright, date or pagination required, select View -> Header and Footer -

5.When creating a template from this template, to provide instructions for the template users: Add, Delete or Upd

6. Important: Do not update the following text enclosed in angle brackets < > on ANY tab. These are automaticall

-Project Name/Subproject Name:

-Project Manager Name:

-Document Type/Title:

-Confidentiality

-Revision Status

-Template version

Introduction

1

2

3

Tri gger to M ake DAR

1

Cri teri a of Evaluation Parameters

1 Here project can define the guideline for ranking evaluation

parameters and their corresponding score considered for

scoring

The weightage of each Evaluation Parameter can be decided as

100%.

Typically,The alternative with the HIGHEST score shall be chose

alterenative is also selcted based on cost-benefit, risk profile.

Refer to OPAL IMSP445 Key Decisions Procedure Appendix A-

Getty Images - US22233 Event Delivery Epic

US22233 Event Delivery Epic

I nstructions for using Evaluation Sheet

The Alternative Evaluation Table of the forms contains Evaluatio

according to the situation.

For Exam, Paramaters may be

-Standard,Guideline & Framework compliance

-Additional Effort Required

-Additional Skill Required

-Additional Facility Required

-Quality Improvement

-Maintenance Improvement

-Extendibility Improvement

-Performance Improvement-Customer Satisfection

-Complexity

-Technology Limitations


2/47

a)

Scori ng Scale This is a 7 point scale system.

Positive-High - (+3)

Positive-Med- (+2)

Positive-Low- (+1)

None - (0)

Negative-Low- (-1)

Negative-Med- (-2)

Negative-High- (-3)

Evaluation Methods

Brainstorming

Six Hat Thinking

Survey

Simulations

Trade Studies

Summary

Brainstorming is a process for developing creative solutions to pr

deliberately coming up with as many solutions as possible and b

reasons it is so effective is that the brainstormers not only come

from associations with other people's ideas by developing and re

The 'Six Thinking Hats' is a quick, simple and powerful technique

you to recognize what type of thinking you are using, and to appl

For exam le if we are feelin essimistic about the situation thaSurvey is the procedure of acquiring information about every me

collection of public opinion from a particular team.

Simulation is the imitation of some real thing, state of affairs, or p

entails representing certain key characteristics or behaviours of

used in many contexts, including the modeling of natural system

functioning. Other contexts include simulation of technology for p

training and education. Simulation can be used to show the even

of action.

A trade study or trade-off study is the activity of a multidisciplinar

solutions among a set of proposed viable solutions (FAA 2006).

of a series of measures or cost functions. These measures desc

may be conflicting or

even mutually exclusive. Trade studies are commonly used in th

the

software selection process (Phillips et al 2002) to find the configu

requirements.

For Exam, For Additional Cost Required Parameter:

Positively-High - additional cost is < -10% of the total original;

Positively-Med - additional cost is between -3% ~ -10% of the

Positively-Low - additional cost is between 0% ~ - 3% of the to

None -> No Cost Impact;

Negatively-Low -> additional cost is between 0% ~ 3% of the t

Negatively-Med -> additional cost is between 3% ~ 10% of the

Negatively-High -> additional cost is > 10% of the total original

There are multiple methods possible for evaluating alternative so

methods, in a given situation, an appropriate method will be sele

based or hands-on and include but are not restricted to (a) Simul(e) User Review and comment, (f)Cost studies, (g)Business opp

experience and prototypes (i) Six Hat Thinking, (j) Brainstorming,

Experiments.


3/47

Confidentiality: N/A

Revision Status: Current

While carrying out the Key Decision Process, the following activit

1. Identify all the potential criteria for evaluation

2. Select the criteria from Org recommendation list

3. Assign relative ranking for selected criteria and number of m

depending upon how closely the criterion contributed to fulfilling t

4. Identify alternative solutions.

5. Award number of points to each alternative against each crit

6. Sum up the scores for all the alternatives and sort them in as7. Alternative with highest score will be selected.

8. Discuss and finalize the highest scoring alternative.


4/47

brackets < >:

pdated on each tab.

a document created from the template.

> Custom Header or Custom Footer, and edit values as needed.

te instruction text as appropriate.

updated on ALL tabs using the Variables tab:

per the situation, Ensure the summation should be

n as the final decision but many times lesser scoring

atters,In case there are project specific needs, it

Parameters. Project team can identify parametes


5/47

oblems. It works by focusing on a problem, and then

pushing the ideas as far as possible. One of the

p with new ideas in a session, but also spark off

fining them.

to improve your thinking. It does this by encouraging

different types of thinking to the subject.

t is the onl t e of thinkin we a l ! This limits ourber of a given group. It can be formal or informal

rocess. The act of simulating something generally

selected physical or abstract system.Simulation is

or human systems in order to gain insight into their

erformance optimization, safety engineering, testing,

tual real effects of alternative conditions and courses

team to identify the most balanced technical

hese viable solutions are judged by their satisfaction

ibe the desirable characteristics of a solution. They

design of aerospace and automotive vehicles and

ration that best meets conflicting performance

otal original;

tal original;

tal original;

total original;

lutions against the established criteria. From these

ted. Typical evaluation methods may be paper-

ations, (b) Trade Studies, (c) Surveys, (d) Testing,rtunity studies, (h)Extrapolations based on field

(k) Expert Judgement / Delphi, (l) Design of


6/47

ies will be performed:

ximum points each criterion could be assigned,

he objective.

rion using an appropriate method

cending order


7/47


8/47


9/47


10/47


11/47


12/47


13/47


14/47


15/47


16/47


17/47


18/47


19/47


20/47


21/47


22/47

Getty Images - US22233 Event


Refer to the Instructions Tab on the use of t

Variables

Organization/Project Name:

Project Manager Name:

Document Type/Title:

Confidentiality:

Revision Status:

Template version:

1.1 About this document

This form provides the triggers and evaluation

1.2Who Should Use this Document

This document should be used by project team


23/47

Delivery Epic

ese variables. Do not delete them on this or any other tab.


Tanay Guha


N/A

Current

1.0

ethod to do key decision making.Project team can select one of methods and evauate the

nd other relevant stakeholders while doing key decision making.


24/47


25/47


26/47


27/47


28/47


29/47




30/47


31/47

Simulations Brainstorming Surveys Testing

User Review and

comment

Cost studies Business

opportunity

studies

Extrapolation

s based on

field

experience

and

Six Hat Thinking Trade Studies Expert

Judgement

/ Delphi

Design of

Experiments

Rank Value Score Rank Value

Complexity 60 Positive-Low 1 60.00 Positive-

High

3

Additional Effort

Required

30 Positive-Med 2 120.00 Positive-

High

3

Evaluation

Parameters:

Weightage

(Provide a

weightage

Rank for Alternatives: (please refer to the definition belo

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Supporting evidence (if any):

Alternative Evaluation Technique/ Methods:

Alternative Evaluation Table:

Description/Rationale of Alternative2: Selection of Spring Framework 3.1 for creating the web ap


Description/Rationale of Alternative3:

Evaluation Information:

Description/Rationale of Alternative1: Implement the new application using JSF(Java Server Fac


Situation/Problem Statement:

As part of the CR4306 - As part of the requirement to create a new application from ground up for handli

distribution material of Getty Images, we had to select a JEE5 compatible framework which would cater t

aspects of a web application, like Inversion of Control, Dependency injection, transaction management,

Assumptions:

Because of the nature of complexity involved here to select a JEE5 framework catering to the var

selection criteria and also the respective impact to the schedule and effort of the project,

General Information

Decision No:1

Participant: Saikat Chatterjee, Tanay Guha, Bob Hannaford

Decision Analysis Start Date: 01/09/2012

Decision Analysis End Date: 02/10/2012


32/47

Extendibility

Improvement

10 Positive-Med 2 120.00 Positive-

High

3

Total Score 100.00% 300.00

Participants signoff:

Name of participant Role in decision-making process Signature

Saikat Chatterjee Systems Analyst Saikat Chatterj

01/10/2012

Rejected Alternative:

Any Additional Comment:

Measurements:

Cost to perform evaluation Estimated value of

doing evaluation

Final Decision Information:

Accepted solution:

Finally the accepted solution was the alternative 2, i.e. to use Spring Framework 3.1 for implemen

web application as it acts as an excellent IoC container, has got very good dependency injection

provides excellent logging facilities with extended logging tools like EhCache, or using Redis for

Potential risks associated with implementing the recommended solution:

As the opensource software is very stable used extensively and is considered a market leader foimplementing JEE5 applications, no potential risks can be identified.

Any Additional Comment:

Definition of Weight :

Provide Weightage of each identified parameter. Ensure sum of all paramters weightage should be 100

Definition of Parameter Rank :Positive-High-3, Positive-Medium-2, Positive-Low-1,

None-0,

Negative-Low- (-1),Negative-Med - (-2), Negativ-High - (-3)


33/47

Score

180.00

180.00

w)

lication as

s) framework

g event

o the various

istributed

ious


34/47

180.00

ee

ting the new

capabilities,

logging

540.00


35/47


36/47


37/47


38/47


39/47


40/47


41/47


42/47


US22233 Event Delivery EpicConfidentiality: N/A

Revision Status: Current

Revision Date Created/Updated by Short Description of Changes

1 9/4/2012 Saikat Chatterjee Initial Version

Name Function Date of approval Signature

Tanay Gu Project Manager 9/4/2012 Tanay Guha

Revision Date Created/Updated by Short Description of Changes

1.0 Sep-11 Content -Team Initial Version of the document

Document Source:

The latest version of this controlled document is stored in [this location].

Template version: 1.0

This revision history is to be updated by WW- OPAL-Content -Team only. Changes to this template are

summarized in the following table in reverse chronological order (latest version first).

Document Revision History

Changes to this document are summarized in the following table in reverse chronological order (latest

Approvals

This document has been approved by the following people via email.

Template Revision History


43/47


44/47


45/47


46/47


47/47

Documents

DAR_US22233 - Event Delivery Application Framework Decision