Quality Management Information System

1
Quality Management Information System

• Project Team
• Sachin Shah
• Bhavya Desai
• Meghna Shah
• Sapan Shah
• Jayesh Bajaj

2
Operational Concept Description (OCD)
Presented By -Meghna Shah
3
OCD Outline

• System description
• Current system and shortfalls
• Proposed system
• Redressal of current system shortfalls

4
System Description

• CSE needs a system that will produce useful
  quality management data to be then used by the
  Experience Management System (EMS).
• To provide means of collating and data tracking
  of the quality artifacts produced by the CS577
  students.

5
Result Chain
6
Part 1/3
7
Part 2/3
8
Part 3/3
9
Current System

• The current system utilized by the CS577 course
  for Quality management of data / information is a
  manual one.
• Quality artifacts stored in a repository
• At the end of the semester the team websites are
  moved to EMS.

10
Current System Description
11
Current Entity Model
12
Part 1/2
13
Part 2/2
14
Shortfalls of the current system

• Artifacts stored in a highly ineffective and
  unstructured format .
• The students of class CS577 access the class
  website for review forms-highly unreliable.

15
Proposed System Capabilities

• Quality Management Information Priority
• (QMI) Database Very High
• EMS-ready data Very High
• Meta data and summarized data management
  High
• Facilitates transcription of quality data.
  High
• Report Generation Low
• Quality Assessment Guideline repository High

16
System Boundary and Environment
17
Proposed System Description
18
Proposed Entity Model
19
Part 1/2
20
Part 2/2
21
Redressal of the current system shortfalls

• Providing a repository to store digitized quality
  artifacts.
• Reporting facility.
• Quality Assessment Guideline repository.

22
Prototype

• Presented By
• -Sapan Shah

23
Prototype Outline

• Introduction
• Diagram depicting proposed way of performing
  activity
• Prototype Screens

24
Prototype Introduction

• This prototype is based on
• Client Meetings and feedback
• Win Win Negotiations

25
Proposed way of performing Activity
26
Prototype Screens (1 of 5)
Step 1 CSE Operational Staff Logs in..
27
Prototype Screens (2 of 5)
Step 2 User selects the option..
28
Prototype Screens (3 of 5)
Step 3 Selects the review form..
29
Prototype Screens (4 of 5)
Step 4 Enters the Header Information..
30
Prototype Screens (5 of 5)
Step 5 Enters the detail Information..
31
Information to be demonstrated for Next Prototype

• Functional prototype for entering meta/summarize
  data into the system.

32
System and Software Requirements Definition (SSRD)

• Presented By
• -Sapan Shah

33
SSRD Outline

• Project Requirements
• Capability Requirements
• System Interface Requirements
• LOS Requirements
• Evolution Requirements

34
Project Requirements

• Budget and Schedule Requirements
• Fixed Project Schedule -gt PG01
• 0 Cost Investment for development -gt PG03
• Development Requirements
• Tools Requirements
• Using Hyperwave, MS SQL -gt PG03,
  PC05Compatibility
• Computer Hardware Requirements
• Hardware features required to install and run
  Hyperwave 5.5 MS SQL
• Deployment Requirements
• System documentation and ad-hoc user training

35
Core Capability Requirements (1 of 2)

• Nominal
• Entering/Modifying Summarized and Meta Data -gt
  CAP03
• Authentication -gt CAP06
• EMS-Ready Data -gt CAP02
• Store the Electronic Data (QM Artifacts) -gt CAP01
• Data Transcription -gt CAP04
• Provide Guideline Repository -gt CAP07
• Report Generation -gt CAP05

36
Core Capability Requirements (2 of 2)

• Off-Nominal
• Error message prompt in case server goes down
  -gtCAP 01 -07
• Invalid Username or Password Message -gt CAP06
• Prompt for Data not found -gt CAP 01-07

37
System Interface Requirements

• Other Software Interface
• Interface with other sub-systems within EMS like
  PE Database -gt PC02

38
Level of Service Requirements

• Usability
• User friendly Interface
• Operate/navigate with ease
• Consistent with the prototype -gt CR 01 - 07

39
Evolutionary Requirements

• Capability Evolution Requirements
• Data transcriptions for forms other than Agile
• For example, Fagans Inspection -gt
  CAP04Transcribing Quality Data

40
System and Software Architecture Description
(SSAD)

• Presented By
• -Bhavya Desai

41
SSAD Outline

• Component Model
• Behavior Model
• Behavior Classification Model
• Object Classification Model
• System Topology

FOR MORE INFO...
Refer to http//www-scf.usc.edu/csci577/teams/tea
m13a/LCO/SSAD_LCO_F02a_T13.doc
42
Component Model
43
Behavior Model
Quality Assessment Guideline repository (CAP-07)
Multi-level of user access (CAP-06)
UC-07 - Download Grading
Grader
Criteria
CS 577a
Directed
Student
Resear...
Quality Assessment Guideline repository (CAP-07)
UC-01 - Authenticate
UC-02 - Download Quality
Management Material
Interns
UC-03 - Digitized/Electronic
IV V
CSE
Quality Artifacts Management
Quality Management Information (QMI) Database -
CAP-01
Operational Staff
WorkStudy
UC-04 -Transcribed Quality
Artifacts Management
Researcher
UC-05 - Metadata and
Summarized Informati...
Transcribing quality data - CAP-04
UC-06 - Reporting Tool
Meta data and summarized data.- CAP-03
Report Generation -(CAP-05)
44
Behavior Classification Model
Multi-level of user access (CAP-06)
Transcribing quality data - CAP-04
45
Behavior Classification Model
Quality Management Information (QMI) Database -
CAP-01
Meta data and summarized data.- CAP-03
46
Object Classification Model
47
System Topology
48
Feasibility Rationale Description

• Presented
• by Sachin Shah

49
Outline

• Product Rationale
• Project Risk Assessment Mitigation Techniques
• Satisfaction of requirements by architecture

50
Product Rationale

• Development Cost 1440 person-hrs (one time
  cost)
• Transition Cost 30 person-hrs (one time cost)
• Maintainer Cost 5 person-hrs/month (recurring)
• ROI
• Current System Annual cost 4368
• Effort to analyze 208 person-hrs _at_ 21 per hour
• Proposed System Annual cost 3425
• Time taken to analyze transcribed quality
  artifacts 35 person-hrs/ year which is
  equivalent to 735 per year _at_ 21 per hour
• Effort to scan data 250 per-hrs /year gt 1250
  per year
• Maintenance Cost 120 per month gt 1440

51
Product Rationale

• Business Case Analysis
• ROI
• Current System
• Annual cost per user 4368
• Proposed System
• Annual Fixed Cost 2690
• Annual per user Cost 735

52
Product Rationale

• Increase in ROI with an increase in the
  researchers

Cost ()
researchers
53
Product Rationale

• Value-Added Analysis
• Provides convenience for research
• Ability to reuse previous efforts
• Maintain empirical data to facilitate analysis of
  trends
• More productive research and analysis
• Higher academic reputation for USC-CSE CeBase

54
Product Rationale

• Hence in a single calendar year, the breakeven
  point is reached with two research students using
  the QMIS database

system deployment
Breakeven point
Value Added
Time
Year 2
Year 1
55
Project Risk Assessment Mitigation Techniques

• Resistance to change from CSE operational staff
• Make them winners of the system (What, How)
• Easier to adopt change if one is a winner (Why)
• Tight Schedule
• Prioritized requirements, SAIV (What, How)
• Ensure that higher priority requirements are met
  first (Why)

56
Project Risk Assessment Mitigation Techniques
(cont)

• Team members are not familiar with the Hyperwave
  product
• Planned training from experienced peers,
  allocated time to read and understand product
  documentation (What, How)
• Leverage the steep learning curve, CSE has
  Hyperwave Experts -- Alex, Murali (Why)

57
Project Risk Assessment Mitigation Techniques
(cont)

• Clients still to determine the exact data that
  needs to be captured
• Scheduled regular client meetings (What, How)
• Continued interaction with the client helps
  eliminate surprises and spread risk across
  stakeholders (Why)
• Cloudy GUI
• Using prototypes to determine an acceptable UI
  (What, How)
• Prototypes tend to help the clients better
  envision their requirements. (Why)

58
Satisfaction of requirements by architecture

• The above mentioned capabilities are supported
  by Hyperwave and/or MS SQL

59
QMIS

• Everybody is a WINNER