Getty Images - US22233 Event Delivery Epic US22233 Event Delivery Epic

Instructions for using Key Decision Record 1. Replace the default field values, manually for those in brackets [ ] and using the variables tab for those in angle brackets < >: a. On the Variables tab, enter values for the first six fields listed. Once entered on that tab, fields are automatically updated on each tab. b. On the Variables tab, enter a value for the 'Template version' ONLY when updating a template, not when updating a document created fr 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 -> Custom Header or Cu 5. When creating a template from this template, to provide instructions for the template users: Add, Delete or Update instruction text as ap 6. Important: Do not update the following text enclosed in angle brackets < > on ANY tab. These are automatically updated on ALL tabs u -Project Name/Subproject Name: -Project Manager Name: -Document Type/Title: -Confidentiality -Revision Status -Template version Instructions for using Evaluation Sheet Introduction

1 The Alternative Evaluation Table of the forms contains Evaluation Parameters. Project 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 The weightage of each Evaluation Parameter can be decided as per the situation, Ens 100%. 3 Typically,The alternative with the HIGHEST score shall be chosen as the final decision alterenative is also selcted based on cost-benefit, risk profile. Trigger to Make DAR 1 Refer to OPAL IMSP445 Key Decisions Procedure Appendix A-Matters,In case there Criteria of Evaluation Parameters <this can be entered as a comment in the parameter> 1 Here project can define the guideline for ranking evaluation parameters and their corresponding score considered for scoring

a) 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 total original; Positively-Low - additional cost is between 0% ~ - 3% of the total original; None -> No Cost Impact; Negatively-Low -> additional cost is between 0% ~ 3% of the total original; Negatively-Med -> additional cost is between 3% ~ 10% of the total original; Negatively-High -> additional cost is > 10% of the total original; Scoring 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

There are multiple methods possible for evaluating alternative solutions against the est methods, in a given situation, an appropriate method will be selected. Typical evaluatio based or hands-on and include but are not restricted to (a) Simulations, (b) Trade Stud (e) User Review and comment, (f)Cost studies, (g)Business opportunity studies, (h)Ex experience and prototypes (i) Six Hat Thinking, (j) Brainstorming, (k) Expert Judgemen Experiments.

Brainstorming Brainstorming is a process for developing creative solutions to problems. It works by fo deliberately coming up with as many solutions as possible and by pushing the ideas as reasons it is so effective is that the brainstormers not only come up with new ideas in a from associations with other people's ideas by developing and refining them.

Six Hat Thinking The 'Six Thinking Hats' is a quick, simple and powerful technique to improve your think you to recognize what type of thinking you are using, and to apply different types of thin

For example, if we are feeling pessimistic about the situation, that is the only type of th Survey Survey is the procedure of acquiring information about every member of a given group collection of public opinion from a particular team.

Simulations Simulation is the imitation of some real thing, state of affairs, or process. The act of sim entails representing certain key characteristics or behaviours of a selected physical or used in many contexts, including the modeling of natural systems or human systems in functioning. Other contexts include simulation of technology for performance optimizati training and education. Simulation can be used to show the eventual real effects of alte of action. Trade Studies A trade study or trade-off study is the activity of a multidisciplinary team to identify the solutions among a set of proposed viable solutions (FAA 2006). These viable solutions of a series of measures or cost functions. These measures describe the desirable char may be conflicting or even mutually exclusive. Trade studies are commonly used in the design of aerospace the software selection process (Phillips et al 2002) to find the configuration that best meets requirements. Summary

While carrying out the Key Decision Process, the following activities will be performed: 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 maximum points each cr depending upon how closely the criterion contributed to fulfilling the objective. 4. Identify alternative solutions. 5. Award number of points to each alternative against each criterion using an appropr 6. Sum up the scores for all the alternatives and sort them in ascending order 7. Alternative with highest score will be selected. 8. Discuss and finalize the highest scoring alternative. Confidentiality: Revision Status: N/A Current

hose in angle brackets < >: utomatically updated on each tab. when updating a document created from the template.

and Footer -> Custom Header or Custom Footer, and edit values as needed. elete or Update instruction text as appropriate. automatically updated on ALL tabs using the Variables tab:

Sheet

ns Evaluation Parameters. Project team can identify parametes

decided as per the situation, Ensure the summation should be

all be chosen as the final decision but many times lesser scoring k profile.

Appendix A-Matters,In case there are project specific needs, it

otal original; 10% of the total original; 3% of the total original;

3% of the total original; ~ 10% of the total original; total original;

ternative solutions against the established criteria. From these will be selected. Typical evaluation methods may be paperto (a) Simulations, (b) Trade Studies, (c) Surveys, (d) Testing, usiness opportunity studies, (h)Extrapolations based on field ainstorming, (k) Expert Judgement / Delphi, (l) Design of

lutions to problems. It works by focusing on a problem, and then ssible and by pushing the ideas as far as possible. One of the only come up with new ideas in a session, but also spark off oping and refining them.

ul technique to improve your thinking. It does this by encouraging and to apply different types of thinking to the subject.

situation, that is the only type of thinking we apply! This limits our ut every member of a given group. It can be formal or informal

affairs, or process. The act of simulating something generally haviours of a selected physical or abstract system.Simulation is ural systems or human systems in order to gain insight into their nology for performance optimization, safety engineering, testing, ow the eventual real effects of alternative conditions and courses

ltidisciplinary team to identify the most balanced technical FAA 2006). These viable solutions are judged by their satisfaction asures describe the desirable characteristics of a solution. They

y used in the design of aerospace and automotive vehicles and

d the configuration that best meets conflicting performance

owing activities will be performed:

umber of maximum points each criterion could be assigned, to fulfilling the objective.

st each criterion using an appropriate method t them in ascending order

ve.

Getty Images - US22233 Event Delivery Epic US22233 Event Delivery Epic
Refer to the Instructions Tab on the use of these variables. Do not delete them on this or any other tab. 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 method to do key decision making.Project team can select one of methods and e 1.2 Who Should Use this Document This document should be used by project team and other relevant stakeholders while doing key decision making.

3 Event Delivery Epic

he use of these variables. Do not delete them on this or any other tab. Getty Images - US22233 Event Delivery Epic Tanay Guha US22233 Event Delivery Epic N/A Current 1.0

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

nt roject team and other relevant stakeholders while doing key decision making.

Getty Images - US22233 Event Delivery Epic US22233 Event Delivery Epic

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 Situation/Problem Statement: As part of the CR4306 - As part of the requirement to create a new application from ground up for handling event distribution material of Getty Images, we had to select a JEE5 compatible framework which would cater to the various aspects of a web application, like Inversion of Control, Dependency injection, transaction management, distributed logging facilities, branding/or skinning of UI based on event, annotation based configuration instead of large XML Assumptions: Because of the nature of complexity involved here to select a JEE5 framework catering to the various selection criteria and also the respective impact to the schedule and effort of the project, this particular problem has been considered for formal decision making process. Evaluation Information: Description/Rationale of Alternative1: Implement the new application using JSF(Java Server Faces) framework Supporting evidence (if any): Description/Rationale of Alternative2: Selection of Spring Framework 3.1 for creating the web application as Supporting evidence (if any): Description/Rationale of Alternative3: Supporting evidence (if any):

Alternative Evaluation Technique/ Methods: Simulations Brainstorming User Review and comment Cost studies

Surveys Business opportunity studies

Testing Extrapolation s based on field experience and prototypes Design of Experiments

Six Hat Thinking

Trade Studies

Expert Judgement / Delphi

Alternative Evaluation Table: Evaluation Weightage Rank for Alternatives: (please refer to the definition below) Parameters: (Provide a Alternative 1 Alternative 2 weightage Rank Value Score Rank Value percentage 60 Positive-Low Complexity 1 60.00 Positive3 High Additional Effort 30 Positive-Med 2 120.00 Positive3 Required High

Extendibility Improvement Total Score

10 Positive-Med 100.00%

120.00 PositiveHigh 300.00

3 540.00

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) Final Decision Information: Accepted solution: Finally the accepted solution was the alternative 2, i.e. to use Spring Framework 3.1 for implementing the new web application as it acts as an excellent IoC container, has got very good dependency injection capabilities, provides excellent logging facilities with extended logging tools like EhCache, or using Redis for logging purpose through Spring Data that provides an universal model for interacting with NoSQL databases, very Potential risks associated with implementing the recommended solution: As the opensource software is very stable used extensively and is considered a market leader for implementing JEE5 applications, no potential risks can be identified. Any Additional Comment: Rejected Alternative: Any Additional Comment:

Measurements: Cost to perform evaluation

Estimated value of doing evaluation

Participants signoff: Name of participant Saikat Chatterjee

Role in decision-making process Systems Analyst

Signature Saikat Chatterjee 01/10/2012

up for handling event would cater to the various nagement, distributed nstead of large XML

g to the various ect,

Server Faces) framework

he web application as

efinition below) Score 180.00 180.00

180.00 540.00

ould be 100%

r implementing the new y injection capabilities, g Redis for logging SQL databases, very

et leader for

Signature ikat Chatterjee 01/10/2012

Getty Images - US22233 Event Delivery Epic US22233 Event Delivery Epic
Confidentiality: Revision Status: N/A Current

Document Revision History Changes to this document are summarized in the following table in reverse chronological order (latest
Revision Date Created/Updated by Short Description of Changes

9/4/2012 Saikat Chatterjee

Initial Version

Approvals This document has been approved by the following people via email.
Name Function Date of approval Signature

Tanay Guha Project Manager

9/4/2012 Tanay Guha

Template Revision History 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).
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