Project Name

Feasibility Rationale Description (FRD)

Team Number

[Team members ]
[This page is intentionally left blank]
Feasibility Rationale Description Version 0.1

Table of Contents

1 Introduction 1
1.1 Purpose of FRD 1
1.2 References 1

2 Product Rationale 3
2.1 Business Case Analysis 3
2.2 Requirements Satisfaction 4
2.3 Stakeholder Concurrence 5

3 Process Rationale 7
3.1 System Priorities 7
3.2 Process Match to System Priorities 7
3.3 Consistency of Priorities, Process and Resources 7

4 Project Risk Assessment 9

5 Analysis Results 11
5.1 Product Features 11
5.2 Commercial-Off-The-Shelf solutions 12

Appendix 13
Feasibility Rationale Description Version 0.1

Version control

Date Author Changes Version

[Type today's date ] [Author's name ] [Changes made since last version ] 0.1

v
Feasibility Rationale Description Version 0.1

vi
Feasibility Rationale Description Version 0.1

List of Figures

Error! No table of figures entries found.

vii
Feasibility Rationale Description Version 0.1

viii
Feasibility Rationale Description Version 0.1

1 Introduction

The feasibility rationale description of the Project Name will be introduced.

1.1 Purpose of FRD

 Summarize the purpose and contents of this document with respect to the particular project and people
involved
 Avoid generic introductions as much as possible: for instance, you can show how your particular
Feasibility Rationale Description meets the completion criteria for the given phase

Common Pitfalls:
 Simply repeating the purpose of the document from the guidelines

1.2 References
 Provide complete citations to all documents, meetings and external tools referenced or used in the
preparation of this document .

Operational Concept Description [Click here and type version referenced ]

System and Software Requirements Definition [Click here and type version referenced ]
System and Software Architecture Description [Click here and type version referenced ]
Life Cycle Plan [Click here and type version referenced ]
[Click here and type other references ]

1
Feasibility Rationale Description Version 0.1

2 Product Rationale

This section furnishes the rationale for the product being able to satisfy the system specifications and
stakeholders (e.g. customer, user). It should also provide the rationale as to why the proposed system is
better than the current system.

Integration and Dependencies with other components:

This section is highly dependent on all other documents. The cost estimates in FRD 2.1 are strongly
dependent on development cost (from LCP) and operational cost (from OCD). FRD 2.2 maps requirements
to design, which create a high dependency between the System and Software Requirements Description
(SSRD), the System and Software Architecture Description (SSAD), and often the prototype. It creates a
dependency between the OCD, the SSAD, and often the prototype. The stakeholder concurrence in FRD
2.3 summarizes the findings so that green light can be given to proceed with the development.

2.1 Business Case Analysis

This section describes the impact of the product in mainly monetary terms.
 How much does it cost to develop and to operate?
 How much added value does it generate?
 How high is its return on investment?
However, non-monetary factors may be also decisive. For instance, “added value” can include the
improved quality of the service provided by the product.
 For a commercial system, the business case analysis will generally demonstrate an acceptable financial
return on investment.
 For a research and education support system, the rationale would be expressed in terms of
improvements in research and educational effectiveness as expressed by the users, or in terms of cost
savings to achieve the desired level of effectiveness

2.1.1 Development Cost Analysis

 Using estimates computed in the section Budgets (LCP 5.2), provide a summary of the full
development cost, including hardware, software, people, and facilities costs.
 Provide a rationale for the EAF cost drivers included in the COCOMO estimates

Common Pitfalls:
 Repeating the analysis from LCP 5.2. Provide only a summary, and reference the detailed analysis

2.1.2 Transition Cost Estimate

 Provide a rough estimate of costs to be incurred during the transition of the product into production
 These costs may include:
 Training Time
 Data preparation
 COTS licenses
 Operational readiness testing

3
Feasibility Rationale Description Version 0.1

 Site preparation
 Facilities preparation
 Equipment purchase

2.1.3 Operational Cost Estimate

 Provide a summary of the operational costs, including costs for the operational and additional support
software

2.1.4 Evolution Cost Estimate

 Provide a summary of maintenance costs if applicable
 Use COCOMO Maintenance data (optional)

Common Pitfalls:
 Repeating the analysis from LCP 5.2. Provide only a summary, and reference the detailed analysis

2.1.5 Estimate of Value Added and Return on Investment

 Provide a summary of cost with and without the product, and how much value it adds
 The value added may also describe non-monetary improvements (e.g. quality, response time, etc.),
which can be critical in customer support and satisfaction.
 Include a Return-On-Investment (ROI) analysis as appropriate.
 [Consistent with Results Chain (OCD 2.1)]

Common Pitfalls:
 Not providing a dollar value to the estimate and return on investment.

2.2 Requirements Satisfaction

 This section summarizes how well a system developed to the product architecture will satisfy the
system requirements.

Common Pitfalls:
 Simply restating the requirements, without showing how and why the proposed architecture guarantees
that they will be met

2.2.1 Operational Concept Satisfaction

 Summarize product's ability to satisfy the key operational concept elements and critical scenarios,
including critical off-nominal scenarios (Exception-Handling Scenarios)
 [Consistent with Operational Scenarios (OCD 3.4.3)]

2.2.2 Project Requirements Satisfaction

 Summarize how project requirements are being met through the approach adopted for the project and
described in LCP 4.

4
Feasibility Rationale Description Version 0.1

2.2.3 Capability Requirements Satisfaction

 Show evidence that the system developed to the product architecture will satisfy the capability
requirements, e.g., “capability described/demonstrated/exercised as part of included COTS
component”, with a pointer to the results.
 No need to restate obvious mappings from the requirements to the architecture.
 For each critical requirement, indicate:
 Criticality: Describe how essential this requirement is to the overall system
 Technical issues: Describe any design or implementation issues involved in satisfying this
requirement.
 Cost and schedule: Describe the relative or absolute costs associated with the technical issues
associated with satisfying that particular requirement
 Dependencies: Dependencies on COTS package capabilities, externally furnished components,
etc.
 Side effects: Interactions with other requirements
 Risks: Describes the circumstances under which this requirement might not able to be satisfied,
and what actions can be taken to reduce the probability of this occurrence. Describe some Risk
resolution options
 [Consistent with System Requirements (SSRD 3.2)]

2.2.4 Interface Requirements Satisfaction

 Show evidence that the system developed to the product architecture will satisfy the critical interface
requirements.
 [Consistent with System Interface Requirements (SSRD 4)]

2.2.5 Level of Service Requirements Satisfaction

 Show evidence that the system developed to the product architecture will satisfy the critical quality
requirements.
 [Consistent with Level of Service Requirements (SSRD 5)]

2.2.6 Evolution Requirements Satisfaction

 Show evidence that the system developed to the product architecture will satisfy the critical evolution
requirements (e.g., show which parts of the architecture ensure an easy transition to support via the
IBM Digital Library package).
 [Consistent with Evolution Requirements (SSRD 6)]

2.3 Stakeholder Concurrence

 Summarize stakeholder concurrence by reference to :
 WinWin negotiation results
 Memoranda of agreements
 Stakeholders may be anybody involved in the development process. For instance, a developer may
claim that a certain response time cannot be achieved in a crisis mode unless nonessential message

5
Feasibility Rationale Description Version 0.1

traffic is eliminated. Similarly, a customer may claim that the product does not satisfy his/her win
conditions (e.g. cost).
 This section serves as a record of how such claims were resolved to the stakeholders' satisfaction.

6
Feasibility Rationale Description Version 0.1

3 Process Rationale

This section analyzes the ability of the development to satisfy the stakeholders' (e.g. customer) cost and
schedule constraints.

Integration and Dependencies with other components: Like the previous section, this section is also
highly dependent on other documents, foremost the Life Cycle Plan (LCP) and System and Software
Requirements Description (SSRD). Item 3.1 maps primarily to the capabilities in SSRD and milestones in
LCP 2.2. Item 3.2 is a summary of LCP 2.1 and 2.2, with emphasis on priorities above. Item 3.3 is
reasoning that the LCP is consistent and doable (especially LCP 4).

3.1 System Priorities

 Summarize priorities of desired capabilities and constraints. Priorities may express time and date as
well as quality and others (e.g. performance).
 These priorities should be derived from the Organization Goals (OCD 2.2) and Project Goals (OCD
3.1) as well as System Requirements (SSRD 3.2)

Common Pitfalls:
Prioritizing on a capability by capability basis instead of requirement by requirement basis

3.2 Process Match to System Priorities

 Provide rationale for
o Ability to meet milestones
o Choice of process model: The decision table (Error: Reference source not found) provides
guidance on selecting an appropriate process model for various combinations of system
objectives, constraints and alternatives.
o Spiral Cycles, Anchor points
o Increments; Design-to-Schedule options

3.3 Consistency of Priorities, Process and Resources

 Provide evidence that priorities, process and resources match
 Budgeted cost and schedule are achievable
 No single person is involved on two or more full-time tasks at any given time
 Low priority features can be feasibly dropped to meet budget or schedule constraints
 Using the estimated Effort (Person-months) and Schedule from Budgets (LCP 5.2), show that the
staffing levels are enough, and that the project is achievable within the schedule.
 It is important to use a credible and repeatable estimation technique for the Effort and the Schedule.

7
Feasibility Rationale Description Version 0.1

4 Project Risk Assessment

Any combinations of capabilities or objectives whose feasibility is difficult to assure, are major sources of
risk. Risk Assessment consists of risk identification, risk analysis and risk prioritization. Frequent major
sources of risk and techniques for resolving them are given in . The project's overall life cycle strategy
described in Section 2.1 should be consistent with its approach to risk management. The initial set of risks
defined here will be updated throughout the project.

 Identify the major sources of risk in the project.

 Organize those into a Top-10 (or Top-N) risk items list to be monitored via the section on Risk
Management and Monitoring Procedures (LCP 4.1)
 Provide a description of all identified risks for the project, including risk exposure quantities.
 For critical risks, indicate the following:
 Description
 Risk Exposure: Potential Magnitude and Probability of Loss
 Risk Reduction Leverage: in reducing risk exposure
 Actions to Mitigate Risk
 Contingency Plan
 Identify low-priority requirements that can be left out in the case of schedule slippage

Table 1 Software Risk Management Techniques

Source of Risk Risk Management Techniques
 Staffing with top talent; key personnel agreements; team-building;
1. Personnel shortfalls
training ; tailoring process to skill mix; walkthroughs.
 Detailed, multi-source cost and schedule estimation; design to
2. Schedules, budgets, process cost; incremental development; software reuse; requirements
descoping; adding more budget and schedule; outside reviews.
 Benchmarking; inspections; reference checking; compatibility
3. COTS, external components
prototyping and analysis
 Requirements scrubbing; prototyping; cost-benefit analysis; design
4. Requirements mismatch
to cost; user surveys
 Prototyping; scenarios; user characterization (functionality; style,
5. User interface mismatch
workload); identifying the real users
 Simulation; benchmarking; modeling; prototyping;
6. Architecture, performance, quality
instrumentation; tuning
 High change threshold: information hiding; incremental
7. Requirements changes
development (defer changes to later increments)
 Reengineering; code analysis; interviewing; wrappers; incremental
8. Legacy software
deconstruction
 Pre-award audits, award-fee contracts, competitive design or
9. Externally-performed tasks
prototyping
 Technical analysis; cost-benefit analysis; prototyping; reference
10. Straining computer science
checking

Additional Guidelines:

9
Feasibility Rationale Description Version 0.1

There are numerous risk identification and analysis tools that can be applied in this section (COCOMO II is
again integral here). However, they can only give guidelines, not real answers. The best preparation for this
section is to try to construct the Feasibility Rationale Description and see where you have difficulties.

Common Pitfalls:
Repeating the same table in the Risk Management section of LCP (LCP 4.1)

10
Feasibility Rationale Description Version 0.1

5 Analysis Results

 Identify architectural alternatives and tradeoffs

 Identify unfeasible architectures or rejected alternatives; document criteria for rejection to avoid
having the rejected architectural alternative selected in ignorance at some other point
 Describe feasible architectural alternatives which were rejected due to solution constraints on the way
that the problem must be solved, such as a mandated technology. Those architectural alternatives may
be reconsidered should the solution constraints be relaxed.

5.1 Product Features

5.1.1 Advantages
This paragraph shall provide a qualitative and quantitative summary of the advantages to be obtained from
the new or modified system with respect to the Organization Goals and Activities. This summary shall
include new capabilities, enhanced capabilities, and improved performance, as applicable, and their
relationship to deficiencies identified in the Current System Shortfalls, as well as the rationale for new
capabilities. For a quantitative analysis, you may reference the Business Case Analysis from the FRD 2.1.

You may also describe the relationship of this system with any other systems if they exist. Specify if this
system is intended to be stand-alone, used as a component in a larger product, or one of a family of
products in a product line. If the latter, this section discusses the relationship of this system to the larger
product or to the product line.

5.1.2 Limitations
This paragraph shall provide a qualitative and quantitative summary of potential disadvantages or
limitations of the new or modified system. These disadvantages and limitations shall include, as applicable,
degraded or missing capabilities, degraded or less-than-desired performance, greater-than-desired use of
computer hardware resources, undesirable operational impacts, conflicts with user assumptions, and other
constraints. These are used either for stakeholder expectations management or as a basis for further
negotiation of system capabilities or tradeoffs.

5.1.3 Tradeoffs Considered

This paragraph shall identify and describe major alternatives for the concept of operation of the system,
their characteristics, the tradeoffs among them, and rationale for the decisions reached. Also discuss
alternative architectures and their pros and cons.

5.1.4 Changes Considered but Not Included

 These are changes considered but not included.
 In general, the results of the WinWin requirements negotiation activity will be to drop or defer some
capabilities from the initially proposed system. It is valuable to capture these for future reference,

11
Feasibility Rationale Description Version 0.1

along with the rationale for dropping or deferring them. Some of those changes considered but not
included may become Evolution Requirements.
 Include Reference to WinWin artifact (if applicable)
 You may include a threshold for including some of the deferred capabilities (e.g., depending on the
availability of a specific COTS package, etc.)
 [Consistent with Evolution Requirements (SSRD 6)]

5.2 Commercial-Off-The-Shelf solutions

 List of existing COTS products that should be investigated as potential solutions
 Reference any surveys or evaluations that have been done on these products
 Is it possible to buy something that already exists or is about to become available? It may not be
possible at this stage to say with a lot of confidence, but any likely products should be listed here.
 Consider whether there are products that must not be used, and state the reason.

12
Feasibility Rationale Description Version 0.1

Appendix

 List or provide any references to supporting documentation

 Provide details of cash flow and project earnings statement.

[Click here and type]

13