Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) of the Project
Modified Waterfall Model: The system development methodology utilizes the same phases as in waterfall model with a simple addition of the overlapping function (Model 2015). The overlapping functions help in splitting the projects in subprojects for ensuring that each of the sub projects are completed successfully.
Unified Process: The unified process is implied as an iterative, incremental, and development process that can be used for software development in form of a process framework (Hui, Yan, Quanyu and Zhiwen 2015). The unified process is not a process, but it is a structural framework that can be specified for organizational projects.
|
Unified Process |
|
|
The disciplines of the modified waterfall model such as analysis, design, coding, and testing are done sequentially |
The disciplines of the modified waterfall model such as analysis, design, coding, and testing are done concurrently and iteratively |
|
Not Multi Disciplinary in nature |
Multi Disciplinary in nature |
|
Artefacts of the process are Document Heavy |
Artefacts of the process are visual concept based |
|
Task Description |
Duration |
Predecessors Task ID |
|
|
0 |
Online Mercy Hospital Pharmacy System |
116 days |
|
|
1 |
Initialization |
20 days |
|
|
1.1 |
Analysis of the requirements |
4 days |
|
|
1.2 |
Scope Analysis |
3 days |
1.1 |
|
1.3 |
Risk Management Plan |
5 days |
1.2 |
|
1.4 |
Charter Documentation |
3 days |
1.3 |
|
1.5 |
Project Initiation Documentation |
3 days |
1.4 |
|
1.6 |
Review and Signup |
2 days |
1.5 |
|
2 |
Planning |
11 days |
|
|
2.1 |
Plan Selection Methodology |
2 days |
1.6 |
|
2.2 |
Development of plan outline |
5 days |
2.1 |
|
2.3 |
Review of the plan outline |
3 days |
2.2 |
|
2.4 |
Plan Approval |
1 day |
2.3 |
|
3 |
System Designing |
28 days |
|
|
3.1 |
Hospital Infrastructure is analyzed |
3 days |
2.4 |
|
3.2 |
System Requirements are accumulated |
7 days |
5.4 |
|
3.3 |
Design Methodology is selected |
2 days |
3.2 |
|
3.4 |
Design outline is made |
5 days |
3.3 |
|
3.5 |
Design is reviewed |
2 days |
5.3 |
|
3.6 |
Design is approved |
1 day |
3.5 |
|
4 |
System Development |
48 days |
|
|
4.1 |
Platform for integration is selected |
2 days |
3.6 |
|
4.2 |
Integrated database is formed |
8 days |
4.1 |
|
4.3 |
Data in stored in the database |
4 days |
4.2 |
|
4.4 |
Equipments are Installed |
10 days |
4.3 |
|
4.5 |
Software are programmed |
15 days |
4.4 |
|
4.6 |
System is completed |
1 day |
5.2 |
|
5 |
Testing |
72 days |
|
|
5.1 |
White box testing |
4 days |
4.5 |
|
5.2 |
Black box testing |
4 days |
5.1 |
|
5.3 |
Simulation testing |
4 days |
3.4 |
|
5.4 |
Prototyping |
4 days |
3.1 |
|
6 |
Closure Phase |
9 days |
|
|
6.1 |
Final Documentation |
5 days |
4.6 |
|
6.2 |
Submission of documents |
1 day |
6.1 |
|
6.3 |
Review and Signup |
2 days |
6.2 |
|
6.4 |
Project is Closed |
1 day |
6.3 |
Table 1: WBS of the Project
From the Gantt chart it is clear that the project is divided into the following subprojects initialization, planning, system designing, system development, testing, and closure phase. The initialization phase consists of analysis of the requirements, scope analysis, risk management plan, charter documentation, project initiation documentation, and review and signup. The planning phase consists of plan selection methodology, development of plan outline, review of the plan outline, and plan approval. The system designing phase consists of hospital infrastructure is analysed, system requirements are accumulated, design methodology is selected, design outline is made, design is reviewed, and design is approved. The system development phase consists of platform for integration is selected, integrated database is formed, data in stored in the database, equipments are installed, software are programmed, and system is completed. The testing phase consists of white box testing, black box testing, simulation testing, and prototyping. The closure phase consists of submission of documents, final documentation, review and signup, and project is closed.
The break even period (or point) is the time period for which the sum of the overall investment is equal to the sum of the benefits for given discounting rate (Rout, Sahoo, Thomas and Varghese 2017). The time is said to be breakeven point for the initial investment at the given rate of return. The breakeven point for the project is 2.57 years for 7%. The payback period is the breakeven point of the project for the customers.
ROI of return on investment is the rate by which the investment of the project is returned to the client (Frost, Sonfield, Zolna and Finer 2014). The yearly benefits are summed and lessened from the yearly expense. The remaining amount is divided from the initial investment and then percentage is calculated for developing the ROI. The ROI for this project is 30%. The NPV value of the project has been calculated to be positive and hence, the project should be proceeded with.
Adamson, P.B., Roberts, G.J., Gu, N.Y., Bharmi, R., Desai, A.S. and Abraham, W.T., 2016. Economic Impact of Hemodynamic Monitoring in Heart Failure Patients: Estimating the Number-Needed-to-Treat and the Break-Even-Point Using a Claims Database. Journal of Cardiac Failure, 22(8), p.S87.
Anwar, A., 2014. A review of rup (rational unified process). International Journal of Software Engineering (IJSE), 5(2), pp.12-19.
Bahrudin, I.A., 2016. A comparative study of user acceptance testing between modified waterfall model and extreme programming in small-scale project (Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia).
Dayani, M. and Gelbard, R., 2015. Automatic Conversion of Software Specification into a Gantt-chart subject to Organization’s Constraints. Procedia Computer Science, 64, pp.73-78.
de Jonge, B., Dijkstra, A.S. and Romeijnders, W., 2015. Cost benefits of postponing time-based maintenance under lifetime distribution uncertainty. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 140, pp.15-21.
Frost, J.J., Sonfield, A., Zolna, M.R. and Finer, L.B., 2014. Return on investment: a fuller assessment of the benefits and cost savings of the US publicly funded family planning program. The Milbank Quarterly, 92(4), pp.696-749.
Hui, Y., Yan, Y., Quanyu, W. and Zhiwen, C., 2015, June. Compare Essential Unified Process (EssUP) with Rational Unified Process (RUP). In Industrial Electronics and Applications (ICIEA), 2015 IEEE 10th Conference on (pp. 472-476). IEEE.
Model, W., 2015. Waterfall model. Luettavissa: https://www. waterfall-model. com/. Luettu, 3.
Rout, A., Sahoo, S.S., Thomas, S. and Varghese, S.M., 2017. Development of Customized Formulae for Feasibility and Break-Even Analysis of Domestic Solar Water Heater. International Journal of Renewable Energy Research (IJRER), 7(1), pp.386-398.
Wittenberg, R., Anderson, R., Read, S. and Knapp, M., 2017. Why no reliable estimate can be produced for the rate of return on investment in primary prevention of dementia.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
