Guide to Contracting ITS Projects (2006)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

[Step 3 Worksheet] Prepared By: _____________________________________ Date: _____________________ Brief Project Description: ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ Which of the following best describes the Level of New Development for this project? 1. Little to no new software development / exclusively based on COTS software and hardware or based on existing, proven software and hardware. 2. Primarily COTS software / hardware or existing software / hardware based with some new soft- ware development or new functionality added to existing software—evolutionary development. 3. New software development for new system, replacement system, or major system expansion including use of COTS software. Implementation of new COTS hardware. 4. Revolutionary development—entirely new software development including integration with COTS or existing legacy system software. Implementation of new COTS hardware or even prototype hardware. Answer Number: [ ] Which of the following best describes the Scope and Breadth of Technologies for this project? 1. Application of proven, well-known, and commercially available technology. Small scope in terms of technology implementation (e.g., only CCTV or DMS system). Typically imple- mented under a single stand-alone project, which may or may not be part of a larger multiple- phase implementation effort. 2. Primary application of proven,well-known,and commercially available technology.May include non-traditional use of existing technology(ies). Moderate scope in terms of technology imple- mentation (e.g., multiple technologies implemented, but typically no more than two or three). May be single stand-alone project, or may be part of multiple-phase implementation effort. 3. Application of new software / hardware along with some implementation of cutting-edge software, hardware, or communication technology. Wide scope in terms of technologies to be implemented. Projects are implemented in multiple phases (which may be Category 1 or 2 projects). 32 A P P E N D I X A Determining ITS Project Category (Complexity and Risk)

4. New software development combined with new hardware configurations / components, use of cutting-edge hardware and/or communications technology. Very broad scope of tech- nologies to be implemented. Projects are implemented in multiple phases (phases may be Cat- egory 1 or 2 projects). Answer Number: [ ] Which of the following best describes the need for Interfaces to Other Systems for this project? 1. Single system or small expansion of existing system deployment. No interfaces to external sys- tems or system interfaces are well known (duplication of existing interfaces). 2. System implementation includes one or two major subsystems. May involve significant expansion of existing system. System interfaces are well known and based primarily on dupli- cating existing interfaces. 3. System implementation includes three or more major subsystems. System interfaces are largely well known but includes one or more interfaces to new and/or existing systems / databases. 4. System implementation includes three or more major subsystems. System requires two or more interfaces to new and/or existing internal/external systems and plans for interfaces to “future” systems. Answer Number: [ ] Which of the following best describes the need to account for Technology Evolution during the expected life of this project? 1. Need to account for technology evolution perceived as minor. Example would be to deploy hardware and software that is entirely compatible with an existing COTS-based system. Ram- ifications of not paying particular attention to standards considered minor. System imple- mented expected to have moderate to long useful life. 2. Need to account for technology evolution perceived as an issue to address. Example includes desire for interoperable hardware from multiple vendors. Ramifications of not paying par- ticular attention to standards may be an issue, as an agency may get locked into a proprietary solution. Field devices expected to have moderate to long useful life. Center hardware life expectancy is short to moderate. Control software is expected to have moderate to long life. 3. Need to account for technology evolution perceived as a significant issue. Examples might include implementation of software that can accommodate new hardware with minimal to no modification and interoperable hardware. Ramifications of not using standards based technology are considerable (costs for upgrades, new functions, etc.) Field devices expected to have moderate to long useful life. Center hardware life expectancy is short to moderate. Control software is expected to have an extendable useful life. 4. Need to account for technology evolution perceived as major issue. Examples include soft- ware that can easily accommodate new functionality and/or changes in hardware and hard- ware that can be easily expanded (e.g., add peripherals), maintained, and is interoperable. Ramifications of not using standards-based technology are considerable (costs for upgrades, new functions, etc.). Field devices expected to have moderate to long useful life. Center hard- ware life expectancy is short to moderate. Control software is expected to have an extendable useful life. Answer Number: [ ] Determining ITS Project Category (Complexity and Risk) 33

Which of the following best describes the need to account for Requirements Fluidity during development of this project? 1. System requirements are very well defined, understood, and unlikely to change over time. For- mal requirements management a good idea, but not a necessity. 2. System requirements are largely well defined and understood. Addition of new system func- tionality may require more attention to requirements management. 3. New system functionality includes a mix of well-defined, somewhat-defined, and fuzzy requirements. System implementation requires adherence to formal requirements manage- ment processes. 4. System requirements not well defined, understood, and very likely to change over time. Requires strict adherence to formal requirements management processes. Answer Number: [ ] Which of the following best describes the potential impact of Institutional Issues on this project? 1. Minimal—Project implementation involves one agency and is typically internal to a partic- ular department within the agency. 2. Minor—May involve coordination between two agencies. Formal agreements not necessarily required, but if so, agreements are already in place. 3. Significant—Involves coordination among multiple agencies and/or multiple departments within an agency or amongst agencies. Formal agreements for implementing project may be required. 4. Major—Involves coordination among multiple agencies, departments, and disciplines. Requires new formal agreements. May require new multi-agency project oversight organization. Answer Number: [ ] ITS Project Category Score (Answer Number Total): [ ] 34 Guide to Contracting ITS Projects ITS Project 6–12 12–18 18–24Category Score Complexity Straightforward to Moderately Complex Complex to Moderately Complex to Complex Extremely Complex Risk Low to Moderate Moderate to High High to Very High Category 1–2 2–3 3–4 Determining Your ITS Project Category Using the table above, determine which of the three ranges your ITS project category score falls within. Use your judgment to select the appropriate category number based on where your score falls within the range. If the score falls towards the lower end of the range, select the lower cate- gory in that range. If it falls towards the higher end of the range, select the higher category. If it falls somewhere in the middle, be conservative and select the higher category number. For exam- ple, suppose your ITS project category score comes out to 15 which falls directly between 12–18. The suggestion is to be conservative and rank the project as a Category 3, one that is complex with a high level of risk.