1 / 53

Personnel Accountability & Tracking System

Final Presentation. Personnel Accountability & Tracking System. Walter Hackett | Abdi Hussein | Tool Jampathom George Mason University SYST 798 – Fall 2009. Agenda. 2. Background Problem Statement Project Definition Stakeholder Analysis Competitor Analysis Tradeoff Analysis

lydie
Download Presentation

Personnel Accountability & Tracking System

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Final Presentation Personnel Accountability &Tracking System Walter Hackett | Abdi Hussein | Tool Jampathom George Mason University SYST 798 – Fall 2009

  2. Agenda 2 • Background • Problem Statement • Project Definition • Stakeholder Analysis • Competitor Analysis • Tradeoff Analysis • Business Case • Technical Case • Conclusion

  3. Introduction / Background 3 • Historically, activities involving high risk to life and health have needed oversight, accountability, and situational awareness. • Personnel accountability systems have been implemented, mainly as manually operated systems. • The need for situational awareness increases exponentially in crisis situations where much is at stake and time is critical. • Example: US Navy experiences over 50 man-overboard situations per year—sometimes realizing that a sailor is missing only when performing a scheduled roll call. • Many of the current accountability systems are manually operated which can be error-prone and time consuming.

  4. Problem Statement 4 • Current solutions do not provide a robust, automated, and scalable system to perform personnel tracking and accounting. • PATS is a MIL-STD-810F compliant system targeted to meet the crucial need to protect the most valuable assets of any system: the personnel carrying out mission critical tasks in life threatening conditions.

  5. Project Definition – CONOPS 5

  6. Project Definition – CONOPS

  7. Project Definition 7 • Scope • Federal, State, and Local governments as primary customers • Emergency Response Agencies • Military and Department of Homeland Security • Hazardous industries as potential customers • Mine safety, Merchant Marine, Demolitions, etc. • Other industries as potential customers • Nursing homes, Hospitals, Mental health facilities, etc. • Assumptions • GPS will remain available for non-military use • There are no legal issues that impede system development • PATS development is not influenced by political issues • Team Role: Lead Systems Integrator for product development

  8. Project Schedule 8

  9. Stakeholder Needs / Wants 9

  10. Stakeholder Weights / Rankings 10

  11. Stakeholder House of Quality 11

  12. Competitor Analysis 12 • Four commercially available alternatives: • CISCOR Personnel Locating and Tracking System (C-PLTS) • CISCOR Man-Down Alarm System (C-MDAS) • Intelliflex Personnel Monitoring (I-PM) • Incident Command Technologies Personnel Accountability Recorder (ICT-PAR) CISCOR Personnel Locating and Tracking System:http://www.ciscor.com/sys/personnel_locating_and_tracking.htmlCISCOR Man-Down Alarm System:http://www.ciscor.com/sys/man_down_alarm_systems.htmlIntelliflex Personnel Monitoring :   http://www.intelleflex.com/Solutions.PM.aspIncident Command Technologies Personnel Accountability Recorder :http://www.incidentcommandtech.com/

  13. Competitor Analysis 13

  14. Tradeoff Analysis 14 • Various technologies were considered for PATS components: • Personnel Locator • Signal Posts • Command Center • Trades Performed by Key Functions: • Location Determination • Communications • Computer and Information Technology

  15. Tradeoff Analysis 15 Location Determination 15

  16. Tradeoff Analysis 16 Communications

  17. Tradeoff Analysis 17 Computer and Information Technology 17

  18. Business Case 18 • Business Objective • Market Situation • Cost Model • Break Even Analysis • System Life Cycle Schedule • Technology Roadmap • Risk Analysis

  19. Business Case 19 • Cost Model • Used Cost Xpert v3.3 • Embedded Systems (Simple) Project • Function Points: 207 • Scaling Factors based on Medium-Large Sized Gov Contractor • Labor Rates • Technical: $150.00 • Management: $150.00 • Non-Technical: $100.00 • Results: • Total Effort: 22.6 Person Months • Schedule: 7.1 Months • Final Development Cost: $633,040.27

  20. Business Case • Break Even Analysis • Interest Rate: 10 % (Yahoo! Finance) • Sales: 20 Units / Year • Price: $50,000 per unit • Production Cost: $35,000 per unit 20

  21. Technical Case FCC Regulations MIL Standard 810 Encryption Web Accessibility/Sect. 508 Real-Time Location and Enviro Data Personnel Info GPS Signals PATS Distress Alert Incident Statistics/Recording User Preferences Real-Time Accountability Info Command Center Personnel Locator Signal Post GPS Satellites

  22. Technical Case – Architecture • ZigBee Mesh Network • IEEE 802.15.4 standard • Decentralized, self-forming, and self-healing network • Low power, low cost, and open global standard • 3 types of nodes • Coordinator: Command Center • Router: Signal Posts • End Device: Personnel Locators • Data can be sent across multiple paths • High Frequency: 2.4 GHz • Data Rate: 256 kbps Coordinator Router End Device

  23. Technical Case – Organization 23

  24. Technical Case – SysML 24 System Modeling Approach • Organize the model and identify reuse libraries •  Capture requirements and assumptions •  Model behavior •  Model Structure • Capture implied inputs and outputs, and data follow • Identify structural components and their interconnections • Allocate behavior onto components and behavior flow onto interconnections

  25. Technical Case – SysML 25

  26. Technical Case – SysML 26

  27. Technical Case – SysML 27

  28. Technical Case – SysML 28

  29. Technical Case – SysML 29

  30. Technical Case – DoDAF 30

  31. Technical Case – User Interface 31 • Command Center User Interface Development • Wireframe Sketcher selected as UI modeling tool • Models for: • Real-time tracking and accounting • Distress calls and triggers (manual and autonomous) • Reporting • Personnel • System diagnostics

  32. Technical Case – UI Nominal 32

  33. Technical Case – UI Distress (1) 33

  34. Technical Case – UI Reports (1) 34

  35. Conclusion 35 • Summary • Systems Engineering Process • Stakeholder Analysis • Alternatives & Tradeoffs • Cost Modeling & Financials • System Modeling & DoDAF Architecture Views • System Requirements Specification • Future Development and Possibilities • Software / Hardware Engineering • Products available for handoff • System Requirements Specification • Technology Tradeoff Analysis • Stakeholder Analysis • Business / Economic / Market Analysis

  36. Questions? 36

  37. Backup Slides 37

  38. Approach: Modified Waterfall Model

  39. Stakeholder Circle Output 39

  40. Staffing Profile (Cost Xpert) 40

  41. Influence Diagram 41

  42. Sensitivity Analysis 42

  43. Technical Case – Structure Breakdown 43

  44. Technical Case – UI Login 44

  45. Technical Case – UI Tooltips (1) 45

  46. Technical Case – UI Tooltips (2) 46

  47. Technical Case – UI Distress (2) 47

  48. Technical Case – UI Reports (2) 48

  49. PATS Website 49 http://mason.gmu.edu/~ahussein/pats

  50. Risk Register (1) 50

More Related