Project Plan for the City of Philadelphia Pole and Pole Attachment Geodatabase Design Project Project Overview: The City of Philadelphia is experiencing data integrity problems caused by data format issues. Data stored in various formats lacks consistency or standardization, resulting in an inefficient data entry process, static relationships, and provides no mechanism to enforce rules or constraints. The City of Philadelphia Pole and Pole Attachment Geodatabase Design Project will focus on migrating existing pole and pole attachment shapefiles and associated tables to an ESRI geodatabase designed to meet the requirements of City of Philadelphia Streets Department. Project Objectives To employ the latest ESRI GIS database model Apply appropriate business rules and logic through domain constraints and relationship classes to model the pole and pole attachments database Normalize database tables Determine compatibility with industry standard work order management software Project Manager: Kim Rohrs 305-555-0968 KimRohrs@ATS.com Project Stakeholders ATS Inc. Project Sponsor Project Manager Senior GIS Analyst City of Philadelphia Project Manager GIS Staff End Users ATS Inc. Roles and Responsibilities Matrix Role Name Responsibilities Signature Project Sponsor Nancy Blake Monitor project Nancy Blake Project Manager Kim Rohrs Plan and execute project Kim Rohrs Sr. GIS Analyst Steve Davis Oversee geodatabase design Steve Davis Jen Book Geodatabase design Jen Book Management Approach A project team consisting of a Project Manager, Senior GIS Analyst, and a GIS Analyst II will use their expertise to develop a new geodatabase design to satisfy the requirements outlined in the City of Philadelphia request for proposals. The project ream will evaluate existing data and conduct on-site meetings to gain an understanding of the business rules and logic to be implemented in the new geodatabase design. Through out the project lifecycle, the project team will apply quality control procedures to ensure that data adheres to specific quality standards during the migration process. The project team conducted a risk analysis to identify potential risks specific to 1
this project and will use its expertise to take a proactive role in preventing or mitigating potential risks associated with this project. The project team is committed to educating the City of Philadelphia staff about the geodatabase design process. The GIS analyst II will spend three days transferring knowledge to the City of Philadelphia staff in order to make the organization more self sufficient in the data migration process. Assumptions City of Philadelphia will deliver all pre-existing data to be incorporated into the new geodatabase design City of Philadelphia will acquire necessary software prior to the technology transfer sessions Cost Benefits of Data Conversion: Shapefile to Geodatabase Average cost benefit figures from previous projects comparable to the size and scope of the City of Philadelphia geodatabase migration project are depicted in Figure 1. The costs in this analysis include geodatabase design, migration and employee training. Client benefits include: Enterprise access and use of industry standard work order software Improved response to external requests GASB 34 modified approach savings Accurate cost estimates for upgrade Figure 1: Payback analysis for mid-size geodatabase design projects The cost benefit analysis includes Year 0 or implementation phase through Year 5. Payback for the initial investment and training is estimated to occur during Year 1. The initial investment in data migration and training will be completely recouped in 1 year while providing the foundation for future growth potential and data development. The total cumulative benefit of migrating existing data to a geodatabase design far outweighs the costs. 2
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish ct 30, '05 Nov 6, '05 Nov 13, '05 Nov 20, '05 Nov 27, '05 Dec 4, '05 Dec 11, '05 Dec 18, '05 Dec 25, '05 Jan 1, '06 Jan 8, '06 Jan 15, '06 Jan 22, '06 Jan 29, '06 Feb 5, '06 Feb 12, '06 M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T 0 City of Philadelphia Pole & Pole Attachment Geodatabase Design Project 65 days Wed 11/2/05 Tue 1/31/06 1 1 Project Initiation 7 days Wed 11/2/05 Thu 11/10/05 2 1.1 Review RFP 1 day Wed 11/2/05 Wed 11/2/05 3 1.2 Develop Project Charter 3 days Thu 11/3/05 Mon 11/7/05 Sr. Consultant Sr. Consultant 4 1.3 Kick off meeting with project staff 2 days Tue 11/8/05 Wed 11/9/05 5 1.3.1 Quality assurance documentation 1 day Tue 11/8/05 Tue 11/8/05 6 1.3.2 Risk analysis 1 day Wed 11/9/05 Wed 11/9/05 7 1.4 Kick off meeting with client 1 day Thu 11/10/05 Thu 11/10/05 Sr. GIS Analyst,Sr. Consultant,Sr. Consultant,Sr. GIS Analyst Sr. Consultant 8 2 Collect and review current data 7 days Fri 11/11/05 Mon 11/21/05 9 2.1 Acquire current data 2 days Fri 11/11/05 Mon 11/14/05 10 2.2 Review relationships and domain constraints 2 days Tue 11/15/05 Wed 11/16/05 11 2.3 Document fields, domains, and relationships 3 days Thu 11/17/05 Mon 11/21/05,Sr. Consultant[50%] 12 3 Define business rules and logic 9 days Tue 11/22/05 Fri 12/2/05 13 3.1 Prepare for on-site session 2 days Tue 11/22/05 Wed 11/23/05 Sr. Consultant,Sr. GIS Analyst, 14 3.2 On-site design sessions: business rules and logic 2 days Thu 11/24/05 Fri 11/25/05 15 3.2.1 Session 1: Discuss initial findings and seek clarification related to existing d 1 day Thu 11/24/05 Thu 11/24/05 16 3.2.2 Session 2: Discuss future design requirements 1 day Fri 11/25/05 Fri 11/25/05 17 3.3 Document design session business rules and logic discussions 5 days Mon 11/28/05 Fri 12/2/05 18 3.4 Deliver design session summary doucment 0 days Fri 12/2/05 Fri 12/2/05 Sr. GIS Analyst,,Sr. Consultant Sr. GIS Analyst, 12/2 19 4 Design a personal geodatabase 7 days Mon 12/5/05 Tue 12/13/05 20 4.1 Develop Visio Enterprise UML diagram 5 days Mon 12/5/05 Fri 12/9/05 21 4.2 Render draft personal geodatabase 2 days Mon 12/12/05 Tue 12/13/05,Sr. GIS Analyst[50%],Sr. GIS Analyst 22 5 On-site knoweldge transfer sessions 14 days Wed 12/14/05 Mon 1/2/06 23 5.1 Prepare for technology transfer sessions 5 days Wed 12/14/05 Tue 12/20/05 24 5.2 Knowledge transfer session 1 1 day Wed 12/28/05 Wed 12/28/05 25 5.2.1 Reading and understanding a UML diagram 0.5 days Wed 12/28/05 Wed 12/28/05 26 5.2.2 Setting up Visio diagram and embedding UML objects and methods 0.5 days Wed 12/28/05 Wed 12/28/05 27 5.3 Knowledge transfer session 2 1 day Thu 12/29/05 Thu 12/29/05 28 5.3.1 Rendering geodatabase schema and ESRI Case Tools 0.5 days Thu 12/29/05 Thu 12/29/05 29 5.3.2 Load sample personal geodatabase 0.5 days Thu 12/29/05 Thu 12/29/05 30 5.4 Knowledge transfer session 3 1 day Fri 12/30/05 Fri 12/30/05 31 5.4.1 Experiment with sample geodatabase 1 day Fri 12/30/05 Fri 12/30/05 32 5.5 Document client feedback 1 day Mon 1/2/06 Mon 1/2/06,Sr. Consultant 33 6 Revise and finalize Visio UML diagram 6 days Tue 1/3/06 Tue 1/10/06 34 6.1 Revise Visio UML diagram 2 days Tue 1/3/06 Wed 1/4/06 35 6.2 Render revised personal geodatabase 4 days Thu 1/5/06 Tue 1/10/06 36 6.3 Deliver final Visio UML diagram and test personal geodatabase 0 days Tue 1/10/06 Tue 1/10/06,Sr. Consultant[17%] 1/10 37 7 Migrate pole shapefile into a personal geodatabase 15 days Tue 1/10/06 Tue 1/31/06 38 7.1 Receive written approval from client for the final iteration of the design 0 days Tue 1/10/06 Tue 1/10/06 1/10 39 7.2 Prepare for migration 10 days Wed 1/11/06 Tue 1/24/06 40 7.2.1 Develop VBA scripts 5 days Wed 1/11/06 Tue 1/17/06 41 7.2.2 Reformat data for new design requirements 4 days Wed 1/18/06 Mon 1/23/06 42 7.2.3 Render personal geodatabase 1 day Tue 1/24/06 Tue 1/24/06 43 7.3 Migrate data 1 day Wed 1/25/06 Wed 1/25/06 44 7.4 On-site migration support and validation: 3 sessions 4 days Thu 1/26/06 Tue 1/31/06 45 8 Project Complete 0 days Tue 1/31/06 Tue 1/31/06,Sr. GIS Analyst,Sr. Consultant[33%] 1/31 Project: City of Philadelphia Pole & Po Date: Wed 6/27/07 Task Progress Milestone Summary Rolled Up Task Rolled Up Milestone Rolled Up Progress Split Page 1 External Tasks Project Summary Group By Summary Deadline 3
City of Philadelphia Pole & Po Start: 11/2/05 ID: 0 Finish: 1/31/06 Dur: 65 days Project Initiation Start: 11/2/05 ID: 1 Finish: 11/10/05 Dur: 7 days Review RFP Start: 11/2/05 ID: 2 Finish: 11/2/05 Dur: 1 day Res: Sr. Consultant Develop Project Charter Start: 11/3/05 ID: 3 Finish: 11/7/05 Dur: 3 days Res: Sr. Consultant Kick off meeting with project Start: 11/8/05 ID: 4 Finish: 11/9/05 Dur: 2 days Kick off meeting with client Start: 11/10/05 ID: 7 Finish: 11/10/05 Dur: 1 day Res: Sr. Consultant Collect and review current da Start: 11/11/05 ID: 8 Finish: 11/21/05 Dur: 7 days Acquire current data Start: 11/11/05 ID: 9 Finish: 11/14/05 Dur: 2 days Res:, Sr. Consultant[5 Review relationships and dom Start: 11/15/05 ID: 10 Finish: 11/16/05 Dur: 2 days Res: Document fields, domains, an Start: 11/17/05 ID: 11 Finish: 11/21/05 Dur: 3 days Res: Define business rules and log Start: 11/22/05 ID: 12 Finish: 12/2/05 Dur: 9 days Prepare for on-site session Start: 11/22/05 ID: 13 Finish: 11/23/05 Dur: 2 days Res: Sr. Consultant, Sr. GIS Analyst, On-site design sessions: bus Start: 11/24/05 ID: 14 Finish: 11/25/05 Dur: 2 days Document design session bu Start: 11/28/05 ID: 17 Finish: 12/2/05 Dur: 5 days Res: Deliver design session summary doucment Milestone Date: Fri 12/2/05 ID: 18 Design a personal geodataba Start: 12/5/05 ID: 19 Finish: 12/13/05 Dur: 7 days Develop Visio Enterprise UML Start: 12/5/05 ID: 20 Finish: 12/9/05 Dur: 5 days Res:, Sr. GIS Analyst[5 Page 1 4
5
ID Task Name Duration Cost Fixed Cost Resource Names 0 City of Philadelphia Pole & Pole Attachment Geodatabase Design Project 65 days $46,171.99 $0.00 1 1 Project Initiation 7 days $5,936.00 $0.00 2 1.1 Review RFP 1 day $608.00 $0.00 Sr. Consultant 3 1.2 Develop Project Charter 3 days $1,824.00 $0.00 Sr. Consultant 4 1.3 Kick off meeting with project staff 2 days $2,896.00 $0.00 5 1.3.1 Quality assurance documentation 1 day $1,248.00 $0.00 Sr. GIS Analyst,Sr. Consultant 6 1.3.2 Risk analysis 1 day $1,648.00 $0.00,Sr. Consultant,Sr. GIS Analyst 7 1.4 Kick off meeting with client 1 day $608.00 $0.00 Sr. Consultant 8 2 Collect and review current data 7 days $3,408.00 $0.00 9 2.1 Acquire current data 2 days $1,408.00 $0.00,Sr. Consultant[50%] 10 2.2 Review relationships and domain constraints 2 days $800.00 $0.00 11 2.3 Document fields, domains, and relationships 3 days $1,200.00 $0.00 12 3 Define business rules and logic 9 days $11,484.00 $0.00 13 3.1 Prepare for on-site session 2 days $3,296.00 $0.00 Sr. Consultant,Sr. GIS Analyst, 14 3.2 On-site design sessions: business rules and logic 2 days $6,188.00 $0.00 15 3.2.1 Session 1: Discuss initial findings and seek clarification related to existing data 1 day $3,398.00 $1,750.00 Sr. GIS Analyst,,Sr. Consultant 16 3.2.2 Session 2: Discuss future design requirements 1 day $2,790.00 $1,750.00 Sr. GIS Analyst, 17 3.3 Document design session business rules and logic discussions 5 days $2,000.00 $0.00 18 3.4 Deliver design session summary doucment 0 days $0.00 $0.00 19 4 Design a personal geodatabase 7 days $5,680.00 $0.00 20 4.1 Develop Visio Enterprise UML diagram 5 days $3,600.00 $0.00,Sr. GIS Analyst[50%] 21 4.2 Render draft personal geodatabase 2 days $2,080.00 $0.00,Sr. GIS Analyst 22 5 On-site knoweldge transfer sessions 14 days $7,007.99 $0.00 23 5.1 Prepare for technology transfer sessions 5 days $2,000.00 $0.00 24 5.2 Knowledge transfer session 1 1 day $1,333.33 $933.33 25 5.2.1 Reading and understanding a UML diagram 0.5 days $200.00 $0.00 26 5.2.2 Setting up Visio diagram and embedding UML objects and methods 0.5 days $200.00 $0.00 27 5.3 Knowledge transfer session 2 1 day $1,333.33 $933.33 28 5.3.1 Rendering geodatabase schema and ESRI Case Tools 0.5 days $200.00 $0.00 29 5.3.2 Load sample personal geodatabase 0.5 days $200.00 $0.00 30 5.4 Knowledge transfer session 3 1 day $1,941.33 $933.33 31 5.4.1 Experiment with sample geodatabase 1 day $1,008.00 $0.00,Sr. Consultant 32 5.5 Document client feedback 1 day $400.00 $0.00 33 6 Revise and finalize Visio UML diagram 6 days $2,805.33 $0.00 34 6.1 Revise Visio UML diagram 2 days $800.00 $0.00 35 6.2 Render revised personal geodatabase 4 days $2,005.33 $0.00,Sr. Consultant[17%] 36 6.3 Deliver final Visio UML diagram and test personal geodatabase 0 days $0.00 $0.00 37 7 Migrate pole shapefile into a personal geodatabase 15 days $9,850.67 $0.00 38 7.1 Receive written approval from client for the final iteration of the design 0 days $0.00 $0.00 39 7.2 Prepare for migration 10 days $3,600.00 $0.00 40 7.2.1 Develop VBA scripts 5 days $2,000.00 $0.00 41 7.2.2 Reformat data for new design requirements 4 days $1,600.00 $0.00 42 7.2.3 Render personal geodatabase 1 day $0.00 $0.00 43 7.3 Migrate data 1 day $1,040.00 $0.00,Sr. GIS Analyst 44 7.4 On-site migration support and validation: 3 sessions 4 days $5,210.67 $2,800.00,Sr. Consultant[33%] 45 8 Project Complete 0 days $0.00 $0.00 6 Page 1
risks and then categorized probability of the risk occurring as high, medium, or low. In many cases, the project manager used her own discretion to categorize risks since stakeholders were able to view posted lists before creating their own. As a result, stakeholders attempted to list new risks to avoid repeating risks that had already been mentioned. In some cases, risks were repeated and the project manager categorized these risks with a higher probability of occurring than others. Additionally, the risk impact was categorized as high, medium, or low. The result of this brainstorming exercise can be seen in the probability/impact matrix below. Figure 3: Risk probability/impact matrix Methodology to Address the State of Existing Datasets The state of existing datasets maintained by the City of Philadelphia presents a highly probable risk with a high impact. The new data design identifies problems inherent in the existing shapefile dataset and fixes them by migrating to a standardized database. Time and budget estimates for formatting and preparing data for migration were developed based on information provided by the City of Philadelphia and the assumption that the information provided is accurate and reflects the true nature of their data. If the data are not what the City of Philadelphia states, it may require additional resources to migrate existing data than estimated. As a preventative measure, an evaluation of existing data will occur during the initial phase of the project. If formatting is a problem, it may be necessary to allocate additional resources early on so that the project team can address and plan for any migration issues in advance. The will evaluate the data and document fields, data types, and domains. Additionally, the will document anticipated issues or problems with migration procedures. The project team will review the documentation and provide recommendations. 7
Methodology to Identify User Requirements Another risk that is highly probable and potentially detrimental to project success is sufficiently defining user requirements. This risk may occur as the result of poor project planning, poor end user participation, lack of upper management support or improperly identifying end users. End uses ultimately impacted by the new geodatabase design may not be scheduled to attend design sessions. Meetings may only include GIS staff members while leaving out influential end users potentially contributing to define business processes logic and rules. To avoid this risk, the ATS Inc. project team must educate client project managers about the design session process and how various staff members can contribute even if they have no technical knowledge of GIS or database design. Also, ATS Inc. will gather as many user requirements as possible during the design sessions and provide the City of Philadelphia with a summary document including a list of identified user requirements to avoid discrepancies later on in the project lifecycle. Risk Summary The probability impact/matrix is a valuable tool for identifying risk probability and its potential negative impact on a project. By brainstorming and identifying risks associated with the City of Philadelphia Pole and Pole Attachment Geodatabase Design Project ATS Inc. is better situated to prevent and control potential risks including the state of preexisting data and not properly identifying user requirements. Quality Plan Introduction to Quality ATS Inc. strives to provide high quality products and services to meet client needs by following strict quality control procedures. The quality control procedures, tools and techniques described below ensure that delivered products meet requirements of the City of Philadelphia for the Pole and Pole Attachment Geodatabase Design Project. ATS Inc. will conduct a quality audit to make certain that data migrated from the preexisting shapefile to geodatabase is completed successfully. ATS Inc. will also evaluate fitness of use for the geodatabase and document performance enhancements by comparing pre-existing shapefile and databases to the new geodatabase while addressing any problems associated with the new geodatabase design. Methodology: Quality Audit Procedures Evaluate the accuracy of the attribute data after migration from existing shapefile into the geodatabase Evaluate the geodatabase fitness of use Quality Audit: Accuracy of Attribute Data After Migration A quality audit will be performed once the draft geodatabase is created to ensure that new fields have been populated correctly. An error in the dataset is defined as any new value populated in the new geodatabase that is not present in the existing shapefile dataset. 8
ATS Inc. is not responsible for relative, absolute, or topological errors present in the existing shapefile. Correcting these types of errors is outside the scope of this project. To ensure new fields are populated correctly, statistical sampling methods will be utilized to analyze the new geodatabase based on sample set of records. The sample size will be determined based on a 95 percent certainty factor that sampled data will represent variations found in the entire population. Formula for determining sample size: Sample size =.25 x (certainty factor/acceptable error) 2 Formula for determining sample size with 95 percent certainty: Sample size =.25 x (1.960/.05) 2 Sample size = 384 records To determine if errors exist in the new geodatabase, 384 records will be extracted and compared to corresponding records in the existing shapefile. If errors are found in the new geodatabase that do not exist in the current shapefile dataset, then migration methods will be revised and the process will be repeated until no errors are present. Geodatabase Fitness of Use To determine geodatabase fitness of use, the ATS Inc. project team will conduct two Pareto Analyses to identify contributions accounting for quality problems. This type of analysis provides a mechanism to analyze user issues or data problems while assisting the project team in identifying and prioritizing quality issues. The project team will utilize on-site design session meetings to understand client business logic and rules while identifying problems related to the current data structure. Each end user will be asked a series of questions to determine current problems with existing data. The problem areas will be compiled, categorized and displayed in a Pareto diagram, a histogram representing the frequency distribution of problem areas. The problem areas will be listed by frequency of occurrence and the cumulative percent of problems will be diagramed. There will be two Pareto Analyses conducted throughout the project lifecycle. The first Pareto Analysis will take place during the initial on-site business rules and logic design sessions (Task 3). The second analysis will be conducted after the draft geodatabase is delivered during the third on-site knowledge transfer session (Task 5.4) to allow end users to experiment with the new data and provide feedback to ensure that project deliverable meets requirements. The two Pareto Analyses will be compared to identify problem areas alleviated or created by the new geodatabase design. For instance, if slow system response is identified as a problem area in the first analysis and not identified in the second analysis, the project team can conclude that the new geodatabase design led to better performance. If new problem areas are identified after the City of Philadelphia has experimented with the new geodatabase, the project team can take corrective action prior to the final migration (Task 6). 9
Resources and Logistics for Quality Audit ATS Inc. City of Philadelphia Project Manager Project Manager Senior GIS Analyst GIS Staff GIS Analyst End Users Pareto Analysis 1: The existing shapefile problem areas will be identified during the onsite business logic and rules (Task 3). Pareto Analysis 2: The new geodatabase design problem areas will be identified during the third knowledge transfer on-site session (Task 5.4). Quality Summary The quality plan procedures listed above will enhance the quality of project deliverables. Incorporating statistical sampling methods allows the ATS Inc. project team to ensure the quality of data migration procedures with confidence. The Pareto Analyses will identify issues caused by the existing shapefile dataset while determining if the new geodatabase meets user requirements or if new problem areas result. By identifying problem areas, the ATS Inc. project team can take corrective action resulting in a high quality final product. Project Deliverables Task Deliverable 2.3 Data documentation: fields, domains, relationships 3.4 Design session summary document 5.2 Draft personal geodatabase and Visio UML diagram 5.5 Client feedback and quality audit documentation 6.3 Final Visio UML diagram and test personal geodatabase 7.4 VBA Scripts 8.0 Project completion agreement Summary The City of Philadelphia Pole and Pole Attachment Geodatabase Design Project Plan has been compiled to accomplish the City of Philadelphia s requirements stated in their request for proposals using the necessary ATS Inc. resources to produce high quality services and deliverables at a reasonable cost. ATS Inc. will use its expertise to employ the latest ESRI GIS database model and apply appropriate business rules and logic through domain constraints and relationship classes to model the pole and pole attachments database. Database tables will be normalized and ATS Inc. will determine compatibility with industry standard work order management software. To ensure the success of this project, potential risks have been analyzed and quality audit procedures have been outlined. The ATS Inc. project team s experience and leadership in the field of GIS will allow the City of Philadelphia to attain their project goals. 10