Personnel Accountability

1
Personnel Accountability Tracking System
Final Presentation

• 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 yearsometimes
  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
Systemhttp//www.ciscor.com/sys/personnel_locati
ng_and_tracking.htmlCISCOR Man-Down Alarm
Systemhttp//www.ciscor.com/sys/man_down_alarm_s
ystems.htmlIntelliflex Personnel Monitoring
  http//www.intelleflex.com/Solutions.PM.aspInci
dent Command Technologies Personnel
Accountability Recorder http//www.incidentcomma
ndtech.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

• Location Determination

15
15
16
Tradeoff Analysis

• Communications

16
17
Tradeoff Analysis

• Computer and Information Technology

17
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
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
51
Risk Register (2)
51
52
Risk Register (3)
52
53
Business Case
53
53