Using Table 6-6 in The New Software Engineering text as a guide, develop a CPM for the design phase of ABC's project. While you do the diagram, reason through the dependencies. Assuming Sam and Mary do the project alone, how should the work be allocated among them to (a) allow Mary to do project management tasks, and (b) leverage the work they did during analysis?

Feasibility Activities 167 TABLE 6-6 Rating Software Development Alternatives Function SQL Server FocusVidRent Provide add, change, delete, inquiry functions for customer, video, and rental information Yes Yes Yes Interactive processing and data display for all outstanding video rentals, including fees owing On-line processing from 8 A.M. to 11 P.M. daily Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ycs The maintenance of customer history of rentals, rental history for each video tape, creation, and changc of rental transaction records Monitoring of outstanding rentals by customer Yes Yes On-line On-line Off-line Computation of late fees owing from prior transactions Yes Yes The ability to create new customers as part of rental proccssing The ability to add new videos to the system as part of rental processing Query of any rental-related information Yes Yes 0 On-line On-line Off-line Minimize data entry in rental processing by using bar codes or similar technology Ycs Yes es Providc immcdiate file update Yes Provide transaction logging for database integrity Do daily backup of all files and application programs Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Provide ad hoc reporting capability for all files and legal combinations of files Provide end-of-day reports Only with anothcr package Yes Yes 15 Yes 18 es Provide for growth of 15% per year per file cs Provide for nine concurrent users Any number For ASCII files 15 Provide SQL compatibility es Total requirements met out of 18 18 software over the other. The benefits of the applica- tion identified in an earlier step are compared to each proposed software alternative. As you can see from Table 6-8, the benefits are identical for each implementation occurrence with a specific alternative (see Table 6-9). The table of risks is repeated here with an analysis of the two language environments. Hard ware risks apply equally to both alternatives. Soft ware risks vary because of differences in product knowledge by the development team, product functionality, and expected cost, all of which favor Focus. Finally, risks of the alternatives are defined. The list of possible risks is customized for the applica- tion and each risk is assessed for probability of Feasibility Activities 167 TABLE 6-6 Rating Software Development Alternatives Function SQL Server FocusVidRent Provide add, change, delete, inquiry functions for customer, video, and rental information Yes Yes Yes Interactive processing and data display for all outstanding video rentals, including fees owing On-line processing from 8 A.M. to 11 P.M. daily Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ycs The maintenance of customer history of rentals, rental history for each video tape, creation, and changc of rental transaction records Monitoring of outstanding rentals by customer Yes Yes On-line On-line Off-line Computation of late fees owing from prior transactions Yes Yes The ability to create new customers as part of rental proccssing The ability to add new videos to the system as part of rental processing Query of any rental-related information Yes Yes 0 On-line On-line Off-line Minimize data entry in rental processing by using bar codes or similar technology Ycs Yes es Providc immcdiate file update Yes Provide transaction logging for database integrity Do daily backup of all files and application programs Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Provide ad hoc reporting capability for all files and legal combinations of files Provide end-of-day reports Only with anothcr package Yes Yes 15 Yes 18 es Provide for growth of 15% per year per file cs Provide for nine concurrent users Any number For ASCII files 15 Provide SQL compatibility es Total requirements met out of 18 18 software over the other. The benefits of the applica- tion identified in an earlier step are compared to each proposed software alternative. As you can see from Table 6-8, the benefits are identical for each implementation occurrence with a specific alternative (see Table 6-9). The table of risks is repeated here with an analysis of the two language environments. Hard ware risks apply equally to both alternatives. Soft ware risks vary because of differences in product knowledge by the development team, product functionality, and expected cost, all of which favor Focus. Finally, risks of the alternatives are defined. The list of possible risks is customized for the applica- tion and each risk is assessed for probability of