Allen Hayward’s Review of Ekaterina Davydenko’s Proposal for CS-460
Summary: The proposal is to develop an automated dynamic traffic control system that would provide improvement in traffic flow under varying conditions. The system would include interfaces for future development of emergency vehicle override capability and historical data collection interfaces used for tuning of the system. The system would use road sensors and remotely automated displays to tune road speeds and redirection of drivers to maximize throughput of existing road systems.
Scores based on a 1 to 5 rating with a 5 being the best
Syntax = 4: Technical information is well presented. Some sentences lack smooth reading flow. Has a nice content, figures list and general format.
1. Page Numbering – The use of roman numerals for the cover pages should not flow into the Arabic numbering used on the body of the proposal. Restart the Arabic numbering at page 1 where you have page 4 now.
2. General – Proposal guidelines from professor specified 12pt text and double spacing.
3. Page 5 – First paragraph, second sentence – “number” should be “numbers”
4. Page 5 – Third paragraph – After traffic add the word “conditions”, After commutes add “have become”. Change “conjunction” to “junction”. Delete “certain” from last sentence
5. Page 6 – Change the word “harmonization” to “harmonized” is several locations. Last paragraph, change “initiative” to “innovation”. Change “fully” to “full, ”.
6. Page 9 – First paragraph, change “The system that we design will…” to The system design will…”
7. Page 11 – the second paragraph indicates three weeks for implementation but the gnat chart seems to show 4 weeks.
Disclaimer – Being an engineer my proof reading skills are not the best. Consider having someone with real writing skills look at this proposal for grammar, spelling and punctuation.
Plausibility = 3: I believe with the right team and some work on better definition of scope this is a very viable project. The biggest problem is not having the full scope defined. This will impact the size of the project greatly. See Scope below for more details
Support = 4: The proposal was adequately supported by citing other examples of similar systems already implemented or in the process of implementation. The system does not push the limits of current technologies too far and thus is relatively safe. The challenge is more an issue of scope. The writer provided adequate programming experience background information to make it clear she is qualified for the job.
Novelty = 2: Based on the fact that other systems are already in place this is not a very novel project. If more details on how AI might be implemented to solve the problem this might make the system more unique. Traffic light coordination is commonplace in big cities already. Tacoma, WA had traffic light coordination implemented back in the 80s.
Stakeholders = 3: It seems a system of this type would have many regulations from the DOT thus probably gaining it’s funding from the DOT. I could easily see this being a government-funded project. This project has a definite interface with the public, as such the public is a big part of the stakeholder group and will want to be part of the design of this type of project. No mention of public feedback was included.
Scope = 2 : Being such a large project it is necessary to ensure that the scope is clearly defined. Certainly the entire implementation of such a system is far from the scope of this class. Consider redefining the project as a small-scale prototype based on a specific implementation (i.e. a set of 10 traffic lights or a 10 mile stretch of highway with a fixed number of on/off ramps or maybe a selected actual part of an existing cities roadway (Trinity Drive?)). Clearly define the number and type of feedback/output devices. Also indicate what will be used to test the system. Are you really going to setup a functional system or simply provide simulated data to the system to prove it works? What will be the proof that your system does what it says it will (10% improvement in traffic flow)?
Profit = 5: If such a system was constructed and proved to be viable I could see a significant profit for such a system. I could see ongoing improvements and maintenance of systems of this type turning into a potential new market place with significant growth possibility.
Legality = 1: Although not to be a big issue in this class, the reality is this system has the potential for significant legal issues. Automated signs going dark or miss informing drivers could result in traffic accidents and possible fatalities. This should at least be mentioned in the challenges section of the report. All systems fail eventually, what is the risk and how will the risk be mitigated? You can push a lot of this out of this project by indicating that it is a prototype and will not be used in actual traffic control at this time. (low score due to not mentioning it, easy to fix)
Security = 1: Another big issue for this system is how secure is it. Hacking a system of this type could result in brining traffic to a halt in a big city with major impact to the city’s reputation and its ability to conduct commerce. Being known as the “most hacked city” is not a good thing. At least mention the need for security to assure your customer that you understand the potential issues that must be addressed. (low score due to not mentioning it, easy to fix)
Expense Budget:
A budget number is provided but it does not have a breakdown of how it was developed. As an investor I’d like to see how a large number of $120K was developed. That would give me some assurance that this was a real number and not just a wild guess.
Time Line: Correct format and reasonable but could use some more detail.
Other considerations: You did not mention that fact that by improving traffic flow the need for road upgrades could be deferred or eliminated by making the existing infrastructure capable of carrying traffic more effectively. Also have you considered the need to tie the system into the road construction department? A busted water main (i.e. main hill road last week) needs to be inputted into the system quickly so it can reroute traffic. Also, planned road construction should be easy to input in to the system so that it can compensate for it.
Thanks for the review, here is the highlight of corrections had been done to the proposal.
ReplyDelete