Project Quality Management – Wi‐Fi Implementation
Revision History
Created/Modified by Date Version Change
Tyler Johnson (PM) 03/19/2014 1.00 Created
Document References
1. Project Charter – Version 1.10
2. Project Scope Statement – Version 1.00
3. Wi‐Fi Performance Metrics – Wi‐Fi Planning and Management (WiTuners whitepaper)
1 SCOPE OVERVIEW
The goal of Wi‐Fi implementation at MSN University is to provide the staff, students and faculty with a reliable, secure and high speed wireless access that can be used on various wi‐fi enabled platforms using an existing network id.
2 QUALITY METRICS
The project is governed by various quality metrics and will be evaluated based on these metrics to assess the system/service quality. The most common way to assess the quality of the wireless system is the Megabits transmitted per second and Number of Voice calls that can be placed through the network with acceptable quality. Considering the various facets of users and applications that use the wireless system as the platform quality for the system has to be measured based on multitude of other metrics as detailed in section 2.1 & 2.2
The metrics will be classified into two categories 2.1 NETWORK METRICS
These will be the metrics that will be used to evaluate the performance of the wireless network.
The core functionalities, their efficiently and throughput will be analyzed using the network metrics.
The parameters that constitute the network metrics will be 2.1.1 NETWORK CONNECTIVITY & COVERAGE
One of the primary focus of the project is to provide seamless wireless access across the campus.
This would require wireless access to be available at all the major hubs in the campus with
considerable student density. Unavailability of the network or loss of connectivity between the various academic departments would quality the wireless network inefficient and incapable.
2.1.1.1 PERCENTAGE OF ACTUAL COVERAGE
The measure of quality would be based on as a ratio of space actually covered by the network to the space to be covered. A ration of 1 or close to 1 would mean the quality metric of connectivity and coverage is met.
2.1.1.2 PERCENTAGE OF COVERAGE AT MINIMUM THROUGHPUT
The measure of coverage of space that satisfies the minimum required throughput would be another metric for quality under connectivity and coverage. This metric would be identified as a percentage. A value close to 100% would mean that the network satisfies the coverage and minimum connectivity at all spaces.
2.1.1.3 DEGREE OF REDUNDANCY IN COVERAGE
Another metric of measure of coverage is to factor into account reliability index and other parameters such as hand‐offs. Will be measured as a factor of number of access points to the number of hubs identified for a given area.
2.1.2 RELIABILITY & AVAILABILITY
Reliability will serve as one of the critical measures of quality for the network on
implementation. Reliability will be defined for the project as un‐interrupted, steady connected to the internet and intra‐network when required by the user. The network would have to be
available 24x7 for all the days including the non‐academic working hours and holidays. This metric will also be used to evaluate the system on interruptions or performance degradation index as a function of outside interference. The Reliability and availability factor would be measured as both qualitative and quantitative measures such as general system performance, access point density etc.
2.1.3 TRANSMISSION RATE
An important quality to measure the quality of the network would be the rate of transmission of the data packets both within the network and also external to the network. Though the
transmission rate can be measured as a quantitative quality metric, this metric has be measured under different variations of the following factors.
1. Devices in the system
2. Applications running on the system.
3. Performance in high density hubs/access points
4. Ability to meet the promised QoS in terms of throughput 2.1.4 THROUGHPUT
The quality of the network should also be measured as a function of throughput of the system 1. Throughput per network
2. Throughput per access point or hub 3. Throughput per client
2.1.5 QUALITY OF SERVICE
This quality metric would be a qualitative measure of the system performance in conforming to the required performance measures such as
1. Hand‐off intervals 2. Jitter in the medium 3. Access point priority
2.1.6 NETWORK CAPACITY
The measure of number of active session users that the network can sustain should be taken as an indicator of the network quality. Similar to the throughput the capacity should also be expressed as the function of various parameter such as
1. Capacity per network 2. Capacity per access point
Quality in this regard would be defined as the network being able to handle the capacity
estimated at the requirement phase and ability to perform load balancing between access points if necessary.
2.2 USABILITY METRICS
2.2.1 USAGE CONSISTENCY
Usability metrics would be indicated as a factor of ease of use for the user to connect to the network and the network being able to provide the user with seamless integration and
consistent environment as the existing LAN based network. For example all the conditions and network restriction that applies to the wireless network should be the same as the one for the wired network
3 QUALITY ASSESSMENT MATRIX
Quality Assessment Matrix
Category Metric Measure Affected by Affects user
through Network
Metrics
Network Connectivity
& Coverage (%)
Percentage coverage
Percentage coverage at minimum throughput
Degree of coverage redundancy
Access point / Hub density
Outage
Reliability &
Availability (%)
Up time
Redundancy
Access point / Hub density
Quality of network elements
Service Interruption
Performance Degradation
External Interruption Transmission
rate
Response time Range
Distance to hub/access point
Interference
Response time
Throughput Throughput per network
Throughput per access point
Throughput per client
Number of users in the network
Network Capacity
Interference
Response time
QoS Conformance to QoS agreement
Network parameters All service offerings Network
Capacity
Capacity per Network
Capacity per access point / hub
Capacity per client
Number of users Response time
Usability metrics
Consistency Qualitative assessment Difference in network configuration
between LAN and wireless
implementations
Confusion
4 QUALITY ASSESMENT
Frequency of quality metrics assessment
Metric Assessment Frequency
Network Connectivity & Coverage Quarterly Reliability & Availability Daily
Transmission rate Daily
Throughput Daily
QoS Monthly
Network Capacity Quarterly
Consistency Yearly (Annual Reviews)
Quality Assessment Sheet Metric Assessment
Date
Assessed by Defects/Problems found
Service Affected
Daily Assessment Metrics
Reliability &
Availability
Transmission rate
Throughput
Monthly Assessment Metrics
QoS
Quarterly Assesment Metrics
Network Connectivity
& Coverage
Network Capacity
Yearly Assement Metrics
Consistency
5 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS 5.1 PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS:
Only one vendor will provide routers and wiring.
Only one vendor will be ISP.
Security will be provided in terms of WPA password, which provides encryption of data as well as access controls.
Wi‐Fi access is provided on standard 2.4 Ghz bandwidth.
Wi‐Fi routers will use 802.11 b/g/n, a wireless networking standard.
All gadgets using our service will be compatible with above mentioned standards.
5.2 PROJECT LIMITATIONS:
Maintenance will not be provided after implementation.
Wi‐Fi access won’t be provided to any guests who come to the university.
Wi‐Fi standard 802.11a will not be provided.
Wi‐Fi routers will be able to provide 192.168.x.x ip address only.
Certain systems like microwave owen, Bluetooth, cordless phones all use same 2.4 Ghz spectrum.
