Requirements Analysis. California devoted substantial effort to analysis of key documents, including in particular the relevant portions of the ACA, Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Guidance for Exchange and Medicaid Information Technology Systems, Versions 1.0 and 2.0, Exchange Business Architecture Supplements ("Blueprints"), Section 1501 Recommendations, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Final Rule on Federal Funding for Medicaid Eligibility Determination and Enrollment Activities and the supporting guidance: Enhanced Funding Requirements: Seven Conditions and Standards . CHHS, Exchange staff and consultants have developed various summary presentations of requirements for use in stakeholder communications and begun engaging key stakeholders in the requirements elicitation process. In California, as in every state, the input of key stakeholders is a fundamental component of successful analysis and planning related to federal requirements and guidance. In addition, this work has been informed by detailed review of other states' grant applications, consultant reports and discussions with other state staff. California recognizes that a clear understanding of federal requirements is critical to understanding the "to be" state in an accurate gap analysis and is a key element in supporting effective due diligence in assessing the applicability of models developed by Early Innovator States. The state’s objective is to develop a requirements specification that is adequate to support effective business process modeling and successful acquisition of vendor services to construct the necessary Exchange IT support in accordance with the timelines over the next year as outlined in this Level I grant application. Gap Analysis The gap analysis evaluates the disparity between a goal, or “to-be” state, and the current state. In the case of Exchange IT, the gap analysis is an iterative process driven in part by the evolving nature of the requirements and the ongoing evaluation of information about existing systems that may offer opportunities for reuse, sharing, or interoperability. To date, California's gap analysis has focused primarily on eligibility and enrollment functions, with detailed information gathering and analysis of the several existing systems that support eligibility and enrollment in public programs. More detail on the state’s IT gap analysis is included below in the Summary of Exchange IT Gap Analysis section.
Requirements Analysis. D1.1: Dissemination Strategy The dissemination strategy included the following sections: Message – Value propositions and benefits; Audience – Active participation; Engagement – Methods and tools; When – Timetable for engagement; Measures – Success criteria.
Requirements Analysis. The aim of the requirements analysis deliverable was to create a conceptual model of the range of functions which the XXX needs to support in order to automate (or part-automate) the submission of content from content management systems (CMSs) and aggregator repositories into Europeana. The requirements analysis is an important part of the process of modelling the functional requirements of the XXX. It uses as its main source of information: The outcomes of the discussions at the 1st Network Event; The results of a survey conducted by DEN about user requirements; A task completed by all partners about requirements for the XXX.
Requirements Analysis. The Government will provide the Capability Development Document (CDD) to the Contractor. The Contractor shall participate with the Government in reviews of the CDD and the DRAFT System Specification to clarify requirements before system level requirements are baselined for design purposes.
Requirements Analysis. The requirements can take into account a diverse set of characteristics including, perfor- xxxxx (e.g., speed, capacity, throughput, image resolution), connectivity, scalability, com- patibility, energy efficiency, power consumption (e.g., maximum, typical), power-efficiency, physical factors (e.g., size, weight, temperature), availability, reliability, support, programming interface, and cost (e.g., platform cost, development cost, licensing fees). In TULIPP, we fo- cus on size, weight, connectivity, image resolution, power consumption, and programming interface needed for use cases (see Figure 7). The different TULIPP use cases put different weight on each requirement. Thus, the key task is to select a platform that meets the requirements of all use cases. Since our use cases are drawn from different domains, it is likely that the platform is suitable for a range of image processing applications. Other requirements on components and boards are not so easy to define, because algo- rithms and functions necessary for the different use cases could need different components to be best implemented. In Figure 8, the main functions needed for TULIPP use case imple- mentations are shown. Figure 8: Main functions needed for TULIPP use cases implementation. We do not necessarily know which components are the best choice for each of the functions in Figure 8. In the literature, some common rules to compare and select the more suitable components are available [6, 52]. Other researchers compare implementations of concrete algorithms on concrete hardware [4, 14, 44]. It is important to mention that in many cases the implementation of the same algorithms is impossible for example on GPUs and FPGAs. In particular, FPGAs tend to require specialised algorithms [43], and some functions could need many components (e.g., both CPUs and an FPGA) to be best implemented. In addition, the TULIPP Reference Platform (TRP) must be usable for other use cases of low-power, real-time image processing to enable a living ecosystem. In conclusion, the most flexible solution is to select an up-to-date MPSoC (to achieve high energy efficiency) containing multiple CPUs, an FPGA substrate and GPUs. In this case, each function of the different use cases could be implemented using the most suitable hard- ware component. That also ensures other important advantages for accelerating design and re-design of program code, because software (re)development in most practical cases re- quire much highe...
Requirements Analysis. During the Planning and Establishment Phase, where the Commonwealth established its Operating Model for the MEMS, the team compiled a lengthy list of functional and technical requirements through a series of meetings with integrated work groups (Governance, Medicaid and Technical) which discussed critical operational, functional and technical design matters that are essential to the operations of the MEMS. These requirements are included in Attachments G, H, and I to this RFP. It is important to understand that while these preliminary requirements to some extent define the scope and vision for the System, the requirements are not the final detailed requirements for the System. The selected Vendor shall conduct a Requirements Analysis Phase during which they will review, refine and seek approval for all preliminary requirements, and add requirements where gaps are identified through a detailed analysis exercise. The end result will be a set of detailed requirements to be used for building the solutions. These requirements will be the basis for the selected Vendor to create usage scenarios and detailed business process workflows. At the conclusion of the detailed requirements phase, the Commonwealth expects the selected Vendor to work with the Commonwealth team to prioritize requirements and if necessary, identify possible phases for implementation of the overall requirements. The selected Vendor’s Project Work Plan must be updated to identify all possible phases of implementation. Once approved, the updated Requirements Analysis schedule shall be included in the Integrated Project Work Plan. The selected Vendor shall be responsible for meeting all review milestones for System Design as laid out by CMS guidelines. High level review requirements are laid out in Section 50.7.12.
Requirements Analysis. ATSS will operate using the same procedures as defined by BITC Technical Services.
Requirements Analysis. BITC will provide technical assistance to schools wishing to translate perceived needs for technology into a technical specification or statement of technical requirements. This service will be provided in conjunction with the Curriculum Advisory Service or the Administrative Support Service where appropriate. The school must provide a written outline of needs to BITC who will then provide the school with a date by when this work can be started. Should initial analysis indicate a significant amount of work is required, an outline requirement only will be produced which identifies the need for a formal project to undertake the necessary research and to further develop the requirements. BITC will undertake such requirements analysis projects under the terms of this SLA only where it is likely to bring significant benefit to the wider school community and is compatible with the existing BITC development programme. In other circumstances BITC reserves to right to charge the school for the project or to decline the work. All BITC requirements documents will indicate whether or not a formal project is likely to be required to control the procurement and/or implementation of the required technology.
Requirements Analysis. X. Xxxxxxx0, X. Xxxxxxx0, X. Xxxxxxxxx0, X. Xxxxxxx0, X. Xxxx´k2, X. Xxxxxxxxxx 3 1ARM, 2REAL, 3RIGHT REVISION HISTORY Date Version Author Modification 2012-09-06 0.1 X. Xxxxxxx (ARM), X. Xxxxxxx (ARM), X. Xxxxxxxxx (ARM) First version 2012-09-21 0.2 X. Xxxxxxx (REAL) Changes from REAL 2012-10-03 0.3 X. Xxxxxxxxxx (RIGHT) Changes from RIGHT 2012-10-08 0.4 X. Xxxxxxx (REAL) Updates following comments from ARM 2012-11-08 0.6 X. Xxxxxxxxxx (RIGHT) Updates following comments from ARM 2012-11-09 1.0 X. Xxxxxxx (ARM), X. Xxxxxxx (ARM), X. Xxxxxxxxx (ARM) First version sent to the European Commission APPROVALS Role Name Partner Date Workpackage Leader X. Xxxxxxxxx ARM Project Manager X.X. Xxxxxxxxx ICL Contents 1 Executive Summary 5 2 Benchmark Analysis 6 2.1 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1.1 Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1.2 Work-item identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1.3 Data structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.1.4 Iteration mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.1.5 Memory access mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.1.6 Dependences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.1.7 Code abstractions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.2 SHOC Level 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.2.1 Triad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.2.2 Stencil2D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.2.3 Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 2.2.4 Scan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 2.2.5 Sort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 2.2.6 MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 2.2.7 SGEMM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 2.2.8 Sparse matrix-vector multiplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 2.3 Rodinia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 2.3.1 Back Propagation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 2.3.2 Breadth-First Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 2.3.3 CFD Solver . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
Requirements Analysis. After the literature review of the state-of-the-art and the in-depth analysis of the unsolved problems in the QoS-aware service composition, it can be seen that QoS-aware service composition is challenging yet essential to supporting service applications. While current research on QoS-aware service composition is incomplete by focusing on calculating the quality of the composite services based on static quality of the component services, we advocate that the problem of QoS-aware service composition should be addressed at build time, runtime and completion time. Corresponding approaches for SLA negotiation, adaptation and profiling should be provided.
