n etwork t echnology r eplacement: p erformance b ased a nalysis saad haj bakry, phd, ceng, fiee
TRANSCRIPT
NETWORK TECHNOLOGY
REPLACEMENT: PERFORMANCE
BASED ANALYSIS
NETWORK TECHNOLOGY
REPLACEMENT: PERFORMANCE
BASED ANALYSIS
Saad Haj Bakry, PhD, CEng, FIEE
Saad Haj Bakry, PhD, CEng, FIEE
ACKNOWLEDGMENTACKNOWLEDGMENT
The work presented here is based ongraduate research at
King Saud University
performed by
Rafiq Jamal Al-Deen
and Supervised by
Saad Haj Bakry
The work presented here is based on graduate research at
King Saud University
performed by
Rafiq Jamal Al-Deen
and Supervised by
Saad Haj Bakry
Network Replacement
CONTENTSCONTENTS
Network Replacement
THE PROBLEMTHE PROBLEM
FUTURE WORKFUTURE WORK
OBJECTIVESOBJECTIVES
ANALYTICAL
METHODOLOGY
ANALYTICAL
METHODOLOGY
CASE STUDYCASE STUDY
REFERENCESREFERENCES
PROBLEM:
BASICS
PROBLEM:
BASICS
Network Replacement
Normal Replacement
Older Technology
Expected Service Life
Newer Technology
Early Replacement
New Capabilities:
High Speed: ATM
Multimedia
Customer Need
Problem
PROBLEM: AVAILABLE
LITERATURE
PROBLEM: AVAILABLE
LITERATURE
Network Replacement
PRINCIPLES :
:ITU Network Planning Replacement Criteria
)Technical / Economic Issues(
:Engineering Economy Service Life
)Based on Cash Flow(
“ ”Multi-disciplinaryProblem
PRINCIPLES :
ITU Network Planning: Replacement Criteria
)Technical / Economic Issues(
Engineering Economy: Service Life
)Based on Cash Flow(
“Multi-disciplinary” Problem
RECENT WORK :
Emphasizing TechnicalSuperiority
Emphasizing NewEconomic Benefits
Technical / EconomicEvaluations
Practical & SpecificCases
RECENTW ORK :
Emphasizing Technical Superiority
Emphasizing New Economic Benefits
Technical / Economic Evaluations
Practical & Specific Cases
Problem
PROBLEM: GAPPROBLEM: GAP
Network Replacement
TECHNICAL:
“ ”Specificationsconsidered
“ & Network Flow ”Performance
related to
Services“ ”Transactions
ignored
TECHNICAL:
“Specifications” considered
“Network Flow & Performance”
related to
“Services Transactions”
ignored
ECONOMIC:
/ General Cost Benefitsconsidered
“ ”Cost / Benefits related to
& Transactions“ ”Performance
ignored
ECONOMIC:
General Cost / Benefits
considered
“Cost / Benefits” related to
“Transactions & Performance”
ignored
APPROACH:
“ Analytical ”Approach combining
”Performance“ Based
/ Economic“ ”Technical Issues
is Needed
APPROACH:
“Analytical Approach” combining
“Performance” Based
“Economic / Technical” Issues
is Needed
Comprehensive / Analytical “Vision”
Comprehensive / AnalyticalVision“”
Problem
OBJECTIVESOBJECTIVES
Network Replacement
THEORY: Developing “Services Transactions / Network Flow /
Performance” Based “Analytical” Methodology for Network Technology Replacement
THEORY: Developing “Services Transactions / Network Flow /
Performance” Based “Analytical” Methodology for Network Technology Replacement
PRACTICAL: Using the Methodology to
Investigate a “Practical Case Study ”
P:RACTICAL Using the Methodology to
Investigate aPractical Case Study“ ”
FUTURE: Providing a New Stream
for Useful “Future Work”
F:UTURE Providing a New Stream
for UsefulFuture Work“”
Replacement Model
Economic Model
Inter-relationshipsNetwork
Flow Model
METHODOLOGY
STRUCTURE
METHODOLOGY
STRUCTURE
Network Specifications
NetworkSpecifications
Optimum Replaceme
nt Time
Optimum Replaceme
nt Time
Services Services
Network CapacityNetwork Capacity
Performance
Performance
CostCost
BenefitsBenefits
Cost-Effectiven
ess
Cost-Effectiven
ess
Old / NewOld / New
Cash FlowCash Flow
Access WeightsAccess Weights
Input Output
Network ReplacementMethodology
OperationOperation
NETWORK FLOW MODEL:
INPUT
NETWORK FLOW MODEL:
INPUT
Network Replacement
NETWORK STRUCTURE:
/ Nodes / TopologyCapacity of Links
NETWORK STRUCTURE:
Nodes / Topology / Capacity of Links
Methodology
OPERATION POLICY:
Work FlowRegulations / Routing
OPERATION POLICY:
Work Flow Regulations / Routing
ACCESS WEIGHTS:
Distributed Potential
Proportions ofUsers at Nodes
ACCESS WEIGHTS:
Distributed Potential
Proportions of Users at Nodes
Network Replacement Methodology
NETWORK FLOW MODEL: INPUTNETWORK FLOW MODEL: INPUT
U
Node
Users
NN
NN NN
NN
U
U U
U
U
Access Weights
Communications
Routing / Flow
Operation Policy
NETWORK FLOW MODEL:
OUTPUT
NETWORK FLOW MODEL:
OUTPUT
Network Replacement
TRAFFIC LOAD / FLOW WEIGHTS:
(Through Every Link ) & From Access Weights
Operation Policy
TRAFFIC LOAD / FLOWW EIGHTS:
(Through Every Link ) From Access Weights &
Operation Policy
Methodology
ACCEPTABLE TRAFFIC FLOW
ACCEPTABLE TRAFFIC FLOW
TRAFFIC FLOW UNIT:
From Busiest LinkConsidering
SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE
TRAFFICF LOWU NIT:
From Busiest Link Considering
SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE
ACCEPTABLE TRAFFIC
LOAD: NETWORK CAPACITY LIMIT
ACCEPTABLE TRAFFIC
LOAD: NETWORK CAPACITY LIMIT
ECONOMIC MODEL:
INPUT
ECONOMIC MODEL:
INPUT
Network Replacement
NETWORK CAPACITY LIMITNETWORK CAPACITY LIMIT
Methodology
SERVICES:
Types (Voice / Data / Video)
Transactions )Traffic Volume(
Proportions
SERVICES:
Types (Voice / Data / Video)
Transactions )Traffic Volume(
Proportions
USE LEVEL: In Terms of
Busy Periods
USE LEVEL: In Terms of
Busy Periods
BUSY HOUR: One Hour of Full
Capacity Use
BUSY HOUR: One Hour of Full
Capacity UseCOST
BENEFITS
TIME
SCALE
VALUE ADJUSTMENT RATEVALUE ADJUSTMENT RATE
ECONOMIC MODEL:
INPUT
ECONOMIC MODEL:
INPUT
Network Replacement
COST ELEMENTS:
:General ,Initial Environment, Operation
Maintenance&
:Per Transaction Supply Cost
COST ELEMENTS:
General: Initial, Environment, Operation
&Maintenance
Per Transaction: Supply Cost
Methodology
BENEFIT ELEMENTS:
:General Space Saving
Per Transaction : & Time, Movement
Supply Savings
/ CustomerService Provider
B ENEFIT ELEMENTS:
General: Space Saving
Per Transaction: Time, Movement &
Supply Savings
Customer / Service Provider
ECONOMIC MODEL:
OUTPUT
ECONOMIC MODEL:
OUTPUT
Network Replacement
MAXIMUM COST-EFFECTIVENESS
/ OPTIMUM SERVICE LIFE
MAXIMUM COST-EFFECTIVENESS
/ OPTIMUM SERVICE LIFE
Methodology
SIMULATED COST-EFFECTIVENESS
“ACCUMULATED CASH FLOW” AS TIME PROGRESSES :
Services / Use / C&B
SIMULATED COST-EFFECTIVENESS
“A CCUMULATEDC ASHF ”LOWAST IME PROGRESSES :
Services / Use / C&B
SERVICED TRANSACTIONS
SERVICED TRANSACTIONS
REPLACEMENT MODEL:
INPUT
REPLACEMENT MODEL:
INPUT
Network Replacement Methodology
TECHNICAL:
NETWORK CAPACITY
&TRANSACTIONS /
USE
TECHNICAL:
NETWORK CAPACITY
& TRANSACTIONS /
USE
ECONOMIC:
NETWORK COST &
BENEFITS / ADJUSTMENT RATE
ECONOMIC:
NETWORK COST &
BENEFITS / ADJUSTMENT RATE
OLD /NEW NETWORK
TECHNOLOGIES
REPLACEMENT MODEL:
OUTPUT
REPLACEMENT MODEL:
OUTPUT
Network Replacement
MAXIMUM COST-
EFFECTIVENESS / OPTIMUM
REPLACEMENT TIME
MAXIMUM COST-
EFFECTIVENESS / OPTIMUM
REPLACEMENT TIME
Methodology
SIMULATED REPLACEMENT COST-
EFFECTIVENESS AS TIME PROGRESSES :
Current Operation Using Old Technology, withPossible Replacement Considered Every Year
SIMULATED REPLACEMENT C-OST
EFFECTIVENESS AST IME P ROGRESSES :
Current Operation Using Old Technology, with Possible Replacement Considered Every Year
STRUCTURE
11 Banks )Main Sites()Each Has Its Own Network(
1 Interbanking Centre )Interbanking Transactions(
Given Access Weights )Based on No. of ATMs(
Given Topology
(Star: 11 to the Centre, 12th)
STRUCTURE
11 Banks )Main Sites( )Each Has Its Own Network(
1 Interbanking Centre )Interbanking Transactions(
Given Access Weights )Based on No. of ATMs(
Given Topology
(Star: 11 to the Centre, 12th)
WORK FLOW
Intrabanking: Transactions from the ATMs of
One Bank to the Bank Itself )No Interbanking(
Interbanking: Transactions from the ATMs of any One Bank to Other Banks
)Interbanking(
The Network is OnlyConcerned with Interbanking
WORK FLOW
:Intrabanking Transactions from the ATMs of
One Bank to the Bank Itself)No Interbanking(
:Interbanking Transactions from the ATMs of any One Bank to Other Banks
)Interbanking(
The Network is Only Concerned with Interbanking
AN INTERBANKING
NETWORK
AN INTERBANKING
NETWORK
Network Replacement Case Study
D
H F
K
G
J
C
B A
E
RAW = 100 RTFW = 172.88
RTLW = 86.44 RTFW)Q( = 16.2
[10.6]
)19.8 %( )12.1 %(
[15.9]
)20.1 %(
[16.09] 10.6 x 2 15.9 x 2
)14%(
[12]
12 x 2
6 x 2
)6.3%(
[6] 6.3 x 2
)6.8%(
[6.3]
)0.9%( )6.9%(
0.74x 2 )0.7%(
6.4x 2
)6.9%( [6.4]
5x 2
)5.3%(
INTER-
BANKING
CENTRE 0.9 x 2
[0.9]
[0.74] [5]
6.5x 2
[6.5]
16.09 x 2
I
TRAFFIC FLOW
WEIGHTS
Access Weight
Traffic Load Weight
Network Replacement Case Study
N ETWORKILLUSTRATION NETWORK ILLUSTRATION
Bank No. of ATM
Access Weight
A 196 12.12 B 320 19.79
C 228 14.1
D 102 6.3
E 112 6.9
F 85 5.25
G 111 6.86
H 12 0.74 I 15 0.92
J 110 6.8
K 326 20.16
Total 1617
Network Replacement Case Study
ACCESS WEIGHTS ACCESS WEIGHTS
SLOW
DIGITAL
TECH.
C = 64 kbps
Services)Data(
LIMIT
240 kbps
S LOW
D IGITAL
TECH.
C = 64 kbps
Services )Data(
LIMIT
240 kbps
FASTER
DIGITAL
TECH.
C = 1.5 Mbps Services
(Data / Voice)
LIMIT
5.8 Mbps
F ASTER
D IGITAL
TECH.
C = 1.5 Mbps Services
(Data / Voice)
LIMIT
5.8 Mbps
HIGH SPEED
TECH.
C = 155 Mbps
Services
( / Data / VoiceVideo )
LIMIT
583 Mbps
H IGHS PEED
TECH.
C = 155 Mbps
Services
(Data / Voice / Video )
LIMIT
583 Mbps
NETWORK TECHNOLOGIESNETWORK TECHNOLOGIES
Network Replacement Case Study
DATA:
1 kbyte
DATA:
1 kbyte
VOICE:
120 kbyte
VOICE:
120 kbyte
VIDEO:
2400 kbyte
VIDEO:
2400 kbyte
SERVICES
TRANSACTIONS
SERVICES
TRANSACTIONS
Network Replacement Case Study
PER
TRANS.BUSY HOUR TRANSACTIONS
LIMITS
DATADATA
VOICEVOICE
VIDEOVIDEO
332211TECH.TECH.
108 k108 k 108 k108 k 108 k108 k
zerozero 21 k21 k 21 k21 k
zerozero zerozero 108 k108 k
COST
Initial
Enviro.
Staff
O&M
Supply )per Trns(
COST
Initial
Enviro.
Staff
O&M
Supply )per Trns(
NETWORK COSTNETWORK COST
Network Replacement Case Study
TECH 1
1 (86.5)%
1 (5.4)%
1 (1.6)%
1 (6.5)%
1
TECH 1
1 (86.5)%
1 (5.4)%
1 (1.6)%
1 (6.5)%
1
TECH 2
1.8
1.3
1.17
1.5
1
TECH 2
1.8
1.3
1.17
1.5
1
TECH 3
3.75
1.8
1.7
2.5
1
TECH 3
3.75
1.8
1.7
2.5
1
COST
Time
Movement
Supply
COST
Time
Movement
Supply
NETWORK BENEFITSNETWORK BENEFITS
Network Replacement Case Study
DATA
1
1
1
DATA
1
1
1
VOICE
2
2
1
VOICE
2
2
1
VIDEO
4.5
3
1
VIDEO
4.5
3
1
Benefits to Customers & to Organization
Benefits to Customers & to Organization
Saving Based on Wages / Importance
Saving Based on Wages / Importance
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time
Effe
ctiv
en
es
s E
=B
/C
Q=-400
Q=600
Q=800
Q=1000
Cost effectiveness versus time in years for different network use level Q)equivalent busy hours of use per year( at satisfactory performance, considering the first technology
TIME / EFFECTIVENESS: TECH. 1TIME / EFFECTIVENESS: TECH. 1
Network Replacement Case Study
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time
Effe
ctiv
en
es
s E
=B
/C
Q=400
Q=600
Q=800
Q=1000
Cost effectiveness versus time in years for different network use level Q)equivalent busy hours of use per year( at satisfactory performance; considering the second technology
TIME / EFFECTIVENESS: TECH. 2TIME / EFFECTIVENESS: TECH. 2
Network Replacement Case Study
Cost effectiveness versus time in years for different network use level Q)equivalent busy hours of use per year( at satisfactory performance considering the third technology.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
Time
Effe
ctiv
en
es
s E
=B
/C
Q=400
Q=600
Q=800
Q=1000
TIME / EFFECTIVENESS: TECH. 3TIME / EFFECTIVENESS: TECH. 3
Network Replacement Case Study
0
200,000,000
400,000,000
600,000,000
800,000,000
1,000,000,000
1,200,000,000
1,400,000,000
1,600,000,000
1,800,000,000
200 400 600 800
Q)t(
$
Benefit
Cost
Cost and benefit )break even state( versus the use level Q )equivalent hours of use per year( at satisfactory performance, and optimum life, considering the first technology
BREAK EVEN: TECH. 1BREAK EVEN: TECH. 1
Network Replacement Case Study
0
500,000,000
1,000,000,000
1,500,000,000
2,000,000,000
2,500,000,000
3,000,000,000
200 400 600 800
Q)t(
$
Benefit
Cost
Cost and benefit )break even state( versus the use level Q )equivalent hours of use per year( at satisfactory performance, and optimum life, considering the second technology
BREAK EVEN: TECH. 2BREAK EVEN: TECH. 2
Network Replacement Case Study
0
500,000,000
1,000,000,000
1,500,000,000
2,000,000,000
2,500,000,000
3,000,000,000
3,500,000,000
4,000,000,000
4,500,000,000
5,000,000,000
100 200 300 400
Q)t(
$
Benefit
Cost
Cost and benefit )break even state( versus the use level Q )equivalent hours of use per year( at satisfactory performance, and optimum life, considering the third technology
BREAK EVEN: TECH. 3BREAK EVEN: TECH. 3
Network Replacement Case Study
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
400 600 800 1000
Q)t(
Effe
ctiv
en
es
s E
=B/C
1st Tech
2nd Tech
3rd tech
Cost effectiveness versus the use level Q)equivalent busy hours of use per year( at satisfactory performance and optimum life, for the three technologies
USE / EFFECTIVENESS: ALL TECH.
USE / EFFECTIVENESS: ALL TECH.
Network Replacement Case Study
First Technology Replaced by the Second Technology
0.6
0.66
0.72
0.78
0.84
0.9
0.96
1.02
1.08
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Replaced Time
MAXEffectiveness E=B/C
BESTREPLACEMENT Time=14
REPLACEMENT: 1st BY 2ndREPLACEMENT: 1st BY 2nd
Network Replacement Case Study
First Technology Replaced by the ThirdTechnology
0.80.880.961.041.121.2
1.281.361.44
1.521.6
1.681.761.841.92
22.082.162.242.322.4
2.482.56
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Replaced Time
MA
X E
ffe
ctiv
en
es
s E
= B / C
BESTREPLACEMENT Time=0
REPLACEMENT: 1st BY 3rdREPLACEMENT: 1st BY 3rd
Network Replacement Case Study
Second Technology Replaced by the ThirdTechnology
0.80.880.961.041.121.2
1.281.361.441.521.6
1.681.761.841.92
22.082.162.242.322.4
2.482.56
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Replaced Time
MA
X E
ffe
cti
ve
ne
ss
E
= B / C
BESTREPLACEMENT Time=0
REPLACEMENT: 2nd BY 3rdREPLACEMENT: 2nd BY 3rd
Network Replacement Case Study
INTEGRATION OF
EVALUATIONS WITH
NETWORK PLANNING &
DESIGN
INTEGRATION OF
EVALUATIONS WITH
NETWORK PLANNING &
DESIGN
FUTURE WORKFUTURE WORK
Network Replacement
EXTENSIONS FOR
INVESTIGATIONS OF
PRACTICAL NETWORK USE IN DIFFERENT
FIELDS
EXTENSIONS FOR
INVESTIGATIONS OF
PRACTICAL NETWORK USE IN DIFFERENT
FIELDS
DEVELOPMENT OF FRIENDLY SOFTWARE
PACKAGES FOR EASY EVALUATIONS
DEVELOPMENT OF FRIENDLY SOFTWARE
PACKAGES FOR EASY EVALUATIONS
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NETWORK MANAGEMENT
Performance based evaluations of the tangible benefits ofinformation networks, Vol.10, No.2, March / April 2000, pp.91-101 .
,Analysis of the cost-effectiveness of information networksVol.10, No.3, May / June 2000, pp.145-156
A methodology for the evaluation of the replacement of ,information network technology, Vol.10, No.6, Nov. / Dec. 2000pp.349-359
INTERNATIONALJ OURNAL OFN ETWORK MANAGEMENT
Performance based evaluations of the tangible benefits of information networks, Vol.10, No.2, March / April 2000, pp.91-101 .
Analysis of the cost-effectiveness of information networks, Vol.10, No.3, May / June 2000, pp.145-156
A methodology for the evaluation of the replacement of information network technology, Vol.10, No.6, Nov. / Dec. 2000, pp.349-359
www.InsightView.com
www.InsightView.com
PUBLICATIONSPUBLICATIONS
Network Replacement