T Project Review eGo PP Iteration

T Project Review 2 Agenda  Project status (15 min)  achieving the goals of the iteration  project metrics  Used work practices (5 min)  Completed work (20 min)  presenting the iteration’s results  Plans for the next iteration (5 min)

T Project Review 3 Status of planned goals of the iteration  learning to know project team members, individual strengths and weaknesses, special interests etc.  OK  constructing the IPR agreement  OK, agreement done (IF the last persons have sign the agreement in the project review)  understanding the domain and the customer needs  OK, the project team feels it has a good overall understanding of the domain  planning the project, including:  project team members' responsibilities  OK  phasing of the project into four iterations  OK, phasing has been accepted by all stakeholders  creating preliminary tasks for the next iteration  OK, see below  selecting the most important tools and processes to be used in the project  Partially OK, questionnaire input tool selection postponed to I1  defining project group's own goals in the project  OK

T Project Review 4 Status of planned goals of the iteration, cont.  requirements specification on general level, identifying the use cases and describing in greater detail the ones selected to be implemented in the first implementation iteration  OK  arranging communication channels: group web server, group address  OK, Hiekkalaatikko operational and yahoogroups address chosen  familiarizing in the technologies and development tools to be used in the project  JBoss & J2EE  Not OK, all project members don’t have sufficient skills  Eclipse + plug-ins  OK  using CVS  OK  installing the development environment to the development server and building the project skeleton to CVS so that starting the actual work is as fluent as possible  OK

T Project Review 5 Status of planned deliverables of the iteration  Project Plan  OK, all relevant chapters and phasing for I1 ready  Requirements document  OK, most important requirements in general, and project manager interface in detail (use cases 1 through 4)  Functional requirements only specified to the parts implemented in I1

T Project Review 6 Realization of the tasks  Time scheduled well, total difference is minus 14,65 hours  Problems with using Trapoli in the beginning  Tasks not descriptive enough  People kept forgetting to report their hours  Hours vanished (technical problem in Trapoli)  Lots of Trapoli features were misunderstood  ”Plan work methods and tools” was superseded by ”write the project plan”, because it’s hard to tell planning from writing in this case

T Project Review 7 Working hours by person  We managed to keep within the scheduled time  No modification were made to the future iterations plans at this stage, the 16 hours saved are left as a reserve for future allocation  Note that task and personal hours don’t match, someone reported hours while writing this... RealPlanDiff AHA 56,555+1,5 JKA 39,535+4,5 SLE 33,535-1,5 LHE JKO HTO SLA 23,535-11,5 Total Realized hours in this iterationPlan in the beginning of this iteration PPI1I2I3DETotal AHA JKA SLE LHE JKO HTO SLA Total Latest plan (inc. realized hours and other updates) PPSub- total I1I2I3DETotal AHA 56, ,5 JKA 39, ,5 SLE 33, ,5 LHE JKO HTO SLA 23, ,5 Total

T Project Review 8 Risks  The responsibility of risk management is handled by a group of three persons: Hannes Tolvanen, Lauri Helenius and Juha Koivula. These three are attending the SoberIT Risk Management Module (T ) and hence have the best knowledge of this area

T Project Review 9 Work practices  work practices used in the PP iteration:  time reporting  Because it took time to understand how to use Trapoli effectively in our group, time reporting experiences were at first very negative  Now, with added knowledge and more specific tasks, we hope to improve time reporting  version control  CVS on the customer’s premises was harnessed into use from the beginning, in this phase mostly used for documents  Eclipse+CVS integration works very well, only few minor problems have been encountered  personal SE assignments have been selected and planned in the project plan, but none of the assignments have started yet so there’s nothing to report.  In the next phase  the personal assignment practices are started  all the other practices mentioned in the project plan are started

T Project Review 10 Results of the iteration  Nothing to demonstrate yet, we’ll focus on the documents produced  Deliverables for the iteration were (discussed in the following slides)  project plan  requirements  this project review  Other results  development environment ready for implementation start  group members have development tools installed (Eclipse, Lomboz, JBoss)  an initial project skeleton has been created in CVS and source generation and build automation work

T Project Review 11 Project plan  Stakeholders include four parties: Radar, project group, Karuko and mentor  Karuko acts as the technical advisor team  Each project team member has his own responsibility area  The top goals of the customer are: 1) Quality 2) Improving efficiency of the screening process 3) Improving efficiency of the segment size approximation of large crowds 4) Improving efficiency of small-scale ad hoc market data gathering 5) Having a central storage and improving communication in a marketing research project 6) Ease of administration  Also the project outcome will possibly be used as a base for future projects by Karuko, and therefore quality of documentation, adherence to domain best practices and reusability of components is important  The project team’s goals are strictly educational, building a quality product with interesting contemporary technologies and getting a good grade  Most of the recommended (by the course) work practices will be used  Personal assignments include 1) Heuristic evaluation 2) Design patterns 3) Pair Programming 4) Automated unit tests 5) Meeting practices 6) Communication practices 7) Documentation practises

T Project Review 12 Project plan, cont.  The project is divided into three implementation iterations  I1: project manager interface, marketing research project “definition phase”  I2: screening and interviewing, wap and web  I3: data export, triple-S to external systems, better info about ongoing projects  Risk management is done in the external course T by three project member. Top-5 risks identified 1) project group members busy with work, studies or private life 2) customer finds a better solution 3) customer neglects server administration 4) group is not familiar with intended technologies 5) test plan is inadequate

T Project Review 13 User Requirements Document  The business domain is described in detail  terms and their relations  core competencies of the customer  System overview

T Project Review 14 User Requirements Document, cont.  Use cases and user groups shown in picture

T Project Review 15 User Requirements Document, cont.  Functional requirements  Functional requirements were identified and discussed grouped by the use cases  Also general functional requirements were identified  All functional requirements are named according to the MRRx.x –scheme for trackability  Usability requirements  Web GUI for project manager  Mobile phone used in screening  Web browser used in additional interviews  Quality and reliability requirements  Data integrity, stability, error tolerance  Also performance, scalability, documentation and further development requirements are discussed  Constraints and limitations  Student project limitations,  Free software used in development  Given user interface constraints

T Project Review 16 Plan for the next iteration  Goals  Have a fully working implementation of the ”definition part” of the marketing research project system  Testing done according to the testing plan  User interface evaluation and design for project manager interfaces  All technology evaluation and selection is finished  Specification of all protocols and external interfaces is done  Deliverables  Technical specification of the core architecture  Test case specifications  Test report  Software core  Use cases 1, 2, 3 and 4 implemented