T Project Review WellIT I2 Iteration

2 T Project Review Agenda  Project status (5-10 min)  achieving the goals of the iteration  project metrics  Work results (20-25 min)  presenting the iteration’s results  demo  Used work practices (5-10 min)

3 T Project Review Status of the iteration’s goals  Goal 1: Requirements  Three new requirements  No other changes  Goal 2: Architecture and Design  Architectural design of the product is finished.  Test cases for all modules defined.  Goal 3: UI studies  Usability tests run  Goal 4: Implementation (implemented/total)  Use cases: 13 / 15  Functional requirements: 32 / 44  Only one essential requirement not implemented  No conditional or optional requirements implemented for PUD  Goal 5: User's manual  Draft done  No much contents yet  Goal 6: Testing  Module testing done  Some integration testing done (will be continued in the next iteration)

4 T Project Review Status of the iteration’s deliverables  Project Plan  OK  Requirements document  OK  Technical Specification  Outdated  UI proto  OK  Game design  No changes  Test Cases  New test cases for MAP and SIC  Test report and Test log  OK  SEPA diaries  OK

5 T Project Review Realization of the tasks  (Major) discrepancies  No contents generated for User's manual  Only one customer meeting held  Other project management: Project manager has not reported all hours  Project plan needed no (major) updates

6 T Project Review Working hours by person  Total amount quite close  Project management requires a lot of work  The biggest problem is the bias of undone hours – some have to do way more than others in the last iteration Realized hours in this iteration Plan in the beginning of the iteration Latest plan

7 T Project Review The biggest problem Work is done later rather than earlier

8 T Project Review Quality metrics  Unit testing was reduced considerably  Only two JUnit classes done  Test cases (passed/run)  POT 2 / 3 (3 total)  PUD 8 / 9 (12 total)  MAP 4 / 5 (5 total)  SIC 2 / 4 (4 total)  All documents reviewed

9 T Project Review Quality assessment  Much more testing must be done  Some problems caused by bugs in mobile devices  All documents reviewed  Some documents are outdated Legend Coverage: 0 = nothing 1 = we looked at it 2 = we checked all functions 3 = it’s tested Quality:  = quality is good  = not sure  = quality is bad

10 T Project Review Software size  Code line metrics are quite useless in this project because...  MupeS and MupeC are based on existing software  Hard to separate code wrote by us from the original  PUD contains both Java and PHP code  Metrics not accurate ...so, our contribution to the code base in bytes:

11 T Project Review Changes to the project  The project manager changed  Minor changes due to Process Tuning SEPA  Agendas earlier to TWiki  Responsibilities dealt among group members when writing weekly reports  One studies, teaches other  No typos to document reviews  Changed to ad-hoc approach with Demo game  No formal requirements  No test cases  But will follow the UI Proto very closely

12 T Project Review Risks  What is the current situation regarding the risks?  No materialized risks  New identified and analysed risks: 1  Currently analysed risks: 28

13 T Project Review Results of the iteration  Technical Specification  User's Manual  Usability SEPA (updated)  Progress Tracking SEPA (updated)  Test-Driven Development SEPA (updated)  Process Construction and Tuning SEPA (updated)  Second increment of POT and PUD  First increment of MAP and SIC  Demo game  No major changes  Project Plan  Requirements Document (3 new requirements)  Game design  UI proto (results of the usability tests are put straight to the Demo game)

14 T Project Review Results of the iteration: Technical Specification  Technical specification document is severely outdated  A lot of documenting must be done in the next iteration  Technical specification in various plain files, papers, etc. -> must be transferred to the TS

15 T Project Review Results of the iteration: User's Manual  Will be in HTML format  Draft done  Not much content

16 T Project Review Results of the iteration: Usability SEPA  Usability tests done  Found some issues in the UI proto  Affects the demo game

17 T Project Review Results of the iteration: Progress Tracking SEPA  The change of the project manager changed also the author of this SEPA  No major changes  Frequent updates to diary

18 T Project Review Results of the iteration: TDD SEPA  SIC done using TDD  Time consuming  Suitability for this project questionable

19 T Project Review Results of the iteration: Process C&T SEPA  A workshop held in the end of I1 iteration  Changes took place in the start of I2 iteration  Process repeated again in the end of I2 iteration

20 T Project Review Results of the iteration: POT and PUD  PUD is usable, tested and working  Not much effort put on POT in this iteration  An external library used  Needed porting from J2SE to J2ME  Works nonetheless

21 T Project Review Results of the iteration: MAP and SIC  Both working  Essential features implemented  Needs testing to gain robustness

22 T Project Review Results of the iteration: Demo game  General concepts of the demo game are working  No content yet

23 T Project Review Used work practices  Following work practices were used  Iteration planning  Time reporting  Documenting  Publishing and reviewing practices  Requirements change  Usability tests  Version controlling  Coding conventions  Defect tracking  Risk management  Communication practices  Practices to be tried out  No new practices (except those mentioned in Process C&T SEPA)  All practices are detailed in project plan and/or appropriate documents

24 T Project Review Experiences from practices  Iteration planning  New project manager -> no experience in planning  The plan came true amazingly well  Time Reporting  Works in general  Occasionally people postpone the reporting ...and some hours are not reported at all  Requirements Management  The defined management process seems to be too heavy weight  Not much happening with the requirements  Version Controlling  Works fine  Some unnecessary commits to the repository, but luckily one can always go back to a previous version

25 T Project Review Experiences from practices  Code Conventions  Working well  Some pretty printing must be done  License texts must be added to every code file  Defect Tracking  Bugzilla in use  Complex system -> steep learning curve  But useful  Usability tests  Worked well  A lot of valuable input  Overkill for this project  Risk Management  Working well  Communication Practices  Working well