Lab 3 – SRS Review & Implementation Planning

Milestones 1.Web Page Design & Implementation 2.Revise communication protocol 3.Develop a test tool for software development 4.Develop design for Control Station (CS) system 5.Finalize GUI design 6.Implement functionality for Connection Dialog 7.Implement functionality for Movement Controls 8.Implement Settings Dialog 9.Robot status functions 10.Code base maintenance

Work breakdown This is the breakdown of Milestone #4:  Refer to supplied SRS document for design – 10%  Develop a working subset of the system for demonstration - 20%  Create GUI based on desired functionality – 50%  Tie it to a “dummy” system that produces trivial output – 50%  Develop an enhanced version of this prototype  Add functionality that is useful for final product – 60%  Code commands to be sent – 50%  Integrate communications protocol – 50%  Improve interface/ergonomics – 40%

Gantt

PERT (first ¼ of complete chart)

Process Report Successes:  Good team coordination – everyone did their part well  Good team management  Developed a concise SRS, with appropriate use-cases  Started implementing the Communication Protocol  Reasonably estimated future project schedule & work breakdown Problems: Problems:  Robot SRS might exceed its boundaries and/or not cover all possible scenarios  Inconsistencies that might have arisen between our SRS and that of Group 20 (because they are both part of the same mother-system after all)  The “WD  C” like notations of the Group 20’s SRS at the top of page 3 are very hard to understand at best

Process Refinements  Should work in close cooperation with the partner-group from now on, in case incomplete/unclear/conflicting specifications arise between Group 19 and Group 20  Set clear boundaries to the Communication Protocol specifications, since this will allow for a better splitting of system in modules and will facilitate work breakdown for both teams

Positive Critique of Group 20 SRS By Group 19 Questions:  In section 2, communications protocol is embedded into the SRS…does it belong here?  In section 3, why does it matter if the control station is connected to another server while it is connected to the robot?  In section , the notation for explaining “Responses to Environmental Change” is confusing at best and not fully explained. As a general concern, the document seems to overstep its bounds at certain points; there is a blend of specification and implementation and the document is sometimes too specific with its language and doesn’t leave enough room for design decisions. Would it be better to leave out this kind of specific language?  In section there is another confusing set of logical statements that need clarification. Again, would English be better?  What exactly does section 4 mean? Perhaps it might be removed entirely? Good Points  Well laid out from an organizational and formal standpoint  Well thought out and follows accepted guidelines for SRS document  Very comprehensive