1. T-76.115 Project Review Wellit I1 Iteration 29.11.2004

2. 2 T-76.115 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. 3 T-76.115 Project Review Status of the iteration’s goals  Goal 1: Detail requirements  OK  Goal 2: Design core Architecture  Architectural design of only POT and PUD ready.  MAP and SIC postponed to the next iteration.  Goal 3: Game Design  OK  Goal 4: Testing approach defined  OK  Goal 5: Implementation and testing  Testing only superficial

4. 4 T-76.115 Project Review Status of the iteration’s deliverables  Project Plan  OK  Requirements document  OK  Technical Specification  OK, only POT and PUD defined.  UI Specification  OK, replaced with Game Prototype  Test Cases of POT and PUD  OK  Test report and Test log  OK  SEPA diaries  OK

5. 5 T-76.115 Project Review Realization of the tasks  Major discrepancies  Half of the work from Game Design raported to UI Design.  Most of the time allocated to MupeC actually spent in POT.  MupeS and PUD – Incomplete architecture when commencing implementation  Tools Adaptation – took more time than anticipated, tools from previous iteration not yet ready.

6. 6 T-76.115 Project Review Working hours by person  Tuomas and Aki – Increased architectural, design and implementation tasks.  Tero and Heikki – efficient personal work. Realized hours in this iteration Plan in the beginning of the iteration Latest plan

7. 7 T-76.115 Project Review Quality metrics  Some unit tests run (no metrics available)  Some test cases run  POT 2 / 3  PUD 3 / 8  All documents reviewed

8. 8 T-76.115 Project Review Quality assessment  Haven't had time for thorough testing  So far quality seems OK.  Quality of documents is good  All documents were reviewed. All review notions are documented  The quality status of the system seems OK, implementation is still very light and thorough testing is not done. 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

9. 9 T-76.115 Project Review Software size in Lines of Code (LOC)  Base for the functionality was laid  Architecture / Design was implemented  Not much functionality  Well documented code

10. 10 T-76.115 Project Review Changes to the project  There were problems in architecture  Took too much time  Was behind the schedule  Delayed everything else  Actions were taken:  Architectural tasks dealt among the group  Personal responsibilities reorganized  Some new practices  Status report  Process improvement  These also took time from other tasks

11. 11 T-76.115 Project Review Risks  What is the current situation regarding the risks?  One materialized risk: Architectural problems  Controlling actions taken  New identified and analyzed risks: 3  Pre-emptive actions done for 5 risks.  Currently analyzed risks: 27  Biggest concern:  Do we have enough time to complete what we have planned?  To avoid situations like we had in this iteration deadlines have to be kept vigorously.  Deadlines were defined in this iteration as well, but not obeyed.  If we had done everything for the defined deadlines we would have had enough time for testing.  Even more important than deadlines is to start the next task in time.  Now the trailing system architecture delayed the whole project.

12. 12 T-76.115 Project Review Results of the iteration  Briefly describe the most important substance of the major deliverables of the iteration, e.g., the following  project plan (especially in PP review)  requirements (especially in PP review)  system architecture (especially in I1 review)  QA approach (especially in I1 review)  implemented use cases (I1-FD)  user’s manual (especially in I2 review)  Demonstrate the developed software  first tell briefly to the audience what you are going to demonstrate (perhaps distribute a demo script to the audience)  concentrate on new functionality in each review

13. 13 T-76.115 Project Review Results of the iteration  Technical Specification  Game Design  Project Plan (updated)  Requirements Document (updated)  QA Approach  Test Cases for POT and PUD  UI proto  Progress Report  Usability SEPA (updated)  Progress Tracking SEPA (updated)  Test-Driven Development SEPA (updated)  Process Construction and Tuning SEPA  First increment of POT and PUD

14. 14 T-76.115 Project Review Results of the iteration: Technical Specification  Overall architectural view to the system:  More detailed information in Technical Specification

15. 15 T-76.115 Project Review Results of the iteration: Game Design  Player roles defined  Game world elements defined  Possible game actions defined  Example game scenarios defined  Requirements for toolkit defined

16. 16 T-76.115 Project Review Results of the iteration: Project Plan  Change requests from customer and mentor handled  Small changes and required updates  New practices documented  Time usage updated  etc.

17. 17 T-76.115 Project Review Results of the iteration: Requirements Document  Minor changes

18. 18 T-76.115 Project Review Results of the iteration: QA Approach  Testing approach defined on  Project scale  Different levels of tests  Static tests  Dynamic tests  Iteration scale  Static tests  Dynamic tests

19. 19 T-76.115 Project Review Results of the iteration: Test cases  POT  3 Test Cases defined  PUD  8 Test Cases defined

20. 20 T-76.115 Project Review Results of the iteration: UI Proto  Prototype for the game User Interface defined:

21. 21 T-76.115 Project Review Results of the iteration: Usability SEPA  Customer meeting held with the prototype  Heuristic Evaluation conducted  Fixes to UI implemented in next iteration

22. 22 T-76.115 Project Review Results of the iteration: Progress Tracking SEPA  No major changes  Frequent updates to diary

23. 23 T-76.115 Project Review Results of the iteration: TDD SEPA  Commenced in next iteration

24. 24 T-76.115 Project Review Results of the iteration: Process C&T SEPA  New SEPA  Practice commenced after the project review of I1 iteration  Purpose to stramline and optimise the process by keeping best practices and modifying/removing unworking ones.

25. 25 T-76.115 Project Review Results of the iteration: First version of system  POT and PUD  Minimum functionality, architecture works  Demo:

26. 26 T-76.115 Project Review Used work practices  Following work practices were used  Iteration planning  Time reporting  Documenting  Publishing and reviewing practices  Requirements change  Heuristic evaluation  Version controlling  Coding conventions  Risk management  Communication practices  Practices to be tried out  Process improvement  Defect tracking  All practices are detailed in project plan and/or appropriate documents

27. 27 T-76.115 Project Review Experiences from practices  Iteration planning  Setting detailed deadlines and inter-iteration deadlines works  These deadlines have to be enforced!  Should also take care that new tasks get started at the right time  Time Reporting  More accurate results than in the last iteration.  People are getting used to report the hours.  Requirements Management  Requirements change process defined.  Requirements manager acts as the cutomer representative inside the team.  Version Controlling  Works fine.  Detailed version handling practices defined (in project plan)  Code Conventions  Working well.  Lot of API commenting done, creation of API documents should be easy.

28. 28 T-76.115 Project Review Experiences from practices  Risk Management  Identification session seemed fruitfull  Even more focus because of status reports.  Communication Practices  Status Report seems good  Will bring a lot of visibility to project from now on