1. Architecture Review Boards Remote Student Specifics
AWBrown
11/20/2009
11/20/2009
(C) USC CSSE 1

2. Team’s strong points & weak points (all)
List [at least] one item for each of the following
List your team’s strong points
Operational view
Technical view
List your team’s weak points
Identify specific technical concerns & possible solutions
Identify operational risks & possible mitigation
Sources of observations
Team activities, package evaluation, winwin negotiation, etc.
11/20/2009
(C) USC CSSE 2

3. System/Project Engineer at ARB
WinWin Shaping Status:
Open WinCs: Identify all (list names)
Agreed WinCs: # with Issues & without Issues
Overall Project Evaluation consideration
SCS CRACK*ness
Complexity
Precedentedness (of your project for development team!)
Communication & use of communication tools between on-campus team, S/PE and client
Skills/needs match
Knowledge/experience mis-matches
* Collaborative, Representative, Authorized, Communicative, Knowledgeable
11/20/2009
(C) USC CSSE

4. QFP - Defect Identification Review
For each document (by section, if appropriate), UML model, etc., identify the following
Type(s) of review used (e.g., team peer review, agile artifact review, etc.)
Other forms of concern identification (e.g., grading, client feedback, etc.)
Current Issue/Defect/Problem Injection and Removal Matrix
Current, total defect information from your progress report
11/20/2009
(C) USC CSSE 4

5. Injection/Removal Matrix
17 Problem reports, issues or Defects generated since last ARB
18 Old are those in "Current" in the previous report.
19 See QMP for a definition. Usually potential defects identified in other artifacts during a review (i.e., artifacts not the primary focus of the review)
20 See QMP for a definition. Usually changes made by the "author" of a reviewed artifact as a result of an "issue" or those identified in an inspection (where a "Defect" is objectively defined and the author concurs with the designation.)
11/20/2009
(C) USC CSSE