1. SDMS Project Phase Ⅰ Duk-Jin Kim Tu Peng Yan Shi

2. Agenda  Introduction  Why?-Enterprise Requirements  What?-System Functional Requirements  How?-System Non-Functional Requirements  Prototype  Next step

3. Introduction Process for prototyping for prototyping [Kotonya&Sommerville98]

4.  All three members in our team play the following roles: Requirement Engineers Project Managers Software Engineers Domain Experts End Users Introduction Roles

5. Enterprise Req. Real World Problems  Communication Complexity  Schedule Meeting Date Complexity  Schedule Meeting Location Complexity  Time Consuming Job  Conflict Between Date and Location

6. Enterprise Req. Existing System  www.meetingwizard.com www.meetingwizard.com Communication Overhead No Automation in Scheduling Date Internet-Dependent System

7. Enterprise Req. System Goal  Provide Communication Solution  Provide Automated Scheduling

8. Enterprise Req. Preliminary Understanding

9.  Any related system?  User roles? e.g. Active, important,..  Location and date conflict?  Any unstated problem? e.g Cancellation,..  Development cost? Enterprise Req. Issues

10. Enterprise Req. Improved Understanding  Stakeholders

11. Enterprise Req. Improved Understanding  FRs & NFRs - Setting Date

12. Enterprise Req. Improved Understanding  FRs & NFRs - Setting Location

13. Enterprise Req. Improved Understanding  FRs & NFRs - Canceling Meeting

14.  Date conflict Opt1: extends the date range Opt2: remove some dates from the exclusion set Opt3: remove some participants Opt4: add new date to the preference set. Enterprise Req. Conflict

15. Location conflict Opt1: Preferred by many participants. e.g over 70% of participants.. Opt2: Preferred by many important participants. Opt3: Initiator ’ s choice Enterprise Req. Conflict(cont.)

16. Location and Date conflict Opt1: Initiator ’ s choice Enterprise Req. Conflict(cont.)

17. System Functional Req. Preliminary Understanding

18.  Is the system available to everyone? Does every user play the same role? Solution: Add a Login/Logoff module to set the users ’ authorization level. Users with different authorization level have different constraints to using the system. How to monitor meetings ? System Functional Req. Issues

19.  How to monitor meetings is not mentioned in the functional requirement. Option 1: When having a virtual meeting in a distributed manner, every participant should have his/her status, for example, giving presentation, online/offline, etc, displayed publicly so that every participant can see it. Option 2: Since this requirement is ambiguous, we can just consider it as not part of the system ’ s core functions and dispose it. Solution: Option 1 Reason: Enhance the functionality of the system. System Functional Req. Issues

20.  What kind of constraints expressed by participants should the meeting initiator consider? How to derive these constraints? Option 1: Design a sub-module within the meeting plan module to derive all kinds of constraints from participants. Option 2: Get the exclusion set and preference set from the interaction management module and use them as constraints. Solution: Option 2. Reason: Decrease the redundancy of the system, and exclusion set and preference set are enough for the initial planning of a meeting. System Functional Req. Issues

21.  What does the “ Client ” refer to in the statement “ Support conflict resolution according to resolution policies stated by the client. ” ? Option 1: system administrator Option 2: meeting initiator Solution: Both Option 1 and Option 2 Reason: System administrator should have the predominate decisions on resolution policies. In the meantime, meeting initiator ’ s opinion also weighs.

22. System Functional Req. Improved Understanding

23. System Non-Functional Req. Preliminary and Improved

24. System Non-Functional Req. Issues  ambiguity What is typical ways of managing meeting is very unclear. What does “ monitor meeting ” mean is unclear. Dynamically and flexibilities also are unclear.  omission Can ’ t understand “ explicit ”  other accurately and nomadcity are controversial.

25. System Non-Functional Req. Priority of the NFRs  1 Manage  1 Replanning  1 Reuse  2 Variation  2 Requesting  2 Determinate  2 Communication  2 Communicate via Internet  2 Privacy  3 Monitor  3 Handle

26. Demo Mock Up. Login

27. Demo Mock Up. New Meeting

28. Demo Mock Up. Propose Date

29. Demo Mock Up. Important Notice  All examples come from www.meetingwizard.com.www.meetingwizard.com  Actually system may be different.

30. Next Step  Further improvement of ER & SR  Developing the prototype

31. Thank You! Duck-Jin Kim Tu Peng Yan Shi Sep 2006