1. Party Management System Vitamin B

2. Agenda Party Management System (PMS) The Project

3. Party Management System (PMS) A web based system for organizing events Created for Assembly 07 Modular  Main module is Compo Management System  New modules easy to attach Open source (MIT licence)  Apache, PostgreSQL, PHP  MONO,.NET, C#

4. PMS Main features Web based visitor pages  View the schedule  View the compo information  Participate to compos  Vote  Edit own user info

5. PMS Main features Web based administrator pages  Same as the visitors, but in addition:  Can create, edit and delete events (compos)  Can modify user data (reactivate passwords etc.)  View the voting results during voting

6. Architecture overview

7. Live demo

8. The Project

9. Project personnel Customer, Assembly Organizing  Ville Vatén (The customer)  Mikko Sivulainen (Technical advisor) Mentor  Kauko Huuskonen

10. Project personnel The project team  Janne Holm (Project manager)  Henrik Hovi (Architect)  Jukka Uskonen (QA manager)  Jukka Tornberg (DB developer)  Teijo Laine (UI developer)  Henri Tuomola (Core developer)  Pekka Helkiö (Core developer)

11. Goals of the project 1.Replace the old closed source system with an open source software 2.Create high quality system with good maintainability and extendability 3.Create more advanced features to the system 4.Some of the project members continue with the project after the course

12. Goals of the project Replace the old closed source system with an open source software Almost, but not quite A few features missing Stability needs improvement

13. Goals of the project Create high quality system with good maintainability and extendability  Extendability: Yes  Maintainability: Somewhat  High quality: Somewhat

14. Goals of the project Create more advanced features to the system  Not achieved, ”quality before new features”  Minimum amount of features was implemented in order to achieve the first goal  The minimum functionality began to be stable towards the end of the project

15. Goals of the project Some of the project members continue with the project after the course  Maybe?

16. Main problems encountered (1/2) Complex architecture  Architecture was complex due to scalability requirements  Architecture was not communicated well to other project members Added extra effort to the developers figure out how things work

17. Problems encountered (2/2) Loose project management  Project management didn’t give clear enough tasks to project members  As the architecture was not communicated well, actions should have been taken to fix this

18. Lessons learned Architecture has to be clear and communicated to others  This is the base onto which all the implemented components rely Project management has to be clear on the tasks  Different people need different amout of guidance

19. Metrics, cost of the product

20. Metrics, used effort per iteration

21. Metrics, used hours weekly (est vs. act)

22. Metrics, used effort per task type

23. Metrics, used hours per project member

24. That’s all http://www.assembly.org