1. The Charlatans EOSP Fall 2002

2. Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP2 11/25/2015 Agenda People Project Overview Key Requirements Process Description Risk Driven Approach Technical Progress Project Artifacts Lessons Learned Next Steps Questions

3. Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP3 11/25/2015 People Clients  Daniel Plakosh  Scott Hissam Mentors  Cliff Huff  Grace Lewis Team Members  Matt Bass  Dawei Gu  Lalit Jina  April Navarro  Wei Zhang

4. Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP4 11/25/2015 Project Scenario BOB JILL

5. Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP5 11/25/2015 Project Overview Software Applications  Palm Application  PC Application Design and Implementation Report  Project and Requirements Overview  Software Design  Knowledge Documentation  Decision-Making Documentation WQV-10WQV-3

6. Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP6 11/25/2015 Key Requirements – Palm Application Functional Requirements  Control Watch Remotely  View Images  Edit Images  Beam Images Other Requirements  Performance: image compression /decompression should take 6 seconds or less  Portability: needs to run on any device that supports Palm OS 3.1 thru 4.1

7. Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP7 11/25/2015 Key Requirements – PC Application Functional Requirements  View Image  Import/Export Image Other Requirements  Portability: must be compatible with Windows 9X, WIN2K and XP platforms

8. Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP8 11/25/2015 Key Requirements – Documentation Knowledge Documentation  Knowledge Baseline  Knowledge Discovery  Knowledge Gained Decision Documentation  Development Strategy  Work Breakdown  Technology Issues  Process & Selection Criteria

9. Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP9 11/25/2015 Tailored TSP Process Team Goals Defined Roles Cyclic Development  Launch  Track  Postmortem

10. Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP10 11/25/2015 TSP Cycles Cycle 1 – Learn Basics I  09/17 to 10/01  Learn TSP process  Learn to work effectively as a team Cycle 2 – Learn Basics II  10/02 to 10/29  Learn Palm basics  Identify risks  Produce required documents Cycle 3 – Learn Technology  10/30 to 11/26  Gain a better understanding of the technologies  Produce required documents

11. Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP11 11/25/2015 Risk Driven Approach

12. Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP12 11/25/2015 Example – Requirement in RFP Watch can be controlled remotely via the IR (Infrared) interface and communicates control information over IrComm (Infrared Communications Protocol) using a proprietary protocol

13. Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP13 11/25/2015 Example – Risks of the Requirement  IrComm – Don’t know Infrared protocol. May not be able to meet requirements  Proprietary Protocol – Watch specification is in Japanese. May impact schedule.

14. Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP14 11/25/2015 Example – Prioritized List of Risks IrCommWatch Protocol Impact MarginalCritical Probability 10% - 50% Risk Exposure 46 Timeframe Mid Term

15. Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP15 11/25/2015 Example – Mitigation Strategy  Translate the watch protocol documents  Prototype watch protocol

16. Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP16 11/25/2015 Example – Risk Mitigation in Cycle 2 & 3  WBS# 2.6.1 – Investigate watch protocol specification  WBS# 3.6.1 – Research on IrDA/IrComm programming  WBS# 3.6.2 – Prototype watch protocol  WBS# 3.6.3 – Translate watch protocol specification

17. Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP17 11/25/2015 Example – Risk Evaluation in Cycle Post Mortem  IrTran-P (Infrared Transfer Picture Specifications) is not supported by Palm SDK  Knowledge of Palm OS file management is needed.  Knowledge of JPEG is needed.

18. Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP18 11/25/2015 Technical Progress Hardware Comparison & Selection  Examined 35 models – 7 models obtained for development Programming Language and Development Environment Comparison & Selection  Examined 13 languages – C/C++ selected  Examined 14 tools – CodeWarrior for Palm v8 selected Palm OS Version/Feature Survey Palm OS Emulator (POSE) Survey Translation of Japanese Watch Protocol Specifications

19. Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP19 11/25/2015 Risk Reduction Prototypes Watch Protocol Prototype  Completed and exercised 6 watch features  Discovered new challenge – IrTran-P is not supported by Palm SDK IrComm Prototype  Completed and exercised ExchangeManager  Discovered new challenge – IrComm was not introduced to Palm OS until v3.3 JPEG Compression/Decompression Prototype  In progress  Discovered new issue – Free JPEG Library from IJG requires extra porting work for Palm OS

20. Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP20 11/25/2015 Project Artifacts Team Notebook Statement Of Work (SOW) Software Project Management Plan (SPMP) Draft Software Requirement Specification (SRS) Draft Risk/Issues List Risk Management Plan Configuration Management Plan (CMP) Quality Assurance (QA) Plan Meeting Process Planning Documents Knowledge Baseline

21. Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP21 11/25/2015 Lessons Learned Keep it simple “Better is the enemy of good enough” Process pays off Knowledge sharing is critical Communication is important

22. Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP22 11/25/2015 Mid Semester Presentation Suggestions Use resources available  Risk management expert at the SEI – Ray Williams  Architecture resources at the SEI  Palm programming experts from past studio teams High level architecture  Focus development  Develop draft architecture Non-technical risks  Identified during risk evaluation

23. Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP23 11/25/2015 Next Steps – Spring 2003 Transition to new team roles Design System Architecture Develop Software Design Develop Test Plan Continue work on prototypes

24. Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP24 11/25/2015 For more information, please visit our web site at http://dogbert.mse.cs.cmu.edu/charlatans/ http://dogbert.mse.cs.cmu.edu/charlatans/ Questions?

25. Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP25 11/25/2015 Team Name "Software Engineers are charlatans. They set deadlines, but they are always late. They agree to a budget, but they always ask for more money. They promise quality, but they always ship with bugs...“ – Dawei We admit this and we accept the name, but we are going to redefine it!

26. Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP26 11/25/2015 Team Goals Work effectively and harmoniously as a team. Effectively use software process and software engineering techniques to deliver a high-quality product on time. Expand technical knowledge base and skills.

27. Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP27 11/25/2015 Team Roles – Fall 2002 Team Lead – Matt Bass Planning Manager – Dawei Gu Process/ QA Manager – Lalit Jina Development Manager – April Navarro Support/ Client Manager – Wei Zhang

28. Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP28 11/25/2015 Team Roles – Spring 2003 Team Lead – Wei Zhang Planning Manager – Lalit Jina Process/ QA Manager – Dawei Gu Development Manager – Matt Bass Support/ Client Manager – April Navarro

29. Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP29 11/25/2015 Top 5 Risks – Technical We do not have a complete understanding of the requirements. As a result we may not understand what the client wants, and we may deliver the wrong product. Meeting the hardware requirements and feature requirements may be technically infeasible. We currently have no selected IDE. This may impact schedule. Watch specification is in Japanese. This may impact schedule. We currently lack Palm programming knowledge. This may impact schedule.

30. Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP30 11/25/2015 Top 5 Risks – Non-Technical Team members may work on tasks other than what the team expects. May cause resentment and impact schedule. Team does not always communicate well. This may cause resentment. We are currently using a tailored TSP without having considered other alternatives. We may not effectively use process to develop our product. We haven’t always effectively shared knowledge gained. This could impact the expansion of our technical knowledge and impact our schedule (redundant effort). We have clients’ hardware. If this hardware is lost, or broken, we will have to pay for it, and it may cause the team to become upset.

31. Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP31 11/25/2015 Risk Definitions Risk  the possibility of suffering loss Risk Statement  a description of the current conditions that may lead to the loss  a description of the loss or consequence Risk Management  access continuously what could go wrong (risks)  determine which risks are important to deal with  implement strategies to deal with those risks

32. Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP32 11/25/2015 Risk Attributes Impact  the loss or effect on the project if the risk occurs Probability  the likelihood the risk will occur Timeframe  the period when action is required in order to mitigate the risk

33. Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP33 11/25/2015 Risk Attributes Impact:  Catastrophic:would not repeat experience  Critical: repeated, but painful  Marginal: uncomfortable  Negligible:not painful Probability:  Frequent: 90% +  Probable: 51% - 90%  Improbable: 10% - 50%  Impossible: 0 - 10% Timeframe:  Near:next month  Mid:next 2-4 months  Far:>4 months

34. Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP34 11/25/2015 Risk Prioritization – Risk Exposure Probability ImpactFrequent (4) Probable (3) Improbable (2) Impossible (1) Catastrophic (4)High (16)High (12)Moderate (8)None (4) Critical (3) High (12)Moderate (9)Moderate (6)None (3) Marginal (2) Moderate (8)Moderate (6)Low (4)None (2) Negligible (1)Moderate (4)Low (3)Low (2)None (3)