T-76.115 Project Review

T-76.115 Project Review

RajoitteisetPP Iteration

29.10.2003

2

T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review

Agenda

Project status (15 min) Achieving the goals of the iteration Status of the deliverables Resource usage Risk review

Used work practices (5 min)

Completed work (15 min) Presenting the iteration’s results and deliverables more precisely

Project plan Requirement specification Technical specification

Plans for the next iteration (5 min)

3


Status of planned goals of the iteration

Goal 1: Specify the goals of the project from all perspectives OK

Goal 2: Select and adapt work practices to be used in the project OK

Goal 3: Define requirements for system to be delivered OK

Goal 4: Define language to be used in describing models OK

Goal 5: Define system-level architecture OK

Goal 6: Schedule remaining iterations of project OK, although we decided only to evaluate next iteration more carefully

4


Status of planned deliverables of the iteration

Project Plan OK, except

Chapter 1.3 (Rights to project outcome), because we decided to postpone the discussion regarding the commercial rights.

Chapters 6.4-6.6 (Project phases I2-DD), because we decided to postpone task-level planning until the end of the previous iteration.

Requirements specification OK

Technical specification OK

Language specification OK

5


Working hours by person

No exact plans for PP iteration had been made

Real Plan DiffJouni Karppinen

45 N/A N/A

Hannu Kauppinen

40 N/A N/A

Joonas Kekoni

85 N/A N/A

MitroKuha

35 N/A N/A

Tuomas Luttinen

45 N/A N/A

Vesa Salento

30 N/A N/A

KalleValo

30 N/A N/A

Total 310 N/A N/A

Realized hours in this iteration Latest plan for remaining iterations

PP Subtot I1 I2 I3 DE TotalJouni Karppinen

45 45 30 30 40 45 190

Hannu Kauppinen

40 40 25 45 40 40 190

Joonas Kekoni

85 85 40 30 20 15 190

MitroKuha

35 35 30 50 45 30 190

Tuomas Luttinen

45 45 50 50 30 15 190

Vesa Salento

30 30 40 50 40 30 190

KalleValo

30 30 30 60 50 20 190

Total 310 310 245 315 265 195 1330

6


Realization of the tasks

No data available for several reasons

Trapoli is not working properly. We spent numerous hours inputting the data again and again, but still the program was losing the information.

No precise planning of resource usage was performed for this iteration.

Most planned tasks were finished in time, but resource usage was heavy due to nature of project

7


Risks

Three members of the group are participating also in the courseT-76.633 Special Course in Software Engineering: Risk Management.

Risks were identified in a brainstorming session and they were analysed in a group.

All of the risks that were identified are in control back-up plans have been made considered relatively harmless not dependent of the group

Risk management practises will be specified during the next iteration.

Since the risk identification session, one additional risk has been identified and it has also materialized.

A risk is involved in the obligatory tools, e.g. Trapoli. Trapoli is not working properly and this is causing delays and unplanned work

for the project. Risk has been managed since all the group members have gathered the

required information also to another location besides Trapoli.

8


Work practices

So far time management and version control tools have been used Time management system Trapoli has been problematic, there seem to be

bugs in the system

Documentation practices have been used to some extend in finalising deliverables

OpenOffice.org seems a suitable solution, but Dia has some problems regarding different versions of the software.

Process needs to be worked on, but basics are ok.

During phase I1 a more systematic approach will be started regarding several work practices

Meeting practices Coding standard

Pair-programming Testing practice

9


Results of the iteration

The most important result for the Project planning iteration was a thorough understanding of the project ahead.

This target was met quite well. Every person within the project group has some kind of understanding of the system under work, at least to the extend required for them to perform their tasks.

The project group also spent time in meetings to gain understanding in each others’ way of thinking, which is important for a successful completion of the project.

Other results were the deliverables Project plan Requirements specification

Language specification Technical specification

10


Project plan

Background of the project Customer is SoberIT / WeCoTin Idea is to develop a system for solving boundaries for linear limitation

problems

Project organization Project manager Hannu Kauppinen Documentation Jouni Karppinen Language Joonas Kekoni Usability Mitro Kuha Architecture Tuomas Luttinen Requirements Vesa Salento Testing Kalle Valo

Customer Juha Tiihonen Technical advisor Juha Nurmilaakso

Mentor Pietu Pohjalainen

11


Project plan (2)

Project goals Develop Lmodels as defined in the requirements specification During the development the objectives of the project group and customer will

be obeyed

Project resources Main resources are the human resources from the project group and customer

Estimated market value for human resources is 115 000 € Some other resources are required, but the value of these is insignificant

Project practices and tools Currently some practises have been defined

Testing practises Programming practises Documentation practises Meeting practises

Several tools have been selected for the project Java, GNU Make, CVS, Cup, JLex, GPLK, Bugzilla, Trapoli, OpenOffice.org,

Dia, CCCC

12


Project plan (3)

Iterations Project divided into 5 iterations

Project planning (PP) 4 weeks Implementation I (I1) 5 weeks Implementation II (I2) 10 weeks (incl. Christmas holiday) Implementation III (I3) 5 weeks Delivery (DE) 3 weeks

Risk management plan Risk identification has been performed through brainstorming Risks have been categorized and preliminary management plans have been

made Risk management will be defined more precisely during the next iteration

13


Requirements specification

Example of a problem setting:

# muuttujat määritellään ennen rajoitetta

boolean kaksitaajuus, lahialue, ilta_tai_viikonloppu;

# kokonais- ja liukulukulukumuuttujat, joilla on sama domain,# voidaan määrittää samalla kertaa

integer C, CD, PC [0,1];

float kuukausimaksu [5.5,200];

# rajoite

(kaksitaajuus implies (C = 0))

and (not(kaksitaajuus or kaksitaajuus or kaksitaajuus ) implies (CD = 0))

and (lahialue implies (C = 0))

and (not(lahialue) implies (PC = 0))

and (ilta_tai_viikonloppu implies (CD = 0))

and (not(ilta_tai_viikonloppu) implies (PC = 0))

and (C + CD + PC = 1)and (3.33 * C + 3.5 * CD + 3.67 * PC <= kuukausimaksu)

14


Requirements specification (2)

All requirements were classified and prioritised

Classifications language requirements user requirements functional requirements miscellaneous requirements

Prioritizations 1 – Critical 2 – Important 3 – Additional

The requirements specification forms the basis for the following iterations since it defines the desired end results of the project

Important when designing the test cases

15


Language specification

Defined in close co-operation with customer

Presented as an appendix of requirements specification due to its nature

16


Technical specification

17


Plan for the next iteration

Goals Goal 1: Designing client-server

model Goal 2: Implementation of

linearization Goal 3: Finalization of technical

specification Goal 4: Translating model from

language Goal 5: Designing linearisator

and defining its interfaces Goal 6: Designing interface for

the solver Goal 7: Building the basis of the

client

18


Plan for the next iteration (2)

Deliverables Project plan (updated) Requirements specification (updated) Technical specification (updated) Testing plan Implemented software

Priorities between goals The internal parts of the system (linearisator, language translation) are the

most important goals Work on the client will be started, but with a low priority

Risks / uncertainties Exact affect of Mitro’s vacation is still a question Potential problems with mathematical content will rise during the next iteration

Schedule Task prioritisation will be done in the beginning of the iteration Internal deadlines will be set on task-level, currently no need for setting

deadlines for different tasks

Date post:	26-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	kirkan
View:	24 times
Download:	1 times

T-76.115 Project Review

Documents