T-76.115 Project Review
WellITI2 Iteration
7.2.2005
2
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Agenda Project status (5-10 min)
achieving the goals of the iteration project metrics
Work results (20-25 min) presenting the iteration’s results demo
Used work practices (5-10 min)
3
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Status of the iteration’s goals Goal 1: Requirements
Three new requirements No other changes
Goal 2: Architecture and Design Architectural design of the product is finished. Test cases for all modules defined.
Goal 3: UI studies Usability tests run
Goal 4: Implementation (implemented/total) Use cases: 13 / 15 Functional requirements: 32 / 44
Only one essential requirement not implemented No conditional or optional requirements implemented for PUD
Goal 5: User's manual Draft done No much contents yet
Goal 6: Testing Module testing done Some integration testing done (will be continued in the next iteration)
4
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Status of the iteration’s deliverables Project Plan
OK Requirements document
OK Technical Specification
Outdated UI proto
OK Game design
No changes Test Cases
New test cases for MAP and SIC Test report and Test log
OK SEPA diaries
OK
5
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Realization of the tasks
(Major) discrepancies No contents generated for User's
manual Only one customer meeting held Other project management: Project
manager has not reported all hours Project plan needed no (major) updates
6
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Working hours by person
Total amount quite close Project management
requires a lot of work The biggest problem is the
bias of undone hours – some have to do way more than others in the last iteration
Realized hours in this iteration Plan in the beginning of the iteration
Latest plan
Person Planned Realized DiffTuomas 18 24 6Aki 45 57 12Lauri 60 60,5 0,5Heikki A 62 60,5 -1,5Heikki H 52 60 8Tommi 42 30,5 -11,5Tero 57 54 -3Total 336 346,5 10,5
Person PP I1 Total I2 FD TotalTuomas 87 68 155 18 17 190Aki 46 59 105 45 40 190Lauri 30 47 77 60 53 190Heikki A 36 37 73 62 55 190Heikki H 33 52 85 52 53 190Tommi 40 66 106 42 42 190Tero 36 41 77 57 56 190Total 308 370 678 336 316
Person PP I1 I2 Total FD TotalTuomas 87 68 24 179 17 196Aki 46 59 57 162 40 202Lauri 30 47 60,5 137,5 53 190,5Heikki A 36 37 60,5 133,5 55 188,5Heikki H 33 52 60 145 53 198Tommi 40 66 30,5 136,5 42 178,5Tero 36 41 54 131 56 187Total 308 370 346,5 1024,5 316
7
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
The biggest problem
Wk 2 Wk 3 Wk 4 Wk 5 Wk 60
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4Hours used per person (I2)
TuomasAkiLauriHeikki AHeikki HTommiTeroTotal
Work is done later rather than earlier
8
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Quality metrics
Unit testing was reduced considerably Only two JUnit classes done
Test cases (passed/run) POT 2 / 3 (3 total) PUD 8 / 9 (12 total) MAP 4 / 5 (5 total) SIC 2 / 4 (4 total)
Severity Blocker Critical Major Normal Minor TrivialTotal reported 0 0 3 6 0 0Open 0 0 2 5 0 0
All documents reviewed
9
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Quality assessment
Much more testing must be done Some problems caused by bugs in mobile devices All documents reviewed
Some documents are outdated
LegendCoverage: 0 = nothing1 = we looked at it2 = we checked all functions3 = it’s testedQuality:= quality is good= not sure= quality is bad
Deliverable Coverage Quality CommentsPOT 2 Most problems with the open source libraryPUD 3 MAP 2 SIC 2
Demo game 1
Project Plan 3 No major changes since the previous iterationRequirements Document 3 No major changes since the previous iterationTechnical Specification 3 Dramatically outdated/undoneUI Proto 3 User's Manual 2 Still in a very early phase
Minimal functionality, but working. Defectsare in the modules.
10
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Software size Code line metrics are quite useless in this project because...
MupeS and MupeC are based on existing software Hard to separate code wrote by us from the original
PUD contains both Java and PHP code Metrics not accurate
...so, our contribution to the code base in bytes:Start I1 I2 FD
MupeS 0 86014 94862MupeC 0 20170 23712PUD client 0 4753 10132Total 0 110937 128706
11
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Changes to the project The project manager changed Minor changes due to Process Tuning SEPA
Agendas earlier to TWiki Responsibilities dealt among group members when writing weekly reports One studies, teaches other No typos to document reviews
Changed to ad-hoc approach with Demo game No formal requirements No test cases But will follow the UI Proto very closely
12
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Risks What is the current situation regarding the risks?
No materialized risks New identified and analysed risks: 1 Currently analysed risks: 28
13
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Results of the iteration Technical Specification User's Manual Usability SEPA (updated) Progress Tracking SEPA (updated) Test-Driven Development SEPA (updated) Process Construction and Tuning SEPA (updated) Second increment of POT and PUD First increment of MAP and SIC Demo game No major changes
Project Plan Requirements Document (3 new requirements) Game design UI proto (results of the usability tests are put straight to the Demo game)
14
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Results of the iteration: Technical Specification Technical specification document is severely outdated
A lot of documenting must be done in the next iteration Technical specification in various plain files, papers, etc. -> must be transferred to the TS
15
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Results of the iteration: User's Manual Will be in HTML format Draft done Not much content
16
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Results of the iteration: Usability SEPA Usability tests done Found some issues in the UI proto Affects the demo game
17
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Results of the iteration: Progress Tracking SEPA The change of the project manager changed also the author of this SEPA No major changes Frequent updates to diary
18
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Results of the iteration: TDD SEPA SIC done using TDD Time consuming Suitability for this project questionable
19
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Results of the iteration: Process C&T SEPA A workshop held in the end of I1 iteration
Changes took place in the start of I2 iteration Process repeated again in the end of I2 iteration
20
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Results of the iteration: POT and PUD PUD is usable, tested and working Not much effort put on POT in this iteration
An external library used Needed porting from J2SE to J2ME
Works nonetheless
21
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Results of the iteration: MAP and SIC Both working Essential features implemented Needs testing to gain robustness
22
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Results of the iteration: Demo game General concepts of the demo game are working No content yet
23
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Used work practices Following work practices were used
Iteration planning Time reporting Documenting
Publishing and reviewing practices Requirements change Usability tests Version controlling Coding conventions Defect tracking Risk management Communication practices
Practices to be tried out No new practices (except those mentioned in Process C&T SEPA)
All practices are detailed in project plan and/or appropriate documents
24
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Experiences from practices Iteration planning
New project manager -> no experience in planning The plan came true amazingly well
Time Reporting Works in general Occasionally people postpone the reporting
...and some hours are not reported at all
Requirements Management The defined management process seems to be too heavy weight Not much happening with the requirements
Version Controlling Works fine Some unnecessary commits to the repository, but luckily one can always go
back to a previous version
25
T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review
Experiences from practices Code Conventions
Working well Some pretty printing must be done License texts must be added to every code file
Defect Tracking Bugzilla in use
Complex system -> steep learning curve But useful
Usability tests Worked well A lot of valuable input Overkill for this project
Risk Management Working well
Communication Practices Working well