1. T-76.4115 Final demo I2 Iteration 4.3.2008

2. 2 Agenda  Product presentation (20 min) ‏  Project close-up (20 min) ‏ Evaluation of the results  Questions and discussion (5 min) ‏

3. 3 Introduction to the project Business simulation games are used in educational purposes Some evidence of the learning results is needed  Project topic: Learning Assessment Tool For business simulations Primary goals of the learning assessment tool project are the following: To extract and store key performance data from the game system on an ongoing basis To generate reports that compare the performance of a team or a group to  the average performance  set performance targets in the game  their performance in the previous rounds of the game To provide what-if analysis to the players

4. 4 Introduction to the project

5. 5 Report generation

6. Learning Assessment Tool Product presentation: Learning Assessment Tool

7. 7 Weaknesses  Not all the wanted features have been implemented  The end-user interface is not polished  The source tree structure is not well organized

8. 8 Strengths  Reports are created quickly from precalculated data  The internal architecture is good; the components are replaceable  The system can be extended quite easily  The database structure is good  The transfer and saving of game data has been tested extensively, and the client-side is configurable

9. Project close-up

10. 10 Project goals  1. Code quality and documentation Code quality: 1) Code reviews. acceptance testing 2) Test coverage. 1) OK 2) ALMOST OK 64% (75% required) Code documentation: Javadocs OK Arhitectural documentation: Reviewed with the customer NOT OK (No update after I1?)  2. Functionality Functionality: Reviewed with the customer OK Performance tests NOT OK (tests on a virtualized server would not have matched real conditions)

11. 11 Project goals  3. Production Use Data Collection: Augmented after the first iteration OK Analysis: Functionality and performance in production use is reviewed with the customer OK  4. User Documentation Content: Reviewed with the customer OK Integration: Incorporating user documentation to Cesim's standard documentation build process OK (except architectural documentation) ‏

12. Quality goals  Evaluation of quality goals

13. 13 Quality dashboard

14. 14 Project metrics – Software

15. Integration testing  Was difficult to report and make visible  Should have been planned more systematically early in the project  Many test cases implemented with JUnit can be seen as integration tests

16. System testing  The group did not have experience on planning functional tests  System-level integration happened very late in the project  There were only a few different functionalities  There was no time left for designing proper functional tests No official strict way of reporting test sessions Loosely defined way of reporting tests was used instead

17. 17 Project metrics – Quality  Code coverages

18. 18 Project metrics – Quality  Total code coverages

19. 19 Project metrics – Resources  The hour exceedings were done consciously  The main reasons are the big challenges the group met New technologies required lots of studying Unexperienced SE experts Difficulties in communication  Some members were persistent and responsible 1872722752293081481552202192013Whole project 68751316810873325447656Iteration 2 (Includes S4-S6) 9317312313814657959059974Iteration 1 (Includes S1-S3) 2624212354182876113383PP iteration (1.9.-24.10.2007) MTJRMLJLTKEKMBPLNKTotalPeriod

20. 20 Project metrics – Resources

21. 21 Project metrics – Resources

22. 22 Risks  Materialized risks Communication problems Inadequate commitment to the project due to other than project activities (full day jobs, other studying) Short or incorrect understanding of the project domain Lack of skill, knowledge or expertice Absence of momentum in working Lack of architecture description Unequally divided work Problems with selected technologies

23. 23 Work practices  What was good Process improvement meetings Working in small groups Agilefant WR time tracker  What was not Double documentation (Agilefant + DocBook, time tracker + Excel) ‏ New technologies that didn’t work Communication