T Project Review Sotanorsu I2 Iteration

T Project Review 2 Agenda  Project status (15 min)  achieving the goals of the iteration  reactions to I1 feedback  project metrics  Used work practices (5 min)  Completed work (20 min)  presenting the iteration’s results  demo  Plans for the next iteration (5 min)

T Project Review 3 Status of planned goals of the iteration  Goal 1: Expand and redefine architecture  OK  Goal 2: Focus on expanding system functionality  Real GPS location data – NOT OK, due to hardware delivery problems. Moved to I3.  content management – OK  PDA connection & content – OK  data transfer – OK, needs refactoring in I3  Goal 3: Keep in schedule and stay within defined time budget  OK  Other achievements:  Decided upon user guide with customer  Had a meeting about peer testing with the peer group and decided upon some top-level peer testing practises

T Project Review 4 Status of planned deliverables of the iteration (1/2)  Project Plan  OK  Requirements document  OK  Technical specification  OK, but pictures are not yet updated due to probelms in the Software project classroom (first harddisk failure, then Rational Rose license problems)  Test cases and test log  OK  Test report  OK  User’s manual  OK  Progress report  OK

T Project Review 5 Status of planned deliverables of the iteration (2/2)  Basic content object management use cases (U102-U104, U114, U140)  OK, tested  Advanced content objects use cases (U105-U108)  OK, tested  PDA content use cases (U111, U115)  OK, tested  Basic PDA connection use case (U201)  OK, tested  Basic PDA functionality use cases (U202, U203)  OK, tested  Basic data transfer use cases (F112, F225)  OK, tested

T Project Review 6 Reactions to I1 feedback  Over-running the hour budget  Not a problem in I2, but some functionalities were dropped due to hardware delivery problems  Proofing, that the architecture is working  Major risks are eliminated, basic data transfer has been implemented and DVB-T internet has been dropped from the final goals in agreement with the customer  Get the review demo working  We have planned the demonstration and are arranging it in the computer science building where it works  Risk management  Developed and documented in project plan lighter risk management practises. Have used them already in meetings.  Better bug fix plan  Bugs are documented in TWiki and time has been allocated for fixing major ones in I3  Better project review  Spent more time preparing for it  Document change logs  Thoroughly filling in change logs has been emphasized to all the team members.  Better quality metrics  Some metrics have been added to this report and added the quality assessment array  Task timing and dependencies  A detailed plan was made in December for I2 and there is a plan for I3 at the end of these review slides

T Project Review 7 Realization of the tasks  People did not work during Christmas break as much as planned  Demo preparation took more time, since we want to do it well  Testing was not done completely and there was not such a big need for separate testing tools as assumed when planning  It was quick to add PDA content functionalities in CoMSy, since the JSP page structure was already done  GPS functionalities remained unimplemented, since we did not have a cable available early enough  Only a preliminary version of user guide was written  Code review was necessary unplanned work

T Project Review 8 Working hours by person  Explain the reasons for major discrepancies in realizations  Explain the reasons for changes in the plan Realized hours in this iterationPlan in the beginning of this iteration Latest plan (inc. realized hours and other updates)

T Project Review 9 Quality metrics – Bugs and code review  The PDA functionality is still in blocked status, unresolved problem remains I1I2I3DETotal Reported Closed 4610 Open 18 Bug metrics (Mon ) BlockersCriticalMajorMinorTrivialTotal Total open This iteration reported Issues: I1I2I3DETotal Reported 67 Closed 33 Open 34 Code review metrics (Mon )  Mostly minor issues remain, refactoring time allocated for major ones in I3

T Project Review 10 Quality assessment Functional areaCoverageQualityComments CoMSy3, CR Only few minor defects left to be fixed in I3 CoDSy3, CR  Tested, but has some currently unresolved reliability problems Data transfer3, CR  OK, but some refactoring is needed in I3 PDA connection3 IP over Bluetooth works PDA content display3, CR  OK, but some unresolved file location problem remains Legend Coverage: 0 = nothing 1 = we looked at it 2 = we checked all functions 3 = it’s tested CR = it’s code reviewed Quality:  = quality is good  = not sure  = quality is bad

T Project Review 11 Software size - Amount of code has been doubled Code metrics (Sun )

T Project Review 12 Changes to the project  The final target environment was changed from a moving vehicle to static meeting room:  DVB-T internet functionalities are not implemented in the project  Visualization of a moving vehicle will be implemented  Requirement for external Internet browsing on PDA will not be implemented  Some large system issues will be technically documented in I3, since there is no time to implement them all

T Project Review 13 Risks  The risk management practises have been changed to lighter ones:  An array of risks and their status is still documented in the project plan  In the beginning of every phase new risks will be identified in a small group brainstorming session and old know risks are updated. Additionally risks are monitored in every other project group meeting (ie. about every other week)  Materialized risks  5: Data loss. Our document data in the course's classroom computers was unavailable for some weeks due to server crash.  7: Internal deadlines are not met. Christmas break DLs were not met. It has been emphasized, that it’s every team member’s duty to prevent this risk from happening.  10/12: Delivery of GPS cable has been delayed. It was decided, that the GPS functionalities are postponed to I3  11: DVB-T card won't function. We didn’t get the first card functioning and got a new one.  New risks identified  11: DVB-T card won't function.  12: GPS cable not in time.  13: Final product doesn't fulfill demands.  14: Architecture changes.  15: Product not ready for peer testing in time.

T Project Review 14 Other work practice changes  Testing  The module testing has proved to take more time and energy than is reasonable. Due to this we have started code reviews and take care that system test cases test thoroughly all the functionalities  Peer testing will be done in the beginning of I3, object is getting a fresh user perspective on the functional qualities  Scheduling  No default working day was selected for spring Tasks are dealt out in weekly group meetings.

T Project Review 15 Results of the iteration  User’s manual  Installation guide is enough, has been agreed upon with the customer  Requirements  All the remaining requirements were grouped and the set that will be implemented in I3 was decided upon with the customer  Demonstration of the new functionalities (In Software Project class)

T Project Review 16 Plan for the next iteration (1/2)  Goals  Test the system in final environment at the end of I3 with at least using 2 separate PC configuration  There are no major open implementation issues at the end of I3  A visualization UI for the GPS is developed  Presentation counts are stored and transferred in the system  The presentations are shown according to time of day specified in them  Large system issues are designed in technical documentation  Complete peer testing  Deliverables  Updated project plan  Updated requirements  Updated technical specification  Updated test cases  Test report and test log  Peer test plans and plans prepared by the peer testing group  Peer test report and report made by the peer testing group  Updated user’s manual  Progress report

T Project Review 17 Plan for the next iteration (2/2)  Risks / uncertainties  No major risks remain  Tight schedule, extremely important for the group to keep the internal deadlines  Timetable and dependencies in following slides

T Project Review 18 Timetable (1/3)

T Project Review 19 Timetable (2/3)

T Project Review 20 Timetable (3/3)