T Project Review WellIT PP Iteration

T Project Review 2 Agenda  Project status ( min)  achieving the goals of the iteration  project metrics  Work results ( min)  presenting the iteration’s results  demo  Used work practices (5 min)

T Project Review 3 Introduction to the project  Part of MC2 (Mobile Content Communities) research project at HIIT.  MAR (Mobile Augmented Reality) – toolkit on top of MUPE (Multi-User Publishing Environment).  Goal is to create community activity around MUPE by providing attractive MAR – toolkit.  Enables easier implementation of Mobile Augmented Realities on top of MUPE.  Toolkit will be expandable, implemented version should contain (in priority order):  Physical Object Tagger (POT)  Public Display (PUD)  Map Interface (MAP)  Silent Communicator (SIC) – this will be on low priority  ”Scotland Yard” demo game to demonstrate how MAR – toolkit works and for testing purposes.

T Project Review 4 Two views to the implemented system Component positioning inside system View of the system to users

T Project Review 5 Status of the iteration’s goals  Project planning goals  Understand the requirements of the customer.  Customer has given us relatively free hands  OK.  Reach an agreement on what is done and how between customer and the group.  Customer has not commented on requirements document or project plan yet.  Establish the basis for the project including the used work methods and tools.  OK.  Research goals  Do research on MUPE and J2ME technologies so that knowledgebase for the rest of the project exists in the end of project planning phase.  11.5 hours spent, some team members concentrated on studying these.  Document this research so that it is accessible by other project members.  NOT OK, other tasks (project related and not) taken time from the project.

T Project Review 6 Status of the iteration’s goals  Requirements management goals  Identify the type of end product (i.e. game) that is going to be built.  OK, but the end product is the MAR – toolkit, game is a demo and tester.  Identify the implemented MAR tools.  OK  Identify the requirements of the tools.  OK  Prioritize the required MAR tools.  OK  schedule the releases of the MAR tools.  Tools will be implemented in parallel.

T Project Review 7 Status of the iteration’s deliverables  Project Plan  OK, except QA Plan (Chapter 5.3) still under work and iteration plans of iterations I1 – FD are done during iteration planning phase of each iteration (changed from iteration plan of project planning phase).  Requirements document  OK, will be detailed and all requirements will be accepted by customer and group.  SEPA diaries  OK  Progress Report  OK

T Project Review 8 Realization of the tasks  Major discrepancies (more than 10 hours):  Req. elicitation and analysis  Hours spent to documentation  Hours not raported  Technologies research  Over estimation of work effort  Hours spent on something else (e.g. customer held workshop  meetings)  Tools research  Hours used on tools adaptation  Course material study  Over estimation  Lectures  Over estimation of participation  Customer meetings  Unheld customer meetings  Risk management  Hours reported on meetings  Hours not raported

T Project Review 9 Working hours by person  No major discrepancies. Mostly because personal iteration hour estimates were done so late.  Mostly diversion in project manager work hours, which took more than anticipated.  No plan existed in the beginning of the iteration Realized hours in this iteration Latest plan (inc. realized hours)

T Project Review 10 Quality assessment – Reviewing results  All delivered documents reviewed.  Only internal reviews done.  Quality measured roughly by dividing the amount of review notes by the lines of text in the Twiki system. DeliverableCoverageQualityComments Project Plan2  Internal review by 3 persons, no customer review. 0,033 review notes / line. Requirements Document 1  Internal review by 2 persons, no customer review. 0,043 review notes / line. Usability SEPA1 Internal review by 2 persons, no customer review. 0,015 review notes / line. TDD SEPA1 Internal review by 2 persons, no customer review. 0,025 review notes /line. Progress Tracking SEPA 2 Internal review by 3 persons, no customer review. No review notes. Legend Coverage: 0 = not reviewed 1 = internal review by 2 persons 2 = internal review by 3 persons 3 = internal + external review Quality:  = quality is good  = not sure  = quality is bad

T Project Review 11 Software size  So far only documentation…  Twiki site now contains 4124 lines of text (excluding information in images and non-twiki created documents).

T Project Review 12 Risks  RiskIT process established  Risk Managing process defined  25 risks identified and analyzed  Top 10 risks  Controlling actions

T Project Review 13 Results of the iteration  Project Plan  Requirements Document  Usability SEPA  TDD SEPA  Progress Tracking SEPA

T Project Review 14 Results of the iteration: Project Plan  Project staffing

T Project Review 15 Results of the iteration: Project Plan  Project goals  customer  group  personal  Project abort / end criteria  giving control to SG  Resourcing  Software (mostly free)  Test setting (hardware / server / data transmission)  Practices  Iterative development  Time reporting  Defect tracking  Documenting  Requirements Management  Version control  Coding convention  Risk management  Etc…

T Project Review 16 Results of the iteration: Project Plan Iteration flow

T Project Review 17 Results of the iteration: Project Plan  Quality Assurance Plan  Testing levels  TDD coming in implementation iteration 2 (SEPA)  Reviews  Phasing  Progress tracking as SEPA  More detailed hour estimates  Macrolevel schedule (includes milestones)  Macrolevel hour estimates  Each iteration planning phase  Detailed schedule (includes work products)  Detailed hour estimates   More predictable results  Detailed schedule exists with work products  better control of the progress

T Project Review 18 Results of the iteration: Req. Document  Components identified and prioritized  41 Functional Requirements  4 Non-functional Requirements  11 Use Cases  Not yet accepted by the customer!

T Project Review 19 Results of the iteration: Usability SEPA  Critical issue in game development  UI design will begin in next iteration  Evaluation and testing of UI in I2 and FD iterations

T Project Review 20 Results of the iteration: TDD SEPA  Will be commenced in I2.

T Project Review 21 Results of the iteration: Progress Tracking SEPA  Throughout the project lifecycle.

T Project Review 22 Used work practices  time reporting  version control  meetings (agenda & minutes)  reviews (twiki collaboration)  documenting  progress tracking and control  communication practices  RiskIT  To be adopted  TDD in I2  Usbility tests and heuristic evaluation in I2 and FD

T Project Review 23 Next Iteration  Updated documents  Technical Specification  First Increment  To be added: Game Design!