T76.115 Project Review

1
T-76.115 Project Review

• BigBrother
• I1 Iteration1.12.2004

2
Agenda

• Introduction (5 min)
• Skipped if all review attendees are familiar with
  the project
• Project status (15 min)
• Achieving the goals of the iteration
• Project metrics
• Work results (10 min)
• Presenting the iterations results
• Demo
• Used work practices (5 min)
• Next iteration planning (5 min)
• Discussion

1
5 min 15min
10min 5min 5min
3
Introduction to the project

• Customer Beconnected Finland Ltd.
• Produces IP-based video surveillance systems for
  international market
• Main product ASAN Automatic Surveillance and
  Alarming Network
• Customer representative PhD Michael Samarin
• Project team
• Aino Lahdenperä, Maija Kangas, Outi Syysjoki,
  Janne Ojala, Antti Alestalo, Juhani Nokela, Ville
  Vatén
• GOAL Produce tools, which help Beconnected in
  their customer support work and reduce costs
  through increased productivity
• Three tools will be created
• Watchdog Automatic monitoring of network
  cameras
• HourLogger Log support persons work hours per
  customer/target
• LogAnalyzer Search for error patterns from ASAN
  logs
• Beconnecteds goals
• Working software is the only thing that matters
• KISS Concentrate on simplicity,
  maintainability, quality. No fancy features
• Very busy making business we should bother them
  as little as possible
• Minimize costs all costs should be covered by
  the attendance fee to SoberIT

3
5 min 15min
10min 5min 5min
4
Overview of the problem domain
5
5 min 15min
10min 5min 5min
5
Status of the iterations goals

• Goal 1 Set up development environment
• OK, except servlet debugger still does not work
• Goal 2 Watchdog core functionality
• We had a slight misroute on the way but are now
  on the right track
• Almost there but no QA performed.
• Goal 3 Hourlogger core functionality
• OK, except only minor QA performed yet
• Goal 4 LogAnalyzer architecture
• We have planned, but no official documents exist
  yet
• LogAnalyzer UI has not been planned yet
• Goal 5 Requirements maintained and detail level
  increased
• OK
• Goal 6 SEPA practices used and revised
• Not OK, Usability Tests postponed, No time for
  Design Patterns, Pair Programming used slightly,
  Meeting practices used, but not revised.
• Goal 7 Quality Assurance plan
• OK, but actual QA hasnt started yet due to
  resources problems

7
5 min 15min
10min 5min 5min
6
Status of the iterations deliverables

• Project Plan
• Quality Assurance plan problems due to Maijas
  absense
• OK
• Requirements document
• OK
• Watchdog core functionality
• Almost there, demonstrated to Beconnected this
  morning
• Watchdog technical specification
• Sent documentation to Beconnected, but is
  somewhat outdated
• Hourlogger core functionality
• OK
• Hourlogger technical specification
• OK, sent documentation to Beconnected
• Test case document
• POSTPONED QA activities have not been started
  yet
• Agreement on legal rights to project deliverables
• NOT OK. We still dont have a written contract
  about the legal rights to the project
  deliverables with the customer.

9
5 min 15min
10min 5min 5min
7
Realization of the tasks

• Major discrepancies
• Architectural design of too complex system takes
  time
• Programming has also wasted time on making too
  complex
• Development environment setup has really been
  pain in the .
• Not started
• Systematic QA postponed to I2 due to Maijas
  absense and slower progress than expected
• Still not much effort on SEPAs

11
5 min 15min
10min 5min 5min
8
Realization of budget

• Monthly allowance of 100 for miscellaneous well
  justified project costs
• October costs
• 1 for mailing the NDAs
• 43 for buying Core Servlets and JavaServer
  Pages, Vol. 1 from Amazon
• November costs
• 22 for pizza and coke for long weekend coding
  session
• 17.30 for pizza and coke for the final crunch
  coding session on Monday

12
5 min 15min
10min 5min 5min
9
Working hours by person
Realized hours in this iteration

• Maija had to leave Finland and havent been able
  to work at all for the project
• Ville had to write the QA plan and has also
  performed design and testing.
• Work distribution among members has equalized
  since PP

13
5 min 15min
10min 5min 5min
10
Working hours by person
Realized hours in this iteration
Plan in the beginning of this iteration
Latest plan (realized hours, updates up and down)

• Shifted weight from the FD iteration to I2
  iteration.
• Itll be interesting to see can Maija gain on us
  her lost hours in I1

14
5 min 15min
10min 5min 5min
11
Quality metrics
Bug metrics

• Full controlled QA has not started yet
• Concentration on the architecture and core
  functionality
• Only minimal error handling implemented currently

15
5 min 15min
10min 5min 5min
12
Quality assessment
Legend Coverage 0 nothing 1 we looked at
it 2 we checked all functions 3 its
tested Quality J quality is good K not
sure L quality is bad
16
5 min 15min
10min 5min 5min
13
Software size in Lines of Code (LOC)

• Concentrated on architecture and core
  functionality
• Code refactoring needed

17
5 min 15min
10min 5min 5min
14
Risks

• Risks
• Maijas absense affects our QA activities gt
  forced to postpone most of it to I2
• Development environment
• An old computer running in Villes wardrobe
• Work is highly dependent on working Trinet and
  Aalto
• Also needed for the demo in the project review
• NDA is very strict
• We can not publish something critical to the
  course
• We may publish something that breaches the NDA
• Busy schedules among group members
• Potential communication problems
• Quality problems among team member deliverables

19
5 min 15min
10min 5min 5min
15
Changes to the project

• Iteration 1 was turned into prototyping and
  architecture implementation
• QA was postponed to I2-FD due to Maijas absense
• More critical to get functionality working than
  QA at this point
• Small changes to requirements
• Natural process of refining customer needs and
  finding out new requirements

20
5 min 15min
10min 5min 5min
16
Results of the iteration

• Watchdog demonstration
• HourLogger demonstration

20
5 min 15min
10min 5min 5min
17
Watchdog

• Watchdog
• Monitors status of network camera on predefined
  intervals
• Alarms when malfunction occurs
• Records historical data of network camera
  statuses and erases old data
• Architecture
• We were building too complex system and wasted
  time
• Now everything seems to be on the right track
• Can not be disclosed due to NDA
• Implemented functionality
• Background process Fetches images from cameras
  and analyzes them
• Camera list Lists cameras and their current and
  past status
• Camera info Basic functionality is there, easy
  to expand
• Configuration
• User is able to change some parameters
• Not all parameters implemented yet
• Not implemented
• Alarms and their configuration
• QA has not started yet due to Maijas absense

22
5 min 15min
10min 5min 5min
18
Demonstration

• Watchdog
• Well show you how background process works (by
  breaking up cameras)
• Youll see the main view of the system and camera
  info view
• Camera IPs have been censored to protect customer
  IP

27
5 min 15min
10min 5min 5min
19
HourLogger

• HourLogger
• Logs technician's work hours per customer, per
  target and per work type
• Provides statistical analysis of the recorder
  work hours
• Architecture
• This is not rocket science
• More focus will be paid on the usability
• Implemented functionality
• Input work tasks and types
• Overview of worktypes
• Usability tuning still needed. This will be
  continued in I2
• Not implemented
• Reports, Exporting, Customer/target management
• Only minimal QA performed
• All problems found have been easily fixed

28
5 min 15min
10min 5min 5min
20
Demonstration

• HourLogger
• Inserting a new performed check
• Showing the overview of performed checks per
  customer and target

30
5 min 15min
10min 5min 5min
21
Used work practices

• Time reporting in Trapoli
• Still difficulties in time logging dividing
  working hours and usability
• Development server in Villes clothes closet
• Problems with Trinet
• Long development cycle
• Difficult debugging
• Meetings
• Worked well, but still scheduling problems among
  group members
• Risk management
• Risks have been managed, but not documented very
  well
• Requirements elicitation and analysis
• Continued with the same style than in PP phase
• Group working sessions
• Group architectural design sessions
• Group user interface design sessions
• Group coding sessions
• Coding convention
• Not complete
• Nobody has completely followed the guidelines

35
5 min 15min
10min 5min 5min
22
Iteration I2 Goals

• Generic goals
• Quality Assurance really started now
• Code refactoring needed
• Coding convention, commenting, documenting
  improved
• Watchdog HourLogger LogAnalyzer goals
• Minimum requirements functionality ready and
  fully tested
• Test installation in customers test environment
• Usability tests performed with customer
  representative with actual work tasks
• SEPA goals
• Pair programming sessions on most critical use
  cases
• Usability tests performed for all deliverables
• Design patterns used in refactoring
• Meeting practices are reviewed and improved
• Iteration I2 divided to two sub-iterations
• Three weeks development, then installation to
  customers environment
• One week for customers internal testing and
  commenting
• One week for applying customers feedback back
  into the products

39
5 min 15min
10min 5min 5min
23
Questions?
40
5 min 15min
10min 5min 5min