T76.4115 Iteration Demo

1
T-76.4115 Iteration Demo

• Group CoMedia
• Project Planning Iteration
• 19.10.2005

2
Agenda

• Introduction to the project ( 3 min)
• Project status (20 min)
• Risks (5 min)
• Work results (10 min)
• Project plan
• Requirement specification
• Used work practices (5 min)
• Questions and discussions (5-10 min)

3
Introduction to the project CoMedia

• Supporting Collective and Collocated Use of
  Contexual Media

4
Stakeholders and Resources

• Man-hours 15071050 hours
• SEPAs extra hours 207140 hours
• Duration 27.09.2005 02.03.2006
• Customer Helsinki Institute of Information
  Technology
• Coordinator T-76.4115 course staff
• Project team seven students from HUT

5
Goals
Create a system that enhances mobile media
sharing with context awareness and features for
collocated interaction Create a system that is
unique with no commercial or academic substitutes
Create a robust system that can be trialled in
the field with at least 8 users

• Quality
• Implement immediacy (instant messaging)
•  
• Interaction Design
• Crossmedia access of media
• also through web 
• Research logs

• Functionality
• integrating Context Awareness in mobile group
  communication
• Multimedia messages with sound and videos
• Bluetooth network
• Visual codes

6
Status of the iteration

• Project plan phase

7
Status of the iterations goals
8
Status of the iterations goals
9
Status of the iterations deliverables

• Project plan
• OK, except the QA plan due as next iterations
  delivery
• Scheduling and task effort estimation for
  iteration 12 will be done as the project
  progresses
• Risk log only consists of risks identified for
  the project planning phase, risks for other
  iterations will be added later.
• Requirements document
• Finished
• Detailed requirements are discussed and agreed
  with customer
• Customer has reviewed the requirement document
• Many requirements from different technical
  aspects
• Most of the requirements are specified
• May be changed later if customer have change
  request
• Progress report
• OK
• SEPAs
• Not OK. Group members have not decided on the
  SEPAs topics and nobody made any plan. SEPAs will
  be postponed to be done in the next iteration.

10
Realization of the tasks
11
Realization of the tasks (continued)
12
Realization of the tasks (continued)
13
Realization of the tasks (continued)
14
Working hours by person
15
Realized hours in I1 iteration
16
Plan in the beginning of this iteration
17
Latest Plan (realized hours)
18
Latest Plan (realized and left hours in chart)
19
Reasons for discrepancies

• Tools have not been totally agreed on and
  adopting tools cannot be carried out by the
  developers.
• WIKI provided by the course will be used, so no
  project website is needed
• SEPAs topics were not discusses carefully in
  internal meetings, people have not decided on
  their topics. Will be done as soon as the first
  iteration starts
• Lectures are in Finnish, non-Finnish students
  cannot go to them all. Should not be planned as
  in the iteration plan. Project manager will have
  to be careful about that.
• Demo time has not been included in the iteration
  tasks plan, so it was added.
• Project manager is not experienced enough to
  write project plan and progress report, she
  underestimated the tasks.

20
Reasons for discrepancies

• Requirements eliciting and fining took longer
  time than expected because it was more demanding
  than expected
• There should have been more internal meetings to
  agree on the methods and tools to be used.
• Customer meeting for requirements scenarios was
  held only 4 days before the deadline, this really
  stressed the planning making and also the
  requirements documenting.
• Unequal task division has also lead to the uneven
  hours spent among the management team. For the
  development team, the saving hours will be spent
  in later iterations considering the demanding
  nature of the project.
• Tasks were decided at a general level. People do
  not follow it.
• There should have been more monitor and control
  actions.

21
Change to the project team structure

• Our group has four members in the management team
  and three developers. This structure is a little
  bit different from the course planned structure.
  The reason to do this is that our project
  requires a lot of usability and user interface
  designing jobs and those jobs need to be done
  early in the project planning phase. One of our
  members Teppo Helles is a usability engineer and
  therefore we decided to keep him in the
  management group.

22
Risks

• Too many features to be implemented and time
  might be too tight.
• Customer needs to prioritize the requirements in
  more details, otherwise it will pose risks for
  the implementation iteration 1.
• Developers should have spent more time on getting
  familiar with the tools and the previous year
  project. This can eat up their time in the next
  iteration.
• Time slips and unequal division of tasks. More
  attention needs to be paid in the next iteration.
  
• Communication problem exists. It takes time to
  read and reply emails and some misunderstandings
  occurred. This problem will keep on bothering us.
  More measures need to be taken.

23
Results of the iteration

• Project plan
• 
  Requirement Specification
• Progress report

24
Project plan Stakeholders and staffing
25
Project plan goals and verification criteria 1
26
Project plan goals and verification criteria 2
27
Project plan goals and verification criteria 3
28
Project plan Project resources

• Man-hours 17071190 hours (Incl. 1507 for
  T-76.4115 and 207 for SEPAs)
• Hardware
• Students own computers and HUTs computers
• One server provided by the customer running
  Debian GNU/Linux Sarge
• Four Nokia 6630 3G phones and SIM cards as test
  phones provided by customer
• Software
• Subversion. Subversion is an open-source version
  control tool that is used to check files in and
  out of the system.
• MySQL the server application uses a MySQL
  database.
• J2ME SDK, J2SE SDK J2EE
• Wireless tools from SUN
• Nokia series 60 emulator
• Bugzilla by Mozilla is going to be tested as a
  bug tracking tool.
• MS Office application for reporting and
  documentation
• Eclipse IDE
• Wiki
• Poseidon UML (Community Edition)

29
Project plan Major phasing

• Project planning phase where first deliverable
  version of project plan and requirements
  specification need to be done.
• Iteration 1 Context awareness and Multimedia
  messages need to be implemented. Permanent media
  content storage needs to be implemented before
  iteration 2.
• Iteration 2 Bluetooth short range messaging and
  visual codes need to be implemented.

30
Requirement Specification

• Project Goals
• enriches the formats of media sharing and
  production with context awareness
• handles media management and designs immediacy
  in heterogeneous networks (e.g. 3G and
  short-range ad hoc networks)
• Functional Requirements (39)
• Context awareness
• Additional Multimedia formats in messaging
• Bluetooth P2P network (data communication
  optimization)
• Visual code
• Permanent content storage
• Non-functional Requirement (5)
• Immediacy in communication
• Web accessibility
• Mininal user interaction
• System logging for research purpose

31
Requirement Engineering

• Engineering practice
• Requirement collection understanding
• Brain storming requirement classification,
  domain understanding, etc.
• Feasibility study
• Requirement specification (fucntional,
  non-functional)
• Requirement validation by group and customer
• Activities
• Two sequencial version of the system scenarios
  from the customer
• 8 internal versions of the requirement
  specification
• One discussion meeting with customer about the
  requirements with our proposed idea
• Customer has reviewed and validated the document
• One internal meeting for the group to understand
  the requirements

32
Used work practices

• Realized practices
• Time reporting using Excel
• Meeting rhythm is set weekly internal meetings
  and bi-weekly customer meetings
• Communication via emails is good
• To be improved
• Time reporting form needs to be improved based on
  more personalized tasks
• Time reports need to be collected every week
  instead of at the end of the iteration
• Task estimation needs to be done in more detailed
  and on personal bases so that time report can be
  matched with personal tasks
• Internal meetings shall be more organized
  members shall report what they have done at the
  beginning of the meeting for monitor and control
• MSN channel could be utilized more for some
  instant information flow

33
Whats next?

• Iteration 1
• focus on implementation tasks
• Concrete products at the end of Iteration 1 with
  required features.
• Management jobs need to be improved
• Major tasks coming up
• Architecture design and implementation tasks
  division among the developers
• Implementing context awareness and multimedia
• Implementing permanent media content storage
• Test plan and test cases
• Quality assurance plan
• More effective working methods and monitor and
  control actions
• SEPAs

34
Q A?
35
Thank you!