End of Semester Presentation

1
End of Semester Presentation

• December, 17, 2004
• Rolling Team
• ChangSup Keum
• JungHo Kim
• SeonAh Lee
• ShinYoung Ahn

2
Contents

• Introduction
• Activities of Fall 2004
• Reflective Practices
• Future work

3
I. Introduction

• Member Roles
• Goals
• TTCN Domain
• TTCN Example
• System Model

4
Member Roles

• Members
• Mentors SungWon Kang, SooDong Kim
• Client YongBum Park

Role
Name
ChangSup Keum
Team Leader, Client Manager, Requirement Manager
JungHo Kim
Planning Manager, Risk Manager
SeonAh Lee
Quality Manager, Process Manager
ShinYoung Ahn
Support Manager, Configuration Manager
5
Goals

• Learning Team
• Estimation Technique ? Reflective Practices
• TSP RUP process harmonization ? Reflective
  Practices
• Domain knowledge TTCN Protocol Testing ?
  Training
• Smart effective Team
• Very good(5), improving(4), ok(3), poor(2), and
  bad(1)
• Average 4.5 (Success Criteria gt 4.0)
• Hit all major deadlines for deliverables SOW,
  SRS, SPMP
• Completion of SOW V1.0, SRS V1.0, SPMP V1.0
• Satisfy the client requirements
• Requirements are elicited and frozen
• SRS signed

6
TTCN Domain

• Client
• TTA
• Project Objective
• To translate TTCN-MP specification to ATS written
  in ANSI C code
• To provide an adaptation library for targeting
  from ATS to ETS

TTCN The Testing and Test Control Notation
MP Machine Process-able Form ATS Abstract
Test Suite ETS Executable Test Suite
int func(int b) return b1
LT!GetX
ATS in ANSI -C
Test Specification
ATS in TTCN
7
TTCN Example - Test Case
8
TestGen System Model
Syntax Analysis
Lexical Analysis
TTCN-MP Specification
Tokens
Adaptation Library
Syntax Tree
Symbol Table
Semantic Analysis
Code Generation
C Code
Decorated Tree
9
II. Activities of Fall 2004

• Overall Plan vs. Progress
• Requirements
• Risks
• Quality Assurance
• Configuration
• Training

10
Overall Plan
To be done
2004 Fall (768 hours)
2005 Spring (768 hours)
2005 Summer (2304 hours)
To do
Manage-ment
SOW

• sow

Plan
Plan
SPMP

• Management critical path

• Management critical path

• Team building

Management

• Writing SPMP doc.

• Requirement Trace metrics
• Risk trace metrics
• Risk mitigation
• Inspection for quality assurance

• Risk Mgmt. plan

• Requirement mgmt. plan

• Configuration mgmt. plan

• Quality Assurance Mgmt. plan

Develop-ment
SRS
High level Design

• Req. elicitation

• Architecture

• Req. writing

• Simple sequence diagram

• Req. review

• Simple class diagram

• Req. inspection

Low level Design
Low level Design

• Supplementary spec.

• Detail sequence diagram

• Statechart diagram

• Glossary

• Detail class diagram

• Component diagram

• Some statechar diagram

• Deploy diagram

• Some component diagram

Prototype
Implement

• Implement

• Implement

Test
Test

• Integration test
• System test

• Integration test

SOW, SRS, SPMP
Milestone
Detail Diagram Prototype
Detail diagram Implementation code, Test result
11
Progress - Fall 2004
2004 Fall
September
October
November
December
Role Assignment
Studio team composition
Milestone
12
Requirements

• Scope of TTCN Spec. (Exclude ASN.1,
  Concurrent TTCN, Modular TTCN)
• Make feature List (Overview, Declaration,
  Constraints, Dynamic )

Elici- taion
Analysis
Specification
Validation

• Inspection (SRS thoroughly inspected)
• Customer Approval (SRS signed)

Management
13
Risks
Risk Management Plan
Developed by risk manager Checked and accepted by
team leader
Risk Discovery
Brainstorming Taxonomy-based risk identification
Risk Evaluation
Seriousness Probability Impact Owner The
mitigation plan
Execution Report
Check status Report in every weekly meeting
14
Risks Top 3
Mitigation plan
Status
Risks
The gap of time (8.84)
Use open source code
Open
Role exchange (7.2)
Early Appointment
Ongoing
Lack of TTCN domain knowledge (6.76)
Training Plan
Ongoing
15
Quality Assurance
Quality Assurance Plan
Developed by the quality manager Checked and
accepted by team members
Standard Establishment
Process definition Document Templates Forms for
Inspections
Inspection
Training Inspection of SRS
Quality Measurement
Check status per each semester
16
Quality Assurance
Metrics
Result
Category
Product
Defect density Defects / KLOD SRS 60 lines
were reviewed 2 major defects were discovered
33 Defects / KLOD
Process
Process Compliance given grades / total grades
Project Management (4/6) Risk Management
(3/3) Quality Assurance (5/6) Development
Process (1/3) Configuration Management(6/9)
70
Project
Schedule Deviation actual time / planned
time ChangSup Keum (153) JungHo Kim
(136.5) SeonAh Lee (127) ShinYoung Ahn
(145) Planned time (16 12 4 768)
73
17
Configuration

• Configuration Items
• SOW, SPMP(RQMP, RSMP, QAP, SCMP), SRS
• Meeting minutes, Process Manual
• source code, Use case models, architecture
  documentation, detailed design, test cases,
  Users guides, etc.
• Version Control
• Web server(document)
• azalea.icu.ac.kr (/home1/tta/public_html/subpage/a
  rtifacts)
• azalea.icu.ac.kr (/home1/tta/public_html/subpage/m
  eeting)
• CVS server(sources)
• CVS server (testgen\ltpackage subdirectoriesgt\)
• Naming Rule definition
• ltabbreviated titlegt_Rolling_v1.0.doc
• Meeting_Minutes_YYYYMMDD.doc

18
Training
Date
Subject
Responsibility
10/7
TTCN Translator
YoungHae Chung
11/4
Lexical Analysis Parsing
MiYul Park
Abstract Syntax Semantic Analysis
ChangSun Song
11/11
TTCN Declaration Part
SeonAh Lee
11/18
TTCN Overview Constraints
Shinyoung Ahn
11/25
TTCN Dynamic Part
Jungho Kim
12/2
19
III. Reflective Practices

• Technique Selection
• Description
• Analysis
• Lesson Learned

20
Technique Selection
21
Process Harmonization - Description
Why
What
Team Leader
Quality Manager
Developers
Preparation
Establish process guide Keep a record
Notify a weekly meeting
Give action items
Developers
Weekly Meeting
Quality Manager
Team Leader
Explain the revised process
Moderate the meeting
Developers
Quality Manager
Team Leader
Plan Manager
Practice
Resolve issues from the revised process
Plan tasks according to the revised process
Follow the revised process
Help to use the revised process
Author
22
Process Harmonization - Description

• We utilize the activities of team building,
  project tracking and postmortem in TSP while we
  conform to RUP.

Team building
Deployment
Plan
Plan
Plan
Ch.3
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis
Postmortem
Postmortem
Design
Design
Ch.10
Implementation
Implementation
Ref. Introduction to the Team
Software Process
Postmortem
Test
Test
Postmortem
Project Tracking
Ch.5
23
Process Harmonization - Analysis

• Observations
• The number of process issues in the weekly
  meeting
• TSP worked in role allocation
• Team leader, Plan manager, Quality manager,
  Support manager
• RUP did not work yet

1
1
1
4
5
2
1
1
1
24
Process Harmonization - Analysis

• Obstacles
• TSP
• Lack of knowledge capable of applying a part of
  TSP to our project
• Quarreling with TSP tools
• RUP
• Inefficacy of use cases in our project
• Harmonization
• Scattering process references
• Studio
• Deliverable-oriented progress
• Our approaches
• Seminar on TSP
• Draw activity diagram instead of use-case diagram
• Make a process manual
• Refine our plan

25
Process Harmonization Lesson Learned

• Keep a diary formally in the next semester
• Process definition helps project plan
• We need to consider project characteristics for
  successful process application
• We need to study TSP before grumbling or throwing
  out

26
Estimations - Description
Why
What
Team Leader
Planning Manager
Developers
Preparation
Keep a record Request meeting
Notify a weekly meeting
Give action items
Developers
Estimation Meeting
Planning Manager
Team Leader
Explain the revised estimations
Moderate the meeting
Planning Manager
Team Leader
Developers
Practice
use the estimation result to negotiate with
customer
Use the estimation result In project planning
Follow the revised estimations
Author
27
Estimations Available Hours
2004 Fall
Team members 4 Weeks 16 (assumption) Hours
per week 12 Total person-hours 768
2005 Spring
Team members 4 Weeks 16 (assumption) Hours
per week 12 Total person-hours 768
2005 Summer
Team members 4 Weeks 12 (assumption) Hours
per week 48 Total person-hours 2304
28
Estimations Productivity (JAVA coding)
Project estimates
Methods technical approaches
Unadjusted SLOC/Hour (USH)

• Based on 2 Method Course Projects
• XP projects LOC/Hour (5.2)
• RUP projects LOC/Hour (16.9)
• USH 11.0 LOC/Hour

Compute Adjustment Factor for Studio (AFS)

• Optimistic (0.64)
• Medium (0.54)
• Pessimistic (0.46)
• AFS (O 4M P)/6 0.54

Adjusted SLOC/Hour (ASH)

• ASH USHAFS 6.0 (SLOC/hours)

29
Estimations Proxy-Based
Methods technical approaches
Project estimates
Historical SLOC (CHILL2C Compiler)

• Lexical Analysis(1360)
• Syntax Analysis(5306)
• Semantic Analysis(5775)
• Code Generation(9423)
• Symbol Table(478)
• Total HSLOC(22342)

Adjustment Factor for TestGen (CHILL2C vs TTCN2C)

• Optimistic (0.65)
• Medium (0.85)
• Pessimistic (1.1)
• AFT (O 4M P) 0.86

Estimated LOC HSLOC AFT

• ELOC(19177) 22342 0.86

Estimated Total Person-Hour ELOC / ASH

• ETPH(3196 hours)

30
Estimations Function Point
Project estimates(1st scope)
Technical approaches
Unadjusted Function Point (UFP)

• External Input(342)
• External Output(277)
• Internal Logical File(45)
• External Interface Files(10)
• Total UFP(674)

Value Adjustment Factor (VAF)

• Total influence factor(19)
• VAF 0.65 190.01 0.84

Final Function Point (FFP) UFP VAF

• FFP(566) 674 0.84

Estimated LOC(ELOC) FFP Java LOC/FP

• ELOC(35668) 566 63

Estimated Total Person-Hour ELOC / ASH

• ETPH (5942 hours)

gtgt 3840
Java SLOC/FP SE A practitioner's Approach 6th
Edition
31
Estimations Summary
Estimated Hours
Estimated vs Available
Proxy-based Estimation

• 3196 Hours

Function Point Estimation (1st initial scope)

• 5942 Hours

Function Point Estimation (2nd adjusted scope)

• 4187 Hours

Total Available Person Hours

• 3840 Hours

32
Estimations Lesson learned

• Proxy-based Estimation
• Weak justification just rely on one historical
  data
• Function Point Estimation
• Insufficient TestGen system analysis
• Grammar based FP analysis
• Difficulties in identifying functions
• Characteristics of TestGen No GUI, No
  transactional function
• Insufficient team project history data for
  productivity
• Need to revise the estimation in spring semester

33
IV. Future Works

• Future works
• Worries

34
Future Work/Goal

• Learning Team
• Estimation Technique ? Continue
• TSP RUP process harmonization ? Continue
• Architecture description Technique ? Reflective
  practices
• Smart effective Team
• Very good(5), improving(4), ok(3), poor(2), and
  bad(1)
• Success Criteria gt 4.0
• Hit all major deadlines for deliverables
• Architecture, high-low level design, prototype,
  etc.
• Satisfy the client requirements
• Demonstration of prototype

35
Worries

• The test method freezing
• A big gap between the actual time and the
  estimation time
• Using TSP in management method
• The communication in English

36
Q A
37
Appendix - Quality Assurance Measurement
Questions
Grade
Process
Project Management
Do you maintain and change your project plan
after project planning?
2
Do you modify and change your resource plan per
each task?
2
Risk Management
Do you analyze risks according to risk analysis
plan and guideline?
3
Quality Assurance
Do you review your deliverables according to the
defined inspection process?
2
Do you close the inspection process by modifying
the defects found in the inspection meeting?
3
38
Appendix - Quality Assurance Measurement
Questions
Grade
Process
Configuration Management
Do you maintain your deliverables under
configuration management?
2
Do you establish baseline with appropriate
configuration items?
2
Do you change a configuration item according to
the defined procedure?
2
Development Process
Do you draw UML diagrams required by the RUP?
1