Goodmix Final Wiki
Project Progress Summary
This section is about sudden requirement changes or requests since midterm which we took up. More information on how requirement changes are handled here.
|1||User request customizing symbols by choosing from a list of images||Impact: high as it affects many other functionality
Difficulty: high as no research about this is done before.
|Team consulted sponsor with the following options:
1. Implement change but outcome is not the responsibility of Goodmix
a. Might have major bugs that cannot be solved and have to revert
b. Less time to work on existing bugs but able to pass UAT
2. Do not implement change and focus on debugging
Sponsor chose option 1.
|Team split into coding team (Bernard, Shazlee and George) and project management team (Naresh and Jess) to work concurrently.
Scenario 1(b) occurred.
|2||New “find coordinates” function requested on 8th November to be up by 10th November for UAT||Impact: low because it is a standalone function
Difficulty: low because similar techniques are used before
|Went ahead with the request but tight deadline is a challenge so collaboration is critical. Bernard had to finish the coding and UI before passing it to Naresh to update Test Plan and Shazlee to update User Guide.||Request completed and RIBA tested before UAT|
|3||Client failed the spatial error handling for the UAT conducted on 10 November 2010. If this is not addressed, it means that the UAT failed.||Impact: low because it does not implicate other codes
Difficulty: medium as previous attempts to give specific errors had failed.
|Team is offered 2 options from sponsor
1.Fix it 2.Not fix it and write a statement as explanations which will be submitted back to the client who graded fail for approval.
|Jess thought of an idea and managed to accomplish the specific error handling.|