HeaderSIS.jpg

Goodmix Final Wiki

From IS480
Revision as of 22:40, 13 November 2010 by Hh.gaw.2007 (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Project Progress Summary

Project Highlights:

This section is about sudden requirement changes or requests since midterm which we took up. More information on how requirement changes are handled here.

S/N Event Evaluation Action Result
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.


Project Challenges:

1) Expectations of end users from different departments in biodiversity center


Even though our source of requirements is our sponsor, we attended all usability study sessions to get direct feedback from them. This means indirectly managing users’ expectations which can be different and sometimes contradictory. After each usability study sessions, we will discuss with our sponsor during the next meeting to prioritize the changes requested for the next deliverable. We also make use of our project metrics to help us evaluate the requests. This plan had worked well for us.


2) Managing many deliverable


Other than FYP milestones, there are biweekly sponsor meetings and client usability sessions where different deliverable for RIBA is expected. “Just keep going” attitude to deliver what is expected to our best. We will first meet our sponsor to show him what we have done before he organizes the usability study sessions with KOOPrime and National Parks. This is both a challenge and a benefit for GoodMix. With many milestones, we are able to keep our schedule on track regularly.


Project Achievements:

Scheduling the project is the most complex task for this project. Due to the nature of our development process, we design our own method to mitigate the disadvantage of adopting this process which we called it dynamic scheduling. This method was effective as it successfully helped us overcome many milestones to satisfy our stakeholders.


Although we make use of external libraries, we create methods to access them and logics to integrate them with functionalities. When the libraries cannot perform what we hope they will, we modify them or seek other alternatives such as using PostGIS functions.


To make RIBA interactive and getting the architecture right, it takes a lot of planning, research, learning, explorations and testing at the backend.

Project Management

Quality of Product

Reflection