IS480 Team wiki: 2017T2 Bare Code Wiki Finals
- 1 Project Progress Summary
- 2 Project Management
- 3 Quality of product
- 4 Reflection
Project Progress Summary
- Please see deployed site link here:
- Please see presentation slides here:
- MSL @ NP is now available for download on Apple App Store!
- As of 4 April 2018, MSL @ NP is 100% completed.
- As of 2 April 2018, 3 UATs were conducted with a total of 53 students for the iOS application.
- MSL @ NP has gone live on Apple App Store on 15 March 2018
- Priorities were changed based on midterms feedback and sponsor's preference
- Added mobile features to the application (e.g. upload photos & location-tagging)
- Added an offline function to facilitate learning-on-the-go
- As a result, the team dropped the "Survey Module" to work on the two above-mentioned functions
- Added mobile features to the application (e.g. upload photos & location-tagging)
- Took 3+ weeks to learn and develop offline function
Describe areas of the project that were particularly difficult and how they were dealt with, whether successfully or not. Again, a few sentences are enough. If there are no challenges, remove this section.
- Coping with the reduction in team members was difficult, especially when the remaining team members had no experience in coding iOS. Consulting friends, books, video tutorials and putting in the extra coding hours helped in delivering the mobile application.
- Achieved our initial scope set as a 6-men team, despite having to downsize unexpectedly to a 4-men team.
- Application successfully deployed to Apple App Store
- Focusing on the experience rather than the outcome also helped alot in relieving stress for the team, which translated into better productivity and morale
- To ensure everyone is on the same page after every meeting, each member is assigned a role in minutes taking. E.g. Cheryl takes minutes, Ailin will vet through Supervisor Meeting Minutes, Grace will vet through Client Meeting Minutes & Pei Jia will vet through Team Meeting Minutes.
Provide more details about the status, schedule and the scope of the project. Describe the complexity of the project.
Project Schedule (Planned Vs Actual):
The team had 5 revisions to the project schedule since the start of the project.
Timeline 1: Pre-Acceptance
Timeline 2: Post-Acceptance
Timeline 3: After change in team structure
Timeline 4: Post Midterms
Timeline 5: After Change in Priorities
Please see all 5 versions of the project schedule here.
Planned Project Schedule (based on midterms feedback):
Actual Project Schedule (after change in priorities):
The project plan during midterms did not include "Offline Mode", "Mobile Features", and "Security Module", but the "Offline Function" and "Mobile Features" portions were added based on feedback the team obtained from midterms.
1. Initially, the team had doubts about delivering the product with a fully-functional "Offline Mode" function, and decided to prioritise the "Mobile Features". However, after several internal discussions, the team decided to implement the "Offline Mode" function to boost the application as a tool that allows for learning-on-the-go. The supervisor and sponsor were also supportive of the move. Hence, to cope with the new additions, the team decided to drop the "Survey Module" as it provided the least value to the sponsor amongst all three features (Offline, Mobile, Survey). The team also decided to add the "Security Module" as a security feature since the project deals with confidential information like passwords.
2. The schedule during midterms only allowed for 3 UATs to be conducted, but post-midterms, the timeline has allowed for an additional UAT to be conducted on 5 April 2018.
The team had 3 revisions to the project scope since the start of the project.
Scope 1: Pre-Acceptance
Scope 2: After change in team structure
Scope 3: Post Midterms
Please see all 3 versions of the project scope here.
From Phase 1 to Phase 2: We changed the way our scope was named, based on acceptance & supervisor's feedback. The new scope had features named in modules, and sorted by user type, which was a lot clearer than the initial scope that we wrote. We took a closer look at our scope and realised our good-to-have function of "Analytics" could value-add our sponsor more than the ability to collate assessments via iOS, which was parked under Secondary functions. After guidance from Prof Rafael, we decided to swap these two over, such that collating assessments via iOS became a good-to-have function, while moving "Analytics" to our secondary functions. It was also during this time where 2 of our group members left and dropped the project on us. Hence, after speaking to the sponsor and supervisor, we managed to scope down. By scoping down, we dropped all the good-to-have functions, and took out the interactive elements parked under "iOS Accessibility" Module. The "iOS Accessibility" was initially a core function of the project, but due to the sudden reduction in manpower, we had to take it out to complete the project on time. We also dropped our he sponsor was agreeable to our request.
From Phase 2 to Phase 3: We obtained feedback from midterms that our application was lacking the mobile aspect, and the reviewers recommended that we included some mobile-only features to the application. We took up their suggestion and implemented the "Camera" function and "GPS" function. The decision to implement these 2 mobile functions were based on how much value they would add to our sponsor, how frequently the intended users will use the functions, how beneficial it would be to them while they use the app for Service Learning purposes, as well as the team's capability to manage the addition. The team also discussed among ourselves and decided that having an "Offline" function for the mobile application would value add the project a lot more, as an app that provides learning-on-the-go capabilities. Hence we decided to put it into the scope. To cope with the new changes in the mobile portion, the "Survey Module" was dropped as the team realised that the value that the "Survey Module" provided to sponsor paled in comparison to the "Mobile Features" and "Offline" Function.
On the web application, the team decided that we needed to include a security feature that would encrypt confidential information like passwords. As the web part was relatively stable, we did not have to make major changes to the timeline to accommodate this addition.
Provide a comparison of the plan and actual schedule. Has the project scope expanded or reduced? You can use the table below or your own gantt charts.
|1||Customer CRUD||1 Sept 2010||25 Aug 2010||Fiona took the Sales CRUD as well.|
|Trend Analytic||1 Sept 2010||15 Sept 2010||Ben is too busy and pushed iteration 1 back|
|2||User tutorial||1 Oct 2010||Removed proposed by Ben|
|Psycho analysis||1 Oct 2010||New module proposed by sponsor|
Summary of analysis for the metrics collected. You may refer to another page for the details about the metrics and how it is collected.
Describe and list the technical complexity of your project in order of highest complexity first. For example, deploying on iPhone using Objective-C, customizing Drupal with own database, quick search for shortest flight path, database structure, etc.
Quality of product
Provide more details about the quality of your work. For example, you designed a flexible configurable system using XML.config files, uses Strategy Design Pattern to allow plugging in different strategy, implement a regular expression parser to map a flexible formula editor, etc.
List the artifacts produced for this project. The entire deliverable can be submitted in a separate thumb drive, web repository or place in the IS480 team wiki.
|Project Management||Minutes||Sponsor weeks -10 -5 3 7 Supervisor weeks -2 3 5 7|
|Requirements||Story cards||CRUD Customer, Trend Analytic|
|System Sequence Diagram||client, server|
|Business Process Diagram|
|Screen Shots||CRUD Customer, Trend Analysis|
|Design||ER Diagram||1, 2, 3|
|Class Diagram||1, 2, 3|
|Handover||Manuals||User tutorial, Developer manual, Setup manual|
Not all parts of the deliverables are necessary but the evidence should be convincing of the scope.
Explain the quality attributes (non functional) of your project deliverables. Have you designed the architecture, use a design pattern, etc? Does your architecture address scalability, performance, reliability, availability, fault tolerance, usability, etc. Does your design address maintainability, flexibility, configurability, etc. Be brief here but you can link to diagrams or code detail pages. Do not repeat the technical complexity part, link to it if necessary.
In an iterative approach, ready to use system should be available (deployed) for client and instructions to access the system described here (user name). If necessary, provide a deployment diagram link.
Describe the testing done on your system. For example, the number of user testing, tester profile, test cases, survey results, issue tracker, bug reports, etc.
Compile common lessons and reflection for the team and for each team member. Be brief.
Key lessons learned – indicating where the team improved, or would do things differently next time. You may refer to the learning outcome summary in your proposal. A very short checklist style will suffice. It would be very convincing if the knowledge is share at the wiki knowledge base and linked here.
Describe in a paragraph, the key areas of learning or improvement. These should be personal areas of growth or learning. Each individual should list his/her effort, responsibility, actual contributions and personal reflection. Do not repeat team project contributions or member roles. Link if necessary.
Cheryl Lee Sze Min:
Cheau Nor Ailin:
Grace Foo Huan Ting:
Lee Pei Jia:
Sometimes, the client writes a report to feedback on the system; this sponsor report can be included or linked from here.