IS480 Team wiki: 2018T1 analyteaka metrics
Revision as of 16:51, 25 June 2018 by Jeryl.soh.2015 (talk | contribs)
We used a combination of task metric calculations and a burndown chart to track our progress of task completion through the project.
In terms of task metrics, we used 2 main measures to track our task completion through the project:
- Quantitative Task Metric Measure to gauge task estimation efforts and appropriate action taken to address any over/underestimations
- Overall Project Burndown Chart to visually represent the actual completion rate of tasks in comparison to the overall number of project tasks
Calculation of Task Metric Score
Task Metric Score = (Actual Tasks Completed / Planned Tasks to Complete) x 100%
Score | Action |
---|---|
< 50% | Team is very significantly behind schedule, advise contacting supervisor for advice, re-estimation of tasking and dropping of non-essential functionality. |
50% to 90% | Team is behind schedule, consider number of tasks attempted and circumstances, advise re-estimation of tasking. |
90% to 110% | Team is on schedule, carry on with current estimation of tasks. |
110% to 150% | Team is behind schedule, consider number of tasks attempted and circumstances, advise re-estimation of tasking. |
> 150% | Team is very significantly behind schedule, advise contacting supervisor for advice and re-estimation of tasking and dropping of non-essential functionality. |
Iteration | Number Of Tasks | Total Complete | Completed within the same iteration | Completed within a different iteration | Planned Cumulative Task Count | Actual Cumulative Task Count | Task Metrics | Action |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 0 | 47 | 47 | 100% | Team is on schedule, carry on with current estimation of tasks. |
2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
3 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
4 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
5 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
6 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
7 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
8 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
9 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
10 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
11 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
12 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
13 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
14 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Calculation of Impact Score
Total = 1 x num (low) + 5 x num (high) + 10 x num (critical)
Severity | Description |
---|---|
Low Impact (Score: 1) | Inconsequential. Simple typo error or minor user interface misalignment. |
High Impact (Score: 5) | Non-critical functionalities are not working, but still system runs. |
Critical Impact (Score: 10) | The system or core functionality is down. Immediate attention is required |
Mitigation Plan
Points in Iteration | Action |
---|---|
Points =< 10 | Fix during buffer time only. |
10 < Points < 20 | Use the planned debugging time. |
Points >= 20 | Stop current development and resolve the bug immediately. Reschedules the project. |
Iteration | Impact | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Low | High | Critical | |||
1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
6 | 7 | 0 | 0 | ||
7 | - | - | - | ||
8 | - | - | - | ||
9 | - | - | - | ||
10 | - | - | - | ||
11 | - | - | - | ||
12 | - | - | - | ||
13 | - | - | - | ||
14 | - | - | - |