Difference between revisions of "Team eNable - Final Wiki"
|Line 132:||Line 132:|
=== Sponsor Comment ===
=== Sponsor Comment ===
Revision as of 20:11, 22 November 2010
- 1 Project Progress Summary
- 2 Project Management
- 3 Quality of Product
- 4 Reflection
- 5 Go To
Project Progress Summary
As we are already approaching the end of our Project for FDS, our team has done everything we were determined to do since the beginning of the project and most importantly, every single thing our client expected from us. During these 2 months, we did 2 more UATs and one User Study which will be further elaborated in Testing section.
An unexpected change in requirement took place during this stage. After our second UAT with the client, the client wanted the characters initially involved in the system and their roles to be changed.
At first, our system has "Admin" who will oversee the overall application and "Sellers" who will upload and sell their own products. But after that test, the client, in consideration of better privacy and efficiency issues, wanted us to modify in a way where "Admin" became "Top Admin" with the role unchanged, "Seller" became "Admin Assistant" who will be assisting the "Top Admin" in some administrative matters and uploading products made by "Artist", a new character of the story.
This was the biggest and the most significant change made by the client throughout the project. This change took us quite a while as we had to add in more features to the existing solution to make it work in the exact way the client wanted.
The biggest challenge our team has faced throughout this project is the lack of details in business requirements. For every general requirement the client wanted in the application, we had to think of every possible solution for that as the requirements were not specifically stated.
Despite that, we could give an end product that satisfied the client and the disabled friends as we always made sure what we had was what they required and what was needed to add in to that to best suit the clients' expectation by performing regular UATs with FDS.
|Iteration||Functional Requirement||Planned End Date||Actual End Date||Comments|
|8||Customer Relationship Management||3 Oct||9 Oct||As we all were still influenced by midterm workloads, we started this iteration pretty late|
|Tell Friends/A Friend||7 Oct||7 Oct||As per planned|
|9||Report Generation||9 Oct||13 Oct||It took Erene quite a long time to get familarize with the logic of report generation|
|10||Shipping Module||13 Oct||20 Oct||Actually, we had pushed this function back to this iteration as we had already run out of time to start working on it in teration 9|
|UAT 2||2 Nov||25 Oct||We decided to have a UAT focusing on the complete application (excluding the additional factors) and so, had the test earlier in iteration 10 than planned|
|Implementing Additional Factors||30 Oct||30 Oct||As per planned|
|11||User Study (Additional Test)||-||10 Nov||-|
|UAT 3 (Additional Test)||-||13 Nov||-|
|12||Preparation for final presentation||22 Nov||22 Nov||As per planned|
Detailed Calculation Methods and Action Plans for each metric can be seen here.
|Risks||Likelihood||Impact||Risk Level||Mitigation Plans|
|Look and feel of the application does not meet the end users’ needs||Low||Moderate||Low||Perform UAT with the real end users and gather feedback to ensure a design that appeals to them|
|Maintenance of the system by the client||Low||Low||Low||Schedule some trainings for the client/admin of the system at the end of the project|
Quality of Product
UAT 2 with client
We had our second UAT after we have come up with a complete e-Commerce system. Compared to UAT 1's feedback, this second one is really satisfying to the client as well as to us. There was only a couple of very minor neutral comments on the application and the client was very pleased with the improved UI and simplified admin tasks.
User Study with SMU students
This study was not planned in the initial schedule but we felt that it is crucial for us to know how customers might react to the look and feel of the site. And we think we did the right think by conducting this study as we got a lot of constructive and interesting feedback that are useful for both the project owner and us.
UAT 3 with client
We must say this last test made us more confident about the usability of our end product for our client and the organization FDS.
You can compare all those test results and see the responses from the user study here.
Benjamin Gan Reflection