Team HandSimDroid Justin Killian

Peter Foldes

Anar Huseynov

Ishwinder Singh

Agenda

• Project Overview

• Operations

• Planning & Tracking

• Requirements Elicitation

• Project Risks

• Notional Architecture

• Reflections & Next Semester

2

Agenda

• Project Overview

• Operations

• Planning & Tracking

• Requirements Elicitation

• Project Risks

• Notional Architecture

• Reflections & Next Semester

3

Team HandSimDroid

Justin Killian

Team Lead

Anar Huseynov

Support Manager

Peter Foldes

Process Manager

Ishwinder Singh

Planning Manager

4

Stakeholders

• Bosch Research & Technology (Client)

▫ Automotive calibration and embedded systems design

▫ Model-driven development

• Ptolemy Project (Collaborators)

▫ Developers at University of California Berkeley

• Mentors

▫ Phil Bianco

▫ Dave Root

5

Ptolemy Desktop Application

6

Model

Output

Business Drivers

• Act as a proof of concept for ASCET tool

▫ Inspire innovation at Bosch

• Improve operations & reduce cost of calibration

▫ Running simulation on the handheld on the go

▫ Customizable UI for different purposes & different users

• Freely extend open source software

7

Project Goals

8

• Show simulations running on the handheld

• Enable UI customization by model and per user

• Create demonstrations that showcase usefulness to engineers

Paper Prototypes

9

UI Layout Designer

Handheld Ptolemy

Known Constraints

10

• Must use the Android Platform

• Must run simulations on a handheld device

• Must not use any GPL code within solution

• Must use Ptolemy

Agenda

• Project Overview

• Operations

• Planning & Tracking

• Requirements Elicitation

• Project Risks

• Notional Architecture

• Reflections & Next Semester

11

Process: Why Scrum?

• Team wanted to learn it

• Research project with unknowns

▫ Agile project management framework

• Evaluated TSP and OpenUP

12

Operational Challenges

13

Challenge Mitigation

Nobody knew Scrum Scrum Master learns and coaches

COTS Scrum tools had problems Excel ScrumSheet

Little affordance for long-term planning and tracking

WBS, Wideband Delphi and tracking charts

Long team meetings Standard meeting agenda template with time boxing

Not done with all tasks per sprint, while everyone puts in the hours

• Track actual hours worked for better estimations & priority

• Established common time

Ambiguous tasks Add task descriptions and definition of exit criteria

Agenda

• Project Overview

• Operations

• Planning & Tracking

• Requirements Elicitation

• Project Risks

• Notional Architecture

• Reflections & Next Semester

14

Work Breakdown Structure

15

Plan – Fall 2010

Sprint 2 Sprint 4 Sprint 3 Sprint 5 Milestone

Tools Setup

Process

Selection

Team

Building Proposals

Project Plan

SRE

Management

Role Assignment

WBS

Use Cases

SOW

Estimation

Notional

Architecture

Requirement &

Design

Contextual

Design

Paper prototypes

Experiment-1

September October November December

2010 Fall

EOSP

16

Experiment-2 QAW

EOSP

Sprint 1

Ad hoc Scrum

Long Term Plan

17

Milestone

Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.

2010 Fall (732 hours) 2011 Spring (720 hours)

Jan. Feb. March April

2011 Summer (2304 hours)

May June July Aug.

EOSP

SOW

SRE

Planning

High level

Design

Detailed Design Integration

and testing

EOSP EOSP MOSP

SRS

Proposals

Requirements

Design

Implementation

proposal

QAW

Planning

Implementation

User Guide

Tool Setup Design Proposals

Training

Done

Todo

Experiments

• Ptolemy on Android

• UI Layout Tool • Actor Framework

• Notional Architecture • Experiment 1 • Experiment 2

• Contextual design • Use cases • Paper prototypes

Semester Progress

18

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Pe

rs

on

Ho

ur

s

Remaining

Complete

Product Burndown

19

Bad Time Tracking

SRE & Experiment

Added Thanksgiving

Estimated vs. Actual

20

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Pe

rs

on

Ho

ur

s

Estimated

Actual

Time Breakdown

21

Requirements 45%

Documentation 24%

Design 19%

Configuration 8%

Training 4%

Agenda

• Project Overview

• Operations

• Planning & Tracking

• Requirements Elicitation

• Project Risks

• Notional Architecture

• Reflections & Next Semester

22

Requirements Elicitation

23

Elicitation Method Time (hrs)

# Reqs Grade

Contextual Design 50 3

Use Cases 30 9

Paper Prototypes 17 7

Client Meetings 48 10

Quality Attribute Workshop

16 16

Agenda

• Project Overview

• Operations

• Planning & Tracking

• Requirements Elicitation

• Project Risks

• Notional Architecture

• Reflections & Next Semester

24

Major Risks

• Desktop Ptolemy is heavy on resources and handheld has limited resources; ▫ We may not be able to meet quality attribute

benchmarks

• We don’t know underlying complexities and dependencies of Ptolemy; ▫ the learning curve can be steep and may delay our

schedule ▫ core modifications may cause undesired effects in

other portions of the system and result in schedule delays

25

Major Risks (cont.)

• Historically the team does not finish every task that is defined in a sprint

▫ We don’t finish some important tasks that affect project milestones

26

Agenda

• Project Overview

• Operations

• Planning & Tracking

• Requirements Elicitation

• Project Risks

• Notional Architecture

• Reflections & Next Semester

27

Quality Attributes

• Wow-ability

▫ Client demonstrates the system in front of executives and inspire them

• Usability

▫ Handheld user can operate it without training

• Reliability

▫ Demonstration does not crash for 15 minutes

• Extensibility

▫ New actors could be added within 2 weeks

• Performance

▫ Real time data is processed at correct rate

28

Notional Architecture

• Context Diagram

• Component & Connector Diagram

• Sequence Diagram

29

Context Diagram

30

Dynamic View

31

Sequence Diagram

32

Decision Backlog

• UI Layout Designer

▫ COTS component (Eclipse framework)

▫ Self developed

• Network communications

▫ Sockets

▫ Jabber Protocol

33

Agenda

• Project Overview

• Operations

• Planning & Tracking

• Requirements Elicitation

• Project Risks

• Notional Architecture

• Reflections & Next Semester

34

Positives

• Daily Scrums ▫ Easy way to track daily progress and be on the same

page

• Short term iterations were effective ▫ Allowed to re-plan easily ▫ Tailor the process ▫ Easy to react to unknowns

• Software Experiments

▫ Removed unknowns

• Notional Architecture ▫ Got out of period of uncertainty

35

Less Positives

• Scrum is not prescriptive enough for a new team ▫ We don’t have enough trust to rely on volunteered work

• Scrum is short-sighted ▫ Had to come up with our own method for long term

tracking

• Must have a good description and exit criteria for each task ▫ People have different understanding what task is and when

it is done

• Need to have deadlines for tasks within sprint ▫ Student syndrome pushed all tasks completion to the sprint

end

36

Lessons Learned

• Do experiments to minimize unknowns

• Do create notional architecture early to get out period of uncertainty and gain common understanding of the project

• Do identify, manage, and control your risks

• Do more team building activities

• Don’t use contextual design for greenfield project • Don’t start with agile process with unknown team in

plan-driven development

37

Next Semester

• TSP

▫ Want to learn it – Another point of view on PM

▫ Well prescribed process

Don’t need to tailor it as much as Scrum

• ACDM

▫ Want to learn it

▫ Approach architecture with an iterative process

38

Next Semester

• Requirements ▫ Approve SRS

• Architecture ▫ High-level by MOSP ▫ Refined by EOSP

• Experiments ▫ Communication Protocols ▫ UI Tool

• Domain knowledge ▫ Explore Ptolemy in depth - Analysis course will help

• Implementation ▫ Setup development tools by middle of semester

39

Accomplishments

Notional Architecture ✔

Software Experiments ✔

QAW ✔

SRE ✔

SoW ✔

Use Cases ✔

Paper Prototypes ✔

Contextual Design ✔

SRS ✗

40

Accomplishments

GOT GADGETS ✔

41

Questions and Comments

42

Backups

43

Wideband Delphi

44

Prototypes

• Helped eliminate design alternative

• Shaped architecture

• Do early and often

• Size it correctly

▫ Don’t spend too much time on them

45

Sprint Burndowns

46

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

10/2

/10

10/4

/10

10/6

/10

10/8

/10

10/1

0/1

0

10/1

2/1

0

10/1

4/1

0

10/1

6/1

0

10/1

8/1

0

10/2

0/1

0

10/2

2/1

0

10/2

4/1

0

10/2

6/1

0

10/2

8/1

0

10/3

0/1

0

11/1

/10

11/3

/10

11/5

/10

11/7

/10

11/9

/10

11/1

1/10

11/1

3/1

0

11/1

5/1

0

11/1

7/1

0

11/1

9/1

0

11/2

1/10

11/2

3/1

0

11/2

5/1

0

11/2

7/1

0

11/2

9/1

0

12/1

/10

12/3

/10

12/5

/10

12/7

/10

Eff

or

t L

eft

Date

Sprint 1

Sprint 2

Sprint 3

Sprint 4

Sprint 5

Project Burndown

47

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

To

tal

Eff

or

t L

eft

Date

Ideal burndown

Velocity

Modified Velocity

Risk Exposure

Very Likely Likely Unlikely

Catastrophic 3 1 1

Critical 6 3 1

Marginal 8 5 7

Negligible 1 1 3

48

Risk Statements

49

# Risk Statement TF Impact Probability

R7 The Ptolemy repository and structure is large in size; • the learning curve can be steep and

may delay our schedule • core modifications may cause

undesired effects in other portions of the system

NT Catastrophic Very Likely

R17 Roles are not clearly specified and followed; • Work may not get done on time • The team might end up duplicating

work

NT Marginal Very Likely

Use Case Diagrams

50

Product Backlog

• How did we use Scrum?

▫ Held sprint kickoff meetings

▫ Held daily scrums (standup meetings)

▫ Reviewed weekly/project burndown charts

▫ Maintained product backlog

▫ Planned according to sprints and milestones

51

Scrum Sheet

52

Quality Attribute Scenarios

53

1

RTC gives a demo with the sound spectrum model to the Schwieberding teams using the Android device and providing a sound (file). The tool shows an analysis and suggests correctly the plausible cause.

HIGH

2

The Ptolemy interface designer creates an interface using the desktop tool. The end user uses the handheld device, downloads the interface, and the interface looks exactly like the desktop preview.

HIGH

3

The handheld end user, untrained, unfamiliar with the Ptolemy tool but familiar with handheld devices, runs the demo with minimal interactions and gets the results without making any mistakes.

HIGH

4

The handheld user, untrained, unfamiliar with the ptolemy tool but familar with handheld devices, explores the demo with no further instruction for 15 minutes and the demo does not crash.

HIGH

5

A Ptolemy developer adds an existing graphical actor to be used for the handheld application, its incorporated into the desktop interface design and its displayable on the handheld within two (2) person weeks.

HIGH

Quality Attribute Scenarios (cont.)

54

6

A Ptolemy develop add an existing input actor to be used for the handheld application and incorporated into desktop interface designer, and the handheld connects datasource to the model within two (2) person weeks.

HIGH

7

RTC ports the system from Android to iPhone once Android version exists. RTC implements iPhone specific parts with zero changes changes to the systems architecture.

MEDIUM

8

An interface designer is building a layout for a new android device with different dimensions and capabilities once the initial android version exits; user can design a layout with no code changes.

MEDIUM

9 Version 3.0 of Android comes out and layout builder and handheld application supports it without any code changes.

MEDIUM

10 Version 3.0 of Android comes out with new features, RTC can implement these features with no change to the architecture.

MEDIUM

Quality Attribute Scenarios (cont.)

55

11

A Ptolemy developer needs to maintain this system by making a change to the code and effort to understand and identify where the change needs to be made is 0 person/days.

MEDIUM

12 The handheld user runs the sound spectrum model, the visualization feedback is not more than 20% slower than the desktop application.

MEDIUM

13 The handheld user runs the sound spectrum model, the sensor data is captured at the correct rate and fed into the simulation with the order preserved.

HIGH

14

The handheld user runs a model that requires a wifi input and there is trouble connecting and/or data loss, the handheld notifies the user about the error and the user understands the problem.

MEDIUM

15

The handheld user is running a model that experience an error that stops the normal execution, the handheld provides the user a way to cancel execution and return a default state and logs the error for future debugging.

HIGH

16

A Ptolemy developer modifies either handheld application or layout interface designer code. Any new defects that affect current code are caught by the existing tests.

MEDIUM

Software Experiments

• Code Generation

▫ Proposed by client and collaborator

• Porting complete Ptolemy to Android

▫ Too slow on handheld

▫ Switched to Client / Server based on the results

56

Team Roles

• Justin

▫ Team Lead

▫ Client Liaison

▫ Product Owner

• Anar

▫ Support Manager

• Peter

▫ Process Manager

▫ Scrum Master

• Ishwinder

▫ Planning Manager

57