Project Planning Copyright, 2002 © Jerzy R. Nawrocki [email protected] Quality...

Project Project PlanningPlanning

Copyright, 2002 © Jerzy R. Nawrocki

[email protected]

www.cs.put.poznan.pl/jnawrocki/mse/quality/

Quality ManagementQuality Management

Auxilliary MaterialAuxilliary Material

Quality ManagementQuality Management

Auxilliary MaterialAuxilliary Material

J. Nawrocki, Project Planning

IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction

CMMCMM

• Requirements management• Software project planning• Software project tracking

and oversight• Software subcontract

management• Software quality assurance• Software configuration

management

CMM Level 2 - Repeatable



Documented procedures for ..

• developing an SDP• estimating size, effort, cost, critical

computer resources, and schedule• planning SQA activities• planning SCM• . . .



Product measures

Process measures

Size

Effort

Cost (not applicable?)

(Computer) resources

Delivery date (schedule)

Measures at CMM Level 2


Work productsWork productsWork productsWork products

• IPD• Concept of the system• SRS• (Intermediate) design• Implementation (a set of

modules)• Acceptance tests• Bachelor thesis

• Specification

• Implementation idea

• Code

• Test bed

• Test cases


AbilitiesAbilitiesAbilitiesAbilities

Ab1. A documented and approved statement of work exists for the software project.



Scope of the work

Technical goals and objectives

Identification of customers & end users

Imposed standards

Assigned responsibilities

Cost and schedule constraints and goals

Statement of Work (I)



Dependencies between the software project and other organisations (customer, subcontractors, j.v. partners)

Resource constraints

Other constraints

Statement of Work (II)

• Statement of work is reviewed.

• It is managed and controlled.



Ab2. Responsibilities for developing the software development plan are assigned.

• The project manager co-ordinates the project’s planning.

• Responsibilities for the software work products and activities are partitioned and assigned to in a traceable, accountable manner.



Ab3. Adequate resources and funding are provided for planning the project.

Is it enough?



Ab4.

• The software managers,

• software engineers, and

• other individuals involved in the software project planning

are trained in the software estimating and planning procedures applicable to their areas of responsibility.


ActivitiesActivitiesActivitiesActivities

Ac1. The software engineering group participates on the project proposal team.

The software engineering group reviews the proposed commitments.


Overallplanning


Ac2. Software project planning is initiated in the early stages of, and in parallel with, the overall project planning.

Softwareplanning

At PUT:

software project = overall proj.



Ac3. The software engineering group participates with other affected groups in the overall project planning throughout the project’s life.

The software engineering group reviews the project-level plans.



Ac4. Software project commitments made to individuals and groups external to the organisation are reviewed with senior management (B.W. or A.W.) according to a documented procedure.



Ac5. A software life cycle with predefined stages of manageable size is identified or defined.



IPD

Concept of the system (scenarios)

Soft. requirements specification

Conceptual design & detailed planning

Release 1 (from reqs to acceptance)

Release 2

Final acceptance (bachelor degree)

Software life cycle at PUT



Ac6. The project’s software development plan is developed according to a documented procedure.How

towriteSDP



The SDP is based on the customer’s and project’s standards, IPD, and SRS.

Plans are negotiated with the affected groups (3rd year!). The agreements are documented.

The SDP is reviewed, and managed and controlled.

Howto

writeSDP

The planning procedure at PUT



Howto

writeSDP

The planning procedure at PUT

• The SDP is approved by the Project Area Manager (Bartek or Adam).

• The SDP is available through the project’s web page along with all the previous versions of it. That web page is referenced in the Initial Project Description (IPD).



Ac7. The plan for the software project is documented.SD P


Wide-band Delphi methodWide-band Delphi methodWide-band Delphi methodWide-band Delphi method

Rand Corporation, Boehm’81

• A few experts individually produce size estimates.

• A Delphi process is used to reach a consensus.

PythiaPythia



1. Experts get the specification and an estimation form

2. They meet for discussion (project goals, assumptions, estimation issues)

3. Each expert anonymously lists the tasks and estimates the size

4. The estimates go to the estimate moderator. He tabulates the results and returns them to the experts.

The Delphi procedureThe Delphi procedure

The estimateThe estimate

moderatormoderator



Estimator: Jerzy Nawrocki Date: 22.06.1999

Project: Sorting routine

The estimates from the 1st round:

e E M e e

0 20 40 60 80 100

e - estimates, E - your estimate, M - median estimate

Your estimate for the next round: ......... LOC

A rationale for your estimate: ...........................................

..............................................................................................



5. The experts meet to discuss the results. They review the tasks they have defined but not their size estimates.

6. The procedure is repeated from step 3 until the estimates are acceptably near

The Delphi procedureThe Delphi procedure

The estimateThe estimate

moderatormoderator



What is a risk?



Two approaches to risk

Reactive Proactive


Risk description


ProbabilityImpact• catastrophic• critical• marginal• negligible


RMMM


RMMM = Risk Mitigation, Monitoring, and Management

Mitigation= minimising the probability

Monitoring= observing factors/indicators

Management= if it happens ..


Risk analysis


IBM: > 100 risk factors

For each risk factor an MMM plan.

Risk management becomes a project in itself!

Pareto analysis: the 80-20 principle


Selected risk factorsSelected risk factorsSelected risk factorsSelected risk factors

GeneralPoor planningPoor configuration controlPoor progress trackingPoor quality assurancePoor requirementsPoor development

Risk areas



Corporate politics (at client side)Crowded office conditions (< 9 m2)Excessive paperwork (> 50 docs, > 6 pages/FP)Friction with client or senior managementLack of specialisationLow productivity (?)Low quality ( -> Poor QA)Low user satisfactionMalpractice (Management)

General



Inaccurate sizing of software deliverablesInadequate risk analysisInadequate tools and methodsLack of reusable estimatesLack of reusable project plansMissed schedules (unrealistic schedules;

schedules not updated after changes; inadequate planning methods; lack of historical data from past projects)

Partial life-cycle definitions

Poor planning



Inadequate configuration controlSchedules not updated after changes

Poor configuration control



Inadequate measurementInadequate tools and methods

Poor progress tracking



Inadequate software policies and standardsInadequate tools and methods (QA)Lack of reusable test plans and test cases

Poor quality assurance



Creeping requirementsLack of reusable requirements

Poor requirements



Inadequate tools and methods (Soft.Eng., Tech. Documentation)

Lack of reusable components (architecture, code, design, doc, human interfaces)

Malpractice (technical staff)

Poor development



A team member stops his studiesA team member passes his exams in AprilA team member is late is project tasks (e.g. he is

ill)Customer representative is not availableThe tools are not available or not workingThere is a computer/disk crashTeam members are not satisfied (e.g. The work

is boring)The acceptance criteria are not clear

SDS specific risks


SummarySummarySummarySummary

Work products and their measures

The planning procedureWide-band Delphi MethodRisk is described by three

elements:• name,• probability,• impact.


Further readingsFurther readingsFurther readingsFurther readings

[CMM] M.C. Paulk et. al.,The Capability

Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving the Software Process, Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1994.

[Jon] Capers Jones, Assessment and control of software risks, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1994.

[Pres] Roger Pressman, Software Engineering. A Practitioner’s Approach, McGraw Hill, 1997.


Quality assessmentQuality assessmentQuality assessmentQuality assessment

1. What is your general impression? (1 - 6)

2. Was it too slow or too fast?

3. What important did you learn during the lecture?

4. What to improve and how?

Project Planning Copyright, 2002 © Jerzy R. Nawrocki [email protected] Quality...

Documents

Transcript of Project Planning Copyright, 2002 © Jerzy R. Nawrocki [email protected] Quality...