Upload
austin-fitzgerald
View
221
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Party Management System
Vitamin B
Agenda
Party Management System (PMS) The Project
Party Management System (PMS)
A web based system for organizing eventsCreated for Assembly 07Modular
Main module is Compo Management System New modules easy to attach
Open source (MIT licence) Apache, PostgreSQL, PHP MONO, .NET, C#
PMS Main features
Web based visitor pages View the schedule View the compo information Participate to compos Vote Edit own user info
PMS Main features
Web based administrator pages Same as the visitors, but in addition: Can create, edit and delete events (compos) Can modify user data (reactivate passwords
etc.) View the voting results during voting
Architecture overview
Live demo
The Project
Project personnel
Customer, Assembly Organizing Ville Vatén (The customer) Mikko Sivulainen (Technical advisor)
Mentor Kauko Huuskonen
Project personnel
The project team Janne Holm (Project manager) Henrik Hovi (Architect) Jukka Uskonen (QA manager) Jukka Tornberg (DB developer) Teijo Laine (UI developer) Henri Tuomola (Core developer) Pekka Helkiö (Core developer)
Goals of the project
1. Replace the old closed source system with an open source software
2. Create high quality system with good maintainability and extendability
3. Create more advanced features to the system
4. Some of the project members continue with the project after the course
Goals of the project
Replace the old closed source system with an open source software
Almost, but not quite A few features missing Stability needs improvement
Goals of the project
Create high quality system with good maintainability and extendability
Extendability: Yes Maintainability: Somewhat High quality: Somewhat
Goals of the project
Create more advanced features to the system
Not achieved, ”quality before new features” Minimum amount of features was
implemented in order to achieve the first goal The minimum functionality began to be stable
towards the end of the project
Goals of the project
Some of the project members continue with the project after the course
Maybe?
Main problems encountered (1/2)
Complex architecture Architecture was complex due to scalability
requirements Architecture was not communicated well to
other project members Added extra effort to the developers figure out how
things work
Problems encountered (2/2)
Loose project management Project management didn’t give clear enough
tasks to project members As the architecture was not communicated well,
actions should have been taken to fix this
Lessons learned
Architecture has to be clear and communicated to others This is the base onto which all the implemented
components rely
Project management has to be clear on the tasks Different people need different amout of
guidance
Metrics, cost of the product
Metrics, used effort per iteration
Estimated vs. Actual effort per iteration
0,0
50,0
100,0
150,0
200,0
250,0
300,0
350,0
400,0
450,0
500,0
PP I1 I2A I2B
Estimated
Actual
Metrics, used hours weekly (est vs. act)
Weekly hours estimated vs. actual
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
39-40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 1-2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Week
Use
d h
ou
rs
Estimated
Actual
Metrics, used effort per task type
Hours used per task type
0,0
50,0
100,0
150,0
200,0
250,0
300,0
350,0
400,0
Oth
er
Comm
unicat
ion
Qua
lity A
ssur
ance
Archit
ectu
re
Man
agem
ent
Design
& im
plem
enta
tion
Metrics, used hours per project member
Hours used per person
0,0
20,0
40,0
60,0
80,0
100,0
120,0
140,0
160,0
180,0
jamu ferrix(sepa)
juskonen(sepa)
aroppuu(sepa)
mnd jst (sepa) _pekka(sepa)
That’s all
http://www.assembly.org