34
Welcome page 1

Welcome page

  • Upload
    thu

  • View
    40

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Welcome page. Outline. Introduction Status on each role Special topic. Brief Intro. Team 2 McCabe C yclomatic Complexity A nalyzer. Planning. Planning. Team Earned Value. Why are we behind schedule. The team didn’t close some of the 1st week tasks because the plan was delayed - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: Welcome page

1

Welcome page

a
PENDING
Page 2: Welcome page

Outline- Introduction- Status on each role- Special topic

2

Page 3: Welcome page

3

Brief Intro

Team 2

McCabe Cyclomatic Complexity Analyzer

Page 4: Welcome page

4

Planning

Page 5: Welcome page

5

Planning

Page 6: Welcome page

6

Team Earned Value

Page 7: Welcome page

7

Why are we behind schedule

• The team didn’t close some of the 1st week tasks because the plan was delayed

• Some examples are:– Risk meeting X 6– LogD-LogT week_1 X6

Page 8: Welcome page

8

Team Planned Hours versus Actual Hours

Page 9: Welcome page

9

Team SUMS Estimates versus Actual

Main Loop DLD Lines LOC Counter DLD Lines

McCabe Complexity DLD Lines

Internal Data Binding DLD Lines

Coupling/Strength Ratio DLD Lines

Report DLD Lines0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

SUMS Estimate vs. Actual

EstimatedActual

Page 10: Welcome page

10

How are we spending our time?

Manage

ment a

nd Misc

ellan

eous

Launch

and St

rateg

y

Planning

Require

ments

System

Test P

lan

Require

ment In

spection

High Le

vel Desi

gn

Integrati

on Test P

lan

High Le

vel Desi

gn In

specti

on

Detailed

Design

Detailed

Design

Review

Test D

evelopmen

t

Detailed

Design

Insp

ection

Code

Code Rev

iew

Compile

Code Insp

ection

Unit Test

Build an

d Integ

ration Te

st

System

Test

Documentati

on

Postmorte

m0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

Estimate vs Actual by Phase

EstimateActual

Page 11: Welcome page

11

Quality

Page 12: Welcome page

12

AnalysisReport DLD

Coupling Strenth Ratio

InternalDataBinding

LOCCounter

MainLoop

McCabe DLD v2

0 3 6 9

DLD defect Removal rate Goal: >3 defects/hour

DLD defects/hour

Part

s of t

he S

yste

m

Quality - Goal

• In 66% of inspections we meet our goal to find more than 3 defects/hour

Goal

Page 13: Welcome page

13

Quality - Inspections

W2 W3 W50

5

10

15

Average #defects found in each inspection by type

Doc-InformationDoc-StyleDoc-Typos

Inspection Week

Aver

age

Num

ber o

f Def

ects

• We were able to almost eliminate typo defects• We get an overall defect reduction over time

Page 14: Welcome page

14

Quality - goal

• Almost all inspections achieved our goal

AnalysisReport DLD

Coupling Strenth Ratio

InternalDataBinding

LOCCounter

MainLoop

McCabe DLD v2

0 100 200

153 ps_code/h

104 ps_code/h

93 ps_code/h

72 ps_code/h

45 ps_code/h

92 ps_code/h

DLD Inspection Goal: < 100 pseudo-code lines/hour

DLD pseudo-code per Hour

Part

s of t

he S

yste

m

Goal

Page 15: Welcome page

15

Main Loop

Coupling/Strength Ratio

Report

Internal Data Binding

McCabe Complexity

LOC Counter

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Develop. time ratio goal: DLD Insp/DLD > 0.5

Ratio

Part

s of t

he S

yste

mQuality - Goal

• In 66% of inspections we meet our goal to spend at least half of DLD time inspecting it.• Concern: are we spending too much? Maybe the goal must be upper bounded too.i.e.

0.5<x<1

Goal

Page 16: Welcome page

16

Process

Page 17: Welcome page

17

Process• Process Analysis

– Meeting Process• 75% of times, the planned time for the meetings have been exceeded.

• But, we have improved the meeting process comparing to the first cycle.

– Risk Management Process• Risk Management formally started during the 2nd cycle• Planned :Risk Meetings on every Status Meeting• Actual: Risk Meetings 50 % of times

Cycle Amount of time slipped

1st cycle 55.1%2nd cycle 25.8%

Page 18: Welcome page

18

Development

Page 19: Welcome page

19

Development contd. Development Report

Task Function Progress Estimate LOC Actual LOC Reuse

Req LOC counter 210 168

Req McCabe Finished the detailed design

152 N/A

Req Internal data binding Finished the detailed design

150 N/A

Req External data binding 178.5 136

Req Coupling Strength Ratio 20 32

Additional Report 50 140

Additional File Parser 120 68 Reused part

Page 20: Welcome page

20

Support

Page 21: Welcome page

21

Top RisksCondition Consequence Probab. Impact

We did not meet our cycle one code deliverables

We might not be able to deliver all must-have requirements at end of cycle 2.

High High

Mitigation: Review the quality plan; Increase inspections efficiency for the functionalities developed; Renegotiate scope with the client.

We will only know that we missed our quality goal at the end of cycle 2

We might miss our quality plan. Medium High

Mitigation: Change the quality plan to include ratios for the defects found in unit test and system test; this will allow us know if a code meets our quality standards before the end

We are not basing our estimations on solid data We might miss the estimates. Medium Medium

Mitigation: Use Cycle 1 data; Use Wideband Delphi; Ask instructor for information.

Page 22: Welcome page

22

Configuration and ReuseCentral Repository - Subversion

Document and Code conventions

After Code Baseline for client delivery – only Configuration Manager is allowed to change code

PSP LOC Counter – 72 LOC

File Parser developed in the first cyle – 68 LOC

Configuration Reuse

Page 23: Welcome page

23

Special Topic: Peer Reviews

Helped us to:Objectively understand roles’ goals Promote team jellying (candid environment)

Page 24: Welcome page

24

Special Topic: Peer Reviews. cont

Great for constant improvement We want to get better so we measure

“You cannot improve what you cannot measure” (Rosso-Llopart, 2009)

Page 25: Welcome page

25

Questions?

Page 26: Welcome page

26

Backup Slides

Page 27: Welcome page

27

Team Earned Value By Week

Page 28: Welcome page

28

Role: Team Lead

Page 29: Welcome page

29

Role: Process Manager

Page 30: Welcome page

30

Process• Process Analysis

– Meeting Process• Meetings: LAUNCH, STRAT, PLANNING, Weekly STATUS• 2 of 14 meetings have no planned time for the entire project.• But, none of meetings for the 2nd cycle had no planned time. • 75% of times, the planned time for the meetings have been exceeded.• But, we have improved the meeting process comparing to the first cycle.

– Risk Management Process• Risk Management starts from the 2nd cycle.• 4 risks • Planned to have Risk Meetings after every Status Meeting, but actually have the Risk Meetings

50 % of times

Cycle Amount of time slipped

1st cycle 55.1%2nd cycle 25.8%

Page 31: Welcome page

31

Process

• PIPs– 3 PIPs from the 1st cycle

PIP No. Problem Description Proposal Description

Status

1 It was not easy for all the team members to follow the processes exactly in the same way.

Make checklists for the inspection and the usage of SVN

Done

2 Most of defects among Document are typo, which are not actual defects.

Make sub-categorization of the defect types

Done

3 There are the duplication of the files in the subversion server.

Make the baseline of SVN

OnGoing

Page 32: Welcome page

32

Quality Overview

• Our inspections are meeting our quality goals• Adjust quality goals according with our current

data• It’s dificult to track quality without updated

data

Page 33: Welcome page

33

Development contd. Strategy Changes• Task planning– Adjust plan according to Cycle 1 data

• Detailed Design– Write pseudo codes in the design– Designers = implementer

• Experiments on critical functionality to design more objectively/accurately

• Alternative Strategy– McCabe: use tree parser

Page 34: Welcome page

34