View
0
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
TEAM LINKAGE
IS480 MID TERM PRESENTATION
Supervisor: Dr Chris BOESCH
Client: Meryl Kwek &
Doris Soh, Associate | IT Risk Consulting, Advisory, PricewaterhouseCoopers
Team: LOW Ying Lin | LIANG Yahui |
LIU Huan | LI Lu | Jerome CHING |
ZHONG Zhenyu
Content
Introduction
Project Overview
Demo
Testing
Technical Complexity
Risks
Schedule
Metrics
Bugs
X Factor
Stakeholder Management
Learning outcomes
Our Client & Sponsor
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC)
World's largest professional services firm
Largest of the “Big Four” accountancy firms
IT Risk Consulting, Advisory Department
Conducts system assessments
Recommends threat and vulnerability solutions to their clients
Current Process(As – Is)
Client
engages PWC
IT Consulting
Department
Project
Manager
goes through
requirements
PM creates a list of
tasks and assigns them
manually to the project
members
Member
carries out
assigned task
Member fills up
the issue sheet
regarding his/her
task
Members writes a report
about and submits it back
to their managers
1 2 3 4
5 6 7
Manager presents
completed report
back to client
Hm… Who should be assigned to this new project?
Who is doing which project at what stages?
What will be my team members Schedule for next week?
Issues (Project Managers)
Manual assignment of tasks does not cater for effective resource management
Difficulty in ascertaining if member is the best candidate to perform the task
Difficulty in tracking member’s progress and due dates for assigned tasks
May create a situation of imbalanced workload among members
It is so troublesome to type same issues every time.
It is a headache to format the reports.
Why are there no user friendly applications to help us manage our
process?
Issues (Members)
High error rate due to multiple manual processes
Difficulty in tracking own schedule since they are normally assigned multiple tasks with different due dates
Member has to duplicate the same information twice (on the issue sheet and again in the project report)
Difficulty in managing different versions of documents sent to manager for review
Most appropriate team member may not be assigned to the task
Our client is in trouble, it is time for action!
Expected Process (To Be)
Client
engages PWC
1 Manager creates project , review
skillsets and current workload to
decide the most suitable member for
the task, and allocate tasks. Manager
track project progress – all is done
through the application
2
Member uses the schedule
function to track his
deadlines and reports his
findings by auto populate
function. Analytics function to
tracks data
3 4
Our Application will:
Eliminate the need for paper based documents
Allow for Effective Resource Management
Through skillset and schedule matching
Serve as a centralized platform for managers and members
to perform their jobs
Increase efficiency
Auto generation of reports cuts down time spent by members’ on projects
significantly
Provide the department with insights on periodic and industry
trends
Data Analytics
Functionalities
- View Project
- View Tasks
- Edit Report
- Edit Own Profile
- View Member Details
- Issues
- Message
- Notification
- Data Analytics
- Generate Report
- Schedule
- Create, Edit, Delete Project
- Assign Member
- Create, Edit, Delete Tasks
- Mark Task Complete
- Mark Project Complete
- Submit Task
- View Own Tasks
- Indicate Leave
MANAGER
MEMBER
- Denotes incomplete functionalities
Framework
Model–View–Controller
{ }
Project.html ProjectController.js Project Json Object
Technologies
AngularJS
Twitter Bootstrap
Python
Google App Engine
(Cloud Hosting)
MS Project
(Scheduling & Tracking)
JSON
JQuery UI JQuery
Demo
http://pwclinkage.appspot.com
Testing
User Test
15 Feb 2013, PWC Building
Load Testing to follow in upcoming iterations
Objectives
Ensure that completed functionalities work according to client’s specifications
Align team and sponsor’s vision of user-friendliness
Gather feedback to identify areas of shortcomings for improvement
Tester Profiles
PWC Staff (Actual End Users)
7 testers (3 male, 4 female)
IT proficient
Used own PCs for the test
Mix of Project Managers and Team Members
Functionality Tests
Functionality Tests
1. All testers given hard copy of test script to follow
2. Tester followed steps in test script
3. Tester compares actual output vs expected output
4. Fills in whether test passes / fails
186 out of 189 test cases passed (98.4%)
Usability Tests
1. Testers given 15-20 mins time to navigate the different sections of our application
2. At the end of it, they were presented with an online survey form with a scale of 1-5 (5 being the best) which focused on the following criteria:
a) Match between system & real world
b) User Control & Freedom
c) Consistency & Standards
d) Error Prevention Features
e) Focus on recognition instead of recall
f) Flexibility & Efficiency of Use
g) Aesthetics and Minimal Design
h) Help and Documentation
Usability Tests Results
3.33
3
3.67
3
3.83
3.6
4
3.6
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Match between System & Real World
User Control & Freedom
Consistency & Standards
Error Prevention
Recognition rather than Recall
Flexibility & Efficiency of Use
Aesthetic & Minimal Design
Help & Documentation
Open Ended User Feedback
Area Suggestion
Aesthetics • More colors should be used to enhance the interface
• Preferred Log Out button instead of icon
Functionality • Old password should not be allowed to be reused
when user changes password
• Audit history should be created for each project
• Wanted search function as alternative to drag and
drop feature
Open Ended User Feedback
Area Suggestion
Access Control • Only managers should be allowed to delete projects
• Members only able to mark tasks as submitted before
being sent to managers for checking
Error Checking • Task date should coincide with project date
• Error message too specific during failed login situation
Post User Testing Changes
Area Changes
Login • Error message less specific for failed login cases
• Manager / Member role made more obvious
Add Tasks • Drag and drop box moved closer to field to reduce
unwanted scrolling
Project • Only Managers allowed to edit / delete projects
• Added icons to button for better visual experience
Tasks • Member only allowed to submit task while manager has
ability to mark it as complete
Help &
Feedback
• Created these 2 new sections for increased user-friendliness
and evaluation
Future User Testing
Area Future Expectations
Functionality
Tests
• At least 98% of test cases passed
Usability • Aim for a survey rating of 4 for all 8 usability criteria
Time • Measure time taken for testers to complete each test
case
Video • Take videos of testers during their user testing to
understand non-intuitive areas
Before & After (Register Page)
Before & After (Add Tasks)
Before & After (Tasks)
Technical Complexity #1
Report Editor Function
Difficulty in:
Saving the design format into database
Generating same output for the user in a word document
Technical Solution:
Convert entire format into a string and save it to database
For output, dynamically generate a .html file formatted with
CSS
Force this file to be downloaded as a Word document
Technical Complexity #2
Responsive Design
Difficulty in:
Making our application viewer – friendly on mobile interfaces
Technical Solution:
Manually design the interface for different devices
Technical Complexity #3
Task Allocation
Difficulty in:
Dynamically creating and deleting information within multiple tabs
Technical Solution:
AngularJS can be embedded within <html> code to make it dynamic
No need to remove code from html
Technical Complexity #4
Wanted a reduction on back-end reliance
Difficulty in:
Making the application less dependent on the client’s server
Finding alternatives if client server cannot support JSP/PHP
pages
Technical Solution:
Controller logic is programmed using JavaScript and
AngularJS, server is contacted only to retrieve information
Risks
Risk Probability Impact Mitigation Strategies
Deployment
• Unpredictability in
deploying application on
client’s environment
Medium Medium • Focus on front – end
development
• Deployed copy on the cloud
(have at least 1 working copy)
Miscommunication /
Misalignment between team
and sponsor
Medium High • Have regular correspondences
with sponsor
• Conduct frequent usability tests
Change of frameworks /
languages
Medium Medium • Address concerns with
supervisors early
• Plan thoroughly before
implementation
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Schedule-Iterative
5 days (Mon-Fri)
Weekends (Buffer)
Documentation Review
Development Codes
Development Design
Metrics Review
Test Case
Debugging
Schedule (Tracked with MS Project)
Milestones
Iteration Dates Milestone
2 22 Oct 2012-26 Oct12012 FYP Acceptance Proposal
4 5 Nov 2012- 9 Nov 2012 FYP Acceptance Demo
12 11 Feb 2013 -15 Feb 2013 UAT 1
13 18 Feb 2013 -22 Feb 2013 FYP Midterm Evaluation
14 25 Feb 2013 -1 Mar 2013 Deployment
16 18 Marc 2013-22 Mar 2013 UAT 2
18 1Apr 2013- 5 Apr 2013 UAT 3
20 15 Apr 2013 -19 Apr 2013 FYP Final Presentation
21 22 Apr 2013-26 Apr 2013 FYP Poster Day
Schedule
Current Iteration 13
Completed 4 milestones
Deploying at Sponsors’ site (Iteration 14)
2 out of 13 Iterations : ‘Behind Schedule’
Task Level Breakdown : Mixture of Indicators
Schedule Metrics Calculation
Schedule Index (per iteration) = Estimated Hours
Actual Hours
Status Indicator Index Action
Ahead Schedule > 1.2 Reschedule and allocate less time for similar tasks.
On Schedule 0.8-1.2 No re-adjustment needed on the schedule.
Behind Schedule < 0.8 Allocate more time for similar tasks.
Reschedule and split into smaller tasks.
eg. Schedule Index (iteration 13) = 26
30
= 0.87
Schedule Metrics
0
2
4
6
8
Frequency
Ahead Schedule
On Schedule
Behind Schedule
0
1
2
3
4
Frequency
Ahead Schedule
On Schedule
Behind Schedule
Schedule Metrics- Per Iteration
2 1 1
2
3
5 4
5 5
3 4 4
1 3
6
3
4
3
3 2 2
4 2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Behind Schedule
On Schedule
Ahead Schedule
No of Tasks
Iteration
Project Status
Iterations Planned Actual Comments
1 FYP Acceptance Proposal
2 FYP Acceptance Demo
Prototypes
3 FYP Acceptance Demo
Prototypes Phase 2
4 Project Management Phase 1
5 Acceptance Clean-up Dropped IT Audit function
Dropped voice chatting function
Dropped auto members to tasks
6 Project Management Phase 2
7 Project Management Phase 3
8 Project Management + Report
Management Phase 1
Project Status
Iterations Planned Actual Comments
9 Project Management +
Report Management
Phase 2
10 Project Management +
Report Management
Phase 3
Project Management
UI Front End
Deployment was being put to a hold till
sponsors’ server had to finish maintenance
11 UAT Preparation
Wrap up on :
Profile Page & Project
Management
UAT was shifted to Iteration 12 as sponsors’
schedule did not allowed for it
12 Report Management &
Schedule Management
Heuristic & UAT Heuristic & UAT Feedback collection
Changes done to UI from UAT feedback
13 FYP Midterm Preparation Report Management & Schedule Management
Phase 1 is shifted to Iteration 14
14 Schedule Management
Phase 1
Deployment is to be scheduled in recess week
Bug Metrics Calculation
Scoring = 1 x num (low) + 5 x num (high) + 10 x num (critical) Severity Description
Low ( 1 point) Non Critical . Application able to run normally. Core functions are working.
Editing on small amendments to the codes.
High (5 points) System runs but not functioning properly. Some core functions working.
Critical (10 points) Application is unstable or crashes. Unable to continue without troubleshooting.
Scoring Action
0-5 Fix during buffer time
5-10 Debug during debugging session set aside at each iteration
11 or more Resolve bug immediately. Stop developing project
eg. Bug Scoring (Iteration 13) = 1X 0(low) + 5 x 4(high) + 10 x 0 (critical)
=20
Bug Metrics
Points : 20 Action : Resolve bugs immediately. Stop development of project.
Iteration Date of
bugs
Description Severity Status Date solved
13 19/2/2013 Logic of password High completed 19/2/2013
13 19/2/2013 Repeated view of project name
on Schedule at profile page
High completed 19/2/2013
13 19/2/2013 Logic that member can submit
only for their tasks
High completed 19/2/2013
13 19/2/2013 Logic that dragged and dropped
member once to a task
High completed 19/2/2013
Scoring = 1 x num (low) + 5 x 4 (high) + 10 x num (critical) = 20
Bug Metrics- Per Iteration
2
5
7 6
5
10
2
9
22
20
0
5
10
15
20
25
Iteration 2 Iteration 4 Iteration 6 Iteration 7 Iteration 8 Iteration 9 Iteration 10 Iteration 11 Iteration 12 Iteration 13
Our Focus
Usability of the Application
Strive for a quality user experience by ensuring intuitive use of the application
Conduct frequent usability tests for interim evaluation
X Factor
Estimated to save up to 10 man hours per project
Equivalent to $3,000 per project
Up to $90,000 per year (based on current trend of
around 30 projects per year)
Stakeholder Management
Value to Sponsors
Keep up-to-date of team’s progress
Aligning to sponsors’ needs
Member’s responsibilities & load
Split by functionalities
Allocation tracked in MS Project
Team’s Issues
Conflicting schedule
Internal Stakeholders-communication
Collaborate & Sharing
Dropbox
For documents
Github & SVN
For minimizing conflicts in the code
Adoption of Best Coding Practices
Meaningful Names
Comments in code
Lessons Learnt
Always have a back up plan (especially for single
points of failure)
Design from user perspective
Cater for large amount of buffer time
Plan to integrate application at earliest time
possible
Importance of Feedback
Recommended