Docstoc

Life Cycle Plan LCP

Document Sample
Life Cycle Plan LCP Powered By Docstoc
					                  Life Cycle Plan (LCP)


    Open Source XML Parser based code count tool

                             Team 23



         Kunal Matkar                  Life Cycle Plan
      Sanjeev Nimmakayala             Project Manager
          Harsh Nayak          Operational Concept Description
       Raghuvar Bhargava           Requirements Analyst
         Kunal Kulkarni               System Architect
        Aditya Kulkarni               System Architect
       Cayetano Leonard                    IV & V
          Elaine Huang                     IV & V




LCP_LCO_F05a_T23_V1.02.doc                   Version Date: 10/09/05
Life Cycle Plan (LCP)                   Version no 1.02
                                                10/09/05




LCP_LCO_F05a_T23_V1.02.doc   ii   Version Date: 10/09/05
Life Cycle Plan (LCP)                                                                   Version no 1.02


Version History
Date       Author         Version   Changes made                               Rationale
10/09/05   Kunal Matkar   1.0        Created the initial draft based on the   Initial draft for use with LeanMBASE
                                        LeanMBASE Guidelines version              v1.3
                                        1.0 template for LCP
10/10/05   Kunal Matkar   1.01       Modifications in Figure 1                 The diagram was not made in MS
                                                                                   Visio
                                     Modification in Section 5                 Wrong hours/person-months used
                                                                                  for calculation

10/18/05   Kunal Matkar   1.02       Additions made to Table 2                 The maintainers stakeholder was
                                                                                   not mentioned




LCP_LCO_F05a_T23_V1.02.doc                       iii                           Version Date: 10/09/05
Life Cycle Plan (LCP)                                                                                                                 Version no 1.02


Table of Contents
Life Cycle Plan (LCP) ..................................................................................................................... i
Version History .............................................................................................................................. iii
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iv
Table of Tables ............................................................................................................................... v
Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................. vi

   1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................1

      1.1        Status of the LCP Document ......................................................................................................................1

      1.2        Assumptions ...............................................................................................................................................1

      1.3        References ..................................................................................................................................................1

   2. Milestones and Products .........................................................................................................................................3

      2.1        Overall Strategy ..........................................................................................................................................3

      2.2        Phases .........................................................................................................................................................3

      2.3        Project Deliverables ....................................................................................................................................4

   3. Responsibilities ......................................................................................................................................................6

      3.1        Overall Summary........................................................................................................................................6

      3.2        By Phase / Stage .........................................................................................................................................8

   4. Approach .............................................................................................................................................................. 10

      4.1        Monitoring and Control ............................................................................................................................ 10

      4.2        Methods, tools and facilities ..................................................................................................................... 12

      4.3        Configuration Management ...................................................................................................................... 14

      4.4        Quality Management ................................................................................................................................ 17

   5. Resources ............................................................................................................................................................. 19

   6. Appendix .......................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.21




LCP_LCO_F05a_T23_V1.02.doc                                                     iv                                        Version Date: 10/09/05
Life Cycle Plan (LCP)                                                                                                                 Version 1.01

Table of Tables
Table 1: Deliverables in the Engineering stage ............................................................................................................4

Table 2: Responsibilities of Various Stakeholders during various phases ....................................................................6

Table 3 : Team Member roles during Engineering Stage ..............................................................................................8

Table 4 - Team Member roles during Production Stage ...............................................................................................8

Table 5: Various stakeholders for the project ...............................................................................................................9

Table 6 : Top 5 risks for the project ............................................................................................................................ 11

Table 7: Tools being used for the project for the Engineering phase .......................................................................... 12

Table 8 : Tools being used for the project for the Production phase .......................................................................... 13

Table 9: Deliverables at the end of each phase ........................................................................................................... 14

Table 10 : Agile Internal Review Reports submitted during the Inception phase ........................................................ 17

Table 11: Internal Review Reports submitted during the Elaboration phase .............................................................. 17

Table 12: Scale Factors ............................................................................................................................................... 21

Table 13: Effort Adjustment Factor Cost Drivers ....................................................................................................... 22




LCP_LCO_F05a_T23_V1.02.doc                                                   v                                      Version Date: 10/09/05
Life Cycle Plan (LCP)                                                                                                         Version 1.01

Table of Figures
Figure 1 : Configuration Change Management .......................................................................................................... 15

Figure 2: Screen shot of the COCOMO output ........................................................................................................... 19

Figure 3: Scale factors used for estimation ................................................................................................................. 20

Figure 4: EAF values used for estimation ................................................................................................................... 20

Figure 5: Hours/person-month used............................................................................................................................ 21




LCP_LCO_F05a_T23_V1.02.doc                                              vi                                   Version Date: 10/09/05
Life Cycle Plan (LCP)                                                    Version no 1.02



1. Introduction


1.1 Status of the LCP Document
The significant difference between the win-win negotiated agreements and the content of
the LCP is that at the time of win-win negotiations we had considered using the Code
Count based XML counter’ architecture for our design and development. Due to the
errors and limitations in the counting of the XML code by that architecture, currently we
are using a Open Source XML parser based architecture to meet the client’s needs, for
counting the XML code. This is the only significant difference between the requirements
agreed to that time and now.


1.2 Assumptions
The following are the assumptions:

1. The code counting tool for counting the XML code will be an Open Source XML
parser based code counter.
2. This system will be used by the Center for Software Engineering at USC, Northrop
Grumman Mission Systems and the Aerospace Corporation.
3. The developers of 577a team or a part of the team may continue developing the
product in 577b.
4. There will not be any major changes in the requirements.
5. The project will be completed in 24 weeks (12 weeks of fall and 12 weeks of spring
semester).
6. The system can be run only on the specified systems as mentioned in the requirements
documentation.


1.3 References
Lean MBASE guidelines version 1.4
http://greenbay.usc.edu/csci577/fall2005/site/guidelines/LeanMBASE_Guidelines_V1.4.
pdf

MS Project plan for the LCO

http://greenbay.usc.edu/csci577/fall2005/projects/team23/LCO/MPP_LCO_F05a_T23.m
pp



LCP_LCO_F05a_T23_V1.02.doc                 1                      Version date: 10/09/05
Life Cycle Plan (LCP)                                                     Version no 1.02


OCD
http://greenbay.usc.edu/csci577/fall2005/projects/team23/LCO/OCD/OCD_LCO_F05a_
T23_V1.08.doc

SSRD
http://greenbay.usc.edu/csci577/fall2005/projects/team23/LCO/SSRD_LCO_F05a_T23_
V1.3.doc

Lean MBASE version 1.0 templates for LCP
http://greenbay.usc.edu/csci577/fall2005/site/guidelines/LeanMBASEtemplates/LeanMB
ASE_v1.0_templates_for_LCP.doc

Schedules for the CS 577a semester
http://greenbay.usc.edu/csci577/fall2005/site/schedule/index.html

MS Project Templates
http://greenbay.usc.edu/processelements/pages/introduction.html

Project description on the team website:
http://greenbay.usc.edu/csci577/fall2005/projects/team23/index.html

USC Maternal, Child and Adolescent Center for Infectious Disease and Virology Project
http://greenbay.usc.edu/csci577/spring2005/projects/team2/FD/FD.html

Online Bibliographies on Chinese Religions in Western Language
http://greenbay.usc.edu/csci577/spring2005/projects/team3/

MBASE guidelines version 2.4.2
http://sunset.usc.edu/classes/cs577a_2004/guidelines/MBASE_Guidelines_v2.4.1.pdf




LCP_LCO_F05a_T23_V1.02.doc                 2                        Version date: 10/09/05
Life Cycle Plan (LCP)                                                     Version no 1.02


2. Milestones and Products


2.1 Overall Strategy
We are using the Win-Win spiral model for our project. Using this model at every stage,
changes in the requirements can be accommodated. We will be developing this product
over four stages that is the Inception and the Elaboration phase which are in the fall
semester and the construction and the transition phase which are in the spring semester.
There are three milestones during the span of the project where a review is performed and
where the progress of the project is assessed namely: Life cycle Objectives (LCO), Life
cycle Architecture (LCA) and the Initial Operational Capability (IOC).

The brief plan of what activities would be performed at every stage of the project is given
below:

Inception phase: This stage involves requirements gathering, continuous client
interaction, developing the operational concept, initial prototype, architecture and the
plan for the project. This phase extends till the LCO ARB.

Elaboration phase: In this phase further development of the prototype is undertaken and
the test cases are applied on the product. Also further changes are incorporated into the
documents. The final versions of the documents are presented at the LCA ARB.

Construction phase: This stage involves the actual product development. Progress is
monitored regularly and rigorous testing is performed on the product by the developers.
Also the clients and the users may suggest test cases and also the performance of the
product is measured.

Transition phase: This stage basically involves the developers delivering the product to
the client which would be further implemented at the client side.


2.2 Phases
Various phases of the project can be found at

http://greenbay.usc.edu/csci577/fall2005/projects/team23/LCO/MPP_LCO_F05a_T23.m
pp




LCP_LCO_F05a_T23_V1.02.doc                  3                      Version date: 10/09/05
Life Cycle Plan (LCP)                                                    Version no 1.02



2.3 Project Deliverables
These are the documents which have to be submitted at every end of each phase.


2.3.1     Engineering Stage
This phase consists of Inception phase and the Elaboration phase. The documents to be
submitted at the end of the Inception phase are mentioned at the LCO due date. Similarly
the documents to be submitted at the end of the Elaboration phase are mentioned by the
LCA due date.



                     Table 1: Deliverables in the Engineering stage



    Artifact       LCO due date      LCA due date         Format              Media
Operational       10/24/05          12/05/05          MS Word            Soft copy(team
concept design                                        document ,         website)
                                                      PDF
System and       10/24/05           12/05/05          MS Word            Soft copy(team
software                                              document ,         website)
requirements                                          PDF
and definition
System and       10/24/05           12/05/05          MS Word            Soft copy(team
software                                              document ,         website)
architecture and                                      PDF
design
Life cycle plan 10/24/05            12/05/05          MS Word            Soft copy(team
                                                      document ,         website)
                                                      PDF
Feasibility     10/24/05            12/05/05          MS Word            Soft copy(team
Rationale                                             document ,         website)
description                                           PDF
Rose Model file 10/24/05            12/05/05          .emx file          Soft copy(team
                                                                         website)




LCP_LCO_F05a_T23_V1.02.doc                 4                       Version date: 10/09/05
Life Cycle Plan (LCP)                                               Version no 1.02



2.3.2     Production Stage
The documents which would be handed over to the client at the end of the production
phase are:
 LCA package
 Quality Management plan
 Test Plan and test cases
 Test results
The transition package would include:
 Source code
 Modules
 Installation scripts
 Development files
Client side deliverables would include:
 User Manual
 Transition plan
 Support Plan
 Final release notes




LCP_LCO_F05a_T23_V1.02.doc              5                    Version date: 10/09/05
Life Cycle Plan (LCP)                                                     Version no 1.02



3. Responsibilities
3.1 Overall Summary
        Table 2: Responsibilities of Various Stakeholders during various phases



                   Inception             Elaboration         Construction       Transition
Users              Provides a list of    Here review the     Review      the    Users use
/Maintainer        requirements to the   documents           product being      the product
/Administrator     client.               presented at the    built at every     which has
                                         LCO        ARB,     stage. Test the    been
                                         provide      test   product, check     developed.
                                         cases for the       the
                                         prototype and       performance
                                         suggest changes     and     provide
                                         to the prototype    feedback      at
                                         if any.             regular
                                                             intervals.
Customers/Client Provides a list of      Reviews the         Reviews the        Accepts the
                 requirements to the     plans and the       actual product     product
                 developers. Takes       progress on a       being              from the
                 part in the win-win     weekly basis        developed.         developer.
                 negotiations with       and also            Tests the
                 the       developers.   reviews the         product and
                 Has            weekly   prototype and       reviews the
                 meeting to monitor      architecture.       actual output
                 the progress of the     Provides test       and
                 project and give        cases and           performance of
                 the actual picture      modifications       the system.
                 to the developers       according to
                 as to what kind of      their needs.
                 system the end
                 user is expecting.
                 Part of the review
                 board at the LCO
                 ARB.
Developers       Develop the initial     Further refine      Here the           Here the
                 operational             the documents       developers are     package is
                 concept. Gather         and come up         actually           delivered
                 and understand the      with the            developing and     to the
                 initial set of          architecture and    testing the        client.
                 requirements for        future plan for     product.
                 the project.            the next phase.


LCP_LCO_F05a_T23_V1.02.doc                 6                       Version date: 10/09/05
Life Cycle Plan (LCP)                                                  Version no 1.02


                  Conduct win-win       Prototype
                  negotiations with     developed
                  the client to have    earlier can be
                  mutually              further
                  acceptable            improved and
                  requirements.         test cases can be
                  Develop the LCO       developed on it.
                  Core documents        These are
                  consisting of         submitted
                  Operational           during the LCA
                  concept design and ARB.
                  part of the
                  requirements and
                  the architecture
                  documentation.
                  Further refine the
                  earlier documents
                  and come up with
                  the complete set of
                  documents for the
                  Operational
                  concept,
                  requirements,
                  architecture, life
                  cycle plan and the
                  feasibility rationale
                  for the project to
                  be submitted for
                  the LCO ARB.
Interface         N/A (This is because we will not be providing a graphical user
                          interface)




LCP_LCO_F05a_T23_V1.02.doc                7                     Version date: 10/09/05
Life Cycle Plan (LCP)                                                  Version no 1.02



3.2 By Phase / Stage



                Table 3 : Team Member roles during Engineering Stage



       Name                   Inception phase                Elaboration phase
                         Primary     Secondary role       Primary      Secondary
                           role                             role           role
Sanjeev Nimmakayala        FRD          Prototype           FRD         Prototype
    Kunal Matkar           LCP            SSRD              LCP           SSRD
 Raghuvar Bhargava        SSRD            OCD              SSRD           OCD
    Harsh Nayak           OCD           Prototype          OCD          Prototype
   Kunal Kulkarni         SSAD        UML modeler          SSAD       UML modeler
   Aditya Kulkarni        SSAD        UML modeler          SSAD       UML modeler




              Table 4 - Team Member roles during Production Stage

                  Name         Construction Phase Transition Phase
           Sanjeev Nimmakayala       TBD               TBD
               Kunal Matkar          TBD               TBD
            Raghuvar Bhargava        TBD               TBD
               Harsh Nayak           TBD               TBD
              Kunal Kulkarni         TBD               TBD
              Aditya Kulkarni        TBD               TBD




LCP_LCO_F05a_T23_V1.02.doc                8                    Version date: 10/09/05
Life Cycle Plan (LCP)                                                         Version no 1.02

                        Table 5: Various stakeholders for the project



       Stakeholder                       Category                      Organization
A. Brown                       Client                          Senior Management, USC
                               /Users                          center for software
                               /Administrators                 engineering
                               /Maintainers
Lori Vaughan                   Client                          Northrop Grumman
                               /Users                          Mission systems
                               /Administrators
                               /Maintainers
Mathy Pandian                  Client                          The Aerospace corporation
                               /Users
                               /Administrators
                               /Maintainers
Sanjeev Nimmakayala            Developers                      USC
Kunal Matkar
Harsh Nayak
Raghuvar Bhargava
Kunal Kulkarni
Aditya Kulkarni
Cayetano Leonard               IV &V                           USC
Elaine Huang




LCP_LCO_F05a_T23_V1.02.doc                   9                          Version date: 10/09/05
Life Cycle Plan (LCP)                                                     Version no 1.02



4. Approach


4.1 Monitoring and Control
As compared to the other reference set of projects given, our project has followed all the
parameters which the reference projects have followed namely:
1. Weekly Progress Report and Effort report.
2. COCOMO for estimating the cost and the effort needed in the project.
3. DART for measuring the risks affecting the project.
4. MS Project for monitoring the future plan for the project.
5. Regular team meetings and meetings with the client.

The only significant difference between the reference project and our project was that we
used Network diagram for showing the critical path and the task dependencies instead of
the PERT chart which was made use of at that time.


4.1.2      Reviews
As compared to the other documents till now we have been following the same review
procedure and will be following a similar process of reviewing which will be followed till
the end of the spring semester.


4.1.3      Status Reporting
During our project the Project Manager sent in the weekly progress report. Also the
individual team members filled in the respective effort report. These documents were
similar to those in the reference set.
The only possible difference could have been that one of the reference projects states that
“each individual team member filled a form after every client meeting”. The practice we
followed was that after each client meeting we prepared the minutes of the meeting
stating what was discussed during the meeting.




LCP_LCO_F05a_T23_V1.02.doc                  10                     Version date: 10/09/05
Life Cycle Plan (LCP)                                                     Version no 1.02




4.1.4      Risk Monitoring and Control

This is performed with the help of DART tool. The top 5 risks for the project are:


                           Table 6 : Top 5 risks for the project



Risk        Risk Description
Rank
1           Limited schedule of the developers.
2           High Accuracy count by the client.
3           Low Personnel Continuity.
4           COTS constraints on performance.
5           Unfamiliar new tool-Rational Software Architect.




4.1.5      Project Communication
Comparing with the reference set of project all similar procedures were followed in order
to have communication among the team members namely:
        Email and Telephone among team members.
        Regular team meetings.
        Team website for storing the team documents and general information about
           the project.




LCP_LCO_F05a_T23_V1.02.doc                  11                     Version date: 10/09/05
Life Cycle Plan (LCP)                                                     Version no 1.02




4.2 Methods, tools and facilities

The differences in our project and the reference set of projects for each phase has been
shown in the tables below:

For the Engineering stage:


           Table 7: Tools being used for the project for the Engineering phase



Sr.No               Tool                                      Use
  1        Microsoft Word 2003              Used for making the documentation.
  2       Microsoft Project 2003         Developing the life cycle plan for the project.
  3       Microsoft Power Point           Developing the presentations for the ARB.
                    2003
  4      Edit Plus and Macromedia                Developing the team website.
               Dream Weaver
  5                DART                   Analyzing and assessing the weekly risks.
  6         Easy Win-Win tool           Conducting Requirements negotiation with the
                                                           client.
  7         Rational Software             Modeling and design of the architecture.
                 Architect
  8         Microsoft Visual                      Compiling the source code.
             studio.Net 2003
  9      Lean MBASE guidelines           These are the guidelines to be followed while
                version 1.4                         making the documents.
 10          Microsoft Visio              Used for creating the flow charts and block
                                                           diagrams.




LCP_LCO_F05a_T23_V1.02.doc                 12                      Version date: 10/09/05
Life Cycle Plan (LCP)                                                     Version no 1.02


For the production phase:



               Table 8 : Tools being used for the project for the Production phase



Sr.No   Tool                          Use
1       Microsoft Word 2003           Used for making the documentation.
2       Microsoft Project 2003        Developing the life cycle plan for the project.
3       Microsoft Power Point         Developing the presentations for the ARB.
        2003
4       Edit Plus and Macromedia      Developing the team website.
        Dream Weaver
5       DART                          Analyzing and assessing the weekly risks.
6       Windows and Linux             The operating systems on which the tool will be
        operating systems             run.
7       Rational Software             Modeling and design of the diagrams
        Architect
8       Microsoft Visual              Compiling the source code.
        studio.Net 2003


Developers will not be having any roles in the support stage.




LCP_LCO_F05a_T23_V1.02.doc                  13                     Version date: 10/09/05
Life Cycle Plan (LCP)                                                    Version no 1.02



4.3 Configuration Management
This is the process by which the artifacts are produced efficiently and on time and it
reduces the discrepancy between the developers and the client.


4.3.1      Product Element Identification

The various artifacts which will be delivered are:


                      Table 9: Deliverables at the end of each phase



Document Name         Name of the File                  Author
OCD                   OCD_LCO_F05a_T23_v1.07.doc        Harsh Nayak
SSRD                  SSRD_LCO_F05a_T23_v1.2.doc        Raghuvar Bhargava
SSAD                  SSAD_LCO_F05a_T23_v1.3.doc        Aditya Kulkarni
                                                        Kunal Kulkarni
LCP                   LCP_LCO_F05a_T23_v1.02.doc        Kunal Matkar
FRD                   FRD_LCO_F05a_T23_v1.0.doc         Sanjeev
                                                        Nimmakayala
UML Modeling          UML_Model_LCO_F05a_T23_V01.01.emx Kunal Kulkarni
file

These are the documents which are delivered at the end of each phase.




4.3.2      Configuration Change Management

The flowchart below shows how changes are made to the documents that are delivered at
the respective milestones:

Initially the author like the ones mentioned above for each document creates the initial
versions for their document. Once this is created the document is presented before the
team where the document is reviewed by the members of the team and the feedback that
is the errors and the issues are noted down and filled in a log called Agile Internal
Review Report. These changes mentioned are sent back to the author who then
incorporates them into the respective documents and the new versions are created. These
documents are currently submitted at an intermediary stage. Then we have the IV & V


LCP_LCO_F05a_T23_V1.02.doc                  14                     Version date: 10/09/05
Life Cycle Plan (LCP)                                                                Version no 1.02


team members who perform their independent review on the document whose feedback is
also given to the team members. They provide the feedback and suggest changes which
will be incorporated in the next version of the document. And finally, after making
changes, the document is ready for submission at a particular phase.




                                              The document is reviewed by
                                                                                 The author incorporates the
 Author creates initial version                team members, Issues and
                                                                                   changes back into the
      of the document                          defects are recorded in the
                                                                                         document
                                                internal agile review forms




                                                                                 Document is submitted and
    Document is ready for
                                              The next version incorporates        IV & V evaluates the
  submission at a particular
                                                the feedback from IV & V          document and give their
           phase
                                                                                         feedback




                                  Figure 1 : Configuration Change Management




LCP_LCO_F05a_T23_V1.02.doc                                15                  Version date: 10/09/05
Life Cycle Plan (LCP)                                                     Version no 1.02




4.3.3      Project Library Management

The team website is
http://greenbay.usc.edu/csci577/fall2005/projects/team23/index.html

All the documents which are created are uploaded on this website. The documents are
available for all the team members, IV & V members, TA’s, Clients and the Instructors
on the team website. The responsibility for coming up with the new versions of the
document lies with the author of the respective document. All the new versions of the
documents are uploaded on the server. The responsibility for maintaining the website lies
with the development team. The library contains the documents which are created at
every phase. The latest copy of each document can be identified by observing the version
of the document which will be stored in the library. All project related information can be
found on the website.


4.3.4      Configuration status management

The track of the schedule is kept with the help of the MS project plan. Also the status and
the progress of the project are maintained with the help of the weekly progress, effort
report and the weekly plan. The changes that are made to the document by the above
process as mentioned in 4.3.2 are incorporated by the author and the version is updated.
Thus the changes are made in the document.




LCP_LCO_F05a_T23_V1.02.doc                  16                     Version date: 10/09/05
Life Cycle Plan (LCP)                                                    Version no 1.02


4.4 Quality Management
This is the process by which the documents are checked for errors and bugs. There are
various techniques being used to check the authenticity of the documents. The measures
taken are Agile Internal reviews which are performed on the documents after they have
been presented at the team meeting. The defects and the errors are corrected and are put
in the document by the author after revising the version of the document. Also the
feedback from the IV & V team members is incorporated into the documents which helps
remove the bugs and maintain the quality of the documents.

The documents which are due at the various milestones are:

During the Inception phase:


       Table 10 : Agile Internal Review Reports submitted during the Inception phase

Name of the             Document                File Name                        When
document                                                                         due
Agile Internal          Early OCD               E_OCD_QR_F05a_T23.xls            09/21/05
Review
(Quality report 1 )
Agile Internal          OCD,SSRD,SSAD           OCD_LCO_QR_F05_T23.xls 10/12/05
Review                  UML modeling            SSRD_LCO_QR_F05_T23.xls
(Quality Report 2)      file                    SSAD_LCO_QR_F05_T23.xls


During the Elaboration phase:


            Table 11: Internal Review Reports submitted during the Elaboration phase

Name of the document      Document                           File Name     When due
Agile Internal Review     OCD,SSRD,SSAD                      TBD           TBD
(Quality Report 3)        UML modeling file, Prototype




Also the feedback of the IV & V team members is incorporated into the reports.




LCP_LCO_F05a_T23_V1.02.doc                 17                     Version date: 10/09/05
Life Cycle Plan (LCP)                                                     Version no 1.02



4.4.1      Process Assurance

No specific measures have been followed.

4.4.2      Product Assurance

The quality of the product is maintained with the help of the Agile internal reviews, the
links to which have been mentioned above. Also regular client meetings at which demo
of the prototype are shown helps us to get invaluable feedback on the product which is
being made and helps us to improve the quality of the product. Also the changes and
errors which are pointed out during the ARB’s would help us greatly to improve the
quality of the product.


4.4.2.1 Verification and Validation

Client expects that the final documents that are submitted at every stage are foolproof and
of the highest quality which do not encompass in them any inconsistencies or errors.
The process of creating the documentation starts with understanding the requirements of
the client after conducting several rounds of meetings and negotiations with them. Once
all the members create their documentation then the team conducts an Internal Agile
review on them where the changes and errors in the documents are noted down and the
respective changes are made to the document by the author.

Also a second check for correctness in the document is done with the help of two IV &V
team members. They perform a regular evaluation of the documents we submit and
provide us with valuable feedback which we incorporate into the document in the next
version. Also the IV& V members provide us feedback on the internal review that we
perform. This is of great help and it provides better means and ways of performing for the
next session.

We have been communicating with the IV and V members via email from the beginning.
Initially we wrote regular mails stating and informing them as to what the client
expectations are and how we plan to proceed with the project. Also we received regular
feedbacks from them on our documents and reviews which were very helpful as we learnt
our mistakes and improved on them in the next stage.




LCP_LCO_F05a_T23_V1.02.doc                  18                     Version date: 10/09/05
Life Cycle Plan (LCP)                                                     Version no 1.02



5. Resources
The effort and schedule estimates for the project can be found at

http://greenbay.usc.edu/csci577/fall2005/projects/team23/LCO/PMD/COCOMO_LCO_F
05a_T23.est

      The schedule is going to be Nominal for our project
      As each team member is going to contribute 20 hours a week for CS577, there
       will be 80 hours/person-months.

The screen shot of the estimate from the tool is below:


               Figure 2: Screen shot of the COCOMO output




LCP_LCO_F05a_T23_V1.02.doc                  19                      Version date: 10/09/05
Life Cycle Plan (LCP)                                                       Version no 1.02

                        Figure 3: Scale factors used for estimation




                        Figure 4: EAF values used for estimation




LCP_LCO_F05a_T23_V1.02.doc                  20                        Version date: 10/09/05
Life Cycle Plan (LCP)                                                     Version no 1.02

                     Figure 5: Hours/person-month used




      Following are the values we have come up with for the scale factor


                                  Table 12: Scale Factors

   Scale Factor          Value                          Explanation
Precedentedness         High      Most of the developers have not used such code
(PREC)                            counters. However they are familiar with XML data
                                  and its constraints. Also the concurrent development of
                                  associated new hardware and operational procedures is
                                  minimal.
Development             Low       As the requirements are not flexible, the value for this
Flexibility (FLEX)                parameter is kept Low.
Architecture/Risk       Nominal   The various measures taken to reduce risk such as
Resolution (RESL)                 weekly monitoring of risks using a tool called DART
                                  has helped us resolve risks.


Team Cohesion           Very      The synchronization between the success critical
(TEAM)                  High      stakeholders is very high and there are minimal
                                  conflicts between the stakeholders, so the value for this
                                  parameter is Very High
Process Maturity        Very      Capability Maturity Model (CMM) describes stages
(PMAT)                  Low       through which software organizations evolve as they
                                  define, implement, measure, control and improve their
                                  software processes. The lack of experience with
                                  Software Developers keeps the value for this parameter
                                  very low.




LCP_LCO_F05a_T23_V1.02.doc                  21                     Version date: 10/09/05
Life Cycle Plan (LCP)                                                  Version no 1.02


                   Table 13: Effort Adjustment Factor Cost Drivers

  Cost Driver      Value                            Explanation
Reliability       Nominal It measures the extent to which the software must perform
(RELY)                    its intended function over a period of time.
                          Losses because of not functioning of the tool are moderate
                          and easily recoverable. So, the value for this parameter is
                          kept nominal.
Data (DATA)       High    The data/program size ratio (D/P) is going to be < 1000.
                          So, the value for this cost driver will be high.
Documentation     Nominal The suitability of the project’s documentation is right
(DOCU)                    sized to its life cycle needs hence this parameter is
                          nominal.
Complexity        Low     The product complexity is a subjective weighted average
(CPLX)                    of control operations, computational operations, device
                          dependent operations, data management operations and
                          user interface management. In our case, the last 3
                          attributes are not applicable. The control operations are
                          mostly straightforward nesting of structured programming
                          operators and computational operators are evaluation of
                          moderate-level expressions. The average is low.
Reusability       Low     No product line is in consideration.
(RUSE)
Time Constraint   Nominal As ours is a standalone system, it is available for the user
(TIME)                    at his convenience and hence the value for this parameter
                          is nominal.
Storage           Nominal The software system we are going to develop will take
Constraint                less than 50% of the available storage. So, the value for
(STOR)                    this cost driver will be nominal.
Platform          Nominal This cost driver asses the volatility of platform (the
Volatility                complex of hardware and software the software product
(PVOL)                    calls on to perform its tasks).
Analyst           High    The analysts in the team possess good capabilities for
Capability                designing. Their designs are thorough and are able to
(ACAP)                    communicate and cooperate well.
Programmer        High    The capability of the team as a programmer is high. This
Capability                cost driver evaluates the capability of the programmers as
(PCAP)                    a team rather than as individuals.
Personnel         Nominal This is nominal as only three members of the team will be
Continuity                continuing into 577b..
(PCON)




LCP_LCO_F05a_T23_V1.02.doc               22                     Version date: 10/09/05
Life Cycle Plan (LCP)                                                      Version no 1.02



Applications       Very        As the project team doesn’t have any kind of experience
Experience         Low         with this type of application, the value for this cost driver
(AEXP)                         will be very low.
Language and       Nominal     We are using C++ as our development language and
Tool Experience                Software architect for design and architecture. The team
(LTEX)                         has experience with C++, but none of the members have
                               tool experience. So, the value for this cost driver will be
                               nominal.
Platform           Very        This cost driver measures project team’s equivalent level
Experience         High        of experience with the platform including OS, GUI,
(PEXP)                         database, networking and middleware. Ours is a
                               standalone system without any GUI and database. And we
                               are developing the system on Windows platform. The
                               team has good experience with this platform. So, the value
                               for this cost driver will be very high.
Software Tools     Nominal     This cost driver measures the usage of software tools used
(TOOL)                         to develop the product in terms of their capabilities and
                               maturity. The software product is integrated with Xerces-
                               C++ parser. So, the value for this will be nominal.
Multisite          Nominal     Our clients are from different organizations, so the product
Development                    will be used within multi-city or multi-company.
(SITE)

From the output of the tool we can see that the effort required will be 9.7 person-months.
Hence the number of developers required for the project would be:
9.7/1.67 = 5.8 persons (Approx 6 people).
Hence it will be achievable with a six member team.




LCP_LCO_F05a_T23_V1.02.doc                  23                      Version date: 10/09/05
Life Cycle Plan (LCP)                                                   Version no 1.02



6. Appendix
Glossary of the terms used in the document:

      COCOMO- A tool to estimate the cost and the effort required for the project.
      DART- A tool which is used for accessing and prioritizing the risks on a weekly
       basis.
      MS Project- A tool which is used for creating the schedule and planning the
       project.
      LCO – Life cycle objectives
      LCA – Life cycle Architecture




LCP_LCO_F05a_T23_V1.02.doc                24                     Version date: 10/09/05

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:15
posted:9/6/2011
language:English
pages:30