Summer Progress Report

Studio Management Page | Spring progress report

Teams

Pandora
Phoenix
Salsa
Sapphire
SOCS

Pandora

Date range	Progress	Comments
5/16/2005 - 6/6/2005	Proposals: No adjustments have been made to the proposals since the last team lead meeting. SOW: Completed CONOPS: Completed SRS: Completed Architectural documents: Updated the SDD to version 1.3. Will be beginning work documenting the analysis and visualization design in the coming week. Implementation: Progressing according to schedule. May need to re-adjust task distribution as not all members of team are equally tasked at the moment. Process definition: We've been reviewing our coding standards, QA, and V&V plans and updating where necessary. We've also each completed a design post-mortem questionnaire that will be used as a basis for a prose version of a design post-mortem. SPMP: The SPMP was updated at the beginning of the semester and given to our subcontractor. Subcontractor management: Our subcontractor has had to take a medical leave and it is unknown if/when she will be able to return. The team is currently discussing mitigation strategies.	Major status: Our customer representative (Deb) has returned from a 6-week leave of absence. She has been updated on the current status of the project Implementation is progressing according to schedule. A significant portion of the framework has already been implemented. Design post mortem is progressing and should be completed in the next week. Our subcontractor has had to take a medical leave and may be unable to return for the summer.
6/6/2005 - 6/20/2005	Proposals: No adjustments have been made to the proposals since the last team lead meeting. SOW: Completed CONOPS: Completed SRS: Completed Architectural documents: Currently capturing class interactions through sequence diagrams. We initially skipped this part of the design for lack of time, but are revisiting it now as the information has become important to continuing development. Implementation: Progressing according to revised schedule. The initial schedule has been revised to include more detail regarding task breakdown. Schedule revisions also take into account more equal distribution of programming tasks. All individuals are now fully tasked. Process definition: We've been reviewing our coding standards, QA, and V&V plans and updating where necessary. We have found several holes in our current CM processes relating to code sharing, peer reviews, and code check in. SPMP: No change. Subcontractor management: Our subcontractor has returned from her medical leave and is now contributing to the analysis portion of our framework.	Major status: Implementation is progressing according to revised schedule. A significant portion of the framework has already been implemented. Design postmortem is complete. Our subcontractor has returned from her leave of absence. Holes in our current CM process are hampering development. The team is quickly addressing the CM problems as they arise.
6/21/2005 - 6/05/2005	Proposals: No adjustments have been made to the proposals since the last team lead meeting. SOW: Completed CONOPS: Completed SRS: Completed Architectural documents: Have made some minor changes to our framework API. Implementation: Progressing according to revised schedule. The initial schedule has been revised to include more detail regarding task breakdown. We have committed the initial Rose-generated stubs to our baseline branch in SVN. We are currently peer reviewing completed packages and adding them to the baseline as they pass peer review. Team members are working together more on packages than in previous weeks. Most of the isolated and independent packages are complete. Process definition: We are going to be reviewing our peer review policy and looking for ways to streamline the process for initial code peer reviews. We’ve also decided to restructure peer reviews around individual files instead of whole packages. SPMP: No change. Subcontractor management: Our subcontractor is making substantive contributions to the analysis portion of our framework. She is currently working on writing the correlation algorithms for the demo portion of our framework.	Major status: Implementation of the framework is progressing about a half week behind schedule. Not currently considered a significant risk. We have begun peer reviewing code and merging it into the baseline. Our subcontractor is making substantive contributions to the analysis portion of our framework. Our CM process is working better now that we have created an integration branch separate from our baseline.

Phoenix

Date range	Progress	Comments
5/16/2005 - 6/6/2005	The team has been working on a prototype of a rule editor. We are doing a lot of experiments still, and understanding what technologies to use in each case. SOW, SRS, SPMP, Architectural document: No change. Proposals: The implementation proposal was added details of our operation: the use of coding standards, a development process, how we were going to do testing and review. Semester plan: we have had some difficulties coming up with a detailed plan. We cannot estimate easily because we did not understand the complexity of the components. We think we are paying the price of not doing experiments. Time tracking Reflection meeting: We had the first of three reflection meetings last week. We realized that the main issue were experiments.	N/A
6/7/2005 - 6/22/2005	The team has been working on a prototype of a rule editor. We are doing a lot of experiments still, and understanding what technologies to use in each case. SOW, SPMP, Architectural document:, proposals: No change. SRS: We created an addendum that gives more details on the parts that we are building. Semester plan and weekly reports: For our second iteration we had a planning session with all the team where we detailed the tasks, the goals and the needed milestones. We estimated the time to finish each feature including all the software engineering activities (design, reviews, unit and integration testing, etc.). We have a better sense of what we are doing now, we know where we are for the iteration and we have more certainty on what we will be able to hand in on August (especially on what we will not be able to hand in) ;-) Our weekly reports give us more value. We review milestones for the project and the iteration, progress of all the tasks, earned value, time spent per person and team, and our work allocation for the next two weeks. Iteration progress: Our next deliverable is due July 5th. Our goal is to improve and extend the current rule editor. The other components (rationale capabilities, debugging environment, and import/export) are postponed. We are on track although we have finished our milestones a little late... we set the deadlines for our milestones without checking the work allocation. Next time we will check the MS Project before other setting the date.	We are in the middle of our second iteration. We are on track based on our estimates and the milestones we have reached so far.
6/7/2005 - 7/6/2005	We had a three-weeks iteration where we delivered a working product to our client. The iteration was focused on refactoring and extending the functionality of the prototype we delivered in the previous iteration. We started a new iteration on Tuesday, we have an aggressive goal, to translate a complete reasoning framework to our language and make it work in the current environment, made by a previous Studio team. SOW, SRS, SPMP, Architectural document, proposals: No change. Semester plan: We have a detailed plan for the iteration that includes a balanced number of hours (~50hrs per week per person) for the upcoming month. Reflection meeting: We had the second of three reflection meetings on Tuesday. We have made good progress but we realized we are not doing everything we said we were going to do.	We are doing a 1 hour risk mgmt session every week. In this session we review the priority and reassess the current risks, we evaluate the effectiveness of the mitigation, and we brainstorm and assess new risks.
7/7/2005 - 7/20/2005	We are currently on our third and last iteration. It is due on the last week of the semester, so we will have to work on the product and the EOSP at the same time. Our iteration's major purpose is to fully replace one of the libraries (called Reasoning Frameworks) that our clients has in place with one created with our language and our tool. We overcame difficulties with the client's expectations on the language. Their early notions were tough to implement AND we had our doubts they would work for all cases, so we went looking for all the possible scenarios were the language features would be used, try to use them and we were able to come up with counter-examples. The client is happy with our language and tool features. Knowledge Transfer: We have established a plan with goals and meetings but the clients have not given their feedback. SRS: an addendum was included. We are waiting for client approval. SOW, SPMP, Architectural document: No change. Proposals: Updated design and implementation proposals to reflect what we are actually doing.	Our major risk is having a last minute difficulty that wouldn't allow us to do the replacement. Our code works in the examples we've used so far but we haven't tested it in the "real" environment, we will do this testing next week.

Salsa

Date range	Progress	Comments
5/16/2005 - 6/6/2005	* Iteration 1 deliverables: GUI architecture prototype MADL parser prototype * Studio deliverables: EOSP v2.0 presentation 2nd major draft of SRS 1st draft of screen prototypes	N/A
6/7/2005 - 7/7/2005	Iteration 3 Deliverables: Designed data model Produced final list of queries to be supported Completed our library for Instructions and Registers Still need to implement more data model elements Created prototype for Iteration 4 Tasks Started implementing data model Research on architecture description language (MADL) for representing elements from our data model. Issues: Client is no longer interested in XML as persistence format. They are only interested in importing from MADL. No longer interested in using the UI to edit specifications, but only to view a specification.	N/A
7/8/2005 - 7/21/2005	Had another deliverable due this last weekend. However, we had to postpone the deliverable by one week. Problem mapping elements from the language to our data model, since things aren’t exactly the same. Poorly documented code base, with design defects, and lack of support for common operations (like printing the value of nodes). Counter-proposed to deliver what we promised on last Saturday one week later, but with additional features (more test generators) We have been making progress on our research into the language, and our final report and recommendation to Intel. Fully implemented our data model and the underlying library support. Queries have been implemented, with more queries being rolled out for the other test generators. Finished one test generator.	N/A

Sapphire

Date range	Progress	Comments
5/16/2005 - 6/6/2005	The Sapphire team will not code any other engineering release. There were two engineering releases planned for Summer and an evaluation of the existing glogal architecture, but the customer decided to give the team a more challenging task. The tasks is to create a distributable. architecture for the MSLite system. The purpose of this new assignment is to create an overall architecture based on components with independent functionalities to help divide the work across 6 distributed teams. Hence, the team had to define a new vision, stablish new objectives, create a new project plan, adopt a more architecture-centric process, and so on. Create new project plan: Done, but it is revised before each planning cycle starts (every two weeks). Create new SOW: First draft completed. Adapt new process (from RUP to ACDM): Done Change to new roles (from RUP to ACDM): Done, team members adopted tje ACDM roles based on the similarity of the RUP and ACDM roles. Revised proposals for Summer: First draft done. Awaiting for mentors' feedback. Create notional architecture: 2 brainstorm sessions completed out of 5.	The customer (Siemens) does not have full time resources assigned to this project. It is difficult to get the stakeholders to participate in this architecture design. The Sapphire team had to take ownership of the architecture drivers. (business contraints, high-level requirements, and quality attributes) to make this architecture design possible. The team had refined the SRS documents given by Siemens to all the distributed teams and had decided the scope for this architecture design. The team also created the quality attribute scenarios. Both the high-level requirements and quality attribute scenarios are being revised by the customer.
6/6/2005 - 6/20/2005	The Sapphire team has taken ownership of the architecture drivers for the summer semester because the customer does not have enough resources committed to the project. Scope the high-level requirements: Done. The team read all the SRS documents that were created by the Siemens central team as well as the other remote teams. We also chose the high-level requirements and redefined them. The customer was notified about the team's decisions. Siemens is responsible for updating the MSLite SRS based on our input. Create new SOW: Revised by customer. Pending for signature. Rearranged ACDM roles: The Requirements Engineer will make the decisions on the customer's behalf because of the the lack of availability of our customer. Hence, we could not have one team member playing both the Architect and Requirements Engineer roles. The Requirements Engineer role was assigned to another team member. Revised proposals for Summer: First draft done. Awaiting for mentors' feedback. Second notional architecture: The first notional architecture was revised with the mentors and the customer. The team is doing the second round of brainstorming sessions to produce the second notional architecture.	N/A
6/7/2005 - 7/7/2005	The architecture brainstorm sessions are almost over. The C&C and Module views for level 1 and level 2 of the MSLite system are documented. We also started to reason about distributability of the architecture by using the Design Structure Matrix (DSM) to represent the dependencies and optimize the development process. We will have a review of all the architecture views with experts from CMU and SEI tomorrow.	N/A
7/8/2005 - 7/21/2005	The review session of the architecture went well. There are no major changes according to the experts' opinion. Some important sensitive points were identified and documented. The deliverables have been specified. The team will delivera set of architecture documents that contains three volumes. Volume 1 is an architecture overview document, volume 2 is a reference manual, and volume 3 proposes a work unit assignment to teams. volume 1 is finished. The team is concurrently working on volume 2 and 3. Both documents are scheduled to be finished by July 29th. The handover to Siemens will be on August 1st.	N/A

SOCS

Date range	Progress	Comments
5/16/2005 - 6/6/2005	SOW, SRS, SPMP, Architectural document: No change. Proposal, Semester plan: Our proposal is detailed in our production plan. It defines our process for the semester and the how’s of our execution. We are still refining our detailed schedule once this is complete our Production Plan is complete. Implementation: Progressing according to schedule. Reflection meetings: We plan to schedule a reflection meeting by the end of the week.	Implementation is progressing according to schedule. A significant portion of the framework has already been implemented. Roll up of detailed schedule will happen this week.
5/16/05 – 7/7/05	Implementation Phase 1 of 3 is complete approximately 5 days late. Phase 2 completion is scheduled for 8/12/05 but we are confident that we can pull that in to have it complete by EOSP. The goal is to hand off Phase 2 to the customer by EOSP and to demo (if customer approves) at EOSP.	Using Microsoft Project to track and have created a spreadsheet to calculate EV (earned value) based on percentage complete from MS project and hours worked.