Informal Science Education II

Test Plan

EEL 5881 - Software Engineering - Fall 2000

Modification history:

Team Name: Miles Computer Engineering

Team Members:

• Jeffrey Miller ( J_Miller68@hotmail.com) Jeff's personal page
• Michael Wales (Mag7Rule@aol.com) Mike's personal page

Roles

• Assessment of the Quality of the Final Product: <Provide a specific description of your assessment of the quality of the final set of deliverables. (does the product work? How well? under what circumstances? >

The quality of our final product is high. All exceptions are caught except those of the most unusual circumstances and dialog boxes tell the user when they have made an error. Once the initial setup of the product (the adding and removing of state, and setting initial locations of the cells) the program is extremely stable. It never crashed once it was up and running.

• Recommended Use of the Final Product: <Provide specific recommendations about the circumstances under which the final set of deliverables can and should be used >

The final product should be used on fast computer. The program performs a large number of calculations to determine the next state of each cell. It is also recommened that the user have a large monitor (17 inch or larger) to obtain the maximum size map

• Known Problems: <Provide a detailed list of known problems and work not finished on this project. >

The only known problem that our product has is if the user has a small monitor and a map is created to large to be displayed, it will not display properly.

• Adherence to Project Plan: <How well did your group adhere to your project plan? How accurate were your project estimates? How closely did you adhere to your planned process? What was the root cause of deviations from your estimates? >

Our group did not adhere well to the project plan because of unantipated circumstances ie. last minute assignments for other classes. The estimates of our project were extremely far off. This was due to our unfamilarity with developing a project of this size, and also due to our lack of knowledge in developing graphical user interfaces.

• Defect Analysis: <Analyze the defects logged by members of your group: number and types of defects at each phase in the project life cycle? Phase the defects were introduced versus phase the defects were discovered and corrected?.>

Most defects were found in the actual source code, during the coding phase and testing phase. Minor defects in our requirements were found, but they were not significant enough to effect the project.

• Quality Assurance: <Consider the QA and testing activities your group actually performed. Were they sufficient? Were they timely? How could they have been improved? >

The quality assurance of our group was very effective. We would both review each others documents and check for inconsitancies, as well as test each others code to try to crash it. These two processes were enough to assure that a high quality product was delievered to our client.

• Configuration Management: <Consider the CM practices of your group. Were they sufficient? How could they have been improved? >

Our configuration Management could have been improved. We could have communicated more with our client on the progress we were making and get more feedback, such as building a rapid prototype and letting the client test it out.

• Suggestions for the Future: <What suggestions do you have for improvement of your group's technical processes for projects of a similar size and scope? What suggestions do you have for future project teams? What parts of your process would you change and what would you keep if you were assigned to work on a project of roughly 10 times the size and scope of this project? What about100 times the size and scope?>

Our groups technical processes could be improved by adhering more strictly to our project management plan. We set out a good plan, but because of unforseen circumstances it was difficult to stay on track. Future teams would greatly benefit by staying on track or ahead. They would also benefit from more communication between the group and the client. The amount of documentation that be required from each team member would greatly increase to keep better track of exactly where the project stands, and we would assign a dedicated project manager. For a project 100 times this size the first task we would undertake is to assign the different roles to the team members. We would dedicate a team of testers, a project manager, a team of coders. We would also implement regular walkthroughs where everyone involved in the project could get together and discuss their concerns.

Template created by G. Walton (GWalton@mail.ucf.edu) on August 15, 2000

This page last modified by Jeffrey Miller (j_miller68@hotmail.com) December 6, 2000