[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[epf-dev] RE: Re: PM stuff

Per, I checked them out and they pretty good -- nice job! As far as the templates, a couple of things...
 
1) Related to usability and look-and-feel, I think we should consider a slightly different layout - different headers/footers and styles. While these templates are definitely less formal that what's in RUP, they still look like RUP to me (but that could be because I'm too familiar with it).
 
2) Project plan: I think the sections you have and how they've been completed are appropriate. I think we should add the development process section (as it is mentioned as a step in "Plan the Project"). For PM at least, I'd like to ensure that the steps of the process match the work products (and their supporting templates). I.e. if we say "Define the process for the project" in "Plan the Project" and the "Project plan" is an output of that task, then there should be something in that work product/template to handle that step (i.e. a place to describe the project's process). Of course, in this instance, the other option is to remove the "Define the process for the project" step and then they'd match! :-)
 
3) Iteration plan: Similarily the sections look appropriate. The "Iteration Objectives" section is simpler (and less confusing) than the table that is in the original template. I presume "Measure Results" are the iteration evaluation criteria (which corresponds with the "Identify system elements to test" step in the "Plan Iteration" task)?
 
What about risks? Should we describe them here (as the subset of risks relevant to the current iteration) or separately (as the complete list of all risks)?
 
What pieces of data do we expect leads to provide for work items (getting back to the issue at hand)? For EPF, do we capture points for work items in the burndown chart or in the iteration plan? Is this where a lead would expand the work items into smaller assignable things (either sub-work items or tasks) and provide effort estimates and effort allocation by week?
 
Based on the current burndown chart, there doesn't seem to be a place to put points (where it seems like it should be since Bugzilla can't capture this). I think we should be measuring development burndown by iteration (not by week as the current chart does). It does not appear as if we can really capture and measure iteration burndown since the current chart cannot accommodate effort allocation by week (and we'd also need another actual chart for each iteration's burndown).
 
One thing I'm not quite sure about with the option of having one list, is how does one distinguish between an item that is to used to measure requirement coverage (i.e. development burndown) and an item that is to be used to measure expenditure of effort (i.e. iteration burndown)? Should that option prevail, we'd have to clearly describe how to calculate these two metrics from one list (and have it clearly represented in the supporting templates and EPF examples).
 
Thanks, Chris ~:|
 
 


From: Per Kroll [mailto:pkroll@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 11:06 PM
To: chris.armstrong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: PM stuff


Hi Chris,

I felt that these templates / examples were a little bit more advanced than I would like to include in OpenUP / use for EPF. Whenever in doubt, I suggest we go for less....
I do think that there are a few good things I should include in the EPF proj plan, such as measurement and project organization. I think that it would be interesting for people to know who is actually working on the project (Committer as well as contributors). So I suggest I add that.

Cheers

Per Kroll
STSM, Manager Methods: RUP / RMC
Project Lead: Eclipse Process Framework
Rational Software, IBM Corp
408-342-3815



"Chris Armstrong" <chris.armstrong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

07/11/2006 08:56 AM

Please respond to
<chris.armstrong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

To
Per Kroll/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS
cc
Subject
PM stuff





<<...>> <<...>>

Chris Armstrong ~:|
President

Armstrong Process Group, Inc.

651.491.5575 c

715.246.0383 f

www.aprocessgroup.com
    "proven practical process"

Come see APG at:
---------------

Agile 2006 International Conference
Minneapolis, MN, July 23-28, 2006 -
www.agile2006.com
---------------

14th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference

Minneapolis, MN, September 11-15, 2006 -
www.re06.org