Team Number: 6 Week: 11/14 - 11/20 Program Size (SLOC) Base Actual Added Deleted Modified Reused # of COTS Planned 30 12 30 14 10 10 N/A (current COCOMO estimate = 1896) Code Added is experimentation prorotyping code of AT commands, not direct (Around 15 commands were studied and experimented Total New SLOC Effort (Person-Hours) Project Mgmt. Requirements COTS Assessment Design Life <a href="/keyword/cycle-planning-configuration/" >cycle planning configuration</a> Mgmt. Feasibility Analysis Code COTS Tailoring COTS Glue Code <a href="/keyword/development-test-deployment/" >development test deployment</a> Actual 30 14 31 14 10 3 2 code of AT commands, not directly plugged into project) ds were studied and experimented with) Date Wk. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Planned 21 31 45 55 66 72 80 84 87 94 Cumulative No. Of <a href="/keyword/tasks-actual-completed/" >tasks actual completed</a> On Sched 12 19 25 40 46 61 61 66 69 80 7 8 16 10 15 10 18 18 16 12 Late 2 4 4 5 5 3 3 2 2 2 Date Wk. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Man-hours Planned Actual This Wk. Cumulative This Wk. Cumulative 67 134 121 57 90 102 88 81 74 99 67 201 322 379 469 571 659 740 814 913 71 140 130 45 90 109 88 85 76 101 71 211 341 386 476 585 673 758 834 935 9/21/2005 9/28/2005 10/5/2005 10/12/2005 10/19/2005 10/26/2005 11/2/2005 11/9/2005 11/16/2005 11/23/2005 9/21/2005 9/28/2005 10/5/2005 10/12/2005 10/19/2005 10/26/2005 11/2/2005 11/9/2005 11/16/2005 11/23/2005 Based on submitted effort reports... Progress Description: Describe the progress on the project during the past week, both in qualitative and quantitative. 1. List any significant accomplishments since the last status report (including the completion/revision of project deliverables). a. LCA draft work completed b. Section 4 of SSAD significantly done c. Major changes reflected in each artifact made owing to LCO Package feedback d. e. 2. If you are using COTS Process Framework, list the process areas that you worked in the past week (For example, P3, P4, etc.). a. COTS process framework is not applicable since the project is not COTS intensive. b. c. d. 3. Attach any client meeting notes. If you have not had a client meeting in the past week, say &quot;No client meetings were scheduled&quot;. a. 2 Client meetings were scheduled for the week Weekxx_PR_S02b_Txx.xls b. client office PC architecture was noted c. LCA ARB was scheduled with client d. Weekxx_PR_S02b_Txx.xls Top Project Risks as of 11/23/2005 This Week Last Week 1 2 Risk Description Security of Classified Player Information: Privacy options and session management implemented should be good enough to handle sensitive information Type of SMS web-service COTS to be used has not yet been finalised for the SMS module. A compatible COTS solution may not be available Performance risk regarding sending the messages to 150 players within 2 hours. Stakeholder Success of Football Authorities: As of now, the client says he is the sole customer of the project and USC football authorities need not be involved. However, the budget is to be determined by football administrative authorities but the developers are not being allowed to directly negotiate features versus cost and propose options with football authorities, which poses a risk to project communication and the win conditions of USC football authorities. Incomplete/Evolving GUI definition by client <a href="/keyword/risk-mitigation-action/" >risk mitigation action</a> Items Nature of sensitivity is being analysed and highly sensitive information may be made available only from the client's local disk A hardware approach using a GSM modem is being alternately researched. Information may be bought. Testing network issues of the various service providers and discussing realistic performance with the client. Creation of a passive mode where the client can issue a 'send message' command and need not monitor the system thereafter. Perform Simulation A feasibility study of various COTS SMS option is to be created by the team and the best options will be presented to the football authorities by the client. The client has taken the responsibility of negotiating budget as an internal matter with football authorities and obtaining their acceptance for the required project budget. Weeks Active 8 2 1 10 3 3 10 4 4 9 5 5 Win/win was utilised to complete GUI definition and ID priority. Use evolutionary process model Meet client regularly and have prototypes frequently approved 9 6 6 Old Removed (similar to 4) 7 New developers if involved in the project have to be given Shortfall of key personnel involved in the project (personnel sufficient insight into the project( sufficient background and 8 turnvoer in the project is low.) details of the project) so documentation should be done well in 577a Discussions with the client regarding the budget issues of the project, after presenting the COTS feasibility report. The client Cost of the available COTS in the market may be a risk has taken the responsibility of cost negotiation between Not applicable related to satisfying the client's requirements. himself and the football administration authority a an internal football office matter. Weekxx_PR_S02b_Txx.xls # of Defects Project Mgmt. Requirements COTS Assessment Design Life <a href="/keyword/cycle-planning-configuration/" >cycle planning configuration</a> Mgmt. Feasibility Analysis Code COTS Tailoring COTS Glue Code <a href="/keyword/development-test-deployment/" >development test deployment</a> Total Injected 18 14 Removed 18 14 32 32 32 defects found through ARB feedback Internal Reviews involved general improvement Problem Reports as of 11/23/2005: * See QMP or Below for Definitions <a href="/keyword/type-issues-defects/" >type issues defects</a> Problem Reports Definitions Issues Defects Problem Reports New Opened 0 0 0 New Closed 0 0 0 Current 1 0 0 0 1 2* 1 outstanding old issue closed- LOS tables *2 outstanding old problem reports Old Closed Issues are problems that the &quot;Author&quot; can not fix solely in the artifact or at that specific time Defects in the artifact caused either by a human error (Avoidable Defect) or by situations that the &quot;Author&quot; has no control over ( Unavoidable Defect - e.g. change in the requirement). In case the team is using a <a href="/keyword/defect-tracking/" >defect tracking</a> tool, that is the number of problems reported in the tool. You can also use the Review Forms to collect that information. In that case, this will be the total number of Concerns provided by the reviewers. Concers can be an issue, a defect or neither (consider that reviewers might indicate false defects). Problem Description: List any problems team is experiencing. This includes things that have caused delays, rework or any other roadblocks to anticipated progress. No. Problem Description Proposed Solutions Is it COTS Related? (Y/N) 1 Better time management Dry runs will be increased next N required in ARB presentations time 2 IVVs...