TEAM LINKAGE

IS480 FINAL PRESENTATION

Supervisor: Dr Chris Boesch

Client: Bhagya Perera

Meryl Kwek Doris Soh

PricewaterhouseCoopers IT Risk Consulting, Advisory

Team: Low Ying Lin|Liang Yahui|Liu Huan| Li Lu| Jerome Ching|Zhong Zhenyu

Content

Project Introduction and Overview

Demo

Testing

Technical Complexity

Project Management

X Factor and Learning Outcomes

Stakeholders

Mr Bhagya Perera,

Ms Meryl Kwek, Ms Doris Soh

PricewaterhouseCoopers Advisory, IT Risk Department

• World’s Largest professional services firm

• Conducts Security Reviews

• Recommends threat and vulnerability solutions for their clients

Prof Chris Boesch,

Team Supervisor,

Associate Professor of

Information Systems

• Guided the team

along FYP journey

Ying Lin, Li Lu, Liu Huan,

Jerome, Zhenyu, Yahui

• Implementation of Solutions for

our sponsor

PwC LinkAge Application

Deployed and “Live”

Client’s Environment (4th April 2013)

Our Users

PWC IT Risk & Advisory Department Staff

3 Types of Users:

Project Manager(s)

Project Member(s)

System Administrator

Admin

ADMIN

Accept or Reject user’s role

(Manager) request

Receives

Notification

Reset password for

member

If members forgot

password

Delete Account for

member

If members left

the department

Managers

MANAGER

Selects a

suitable

project team

Receives

Project Breaks down

project into

specific tasks

Assigns each

specific task to

project member(s)

Compile the

outcomes of

completed tasks

Members Complete

Their task(s)

Findings are

compiled into a

Completed Report

Report presented

to client

Hmmm… Who should be assigned to this new project?

Who is doing which project at what stages?

What will be my team members Schedule for next week?

Problem

Problem (Managers)

Manual assignment of tasks

does not cater for effective

resource management

Difficult to ascertain

member suitability to

perform required task

Difficulty in tracking

progress and datelines of

every assigned task

May create a situation of

imbalanced workload

among team members

Members

MEMBERS

Receives Task(s)

from Manager Performs Task and

issue findings by

dateline

Submits findings to

Project Manager

It is so troublesome to type same issues every time.

It is a headache to format the reports.

Why are there no user friendly applications to help us manage our process?

Problem

Problem (Members)

High Error Rate due to

multiple manual processes

Difficult to track own

schedule since they are

assigned multiple tasks

with varying due dates

Difficulty in managing

different versions of

documents sent to manager

for review

May be assigned

unsuitable tasks, leading

to unhappiness and

frustration

Introducing the PWC-LinkAge App

A customized project management web application

used to optimize the business process

Designed To:

Streamline Project Scheduling

Ensure optimal and suitable resource allocation

Track project’s progress

Analyze project data

Provide industry trends

Framework

Model–View–Controller

{ }

Project.html ProjectController.js Project Json Object

Technologies

Internet

Client Server

PWC Server

Application

Sql Database

GAE Server

Application

GAE database

(JSON object)

RESTful

Architecture

Breaking Down PWC-LinkAge App..

Manage Project

Manage Report

• Centralized location for creation of Project and

Assignment of Tasks to project members

• Dynamically generate a visually represented schedule

for each member and project to track progress

• Dynamically generate a MS Word Formatted Report for

each project based on member’s findings for submission

to the client

Analytics • Analyze past project information to provide insights on

industry trends (eg top issues per industry etc)

Other Features • Messaging Function (allows users to communicate with

each other live)

• Viewing member’s statistics

• Responsive pages

Demo

http://pwclinkage.appspot.com

Appspot version used for demonstration

Actual live application can only be accessed from PwC’s environment

Report Generation portion (unavailable on Appspot)

Browser that supports html5

Chrome

Firefox

Value To Sponsor

Optimal

Resource

Allocation

Accurate

Tracking of

Progress Provides timely

information on

industry trends

Cutting down of

man hours taken

to complete a

project

Significant cost

savings

Increased PM

efficiency

USER TESTING

Testing Objectives

Ensure that functionalities satisfy client’s

specifications and requirements

Align team and sponsor’s vision of user-friendliness

Gather feedback for evaluation purposes and

further improve the application

Internal Testing

Application is tested at the end of each iteration

following a detailed test plan

Ensure that newly completed functionalities are

working as planned

Ensure that earlier functionalities still work

Sample Test Plan

User Testing

UAT 1 (15 Feb 2013) at PwC

Tested functionalities up till Iteration 12

UAT 2 (4 Mar 2013) at PwC

Tested all functionalities

UAT 3 (15 Mar 2013) at PwC

Handover to PwC

Tester Profiles

Actual End Users

8 Testers (4 male , 4 female)

IT proficient

Used their own PCs for the test

User Testing

Each UAT consists of:

Functional Testing

Testers given hard copy test script

Follow the test cases

Indicate Pass/ Fail

Usability Testing

Testers navigate freely around

the pages

Fill in the online survey form

Functionality Test Results

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

UAT 1 UAT 2 UAT 3

Test Cases Passed

98.4% 91.7% 100%

Functionality Tests

UAT 1 – Iterations 1 to 12

Focused on less complex functionalities to build up

confidence

Tested on appspot version

UAT 2 – Iterations 12 to 19

Implemented all functionalities

Tested on deployed version on client’s environment

UAT 3 – Iteration 21 to End of FYP

Tested on deployed version on client’s environment

Usability Tests Survey Areas

Consistency throughout the pages

Error Prevention Features

Aesthetics

Efficiency of Use

Match between system and business process

Focus on recognition instead of recall

Help features

User Control and Freedom

Feedback Collection

Open Ended User Feedback

0 1 2 3 4 5

Consistency

Error Prevention

Aesthetics

Efficiency of use

Match between system and BP

Recognition

Help Features

User Control

UAT 2

UAT 1

Improvements (Task Page)

Design Stage

Earlier Iterations Currently

Improvements (Schedule)

Design Stage

Currently

TECHNICAL COMPLEXITY

Technical Complexity #1

RESTFUL Data Service

Keep progress of front-end design

Python database GAE

Fulfill needs of changing back-end database

Instead of changing the whole app, change queries

Request as an JSON object

Request is send over with json objects

Parse into json objects

Differentiating requests

Getting what is required from URI mapping

Process each request differently by their method

(PUT, GET, POST, DELETE)

Different implementation

- SQL Can’t Display Store Array

Process data with array differently

It’s still restful

This works!

Xxx/apikey/model/id

Return JSON object showing the specific item

Xxx/apikey/model/id (POST + a JSON Object)

Update the old item with the new one

Etc

Functions are the same as the old database

Technical Complexity #2

Report generation

Editing report through Linkage application

“Generate Report” function can download a well

formatted report into word document

Technical Complexity #2

Report generation

The header that makes it work

Complex Microsoft headers

Generate a report!

Some formats are more

complex than others…

Technical Complexity #3

Chatting Function

Enhance communication among team members

Use channel method to accomplish the real time

chatting

System Flexibility & Maintainability

Flexible Backend

Deploy to different backend without changes to front

end codes.

Log file at backend

Time and type of request received

Queries executed

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Schedule-Iterative

5 days (Mon-Fri)

Weekends (Buffer)

Documentation Review

Development Codes

Development Design

Metrics Review

Test Case

Debugging

Schedule (Tracked with MS Project)

Milestones

Iteration Dates Milestone

2 22 Oct 2012-26 Oct12012 FYP Acceptance Proposal

4 5 Nov 2012- 9 Nov 2012 FYP Acceptance Demo

12 11 Feb 2013 -15 Feb 2013 UAT 1

13 18 Feb 2013 -22 Feb 2013 FYP Midterm Evaluation

15 4 Mar 2013 - 8 Mar 2013 1st Deployment

18 25 Mar 2013 - 29 Mar 2013 Poster & Video Submission

19 1Apr 2013 - 5 Apr 2013 UAT 2 & 2nd Deployment

21 15 Apr 2013-19 Apr 2013 UAT 3 & Final Deployment

FYP Hand Over & Final Presentation

22 22 Apr 2013 – 26 Apr 2013 FYP Poster Day

Schedule

Current Iteration : Iteration 21

Completed : 9 milestones

“Fully Deployed” at Sponsor’s site

2 out of 21 iterations: ‘Behind Schedule’

1 out of 21 iterations: ‘Ahead Schedule’

Task Level Breakdown : Mixture of Indicators

Schedule Metrics Calculation

Schedule Index (per iteration) = Estimated Hours

Actual Hours

Status Indicator Index Action

Ahead Schedule > 1.2 Reschedule and allocate less time for similar tasks.

On Schedule 0.8-1.2 No re-adjustment needed on the schedule.

Behind Schedule < 0.8 Allocate more time for similar tasks.

Reschedule and split into smaller tasks.

eg. Schedule Index (iteration 21) = 11.00

9.50

= 1.16

Schedule Metrics

2

3

1

0

1

2

3

4

Frequency

Ahead Schedule

On Schedule

Behind Schedule

2

4

0

1

2

3

4

5

Frequency

Ahead Schedule

On Schedule

Behind Schedule

Schedule Metrics- Per Iteration

2 1 1

2

3

5 4

5 5

3 4 4

1 3

6

3

4

3

3 2 2

4 2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Behind Schedule

On Schedule

Ahead Schedule

No of Tasks

Iteration

Schedule Metrics- Per Iteration

Iteration

3

1 1

2 2

6

3

5

3

4

3

3

4

3

1

2

1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Behind Schedule

On Schedule

Ahead Schedule

No of Tasks

Project Status

Iterations Planned Actual Comments

1 FYP Acceptance Proposal

2 FYP Acceptance Demo

Prototypes

3 FYP Acceptance Demo

Prototypes Phase 2

4 Project Management Phase 1

5 Acceptance Clean-up • Dropped IT Audit function

• Dropped voice chatting function

• Dropped auto assigning members to tasks

6 Project Management Phase 2

7 Project Management Phase 3

8 Project Management + Report

Management Phase 1

Project Status

Iterations Planned Actual Comments

9 Project Management +

Report Management

Phase 2

10 Project Management +

Report Management

Phase 3

Project Management

UI Front End

Deployment was being put to a hold till

sponsors’ server had to finish maintenance

11 UAT Preparation

Wrap up on :

Profile Page & Project

Management

UAT was shifted to Iteration 12 as sponsors’

schedule did not allow for it

12 Report Management &

Schedule Management

Heuristic & UAT • Heuristic & UAT Feedback collection

• Changes done to UI from UAT feedback

13 FYP Midterm Preparation Report Management & Schedule Management

Phase 1 is shifted to Iteration 14

14 Schedule Management

Phase 1

Deployment is to be scheduled in recess week

Project Status

Iterations Planned Actual Comments

15 Analytics Phase 1 Adjustment made to make

it ‘deployment smooth’

• Analytics Phase 1 shifted to Iteration 16

• 1st Deployment is completed

16 Analytics Phase 2 Analytics Phase 1 & 2

17 UAT 2 Preparation Touch Screen Enabled with

Responsive Website

Phase 1

UAT 2 is shifted to Iteration 18

18 Touch Screen Enabled

with Responsive

Website Phase 1

Touch Screen Enabled with

Responsive Website

Phase 2 & FYP WIKI

UAT 2 is shifted to Iteration 19

Project Status

Iterations Planned Actual Comments

19 Touch Screen Enabled

with Responsive Website

Phase 2

UAT 2 • 2nd Deployment is completed

• UAT 2 Results Collection & Feedback

20 UAT 3 UAT2 Adjustment on

sponsor’s UI requirements

FYP Final Preparation Phase 1

21 FYP Final Presentation UAT 3 • Final Deployment is completed

• FYP Hand Over

• FYP Final Presentation

22 FYP Poster Day

Bug Metrics Calculation

Scoring = 1 x num (low) + 5 x num (high) + 10 x num (critical) Severity Description

Low ( 1 point) Non Critical . Application able to run normally. Core functions are working.

Editing on small amendments to the codes.

High (5 points) System runs but not functioning properly. Some core functions working.

Critical (10 points) Application is unstable or crashes. Unable to continue without troubleshooting.

Scoring Action

0-5 Fix during buffer time

5-10 Debug during debugging session set aside at each iteration

11 or more Resolve bug immediately. Stop developing project

eg. Bug Scoring (Iteration 21) = 1X 1(low) + 5 x 4(high) + 10 x 0 (critical)

=21

Bug Metrics

Points : 21 Action : Resolve bugs immediately. Stop development of project.

Iteration Date of bugs Description Severity Status Date solved

21 14/4/2013 ‘complete’ button not working in in mytask.html High

completed 13/4/2013

21 14/4/2013 Sequence of tasks jumbles up in add_task.html High

completed 14/4/2013

21 15/4/2013 Timing is incorrect in message.html Low

completed 15/4/2013

21 15/4/2013 'edit' & 'delete' buttons not working in myTasks.html High

completed 15/4/2013

21 15/4/2013 'prev' button not working in add_tasks.html High

completed 15/4/2013

Scoring = 1 x num (low) + 5 x num(high) + 10 x num (critical)

=1X1(low)+5x4(high) = 21

Bug Metrics- Per Iteration

2

5 7

6 5

10

2

9

22 20

2 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13Iteration

Bug Metrics- Per Iteration

31

2

6

20

33

18

30

21

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Iteration

X Factor

Improved project operations

Increase Efficiency

Increase efficiency of report editing process by over 20%

Increase efficiency of project schedule by over 20%

Data analytics has ability to identify trends of industry

Sponsor estimated cost savings of at least $50,000 per year

Lessons Learnt

Flexibility

Python Backend

Design from user perspective

Cater for large amount of buffer time

Plan to integrate application at earliest time possible

Deployed thrice

Importance of Feedback