Feedback

1
Feedback

• Deliverable 4
• Spring 2004

2
Executive Summary
On Deliverable IV there were 200 points
available. The scores are very low. This is
because (1) it is not easy to write use cases,
(2) many of you did not follow Cockburns
methodology, and (3) none documented the process,
which is what mattered.

• DDR 166 points
• Infinite Analysis 82 points
• IDS 80 points
• BIG 79 points
• FIST 63 points

3
General Comments

• In class I mentioned that the process was what
  mattered most
• Yet no one spoke to the process how they
  followed or try to follow Cockburns method no
  one explained how the team went through each
  precision level
• If some one has a question about the use cases,
  there is no way to find out how the use cases
  were developed
• I asked for the uses cases, and you assumed
  that meant the final product even though the
  lecture stress the importance of the process. In
  fact many of you failed to follow the process all
  together and put together what look like use
  cases as quickly as possible.

4
General Comments

• As an introduction to the use cases
• It would help if you wrote up a description of
  the process you used to generate the use cases to
  illustrate the decisions you made and how you
  made them
• It would also help a lot if you wrote a short
  paragraph on each use case to document what you
  are problem you are trying to solve with the
  particular use case

5
Scores For Deliverable 4

• BIG 79 points (1 of 2) Very nice cover page.
  Good use of the inside cover pages, excellent
  headers the cover letter was concise, the
  content was generally in the ball park, but
  failed to be as informative as it could have
  been, it could have done more to orient the
  reader, it used techie language repeatedly
  (requirements is techie) without defining it.
  The Executive Summary fails to provide any real
  information it provides some context and no
  content. The context stuff belongs in the cover
  letter. It uses the wrong terms and it fails to
  explain the ones it does use.

6
Scores For Deliverable 4

• BIG 79 points (2 of 2) Stakeholder analysis is
  not broad enough and does not include the
  stakeholders interests, only their role in the
  project wrong focus. The actor-goal list is a
  much better stakeholder analysis than the
  stakeholder analysis, but as an actor-goal list
  it is slightly out of focus. Some of the goals,
  like help the business grow are too high level
  these goals need to be at the task-level
  (meaning that they can be done with the computer
  in one session). Thus the actor-goal list and the
  use case diagram is not well integrated. The use
  case diagram is not well drawn, totally missed
  the boat here. Bummer. The use cases are not
  named with verbs. The main success scenarios
  dont get the job done and are not written as a
  dialogue between the actor and the system.

7
Scores For Deliverable 4

• Dynamic Data Revolution 166 points (1 of 3)
  Extremely nice cover page, great cover,
  appropriate balance, but still a bit too busy
  Picture of mountains in the back cover adds to an
  emerging theme, playful. Good graphic depicting
  the tasks members performed but neglected to add
  pictures a loss opportunity Nice Table of
  Contents breakout very nice use case diagram.
  Well written cover letter, barring some grammar
  mistakes and some overly long sentences (see
  below). The Executive Summary had one good
  section, it was informative then it lapsed into
  a context description that properly belonged in
  the cover letter if at all. Perhaps the better
  place for these descriptions is the Body as
  introductions to their respective sections.

8
This is a good cover letter
9
Scores For Deliverable 4

• Dynamic Data Revolution 166 points (3 of 3)
  Excellent stakeholder analysis, best in class (10
  points extra). There is no transition from the
  stakeholder analysis to the actor-goal list. The
  actor-goal list and the use case diagram,
  however, are in sync. Use cases are well thought
  out, which shows that they probably followed
  Cockburns methodology. The main success
  scenarios, however, have steps that properly
  belong inside the system and not here. This is a
  dialogue between the system and the actor, only.
  Otherwise these are very good use cases. The
  team may want to role play them a couple of
  times, to make sure they work before going on to
  modeling.

10
Scores For Deliverable 4

• FIST 63 points (1 of 2) Cover page improved a
  lot, appropriate balance but the name of the
  system is being crowded by less important things,
  and although the deliverable name is smaller than
  the system name (appropriately) it is in a more
  prominent position.. Cover letter completely
  misses the mark very sad. The Executive Summary
  was no better.

11
Scores For Deliverable 4

• FIST 63 points (2 of 2) Excellent stakeholder
  analysis it does a great job listing all of the
  owners interests good job identifying objects
  such as the printer as a stakeholder, but thats
  probably already taken care of by the computers
  operating system (good thinking though) also a
  good job mentioning the existing system and the
  Web service, but not clear what that service will
  be good job mentioning the City of Marysville
  and its interest in an old town feeling and
  appeal clearly a concern for the website under
  construction. Good introduction to the
  actor-goal list, but the list is not in sync with
  the stakeholder analysis and does not provide
  enough detail. There are 18 goals but only 7 use
  cases?! Clearly these are not in sync either.
  Four of the use cases can be handled as one.
  Calls it an inventory system, but it also has a
  purchase function. Is this now a POS? The use
  cases are not named with verbs the success
  guarantee is misunderstood, the main success
  scenarios are not written as a dialogue between
  the actor and the system. The extensions look
  good in form, but not clear that the client was
  consulted on how to handle.

12
Scores For Deliverable 4

• IDS 80 points (1 of 3) Very good cover page
  simple, clear, appropriately balanced making the
  name of the system stand out. The cover was best
  in class for organization but could still be
  improved graphically (10 points extra). Very nice
  use of stick figures in the use case diagram.
  Good Actor-Goal list graphic. Cover letters hits
  one good point and makes an okay transition to
  the Executive Summary, but fails to orient the
  reader and belabors the importance of getting
  things right while failing to connect that with
  how the deliverable gets things done right, it
  then demands the client read the entire report in
  detail not cool, you were hired to make things
  easy on the client, not harder in sum, the cover
  letter fails to hit the mark.

13
Scores For Deliverable 4

• IDS 80 points (2 of 3) The executive summary is
  no better. The executive summary reads like a
  cover letter not like a summary of facts and
  findings it provides context, and no
  content. The stakeholder analysis is still way
  off. It is either too broad or too focused it
  fails to identify all potential stakeholders of
  the system, instead it lumps all the extensive
  stakeholders of the entire company in one class
  and calls the analysis done. Fails to understand
  the point of a stakeholder analysis. Good
  introductions to the Actor-Goal list and to the
  use case diagram. The Actor-goal list and the
  use case diagram are not in sync names differ
  and one goal was dropped. The names of the use
  cases that follow are NOT verbs and dont
  coincide with either the use case diagram or the
  actor-goal list.

14
Scores For Deliverable 4

• IDS 80 points (3 of 3) There is too little
  functionality to this system. Is this really all
  the client wants??? In the use cases
  stakeholders are missing, success guarantees are
  missing the Main success scenarios are not
  written as a dialogue between the actor and the
  system the extension are exhaustive but do not
  read like a use case, they read like pseudo-code,
  and there is not indication that the team
  consulted with the client about the extension
  handling

15
Scores For Deliverable 4

• Infinite Analysis 82 points (1 of 3) Excellent
  look and feel. First few sections were very well
  introduced, but then stopped providing
  introductions Timeline was hidden in the back,
  it needs to be in the front, nice graphic for the
  timeline. Although the team contributions were
  hidden in the back and had no pictures, the
  presentation was stunning in its simplicity.
  Still needs to figure out, however, a way to get
  the members pictures in clearly shows that they
  were working using precision levels, although
  they did not finish to the last level they now
  have a list of issues to discuss with the client
  and/or the appropriate person. Use cases are not
  ordered logically.

16
Scores For Deliverable 4

• Infinite Analysis 92 points (2 of 3) The cover
  letter fails to orient the reader, uses
  inappropriate language, does not flow in a
  logical, coherent manner, in sum it misses the
  mark. To its benefit, it is concise. The
  executive summary reads like a cover letter for
  75 of the time and finally at the end provides
  some substance, but not enough.

17
Scores For Deliverable 4

• Infinite Analysis 92 points (3 of 3) Stakeholder
  analysis was weak especially with respect to
  customer, there is no clear link from the
  stakeholder analysis to the actor-goal list, use
  cases are not in a logical order, minimal
  guarantees are no guarantees, main success
  scenarios need a lot of work especially with
  respect to making payments and with respect to
  tracking orders good job following Cockburns
  methodology in generating extension conditions,
  but extension handling needs work in general it
  appears as though the team has honed in on a
  solution, an ordering system, without reference
  to what problem is being solved. Fancy preamble
  introducing the stakeholder analysis was merely
  decorative. Fails to cite source.