Download - Vbiivv Corefcp f11a t05

8/10/2019 Vbiivv Corefcp f11a t05

1/12

Review Date:

Weights:

Document Importance Rationale Quality Risk Rationale Dependencies

LCP L

At this time, the life cycle plan

does not greatly impact our project

since we know our roles and the

milestones that we need to deliver

H

There have been issues in the

past with resolving bugs in

the LCP. There is a chance

that similar bug will come up

VL

OCD H

Without this document, we will

not have derived the operational

capabilities that we want and thus

cannot map our use cases and

requirements to the project

VH

There is a lot of content in the

OCD that needs to be

reviewed. The owner of the

OCD is also the owner of the

prototypes, so he had much

to do and little time to do it

M

FED M

It is important to identify the risks

that are implied in the project.

However, it is important to also

identify the operational

capabilities that may inherently

nullify the risks

L

The FED had no major

problems in the VCP

evaluation

VL

SSRD VH

It is very important to determine

what the system requirements are.

Without this document, the

project would have no structure

H

There is a chance that there

will be missing capability

requirements which other

documents rely on

L

SSAD H

It is important to understand what

the architecture of the system will

be. Without architecture, we will

not have a well-defined or elegant

soution to the problem ofarchitecting

VH

There is concern that the

document will have invalid

references. There is a lot of

content

VH

UML

QMP

TPC

TP

IP

SID H

The SID is important because it

ensures that all of the

documentation is in agreement.

H

The document depends on

the OCD, SSAD, and SSRD,

thus there is a high potential

that references will be

incorrect

VH

1 1 1


2/12

PRO VH

It is very important that we have

good prototypes to show to the

user so that we can address any

user interface or workflow

ambiguities that may exist

M

While this is a very important

document, there is less risk

for the Core FC review

because I've seen some of

the prototypes before

reviewing and I know the

prototypes are of decent

quality

H

**

**


3/12

Rationale Estimated Reviewing Cost Rationale Priority

(Multiplicative)

Priority

(Additive)

Actual Reviewing Cost

(Hours)

The LCP does

not depend on

any other

documents at

this time

L

The LCP

sections that

are due for the

Core FC package

are small in text

4.00 3.00 1

The OCD

depends on the

WinWin

conditions

VH

There is a lot of

content in the

OCD to review

including text

and diagrams

1.33 1.00 2.5

The FED does

not depend on

any other

document

VLThere is not

much content

to review

6.00 3.00 1

Depends on

Win conditionsH

Each capability

requirement

will have to be

mapped to a

win condition

2.50 3.00 1.5

The SSAD is

depending on

win conditions

and the SSRD

H

There is quite a

bit of content

that needs to

be reviewed for

the Core FC

package.

1.00 0.00 2.417

#VALUE! #VALUE!

#VALUE! #VALUE!

#VALUE! #VALUE!

#VALUE! #VALUE!

#VALUE! #VALUE!

Depends on the

OCD, SSAD, and

SSRD, all of

which are long

documents

VH

Reviewing this

document

requires looking

at all of the

documents it

references to

make sure that

everything is

complete

0.64 -2.00 2.9

1


4/12

Depends on

win conditions,

OCD, and SSRD

M

Reviewing this

document

should not take

too long

because I've

seen the

document

already and I

know what

some of the

issues are

1.25 1.00 2.25

#VALUE! #VALUE!

#VALUE! #VALUE!


5/12


6/12

H


7/12

Ranking

Issue ID in

Bugzilla

From

which

document Summary

1 #4756 SSRD Missing capability requirements

2 #4910 SSRD Missing capability requirements

3 #4816 PRO Consolidate track applicants and track positions

4 #4820 PRO Consolidate "Open Positions" and "Apply Online"

5 #4710 FED No risk regarding security

6 #4575 SSAD Missing/incorrect references to the SSRD

7 #4748 SSAD Missing/incorrect references to the SSRD

8 #4708 FED Low risk for IT/HR roles

9 #4725 OCD Confusing contributions in benefits diagram

10 #4825 PRO Prevent incorrect values


8/12

Rationale

Must ensure that the architecture points to requirements that fulfill the client's needs

Must ensure that the architecture points to requirements that fulfill the client's needs

There should not be two ways to do the same thing in the UI

There should not be two ways to do the same thing in the UI

Security is an important issue to the client and developers have agreed that it is

difficult. Thus there is a higher risk

The requirements for various use cases are provided in the SSRD. Must ensure that

use cases point to the right requirements

The requirements for various use cases are NOT provided in the SSRD. Must ensure

that use cases point to the right requirements. See Issue #2

The corresponding win condition is important to the client and the task is not trivial

Need to have and provide a good understanding of how initiatives contribute to

benefits

Need to show the user that we will prevent invalid values by using the appropriate

HTML form tags


9/12

1. Give the reason if you don't use default weight

I used the default weight

2. In your case, do the two Priorities (Multiplicative and Additive) have the same reviewing order? If not, you fo

Yes, in general they have the same reviewing order. However there are some cases where 2 of the multiplicativ

4. Do you think Priority for IIVV is important? In your previous review, did you really prioritize them or not? If y

I think that priority is important because as IIV&V, I need to know how I can best manage my time and target t

5. Based on your experience, what other important factors besides the above four factors Importance, QualiThe progress of the project is a factor. It is a parameter to "Importance" but it can still be a factor. Sometimes

6. In this review, you are not allowed to create Exit Criteria, do you think this would influence your reviewing,

I don't think it would affect my reviewing very much because creating exit criteria was time consuming, and for

7. Compared with generating Evaluation Report for each document in previous review and Top 10 issues lis

Although it takes longer to write the evaluation report, in some ways I like the evaluation report better. It allo

8. Any further comments about this process?


10/12

llow which Priority? Additive or Multiplicative? Why?

e scores are the same, but their corresponding additive scores are not. In this case, I just picked the one that I f

ou prioritized, how did you do this?

e issues that are very important rather than spend time on things that are not important. In the previous revie

ity Risk , Review Cost and "Dependencies" will also influence the reviewing priority of documents? document can be important, but not important at the curent stage of development

better or worse? Why?

the most part, I would have made the same assessments that I would have made using exit criteria

t for all documents this time, which one do you like better? Why?

s you to highlight the good things and it provides reasons regarding why you feel that the "bad" things are inde


11/12

elt was most important to review

, I did not prioritize them since I felt sure that I could review both the LCP and the FED in little time

ed bad. However, with respect to time, I like the Top 10 issues for all documents. It just takes less time to comp


12/12

lete. Also it allows you to see where the major issues are across the system

Download - Vbiivv Corefcp f11a t05

Top Related