1 / 7

DKN Review of DKR Project

DKN Review of DKR Project. POS System Review CS 415 September 23, 2002. Project Concept. A full reading of the project suggests that the software is intended to be the most user friendly and cheap POS on the market. This is not stated clearly in the project concept. Business Drivers.

lynna
Download Presentation

DKN Review of DKR Project

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DKN Review of DKR Project POS System Review CS 415 September 23, 2002

  2. Project Concept • A full reading of the project suggests that the software is intended to be the most user friendly and cheap POS on the market. This is not stated clearly in the project concept.

  3. Business Drivers • No internal justification is made for the development of the project, no case for why it is worth the development time it will be given. • The cheap/easy points in the business drivers need to be stated more clearly in terms of market comparison: 'cheapest', 'easiest', and need to be captured in the Features as well. • The proposed market case is under justified.

  4. Features: Issues • Unqualified features are listed, such as "User Friendly" • Features are defined in terms of comparison to undefined products, using loaded phrases such as "more secure" and "speeds sales times", without giving a baseline to measure against. • Features are listed which are outside of the current project timeline. • Qualitative adjectives are used to 'sell' features, without capturing the intended feature sufficiently. "Powerful", "Versatile", "Unnecessary". • The use cases need to be more tightly defined, the feature list specifies classes of users, but fails to capture what the system is intended to provide to these different classes.

  5. Features: Risks • The Mono C# framework for utilizing C# on UNIX and Linux platforms is still in early stages of development, and will not be completed in the project's timeline. • The business rules associated with an inventory management system are complex, as are those associated with a billing and payment system. • Committing to delivering a full inventory / billing / payment system on this timescale is perhaps to ambitious. Restricting the scope to a simple inventory tracking system would be wise.

  6. Technical Issues: • No justification is made for the reason that these technologies have been picked for implementation. Risks: • The project has no versioning system for capturing and protecting project work, and this poses a heavy loss risk.

  7. Process Issues: • No personnel roles are identified for the project. Risks: • Testing is scheduled for post-integration, but there are no unit tests scheduled for individual modules. History suggests that debugging the modules at integration time is a strong risk.

More Related