Release 1
Release 1 goal:
- An External Examiner will be able to draft and submit a basic report.
- A Response Coordinator will be able to create, edit and view responses, as well as categorise issues.
Iteration 1 (6/3 to 19/3) goal:
Users can log into the EE system and be presented with the report. They will be able to create issue, suggestion and commendation
| User stories | Category | Stories points | Status |
| Access | External Examiner | 5 | Done |
| EE report | External Examiner | 3 | Done |
| Accessibility & Usability | n/a | Done |
Iteration 2 (20/3 to 2/4) goal:
An External Examiner can draft the report before submitting it. The report will allow the EE to answer a question with a text box only. A Response Coordinator will be able to view the submitted report, and create / edit initial responses to issues/suggestions and commendations
| User stories | Category | Stories points | Status |
| Draft EE Report | External Examiner | 5 | Done |
| Adding non Y/N questions to Report template | External Examiner | 2 | Done |
Review Report | EE Report Assessment | 5 | Done |
| Create Initial Responses | EE Report Assessment | 3 | Done |
| Mark Issues/Suggestions as School,College, Institution | EE Report Assessment | 1 | Done |
Release 1 has been delivered at the end of iteration 2. The remaining user story to be done as part of release 1 is
- View Responses (3). But most of the work has already been done: content completed, just need to work out clarification on the format. To be completed in iteration 3.
Iteration 1 product review and retrospective (19/3)
| Details | Actions | Owner | Status |
Stories points delivered 5 out of 13 (though close to deliver 13). We are confident we can deliver 12 SP per iteration at this stage Product demonstrated Ok (https://www-beta.eers.is.ed.ac.uk/index.cfm) | n/a
| ||
User stories (stories points) and status:
|
| Franck at planning | Done |
| No technical issues at the end of iteration 1 | n/a | ||
There were issues during iteration 1 costing build budget:
| n/a | ||
Future issue to be addressed: what is the feed from EUCLID?
|
| Franck/Duncan | Done |
| User interaction with product owner, engage with user reps | Set regular meeting with 4 user reps, and communication by phone/emails | Duncan | Done |
User stories did not have all the conditions of satisfaction at planning stage. It would have been worth delaying the start of the 1st iteration by a couple of days.
| This has been caused by product owner being tied up with the SITS upgrade project prior the planning stage. This will be ok going forward. PO to clarify the product backlog | Duncan | On going as per priority of requirements |
| It was also noted that developers should have been more involved during the creation of the user stories. | n/a | ||
| Design reviews went very well with user groups, especially the sign off of the online form design. It was very useful to have a mock up done to show (though used build budget). |
| Greg/Ryan | Done |
| Be more pro-active with recording time and progress in Greenhopper | Greg/Ryan | on going | |
Support from Brian would be on going thru the iterations, for on going handover/doc. Emilio's technical role may wind down during 2nd iteration now the environments have been built.
| review Emilio's role during 2nd iteration | Franck | Done |
Iteration 2 product review and retrospective (2/4)
| Details | Actions | Owner | Status |
Stories Points completed 16, making the total completed over 2 iterations=24 which is as expected (12/iteration). Product was demos to user group reps (Ian and John) and Project Board 31/3. Positive feedback received. | n/a | ||
| Project Board made comments about the product usability. The project team feels that this should be the remit of the user reps group, and for the Board to look at the governance. | To raise with Registry PM | Franck | Done |
| User stories should have a detailed design? Project team recommended not to be too detailed/prescriptive to allow the design process to work effectively . Corrections can come after testing. | n/a | ||
| Design approach to present the front end solution was well received by user rep, this enabled a quick turnover. Agreed to take same approach with other end users. | n/a | ||
| Quick turnaround achieved on Testing by PO and rework by developers team. | n/a | ||
| Not enough automated test scriptsDone as part of iteration 4 user story | To progress | Ryan/Greg | Done |
| SQL script population to be looked at, until data feed is in place. | To progres | Ryan/Greg | Done |