1. CS4557 - Project Management in Practice
Final Report
Group B2
Patrick Butler (11126035)
Allyn Dalton (11125179)
Brian Greene (11042141)
Tom McGreal (11135417)
Pádhraig O’Donoghue (0350788)
AY 2014/2015 S2
4. CS4457 - Final Report
Group Section
Group B2
2
Stakeholder Analysis
Group Members
These are the most important stakeholders in the
module. Each group member must contribute both indi-
vidually and collectively to each assignment. This gives
each member a strong influence on the success of each
of these assignments. If one member does not contrib-
ute to the projects as much as the others, the workload
for the others will be increased and the final grade of
the group may suffer due to inconsistent team manage-
ment. For this reason, regular group meetings and con-
stant group communication are essential for the group
to be managed effectively. Some members of the group
are motivated predominantly by the grade while others
by wanting to learn how to manage teams efficiently
or get better at this skill. Members of the group gen-
erally recognise the potential to hinder one another’s
performance and why it is important to try and avoid
letting one another down in this way by contributing
fairly. The actual level of interest, however, may vary
amongst group members, but it is understood that all 5
have equal legitimacy (cf. interest) (Mitchell et al 1997,
p.866). In principle, all 5 members have equal power
(influence). In practice, however, this is redistributed
unevenly. This is due to variances in both engagement
and management experience amongst the members,
and the inevitable politics of social organisation.
Lecturer
This stakeholder could be considered equally as impor-
tant as the individual group members. The lecturer pro-
vides the group members with the information needed
to complete assignments, and will also be grading these
assignments. Therefore, the lecturer has high power
and influence over the module, and must be managed
closely through communication and consultation to
ensure the group receives the maximum grade possible
for each assignment. Also, if the grades of the class are
not satisfactory, the reputation of the lecturer may be
damaged. For this reason, it is in the lecturer’s interest
to have each group perform to the highest level.
Tutor
This stakeholder has less power over the project than
the lecturer or group members. The opinion of the tutor
does not affect the grading of the module. However, the
tutor has more power to positively influence success on
a micromanagement level, i.e. through tutorials when
direct interaction with the group is possible. As with the
lecturer, but to a lesser extent, the tutor’s reputation
may also be damaged due to unsatisfactory grades.
Therefore, it is in the tutor’s interest to support stu-
dents in their assignments.
Other Groups
These could be considered minor stakeholders to the
group. They do not have any power over, and are not
affected by any other group’s assignments, but can
offer advice to ensure that everyone is on the right
track. Competition among groups would not be condu-
cive to success because the course represents a non-
zero-sum game and interests do not oppose (Chen et al
2015). It is more in their interests for groups to coop-
erate, e.g. sharing information.
FYP Co-ordinator and FYP Supervisors
The FYP co-ordinator and all respective FYP supervisors
of group members should be considered stakeholders in
the project. They do not have power over this project,
but the success of the group on this course may influ-
ence the success of each member respectively in their
FYP’s, benefiting these stakeholders.
5. 3
GROUP (PM COURSE)
Notes
N/A
Project Management
in Practice
1.1
Lecture and tutorial
attendance
1.2
Project manage-
ment of PM course
1.3
Timesheets
1.3.1
Individually track time
1.3.2
Create summary
sheet
1.3.3
Submit all timesheets
1.4.1
Establish group
contact
1.4.2
Hold kick-off meeting
1.4.3
Individually form 21
questions
1.4.4
Hold interim meeting
1.4.5
Answer questions
1.4.6
Discuss answers
1.4.7
Write FYP summaries
1.4.8
Write discussion
section
1.4.9
Compile and format
1.4.10
Proofing
1.4.11
Submission
1.4.12
Assignment 1 done
1.5.1
Hold kick-off meeting
1.5.2
Complete individual tasks
(e.g. stakeholder analysis,
WBS, etc.)
1.5.3
Hold interim meeting
1.5.4
Complete group tasks (e.g.
stakeholder analysis, WBS,
etc.)
1.5.5
Compile and format
1.5.6
Proofing
1.5.7
Submission
1.5.8
Assignment 2 done
1.6.1
Hold kick-off meeting
1.6.2
Complete individual tasks
(namely communication flow
and tasks for FYP)
1.6.3
Complete group tasks
(namely communication flow
and tasks for PM course)
1.6.4
Compile and format
1.6.5
Submission
1.6.6
Assignment 3 done
1.7.1
Agree on preferred
topics and presenta-
tion slots
1.7.2
Individually survey
topic area
1.7.3
Meeting to define subtopics
and assign duties
1.7.4
Research
1.7.5
Meeting to present
findings and structure
presentation
1.7.6
Develop presentation
1.7.7
Meeting to finalise
presentation
1.7.8
Formatting
1.7.9
Rehearsal
1.7.10
Delivery
1.7.11
Presentation done
1.8.1
Complete individual tasks
(e.g. revisited 21 questions,
lessons learned, etc.)
1.8.2
Complete group tasks (e.g.
PM course 21 questions,
assignment 2 and 3 material,
etc.)
1.8.3
Compile and format
1.8.4
Proofing
1.8.5
Submission
1.8.6
Report done
1.4
Assignment 1
1.5
Assignment 2
1.6
Assignment 3
1.7
Presentation
1.8
Final report
1.9
Module finished
Level 1 - Entire Project
Level 2
Level 3
WBSDiagram
6. 4
ID WBS Task Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors
1 1 Project management course 70 days Thu
29/01/15
Wed
06/05/15
2 1.1 Lecture and tutorial attendance 52 days Thu
29/01/15
Fri 10/04/15
3 1.2 Project management of PM course 64 days Fri 06/02/15 Wed
06/05/15
4 1.3 Timesheets 69 days Fri 30/01/15 Wed
06/05/15
5 1.3.1 Individually track time 69 days Fri 30/01/15 Wed
06/05/15
6 1.3.2 Create summary sheet 12 days Tue
21/04/15
Wed
06/05/15
7 1.3.3 Submit all timesheets 4 days Fri 01/05/15 Wed
06/05/15
5,6
8 1.4 Assignment 1 6 days Sat
07/02/15
Mon
16/02/15
9 1.4.1 Establish group contact 4 days Sat 07/02/15 Wed
11/02/15
10 1.4.2 Hold kick‐off meeting 1 day Thu
12/02/15
Thu
12/02/15
11 1.4.3 Individually form 21 questions 2 days Thu
12/02/15
Fri 13/02/15
12 1.4.4 Hold interim meeting 1 day Fri 13/02/15 Fri 13/02/15
13 1.4.5 Answer questions 2 days Fri 13/02/15 Sat 14/02/15 11
14 1.4.6 Discuss answers 2 days Sun
15/02/15
Mon
16/02/15
13
15 1.4.7 Write FYP summaries 2 days Sat 14/02/15 Sun
15/02/15
16 1.4.8 Write discussion section 2 days Fri 13/02/15 Mon
16/02/15
14,15
17 1.4.9 Compile and format 2 days Sun
15/02/15
Mon
16/02/15
13,16
18 1.4.10 Proofing 2 days Sun
15/02/15
Mon
16/02/15
17
19 1.4.11 Submission 1 day Mon
16/02/15
Mon
16/02/15
18
20 1.4.12 Assignment 1 done 1 day Mon
16/02/15
Mon
16/02/15
19
21 1.5 Assignment 2 5 days Tue
24/02/15
Mon
02/03/15
22 1.5.1 Hold kick‐off meeting 1 day Tue
24/02/15
Tue
24/02/15
23 1.5.2 Complete individual tasks (e.g.
stakeholder analysis, WBS, etc.)
3 days Tue
24/02/15
Thu
26/02/15
24 1.5.3 Hold interim meeting 1 day Fri 27/02/15 Fri 27/02/15
25 1.5.4 Complete group tasks (e.g.
stakeholder analysis, WBS, etc.)
2 days Fri 27/02/15 Sat 28/02/15 24
26 1.5.5 Compile and format 2 days Sat 28/02/15 Sun
01/03/15
23,25
27 1.5.6 Proofing 2 days Sun
01/03/15
Mon
02/03/15
26
28 1.5.7 Submission 1 day Mon
02/03/15
Mon
02/03/15
27
29 1.5.8 Assignment 2 done 1 day Mon
02/03/15
Mon
02/03/15
28
30 1.6 Assignment 3 3 days Thu
12/03/15
Mon
16/03/15
31 1.6.1 Hold kick‐off meeting 1 day Thu
12/03/15
Thu
12/03/15
32 1.6.2 Complete individual tasks
(namely communication flow and
tasks for FYP)
3 days Thu
12/03/15
Mon
16/03/15
33 1.6.3 Complete group tasks (namely
communication flow and tasks
for PM course)
3 days Thu
12/03/15
Mon
16/03/15
31
34 1.6.4 Compile and format 1 day Mon
16/03/15
Mon
16/03/15
33,32
35 1.6.5 Submission 1 day Mon
16/03/15
Mon
16/03/15
34
36 1.6.6 Assignment 3 done 0 days Mon
16/03/15
Mon
16/03/15
35
37 1.7 Presentation 49 days Tue
24/02/15
Fri 01/05/15
38 1.7.1 Agree on preferred topics and
presentation slots
6 days Tue
24/02/15
Tue
03/03/15
39 1.7.2 Individually survey topic area 19 days Wed
04/03/15
Sun
29/03/15
38
40 1.7.3 Meeting to define subtopics and
assign duties
1 day Thu
12/03/15
Thu
12/03/15
39
41 1.7.4 Research 32 days Fri 13/03/15 Sun
26/04/15
40
42 1.7.5 Meeting to present findings and
structure presentation
1 day Thu
19/03/15
Thu
19/03/15
43 1.7.6 Develop presentation 4 days Sun
26/04/15
Wed
29/04/15
41
44 1.7.7 Meeting to finalise presentation 1 day Thu
26/03/15
Thu
26/03/15
45 1.7.8 Formatting 4 days Sun
26/04/15
Wed
29/04/15
43
46 1.7.9 Rehearsal 6 days Sun
26/04/15
Fri 01/05/15 43
47 1.7.10 Delivery 1 day Fri 01/05/15 Fri 01/05/15 45,46
48 1.7.11 Presentation done 0 days Fri 01/05/15 Fri 01/05/15 47
49 1.8 Final report 12 days Tue
21/04/15
Wed
06/05/15
50 1.8.1 Complete individual tasks (e.g.
revisited 21 questions, lessons
learned, etc.)
12 days Tue
21/04/15
Wed
06/05/15
20
51 1.8.2 Complete group tasks (e.g. PM
course 21 questions, assignment
2 and 3 material, etc.)
12 days Tue
21/04/15
Wed
06/05/15
52 1.8.3 Compile and format 1 day Wed
06/05/15
Wed
06/05/15
50,51,36,29
53 1.8.4 Proofing 4 days Sun
03/05/15
Wed
06/05/15
52
54 1.8.5 Submission 1 day Wed
06/05/15
Wed
06/05/15
53
55 1.8.6 Report done 0 days Wed
06/05/15
Wed
06/05/15
54
56 1.9 PM course done 0 days Wed
06/05/15
Wed
06/05/15
55
06/05
Project management course
16/07
Lecture and tutorial attendance
03/08
Project management of PM course
06/05
Timesheets
10/08
Individually track time
21/05
Create summary sheet
12/05
Submit all timesheets
16/02
Assignment 1
11/05
Establish group contact
06/05
Hold kick-off meeting
07/05
Individually form 21 questions
06/05
Hold interim meeting
17/02
Answer questions
17/02
Discuss answers
07/05
Write FYP summaries
18/02
Write discussion section
18/02
Compile and format
18/02
Proofing
17/02
Submission
17/02
Assignment 1 done
02/03
Assignment 2
06/05
Hold kick-off meeting
08/05
Complete individual tasks (e.g. stakeholder analysis, WBS, etc.)
06/05
Hold interim meeting
03/03
Complete group tasks (e.g. stakeholder analysis, WBS, etc.)
03/03
Compile and format
03/03
Proofing
03/03
Submission
03/03
Assignment 2 done
16/03
Assignment 3
06/05
Hold kick-off meeting
08/05
Complete individual tasks (namely communication flow and tasks for FYP)
17/03
Complete group tasks (namely communication flow and tasks for PM course)
17/03
Compile and format
17/03
Submission
16/03
01/05
Presentation
13/05
Agree on preferred topics and presentation slots
30/03
Individually survey topic area
12/05
Research
30/04
Develop presentation
05/05
Formatting
07/05
Rehearsal
04/05
Delivery
01/05
06/05
Final report
04/03
Complete individual tasks (e.g. revisited 21 questions, lessons learned, etc.)
21/05
Complete group tasks (e.g. PM course 21 questions, assignment 2 and 3 material, etc.)
07/05
Compile and format
12/05
Proofing
07/05
Submission
06/05
06/05
S T T S M W F S T T S M W F S T T S M W F S T T S M W F S T T S M W F S T T S M W F S T T S M W F S T T S M
26 Jan '15 02 Feb '15 09 Feb '15 16 Feb '15 23 Feb '15 02 Mar '15 09 Mar '15 16 Mar '15 23 Mar '15 30 Mar '15 06 Apr '15 13 Apr '15 20 Apr '15 27 Apr '15 04 May '15 11 M
Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration-only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start-only
Finish-only
External Tasks
External Milestone
Deadline
Critical
Critical Split
Baseline
Baseline Milestone
Baseline Summary
Progress
Manual Progress
PM Course WBS/Gantt Chart
Date: Wed 06/05/15
GROUP (PM COURSE)
Notes
N/A
WBS/GanttChart
8. CS4457 - Final Report
Group Section
Group B2
6
Communication Flow
How does your group organise communication
and change?
We created a Facebook group in order for our group to
be able to communicate easily. This is used for arrang-
ing meetings, progress updates and general discussions
outside of meetings. Our group meets once a week to
discuss our assignments. During these meetings, previ-
ous assignments and feedback are discussed, and sug-
gestions are made for improvement. Current assign-
ments are discussed and broken down into tasks, which
are then delegated to each member according to our
individual strengths and preferences. This time is also
used to set realistic deadlines for task completion and
submission of deliverables. The minutes of these meet-
ings are then uploaded to OneDrive. To a lesser extent,
Microsoft OneDrive is used for communication. This is
where our documents are compiled before submission.
This system helps us to review and critique each other’s
work while keeping a record of all of our work to date.
How are tasks specified and delegated within the
group, especially in regards to communication?
Whenever we get an assignment, we set up a meet-
ing in order to discuss exactly what we need to do and
when to do it by. Once we realise exactly what we need
to do, we delegate each task. If the task requires the
whole group to write about it, this is explained and
each member of the group must participate. Some
group work could also be split up, i.e. if 5 or 6 ques-
tions were given, then each of us could take a single
one to answer. There are also the individual portions of
our assignments, which everyone must do for them-
selves.
During the group meetings, we assign the tasks. We
each get a say on what we want to do or would most
likely be best writing about. From here we agree on
which tasks are assigned. If someone is missing from
the group, they get no say in the matter and are left
with whichever task is not picked. No disagreements
have ever arose from two people wanting the same
task as of yet. After each meeting, the minutes are
kept and uploaded to a share which we can refer back
to in case we have forgotten something
How is communication to the outside handled?
Communication to outside entities is facilitated through
a team leader. Our team leader was not nominated, nor
did this individual put himself forward for the role. Our
team leader just started doing the tasks of facilitating
communication within the team. During the initial stage
of the project we started out without much direction,
however our team lead set in place a basic frame-
work for team communication initially by creating an
online repository for the group’s deliverables. Following
assignment 1 it was agreed that more group commu-
nication was required to complete tasks correctly and
implement a more efficient work strategy. To achieve
this a weekly team meeting was scheduled, during this
first team meeting our current team leader inadvert-
ently became the chairperson of the meeting, since this
meeting this person is now recognised as team lead.
The responsibilities of this role is to act as the groups
point of contact, this aspect of the role reduces the
communication overhead for the rest of the team allow-
ing them focus on tasks they are required to complete.
Also our team lead acts as a facilitator, if there are
external requirements for assignment completion our
team lead researches these requirements and presents
them to the team. The delegation of tasks is not a re-
sponsibility of our team lead this happens organically at
team meetings, the only aspect of delegation the team
lead takes on is to suggest tasks for an individual based
on their strengths or subject matter expertise. The
responsibility of writing meeting agendas and meeting
minutes is also a responsibility of the team lead these
are basic admin tasks however they greatly improve
the productivity of team meetings and thus yield great-
er productivity in the final deliverables.
What has changed in your communication organi-
zation since deliverable 1?
Since deliverable 1 we have shifted our focus from
using Facebook as our main means of communication.
The Facebook system has proven to be overly time
consuming and inefficient for effective communication.
Instead, we have decided to arrange weekly meetings
at a set time, day and location that suits everyone in
the group. This will also avoid the problem of group
members missing meetings, a problem that has oc-
curred for most meetings to date.
How are you now organising these aspects for
deliverable 2 (i.e. the preparation for the group
presentation)?
Initially we started using Facebook as our communica-
tion tool. After using this for 2 weeks we realised that
it was actually quiet time consuming to use, Internet
access was not always available and it was difficult to
keep track of group member’s comments and inputs.
We decided that we need to find an alternative method
of communication that will fit into our busy time sched-
ules to allow us discuss preparation for the group
presentation. As we are trying to reduce the amount of
time spent on Facebook we decided to organize weekly
meetings. In these meetings future deliverable are
discussed, what needs to be done and assigning roles
to each member.
We also use OneDrive to upload files and share files.
OneDrive is an online collaborative tool that allows us
to share material. This will be used to upload relevant
material for the presentation as well as sharing the
presentation slides so all group members have online
access. This is how we are organizing aspects for deliv-
erable 2, the group presentation.
9. CS4457 - Final Report
Group Section
Group B2
7
Scalability íssues: Size matters. For the course,
if you were the lecturer/the TA, how would you
organize communication so that students have
a realistic experience of life in a large, evolv-
ing context? (over 100 students, 22 Groups, 4
Tutorials: 1 Lecturer and 1 Tutor)
Most large organisations expect the people working for
them to assume a share of the responsibility of stay-
ing informed about the ever-changing, mission-critical
goals of the organisation and their respective specific
roles as individuals in achieving them, i.e. organisations
expect individuals to be pro-active about obtaining this
information rather than be mere passive receivers of
instruction from their superiors. This applies in almost
all situations, regardless of organisational culture.
Moreover, it is in the individual’s interest to be pro-ac-
tive in this manner: otherwise, they risk appearing
incompetent in the eyes of their peers and superiors.
In other words, they must, of their own volition, adopt
the interests of the organisation as their own (take its
perspective) and act accordingly, i.e. take initiative by
taking responsibility.
The incentives to do so, e.g. holding onto the job, pro-
fessional pride, etc., however, do not apply in the con-
text of the PM course, and may have only weak equiv-
alents, e.g. achieving or maintaining a certain QCA,
“professional” pride (here placed in inverted commas
because the career stakes are not as high), etc. The
situation the student finds themselves in appears, in
fact, to be about as much like that of the customer in
a project management situation as it does that of a
project team member (or even manager)! This would
seem bizarre in any other context, but, at university,
the student effectively pays to work. They also pay for
not working, i.e. they, and not the organisation or its
shareholders, suffer the consequences (broadly speak-
ing). Therefore any pretence to real-world contexts will
be constrained by the artificiality of the situation.
For the exercise to work, the students must first buy
into the idea. As the lecturer or TA (and as was ac-
tually done), I would explain the experiment and the
motivation behind it to the students via lectures. With
the benefit of hindsight, however, I would also seek
some sort of confirmation that the students clearly
understood the arrangement, e.g. a small assignment
or perhaps a declaration to sign (ethics-related red
tape notwithstanding). It has been my experience that
students often misinterpret or outright miss what is
announced at lectures. This is symptomatic of the cul-
ture of “spoon feeding” information to students in the
University. It would take some drastic measure such as
the “scene-setting” assignment to overcome the cultur-
al habituation to “push” communication to “pull”, as is
usually the case in the real world. Once this inertia is
dissipated, the existing arrangement of using Dropbox
would suffice. It is a “pull” communication method and
so obviates the need for micromanagement of all the
students and groups. As lecturer or TA, it would be
impractical to verify whether each individual received
the information they needed since scaling the process
would increase my workload geometrically. It would
also defeat the purpose of the simulation of real-world
conditions.
I would also discourage students from emailing with
requests for information that was already distributed
via other methods such as lectures, tutorials, Dropbox,
etc., because this kind of helplessness is not appreciat-
ed in professional contexts.
21-Point Project Analysis
[Original answers identified in italics.]
01. What were your criteria for determining pro-
ject success?
Project success criteria are determined by the grades
we receive for each deliverable. We consider a success-
ful grade to be in the A to B band.
02. What were the project drivers, constraints
and degrees of freedom you could identify in rela-
tion to the PM course?
The key drivers in relation to the PM course are to first-
ly satisfy our lectures expectations by delivering assign-
ments that are of a high quality in relation to content
and aesthetic value. The constraints are to work within
the given deadlines & follow the guidelines outlined in
deliverable specifications. We did not identify any de-
grees of freedom as the module progressed due to the
firm outline for deliverables. However in retrospect this
may have been an oversight with respect to the pres-
entation. After viewing other group’s presentations we
noted that the most distinguished presentations were
those that did not adhere as strictly to the specification
as we did. Allowing them to put a spin on their chosen
topic, benefiting both the content and delivery of the
presentation
03. What were your criteria for determining
whether the product was ready for consumption
(i.e. PM deliverables)?
This criteria depended on the deliverable, any written
content such as reports were proof read by the team
before submission also the team analysed the content
to ensure the content was on target with our objective.
This also applied to the more technical aspects of deliv-
erables such as WBS, CPA and Gantt creation. Criteria
for the presentation included a number of rehearsals
before presentation day with all the team giving feed-
back on delivery & content improvements to ensure the
standard was high.
10. CS4457 - Final Report
Group Section
Group B2
8
04. What commitments did you have to make on
this project were they achievable?
The team commitment included attending regular
team meetings to discuss the deliverables and also to
be available for online discussions. On an individual
level each team member was responsible for various
contributions to group content. Each individual was
also responsible for their individual FYP content which
accompanied PM tasks on each deliverable.
05. What were your main considerations in writ-
ing your project plan?
We considered communications between team mem-
bers as the most important aspect of the course. Each
member needs to know our objectives of each deliv-
erable. We then split up the work appropriately. Each
member needs to know exactly what they are doing,
otherwise it would have been possible that work would
have been duplicated without anyone else knowing. We
used face-to-face meetings to discuss this and kept in
contact online.
06. What level of granularity did you use to cat-
egorise your project milestones and what are
they?
Assignment 2 and 3 did not have to be completed by
their given deadlines, although they were needed for
the final deliverable. We used these deadlines as sub-
goals as well as to get feedback on the assignments
07. What common large tasks have you identified
in your project and what processes have you de-
veloped for modularising them?
Timesheets were very similar across each team
member. We use copies of the format given to use,
which was very easy to use. We could easily add or
delete rows to organise each week’s tasks.
08. How much time did you budget for rework,
reshoots, remixing, bug fixing, and why?
We completed assignment 2 and assignment 3 by
their deadlines, and used the feedback as a metric to
improve and review them. It was clear that our WBS
and GANTT charts needed major improvement. We did
not realise the extent of how much improvement was
needed on them until after we got the feedback. As
such, we did not prepare much time for reviewing the
material.
09. Did you identify potential problems that could
have arisen during project development? If so,
what was your contingency plan for dealing with
them?
Success in the PM module depended on the comple-
tion of the work entailed by all three assignments.
Completion of this work depended on the ability of
each group member to contribute a certain portion of
it. Assignment briefs dictated that certain tasks were
to be completed by all group members individually, i.e.
the same task would be done by each member of the
group, and that each would be graded separately. The
remaining tasks, however, were group-based and could
be divided among individuals arbitrarily. The problem,
therefore, of an individual not completing their allocat-
ed group work, for whatever reason, may have arisen.
The contingency plan in such an event consisted in
re-assigning the work to another member of the group.
There were two considerations to make when doing
this: First, ensuring that the remaining time would
be sufficient to complete the work; second, that the
process for choosing the new task owner would be fair.
In respect of the first consideration, it was necessary
to monitor the progress of each group member closely
throughout the process; to this end, frequent status
updates on Facebook sufficed. In respect of the second,
there was no formal procedure agreed—although it was
understood that whoever was most available (i.e. had
fewest other pressing commitments) would probably
oblige.
10. How and when did you critically review the
processes used throughout the project to improve
efficiency?
A review of the processes used throughout project
was not an integrated part of the project management
plan. Minor, informal reviews were, however, born of
necessity. After the first assignment, for example, the
need to review the process for responding to assign-
ment releases was apparent: The group would have to
meet earlier, and assign resources and set milestones
sooner. It also became apparent that using Facebook
to compensate for poor attendance at meetings was
ineffective—it was agreed that it was necessary to have
physical meetings more regularly to improve productiv-
ity and synergy.
11. Did you budget time for adapting to new pro-
cesses, tools, or technologies?
Yes, on two occasions: First, for adapting to project
management software (Microsoft Project 2013 and
Project Libre for the group’s Windows and Mac users
respectively), and, second, for ensuring that the pres-
entation would run smoothly in the environment where
it was to be delivered (namely in a brightly lit room
fitted with a 4:3 screen and Windows PC of modest
specification running Microsoft PowerPoint 2013). In the
former case, each group member budgeted an extra
day for learning to use the project management soft-
ware. In the latter, the schedule was set to allow for
troubleshooting of technical issues during rehearsal at
the venue.
12. What did you estimate the project would re-
quire in labour-hours and how does this compare
with the nominal time that was available to spend
on it?
It was estimated that 300-600 labour hours would be
required by the PM course assignments (6-9 hours per
week [not including lectures and tutorial], for 10-13
weeks, per 5 members of the group). Assuming that
not all modules would require equal investment of
time—despite carrying equal credits—and that the FYP
would not require more than about 16 hours of work
per week, and, finally, that each individual was capable
11. CS4457 - Final Report
Group Section
Group B2
9
of 48 hours of work per week, then, over the 13 weeks
of the semester, enough time was available to accom-
modate that potentially required.
13. Did you accommodate the task-switching
overhead associated with parallel assignments
into your schedule?
The scheduling overhead associated with task-switching
is absorbed into to estimate of total required project
time. Given the magnitude of the variance in the sched-
ule estimates, a measure of this overhead would be
trivial.
14. This question is already asked by question/
tip #11
N/A
15. How did you arrive at each of your estimates?
Were they Realistic?
We arrived at each of our estimates by communicating
via Facebook threads and weekly/fortnightly meetings.
Group discussion at meetings ensured that we arrived
at realistic estimates and that we stayed on schedule.
Yes, these were realistic and we were successful for the
most part on keeping them on track.
16. Did you use any tools in the process of esti-
mating your work?
Although we did not use any tools in estimating our
work for the Project Management course we used
weekly or fortnightly meetings that allowed us to keep
track and update milestones and deadlines.
17. Did you factor a schedule contingency buffer
into your project plan to allow for unforeseen
issues that may arise?
No we did not factor a schedule contingency buffer into
our project management project to allow for unfore-
seen issues.
18. Do you foresee a potential utility in the his-
torical data offered by your project and did you
record actuals as well as estimates of your work-
ing time?
Yes, the PM course has outlined methods for planning
and organising future projects, and will have an impact
on any projects that we undertake from here on.
19. What was your criteria for counting a project
task as 100% complete?
We would consider a task to be 100% complete when
we are happy that we have satisfied all of the require-
ments and deliverables for that task.
20. How did you measure and track the current
status of the project state?
To do this, we communicated through Facebook to keep
each other updated about our current progress. We
also held weekly meetings where we would discuss our
progress on tasks and to see whether we were on track
for the deadlines we set for ourselves.
21. Have you any existing project retrospectives
that could be of benefit to you in your work on
the PM course, e.g. past assignment reports?
N/A
Reflections
How the group worked, how it organised itself
The group consists of five members: Patrick Butler
(Music, Media and Performance Technology), Allyn
Dalton (Digital Media Design), Brian Greene (Computer
Systems), Tom McGreal (Games Development), and
Pádhraig O’Donoghue (Music, Media and Performance
Technology). Work was organised through a combina-
tion of group meetings and online social networking
channels (namely Facebook’s “group page” and instant
messaging systems); email was used only to initiate
contact in February.
Issues
Although the group was productive and interperson-
al dynamics were harmonious in general, it was not
altogether without difficulties and issues. The issue of
ineffective communication was the most frequently oc-
curring and impactful. Multiple secondary issues arose
directly as result of these breakdowns in communica-
tion, namely increased communication overhead (which
in turn raised tensions among group members and led
to jadedness in the long term), disunited work (i.e. in-
consistent approaches among individuals), and delays.
Positive aspects
The positive aspects of this team project was the
knowledge gained & the relationships built. The lessons
learned from the pitfalls of miscommunication and poor
time management were also a positive aspect as these
are issues we can now easily identify and aspire not to
repeat them going forward. This module has proven to
be very helpful in the completion of our FYP’s, allowing
us to apply industry standard practices to our own work
and thus improving it. It has also given us a taste of
what real world projects will be like and will certainly
benefit our future careers.
12. CS4457 - Final Report
Group Section
Group B2
10
Lessons learned
There were many lessons learned over the period of
this module and specifically from the completion of the
PM project. These include;
1. Do not use Facebook as a means of team com-
munication
· Although convenient, it soon becomes a disordered
array of posts and very hard to manage. Causing seri-
ous communication overhead without benefiting com-
munication flow.
2. Ensure all team members attend all team meet-
ings.
· Not having all team members present at meetings
negates the effectiveness of meetings in the first place.
This increases communication overhead having to
update a team member on points, instructions, tasks &
discussions raised during meetings.
3. Adhere to team soft deadlines.
· Following and sticking to team soft deadlines would
build in a contingency for rework and project analysis.
Having this built in contingency would produce higher
calibre work and ensure that all objectives are covered.
The above lists only the most poignant lessons learned
by the team during this project. Other lessons were
learned both as a group and individually, but are less
noteworthy.
18. CS4457 - Final Report Group B2
16
Individual Section
Patrick Butler
19. CS4457 - Final Report
Individual Section - Patrick Butler
Group B2
17
Stakeholder Analysis
Myself - I am the main stakeholder in this project as I
am doing all the work. I will also be effected the most
by the success of the project as it will impact on my
grades and the quality of my degree.
My Supervisor - This is the second most important
stakeholder. He is the one who determines the suc-
cess of the project as he will be the one grading it. The
success of the project will also effect my supervisor
because his name will be on the project along with my
own. If the project is unsuccessful it will look bad on his
part.
My Second Reader – The second reader doesn’t have
any influence on the project in the way that it is
completed. However, he does have a say in how it
is graded, along with my supervisor. Therefore, the
second reader is a very important stakeholder. For this
reason it is important that my final report is clear, easy
to read, and that it is an accurate representation of the
work that went into the project.
My Parents - They are the ones who have been funding
me throughout my education. If my project is unsuc-
cessful, impacting on my grades or perhaps resulting
in me having to repeat the project, they will bare the
financial costs of me repeating.
Housemates & Classmates - These are the people who
I ask for advice and approval for my project. They play
an important role by helping me to assess the work I
have done to assure I stay on the right track with the
composition
The CSIS Department and the MMPT Course – These
are minor stakeholders in that they don’t have any
control over how my project is completed. However, the
standard of my project, and all FYPs for that mater, do
reflect on the quality of education they provide. Poor
FYPs will give a poor impression of how well the depart-
ment is able to train its students.
20. 18
P. BUTLER
Notes
N/A
Budget
$0.00Cost
Techno Composition for ...
Budget
$0.00Cost
Research
Budget
$0.00Cost
Source Tools
Budget
$0.00Cost
Exploration of Tools
Budget
$0.00Cost
Composition
Budget
$0.00Cost
Recording Sounds
Budget
$0.00Cost
Arrangement
Budget
$0.00Cost
Mastering
Budget
$0.00Cost
Develop Tools
Budget
$0.00Cost
First Iteration
Budget
$0.00Cost
Second Iteration
Budget
$0.00Cost
Third Iteration
Budget
$0.00Cost
Fourth Iteration
Budget
$0.00Cost
Spatialisation
Budget
$0.00Cost
Listening Tests & Evalu...
Budget
$0.00Cost
Performance
Budget
$0.00Cost
Final Report
Budget
$0.00Cost
Interim Report
WBSDiagram
21. 19
3 1 0 7 1 4 2 1 2 8 0 5
Oct 2014
1 2 1 9 2 6 0 2
Nov 2014
0 9 1 6 2 3 3 0 0 7
Dec 2014
1 4 2 1 2 8 0 4
Jan 2015
1 1 1 8 2 5 0 1
Feb 2015
0 8 1 5
1 Techno Composition for Surround Sound 158 days? 9/8/14 8:00 AM 4/15/15 5:00 PM
2 Research 135 days? 9/8/14 8:00 AM 3/13/15 5:00 PM
3 Composition 59.875 days? 12/29/14 9:00 AM 3/20/15 5:00 PM
4 Performance 0 days? 4/8/15 7:00 PM 4/8/15 5:00 PM
5 Final Report 22.875 days? 3/16/15 9:00 AM 4/15/15 5:00 PM
6 Source Tools 10 days? 9/29/14 8:00 AM 10/10/14 5:00 PM
7 Exploration of Tools 10.875 days? 11/7/14 9:00 AM 11/21/14 5:00 PM
8 Recording Sounds 3.875 days? 12/29/14 9:00 AM 1/1/15 5:00 PM
9 Arrangement 54.875 days? 1/5/15 9:00 AM 3/20/15 5:00 PM
1 0 Interim Report 10.875 days? 12/22/14 9:00 AM 1/5/15 5:00 PM
1 1 Develop Tools 22.875 days? 3/7/15 9:00 AM 4/8/15 4:00 PM
1 2 First Iteration 6 days? 3/7/15 9:00 AM 3/16/15 5:00 PM
1 3 Second Iteration 5.875 days? 3/18/15 9:00 AM 3/25/15 5:00 PM
1 4 Third Iteration 6.875 days? 3/26/15 9:00 AM 4/3/15 5:00 PM
1 5 Fourth Iteration 3 days? 4/3/15 8:00 AM 4/7/15 5:00 PM
1 6 Mastering 5 days? 3/21/15 9:00 AM 3/27/15 5:00 PM
1 7 Spatialisation 7.875 days? 3/27/15 9:00 AM 4/7/15 5:00 PM
1 8 Listening Tests & Evaluation 4 days? 4/7/15 8:00 AM 4/10/15 5:00 PM
Name Duration Start Finish
3 1 0 7 1 4 2 1 2 8 0 5
Oct 2014
1 2 1 9 2 6 0 2
Nov 2014
0 9 1 6 2 3 3 0 0 7
Dec 2014
1 4 2 1 2 8 0 4
Jan 2015
1 1 1 8 2 5 0 1
Feb 2015
0 8 1 5 2 2 0 1
Mar 2015
0 8 1 5 2 2 2 9 0 5
Apr 2015
1 2 1 9 2 6 0
Ma
P. BUTLER
Notes
N/A
WBS/GanttChart
23. CS4457 - Final Report
Individual Section - Patrick Butler
Group B2
21
Communication Flow
Q - How do you organize communication and
change concerning the FYP? (consider here the
stakeholders)
A - I communicate with my supervisor through email.
I send weekly progress reports and arrange meetings
if I need to discuss something. If I need to change
any aspect of the project I send an email or arrange a
meeting depending on the size and importance of the
change.
Q - What has changed in your communication or-
ganisation since deliverable 1?
A - Since deliverable 1 I haven’t changed my method of
communication. I am, however, communicating with my
supervisor more frequently as Demo Day comes closer
to ensure I am staying on track.
Q - How are you now organizing these aspects for
the preparation of the demo days and the final
report?
A - I am keeping my supervisor updated whenever a
large task has been completed and asking for feedback
and direction to ensure I am on the right track. I am
also communicating with Darragh Piggott to ensure my
setup for Demo Day will be right.
Q - Scalability íssues: Size matters. If you were
the FYP coordinator/ an FYP supervisor, how
would you organize communication management
under the constraints of limited resources (time
and infrastructure) for these individual projects?
(over 100 students, ca. 20 supervisors, ca. 20
second readers, external stakeholders/cus-
tomers, 1 year span, topics and responsibilities
spread across 5 courses).
A - If I were FYP coordinator, I would probably have all
FYP information and guidelines in one location, perhaps
on Sulis, rather than email. This would make it easier
for students to keep up to date with any changes to
deadlines, etc. I feel the method of contact between
supervisors and students is sufficient.
21-Point Analysis Revisited
1. What are your criteria for determining project
success?
The success of the project will be based on how the
audience reacts to the composition and whether the
desired perceptual and emotional effects are achieved.
Had I known at the time, I would also have mentioned
the level of functionality of the spatialisation tool I de-
veloped as one of these criteria.
2. What are the project drivers, constraints &
degrees of freedom you can identify in relation to
your FYP?
The main driver for this project is the musical quality
of the composition. There are only a few constraints,
mainly the limited spatial definition due to the number
of loudspeakers in the reproduction system. There is a
lot of freedom with this project as the aim is to create
an experimental piece of music, not to recreate some-
thing that has already been done. There is a lot of room
for creativity.
This answer still applies.
3. What are your criteria for determining whether
the product is ready for consumption (i.e. release,
screening, or audition)?
This will be determined after listening tests. These test
will allow me to see if the desired spatial effects have
been achieved accurately for the performance area.
This answer still applies, and this is how it was decided
in the end.
4. What commitments must you take on this pro-
ject are they achievable?
I have committed to completing the music for the com-
position by the end of week 5. I believe this is achiev-
able as most of the work is done already. This will then
give me four weeks to mix and master the composition.
I will begin writing my draft report in week 5, giving
me two weeks to complete it. This may be difficult to
achieve as much of the work I will be documenting will
take place after the draft is written.
These commitments should have been achievable.
However, the composition process ran one week over
the planned deadline, and a draft report was not com-
pleted. This was due to the additional work added onto
the project because of incompatible spatialisation tools
I had chosen earlier in the year. I developed my own
spatialisation tool instead using Max/Msp. The devel-
24. CS4457 - Final Report
Individual Section - Patrick Butler
Group B2
22
opment of this tool caused major scope creep, and was
finished one week prior to demo day. It also left less
time for mixing and mastering, yet all tasks were com-
pleted to an acceptable standard on time for demo day.
5. What were your main considerations in writing
your project plan?
My main consideration was allowing enough time to
compose the music of the piece. This takes a lot of
thinking and experimentation and could not be rushed.
I have also given myself a lot of time to mix the piece
spatially as this also requires a lot of experimentation.
These considerations still apply. However, the extra
task of needing to design my own tools was not taken
into account due to inadequate research and a lack of
foresight.
6. What level of granularity are you using to
categorise your project milestones and what are
they?
There is only a small level of granularity with this pro-
ject. These are the research stage, composition stage,
mixing and mastering stage, and the report writing
stage.
This answer still applies for the composition, mixing
and mastering stages of the project. However, there
was a high level of granularity for the development
of the spatialisation tool. The tool is comprised of a
number of components with specific functions. The
milestones for completing each component were set by
planning an iterative design process, discussed in the
next answer.
7. What common large tasks have you identified
in your project and what processes have you de-
veloped for modularising them?
The large tasks for this project are the composition and
mixing of the piece. These tasks, however, cannot be
effectively modularised as they are a creative process.
The other large task is the writing of the report. I hav-
en’t developed a process for modularising this task.
This answer still applies for the composition, mixing
and mastering stages of the project. However, an itera-
tive process was used for the development of the spa-
tialisation tool, similar to an agile approach. The devel-
opment process was broken down into five iterations.
The time scale for the iterations were flexible, however,
they were limited to ten days in order for everything to
be complete by Demo Day. Each time an iteration was
complete, the program was tested and evaluated by
myself. Any problems that arose were dealt with in the
next iterations.
8. How much time have you budgeted for rework,
reshoots, remixing, bug fixing, and why?
I have not budgeted much time for remixing as there
may only be minor adjustments needed after the listen-
ing tests. These adjustments can be made in the weeks
between demo day and the final performance.
I did not budget any time for remixing the composition
or reworking any elements of the spatialisation tools as
there was not enough time due to scope creep. Final
alterations were made in the week before Demo Day
9. Have you identified potential problems that
could arise during project development if so what
is your contingency if these problems material-
ise?
I can see no big problems that could arise. Perhaps the
availability of the studio for mixing may be a problem
but this will not be a big problem due to the nature of
my mixing methods.
The biggest problem was the incompatability of the
spatialisation tools I chose to mix the composition. This
problem was spotted early in second semester, which
gave me enough time to work around it by designing
my own tool. There were no other significant problems.
10. How and when will you critically review the
processes used throughout the project to improve
efficiency?
I will not be critically reviewing my processes as this
project does not consider efficiency, rather the accura-
cy of the resulting composition to the concept.
This answer still applies.
11. Have you budgeted time for adapting to new
processes, tools, or technologies?
No.
I should have budgeted time for this purpose. When I
decided I needed to design new tools I had to abandon
writing the draft report to facilitate for the extra time
needed. It also added extra hours of work per week to
the project.
12. What do you estimate the project requires in
labour-hours and how does this compare with the
nominal time available to spend on it?
I estimate that I will need to spend between 15 and 20
hours per week from now until week 10 for the project
to be complete two weeks in advance. This amounts to
2 - 3 hours per day, which is realistic, considering the
small amount of hours on my timetable.
The previous estimate was realistic. However, the de-
velopment of new tools added an extra 10 to 15 hours
per week from week 4 onwards, resulting in an esti-
mated 25 to 35 hours spent on the project per week in
order for everything to be finished one week in ad-
vance. Up to 45 hours was spent on the project in the
three weeks prior to the deadline
25. CS4457 - Final Report
Individual Section - Patrick Butler
Group B2
23
13. How have you accommodated the
task-switching overhead associated with parallel
assignments into your schedule?
Yes. The amount of time allocated per day allows for
plenty of time for other work.
This answer was accurate at the time. However, the ad-
ditional work hours impacted on this, resulting in long
hours when other assignments were due.
14. This question is already asked by question/
tip #11
N/A
15. How did you arrive at each of your estimates?
Are they Realistic?
So far, I am at the third stage of my project. The first
two stages were researching and sourcing tools. The
time estimates for these were met. The current stage
is running one week over the estimated time but I have
allowed for this with my estimates for the next two
stages. I believe the estimates for the next stages are
realistic.
I believe these estimates were realistic. However the
additional process of developing tools impacted on the
later stages of the project.
16. Have you used any tools in the process of es-
timating your work?
No.
No.
17. Have you factored a schedule contingency
buffer into your project plan to allow for unfore-
seen issues that may arise?
Yes, I plan to have both the product and report finished
one week prior to their deadlines.
This contingency buffer seemed adequate at the time.
The major issue arose at an early enough stage for this
to still be realistic, as it turned out to be. There were
vey few problems after this and they were solved in the
three or four days prior to Demo Day.
18. Do you foresee a potential utility in the his-
torical data offered by your project and are you
recording actuals as well as estimates of your
working time?
This does not apply to my project.
As stated above.
19. What are your criteria for counting a project
task as 100% complete?
Realistically, I probably won’t ever consider this project
to be 100% complete as there will always be room for
improvement in most areas of the composition. The
project will be considered complete when the compo-
sition reaches a certain standard that I can be happy
with.
I slightly misunderstood this question at the time. The
task of composing the piece is a difficult one to consider
100% complete, as there are always areas of the com-
position which can be improved or worked on. Also, to
the composer, the composition sounds worse the more
you listen to it. For those reasons, I considered the
composition to be “complete” when I was happy that it
satisfied the concept. However, I still would not consid-
er it 100% complete. The development of the spatial-
isation tool is a different story. I considered this to be
100% complete when all of the functions and features
were tested and confirmed to be working correctly.
20. How will you measure and track the current
status of the project state?
I will be keeping track of my project plan and continu-
ously reconsidering how much time should be spent to
reach my milestones.
I stuck to this process and it resulted in my project
being completed in time. New milestones were added
as the project changed, the project plan was updated,
and time estimates were made based on this.
21. Have you any existing project retrospectives
that could be of benefit to you in your work on
the FYP, e.g. past assignment reports?
No.
The previous answer still applied until the task of de-
veloping the spatialisation tool was added. For this, I
referred to previous projects I had done in Max/Msp.
Lessons Learned
My FYP has taught me a few valuable lessons. I have
realised the importance of proper planning before un-
dertaking any project. This is an area which I was lack-
ing in, and it resulted in a fair amount of scope creep
with my FYP. I feel if I had taken this module before
starting my FYP, rather than half way through it, it
would have greatly improved the quality of my finished
product and reduced the amount of stress I endured in
the latter stages of the project.
I learned the importance of managing my time and set-
ting a schedule for completing important tasks. My lack
of time management resulted in me having to spend
26. CS4457 - Final Report
Individual Section - Patrick Butler
Group B2
24
most of my time working on the project in the last six
weeks before it was due. This caused me to neglect
other modules by limiting the amount of time I could
allocate to them.
During the FYP I also advanced my own technical skills.
The need for the development of new tools instead of
using existing tools forced me to become proficient in
Max/Msp, a program that I had struggled with in the
past. My writing skills also greatly improved as a result
of the interim and final reports. These are the two
largest documents I have witten to date, and I now feel
more confident when undertaking writing tasks.
27. CS4457 - Final Report Group B2
25
Individual Section
Allyn Dalton
28. CS4457 - Final Report
Individual Section - Allyn Dalton
Group B2
26
Stakeholder Analysis
For the duration of my final year project I believe there
was a number of stakeholders in linked to my project.
My stakeholders include:
- Myself
- Parents
- Supervisor
- Interviewee’s and testers
- Second reader
My stakeholder analysis is as follows:
Myself: The first stakeholder I have selected is myself.
As I was in charge of completing my FYP, I have my
grades at stake. These grades are going to have a say
in the degree I receive when I finish college. For this
reason I am a stakeholder in my FYP.
My Parents: I also believe my parents were/are im-
mensely important stakeholders for my FYP. My parents
have invested their hard earned money into my college
education; thus this leads onto my FYP. If I were not
successful in receiving a degree from college, my par-
ents would have lost a lot of money they put at stake
for my education.
My Supervisor: I believe my supervisor is a stakeholder.
The reason for this is my supervisor had his name and
reputation at stake. If I fail to reach a high standard
in my FYP or not complete it, my supervisor’s reputa-
tion would have been negatively affected. Similarly if
I succeed in reaching a high standard in my FYP (as I
hope to do) my supervisor’s reputation and name will
be positively effected from this success.
Interviewees and Testers: After myself, my parents and
my supervisor the next most important stakeholder I
have is the interviewee’s and testers that I had recruit-
ed for my FYP. Although the interviewee’s and testers
were the same people, without these I would not of
been able to develop my design and prototype to what
the final design was without them. For this reason I ap-
preciate their importance and I rate them as an impor-
tant stakeholder.
Second Reader: The reason I believe my second reader
is a stakeholder is they are a partially responsible for
my final FYP grade. I am aware that the second reader
is almost equally as important as my supervisor. Other
than the reason stated above I don’t see the second
reader as the most important stakeholder I have.
32. CS4457 - Final Report
Individual Section - Allyn Dalton
Group B2
30
Communication Flow
1. How do you organize communication and
change concerning the FYP?
Considering my stakeholders, I organize communication
and change related to the FYP mainly via college email.
I also have fortnightly meetings with my supervisor to
discuss and changes and ideas. Although face to face
communication proved to be more beneficial and it was
my preferred point of contact the use of emails was
also hugely important as I could send my supervisor
an email at any hour of the day about a problem or an
issue that arose and he could respond and help without
any great deal of distress.
2. What has changed in your communication
organization since Deliverable 1?
Since Deliverable 1 my communication organization
has worsened due to significant rise in workload. I have
had less communication with stakeholders as there is a
significant increase in workload and I am unable to find
the time for communication. However as I reached the
later half of the FYP as the deadline loomed in on me
there was a significant increase in communication as
there was draft report to be checked and a lot of little
bits to be sorted.
3. How are you now organizing these aspects
for the preparation of the demo days and the final
report?
I am organizing aspects for demo day and the final
report by trying to reach my targets week by week
that I set the previous week. I have planned progress
meetings with my supervisor to ensure I stay on track
and I am correctly prepared for demo day. This proved
successful however it was a stressful time.
4. Scalability issues: Size matters. If you
were the FYP coordinator/ an FYP supervisor,
how would you organize communication manage-
ment under the constraints of limited resources
(time and infrastructure) for these individual
projects? (over 100 students, ca. 20 supervisors,
ca. 20 second readers, external stakeholders/
customers, 1 year span, topics and responsibili-
ties spread across 5 courses).
If I were the FYP coordinator/FYP supervisor I would
organize communication management by the use of
Social Media. A twitter feed with updates or a private
Facebook group would be beneficial. This would alert to
students to due dates and regular updates on the FYP.
FYP coordinator and supervisors would have different
feeds/accounts and it would provide instant updates to
students as social media plays a huge role in today’s
society. FYP supervisors could possibly consider using
an instant messaging system/texting to keep in con-
tact with students as it can be an extremely stressful
time for students and email access is not always readily
available.
21-Point Analysis Revisited
[Original answers identified in italics.]
1. What are your criteria for determining project
success?
I will deem my project a success if the user can suc-
cessfully carry out the tasks I set for a usability test
after I have the medium fidelity prototype complete.
After looking back on my FYP I can almost deem my
project a success. Unfortunately due to time constraints
and unexpected problems I was only able to carry out
usability testing on on person, when I had anticipated
in carrying out at least 5 complete usability tests.
2. What are the project drivers, constraints &
degrees of freedom you can identify in relation to
your FYP?
For my FYP the project driver is to ensure that all of
my users (testers) understand what the application
is about, for this to happen I have to ensure that my
second prototype and tests benefits and builds on my
first one prototype and tests. The main constraint I
feel I am encountering is I cannot physically code my
mobile application, as I do not have the required skills.
If I was able to program my own code I would have
a lot more freedom in certain areas like functions and
layout. Because I am lacking in this skill I have to use a
ready-made wire framing application called ‘Axure’.
One constraint that I failed to mention was the time
it would take me to learn how to use a new software,
for me this was Axure. I had never previously used
this software before and I did not anticipate the time it
would take me to get to grips with this. In turn this was
probably the main cause of my set back in not been
able to carry out a complete user test.
33. CS4457 - Final Report
Individual Section - Allyn Dalton
Group B2
31
3. What are your criteria for determining whether
the product is ready for consumption (i.e. release,
screening, or audition)?
If I am satisfied my prototype has achieved all the
functions I intended on it to achieve, I would then feel
it is ready for consumption.
In my opinion I believe my product was not fully ready
for release as it was not a functional prototype and it
was only in the early prototype stages.
4. What commitments must you take on this pro-
ject? Are they achievable?
My first commitment I had to achieve and I did achieve
it was to locate 5 interviewees with an interest in exer-
cise and carry out interviews and analyse results. As I
am moving on in the project commitments I now have
to make are getting two prototypes completed and
tested and analyse the results and I feel this is very
achievable.
5. What were your main considerations in writing
your project plan?
When writing my project plan I had three main consid-
erations. These included carrying out interviews and
analysing, developing a paper prototype on paper (low
fidelity) and analysing the results and my third consid-
eration was whether or not I would have sufficient time
to complete a second prototype (medium fidelity) using
Axure.
This commitment was maintained throughout the FYP
and more was achieved. I was successful in completing
a medium fidelity prototype using Axure.
6. What level of granularity are you using to
categorise your project milestones and what are
they?
The level of granularity from a design point of view is
a functional prototype. I have several different tasks
that I need to be functional for my prototypes to be a
success. Each successful task will be a milestone.
Although my prototypes were not functional I was able
to showcase them as been functional with the use of
video editing software’s.
7. What common large tasks have you identified
in your project and what processes have you de-
veloped for modularising them?
One large task I have identified in my project is carry-
ing out two prototypes, one low fidelity prototype and
a second medium fidelity prototype. To carry out the
second prototype I have to carry out and complete the
first prototype and this is how I have linked them.
My design elements did not change for the duration of
my project.
8. How much time have you budgeted for rework,
reshoots, remixing, bug fixing, and why?
I have not budgeted any time for reworks or bug fixing,
as I am purely just prototyping. I am using the user
centred design process and for this to work I need to
research, prototype, analyse and repeat the process
again so essentially I am ‘reworking’ for the next proto-
type. This is why I have not budgeted for reworks as a
‘rework’ is built into my timeline already.
As it turned out I should have allocated some time for
reworks as the second prototype design took a few
times to get right.
9. Have you identified potential problems that
could arise during project development if so what
is your contingency if these problems material-
ise?
I have identified one potential problem that could arise
during project development. This problem is if it takes
me too long to teach myself how to wireframe will, I be
able to complete the second prototype although I feel
that this problem is highly unlikely to arise.
Although I did not encounter the problem I mentioned
above I encountered many design laws that I needed
to fix. If I was not rushing for times these design flaws
and problems would not of happened.
10. How and when will you critically review the
processes used throughout the project to improve
efficiency?
When I have completed my medium fidelity prototype
and before I finalise my FYP report. I will assess this
by reviewing a GANTT chart I created before I started
interviewing the users.
After completing certain task I reflected on the GANTT
chart that I had created. This allowed me to see was I
on track. Thankfully I was on track and reaching mile-
stones with my product but as regards to my report I
was behind schedule. This was mainly because I spent
a little longer than expected on my final design. I then
improved this efficiency by using a pomodoro time
as suggested by my project management tutor. This
allowed me to stay focused and eliminate material that
was not relevant.
11. Have you budgeted time for adapting to new
processes, tools, or technologies?
Yes.
Although I had allocated time for this, certain functions
and features within ‘new’ softwares and technologies
took me longer to grasp than expected.
34. CS4457 - Final Report
Individual Section - Allyn Dalton
Group B2
32
12. What do you estimate the project requires in
labour-hours and how does this compare with the
nominal time available to spend on it?
I require 8 hours per week Monday through Friday for
my FYP to be finished a week in advance.
I maintained this time schedule. How ever when we
were giving an extension I was able to allocate more
time to the finishing touches.
13. How have you accommodated the
task-switching overhead associated with parallel
assignments into your schedule?
No.
Completing other course work on time was a struggle
throughout the duration of the FYP, however I managed
to get everything submitted on the due date which I
was pleased considering the pressure I was under.
14. This question is already asked by question/tip
#11
N/A
15. How did you arrive at each of your estimates?
Are they Realistic?
I arrived at each of my estimates based on how quick I
know I work. Yes I feel they are realistic.
My estimates turned out to be quite accurate until I
heard of the extension that was being giving. I then
allowed for extra time on finishing work and publishing
details.
16. Have you used any tools in the process of es-
timating your work?
A GANTT chart.
As well as a GANTT chart I also used a pomodoro timer
whilst writing the report.
17. Have you factored a schedule contingency
buffer into your project plan to allow for unfore-
seen issues that may arise?
No.
18. Do you foresee a potential utility in the his-
torical data offered by your project and are you
recording actuals as well as estimates of your
working time?
This question does not apply to me.
19. What are your criteria for counting a project
task as 100% complete?
As I have mentioned before I carried out interviews
and I am currently completing my first prototype and
aim to complete a second prototype. When I had all
5 interviewees interviewed I counted that task 100%
complete. When I get the same 5 interviewees to test
each of my prototypes I will then count the tasks 100%
complete.
As I mentioned earlier I was unsuccesful in carrying
out a full user test for my second prototype, however
apart from this I would have considered my FYP 100%
complete.
20. How will you measure and track the current
status of the project state?
Compare my actual progress to my GANTT chart that I
created before the Christmas break.
21. Have you any existing project retrospectives
that could be of benefit to you in your work on
the FYP, e.g. past assignment reports?
No, unfortunately not.
After completing an interim report I was able to add
sections of this to my final report.
Lessons Learned
Throughout the duration of the FYP I learned many
things. I have learned the importance of scope in a
project. Without scope the project would not of been
possible. I have also realized the significance in good
communication and good communication flow. Without
regular communication with my fyp supervisor be in
via email or face to face it would not of been possible
to start let alone complete my fyp. When I reflect on
the fyp process it was a massive learning experience
for many of my skills such as writing, creativity, time
management, project management as well as it testing
my patience.
One of the keys to success for my fyp was planning.
Without laying out a plan at the beginning of the fyp
I would not of been able to complete the project. The
planning of the project at the beginning allowed me to
organize my time management, project management
and scope for the fyp.
Without the correct use of time management I would
not of been successful in reaching milestones, dead-
lines and final submission. For me this was probably
the most important lesson I learned. I now realize the
importance and key role that time management plays
within project management and projects.
35. CS4457 - Final Report Group B2
33
Individual Section
Brian Greene
36. CS4457 - Final Report
Individual Section - Brian Greene
Group B2
34
Stakeholder Analysis
I have identified five stakeholders for my FYP, these
include:
01. Myself
02. My Supervisor
03. Second reader
04. External examiner
05. End Users
06. The CSIS Department
Two of these I believe to be directly involved and
therefore the most legitimate stakeholders. These two
stakeholders including my FYP supervisor and I are
both directly involved in the project and can both gain
or lose from the process and end result. I believe in re-
ality we are the only stakeholders with invested interest
in the project. This invested interest has two aspects,
the time invested in completion of the project is one as
both my supervisor and I have invested considerable
time. And the final outcome being the second aspect,
however I believe that I am more exposed to this than
my supervisor.
From my own perspective I will be investing the most
time in the process and also the final grade I receive
will have the most impact on me. This I believe consti-
tutes me as the prime stakeholder.
From my supervisors perspective he also invests a
large amount of time in the project albeit a fraction of
the time I have spent on the completion of research
and deliverables, however this cannot be overlooked.
This time my supervisor has and will be investing in
the evaluation of my project, from the standpoint of
grading and directing my efforts is abundant. And this
is why I would classify him as a secondary stakeholder.
I have used the term secondary stakeholder here as I
believe the stakes are higher for me compared to my
supervisor, this is due to the fact that my grade will not
affect him. This is not to say that on a personal level
he will not be affected as I am sure he wants me to
achieve the highest grade possible, but on a profession-
al level the outcome will not impact him. On the other
hand the grade I receive will impact my future career.
External to the aforementioned stakeholders I see the
second reader of my project as a stakeholder, although
a less salient one. The role of this stakeholder is to
evaluate the merit of the project and recommend a
grade based on its substance. I realise this stakehold-
er has great power over the outcome of the project,
other than this I cannot identify the invested interest
this stakeholder has therefore classing them as a less
involved stakeholder.
I also see the external examiner as a stakeholder as
they will evaluate the project and concur or disagree
with the recommended grade. This is also a powerful
stakeholder with little or no invested interest in the
project outcome.
The end users of my application I see as important
stakeholders. It is possible that they are truly the only
stakeholders that can honestly critique the project,
since they will be evaluating only the product and noth-
ing else. Also an objective of the project was to create
a useful & useable piece of software and this can only
be judged through its use.
I also see the faculty of the CSIS department as
stakeholders. This I believe is a tenuous selection as
I cannot confirm their interest in my FYP. Although it
could be said that the department is interested in the
pass rate of students. But I do not believe this to be a
direct investment or holding a stake in the outcome of
my final year project. However on a personal level after
building friendly relationships with my lectures over my
years of study I do know some are eager to see me
achieve success in this project. Also taking into account
the time they have invested in helping me to develop
my abilities, which was essential to completing this pro-
ject. In this sense they are legitimate stakeholders.
37. 35
B. GREENE
Notes
N/A
FYP - Sentiment Anal...
Set Up GIT (Source C... Main Research Prototyping Development Process Deomnstrate Project ... Compile Final Report
Initial Research (Hi... Study Frameworks & A... Create UI Prototype Create Twitter Data ... Create Prototype Cla... Train classification... Implement 3rd party ... Implement User inter... Integrate the classi... Testing
FTP Presentation Evaluate current app...
Read Papers on senti... Source Required Tech... Study Frameworks & A...
Complete Rapidminer ... Compete API tutorial... Implement tweet View Implement Sentiment ... Implement metrics Vi... Implement Data Visua... Develop Set of Manu... Develop Set of Autom... Run Automated Test S...Resolve Bugs
Level 1 Enter Project
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
WBSDiagram
38. 36
ID WBS Task Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors
1 1 FYP ‐ Sentiment Analysis of
Twitter Data
158 days Fri 05/09/14 Tue 14/04/15
2 1.1 Set Up GIT (Source Control) 1 day Fri 05/09/14 Fri 05/09/14
3 1.2 Main Research 62 days Fri 05/09/14 Sun 30/11/14
4 1.2.1 Initial Research (High Level) 30 days Fri 05/09/14 Thu 16/10/14
5 1.2.1.1 FTP Presentation 1 day Thu 16/10/14 Thu 16/10/14
6 1.2.1.2 Evaluate current
applications
2 days Fri 05/09/14 Sun 07/09/14
7 1.2.1.3 Read Past FYP Reports 4 days Thu 25/09/14 Tue 30/09/14
8 1.2.2 Read Papers on sentiment
Analysis
62 days Fri 05/09/14 Sun 30/11/14
9 1.2.3 Source Required Technolgies 18 days Fri 05/09/14 Tue 30/09/14
10 1.2.4 Study Frameworks & API's 6 days Fri 31/10/14 Fri 07/11/14
11 1.2.4.1 Complete Rapidminer
Tutorials
6 days Fri 31/10/14 Fri 07/11/14
12 1.2.4.2 Compete API tutorials
13 1.3 Prototyping 27 days Mon 01/12/14 Tue 06/01/15 3,10
14 1.3.1 Create UI Prototype 7 days Mon 01/12/14 Tue 09/12/14
15 1.3.2 Create Twitter Data Stream
Prototype
3 days Tue 09/12/14 Thu 11/12/14
16 1.3.3 Create Prototype
Classification Model
27 days Mon 01/12/14 Tue 06/01/15
17 1.4 Compile Interim Report 15 days Tue 16/12/14 Mon 05/01/15 3
18 1.5 Development Process 65 days Tue 06/01/15 Sat 04/04/15 13,3
19 1.5.1 Train classification model 39 days Tue 06/01/15 Fri 27/02/15
20 1.5.2 Implement 3rd party
Classification for Comparison
1 day Wed 07/01/15 Wed 07/01/15
21 1.5.3 Implement User interface 32 days Thu 08/01/15 Fri 20/02/15
22 1.5.3.1 Implement tweet View 8 days Thu 08/01/15 Sat 17/01/15
23 1.5.3.2 Implement Sentiment
results View
12 days Sat 17/01/15 Sat 31/01/15
24 1.5.3.3 Implement metrics View 3 days Sat 07/02/15 Tue 10/02/15
25 1.5.3.4 Implement Data
Visualisation View
3 days Tue 10/02/15 Thu 12/02/15
26 1.5.4 Integrate the classification
model & the UI
15 days Mon 02/03/15 Fri 20/03/15 19,20,21
27 1.5.5 Testing 58 days Thu 15/01/15 Sat 04/04/15
28 1.5.5.1 Develop Set of Manual
Test Cases
47 days Thu 15/01/15 Fri 20/03/15
29 1.5.5.2 Develop Set of Automated
Test Cases
4 days Mon 23/03/15 Thu 26/03/15 28
30 1.5.5.3 Run Automated Test Suite 1 day Fri 27/03/15 Fri 27/03/15 29
31 1.5.5.4 Resolve Bugs 5 days Mon 30/03/15 Fri 03/04/15 30
32 1.6 Deomnstrate Project (Demo
Day)
1 day Thu 09/04/15 Thu 09/04/15 27
33 1.7 Compile Final Report 43 days Fri 13/02/15 Tue 14/04/15 3,13
30/11
16/10
07/11
06/01
04/04
20/02
04/04
01 Septem11 Septem21 Septem01 Octobe11 Octobe21 October01 Novem11 Novem21 Novem01 Decem 11 Decem 21 Decemb01 January11 January21 January 01 Februa 11 Februa 21 Febr 01 March 11 March 21 March 01 April 11 April 21
Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration-only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start-only
Finish-only
External Tasks
External Milestone
Deadline
Progress
Manual Progress
Project: Brian Greene FYP
Date: Wed 06/05/15
B. GREENE
Notes
N/A
WBS/GanttChart
39. 37
B. GREENE
Notes
N/A
0 56 56 56 7 63 63 14 77 77 98 175 175 104 279
0 0 56 56 0 63 63 0 77 77 0 175 175 0 279
286 72 358
286 0 358
0 1 1 63 10 73 279 7 286
1 1 63 67 4 77 279 0 286
63 77 140
281 218 358
ES DUR EF
LS FLOAT LF
Compile Interim Report
8
Resolve Bugs
9
Start = 0
1
Research
2
Study Frameworks & API's
DESCRIPTION
WBS #
LEGEND
End = 358
3
Prototyping
4
Set Up GIT
5
Development Process
6
Compile Final Report
10
Fully Test Application
Develop Test Cases
7
CPAPrecedenceDiagram
40. CS4457 - Final Report
Individual Section - Brian Greene
Group B2
38
Communication Flow
How do you organize communication and change
concerning the FYP? (consider here the stake-
holders)
As I believe there to be only two stakeholders in direct
contact concerning my FYP, these been my supervi-
sor and I. Communication has taken two forms, firstly
E-mail was our main point of contact, this has allowed
for flexible communication in the sense that there was
no schedule to adhere to and this also provided a ve-
hicle to distribute information such as links to relevant
research and sharing of intermediate deliverables etc.
Secondly a weekly meeting was our secondary point of
contact, during these meetings we discussed progress
and any blocking elements encountered and derived
solutions to these problems. Also these meetings
allowed for demonstrations of progress accomplished
to check if the direction taken was the right one. This
framework for communication facilitated change in
the sense that regular communication eliminated the
effects of change since it was monitored closely during
meetings and E-mail.
What has changed in your communication organi-
zation since Deliverable 1?
From the outset of my FYP communication took the
form as stated above and did not change at all. Apart
from some minor rescheduling of the weekly meetings.
How are you now organizing these aspects for
the preparation of the demo days and the final
report?
I contacted the FYP coordinator by E-mail and detailed
the requirements of my demo. As all I required was a
PC to demonstrate my product this was very straight
forward. During meetings my supervisor & I evaluat-
ed drafts of the report identifying any further work or
rework that was required for the final report.
Scalability íssues: Size matters. If you were the
FYP coordinator/ an FYP supervisor, how would
you organize communication management under
the constraints of limited resources (time and in-
frastructure) for these individual projects? (over
100 students, ca. 20 supervisors, ca. 20 second
readers, external stakeholders/customers, 1 year
span, topics and responsibilities spread across 5
courses).
From my understanding of the coordination and man-
agement undertaken by the facility in relation to finial
year projects I would change very little if nothing in
the way it is organised. I believe it to be a well-oiled
machine at this stage. Communication is managed
very well, from the outset regular lectures were held
detailing the time line for deliverables and how to un-
dertake these deliverables, nothing I believe was left
to interpretation as all aspects were presented in an
unambiguous fashion. If I were to change one thing it
would be to add a social media element to the deliv-
ery of communications. This I believe is not necessary,
however from experience I believe students monitor
their Facebook & Twitter accounts more closely than
their student E-mail. This form of communication might
reach a greater audience and in a more timely fashion.
21-Point Analysis Revisited
[Original answers identified in italics.]
1. What are your criteria for determining project
success?
The success criteria for my project includes a working
and fully functional application, which can produce ac-
curate sentiment classification of twitter data. Also this
application should have undergone a comprehensive
suite of automated testing. To accompany the applica-
tion and testing suite a detailed report should be com-
piled which documents the research undertaken & the
development process for the project. The final measure
of success would be the grade I am awarded.
Upon reflection I would still see this answer as relevant.
However I would further clarify my measure of success
to include been awarded an A as my grade. Also that I
met & exceeded my supervisors expectations. I would
also see the success of demo day been a factor to
measure, in the sense of whether I impressed anyone
with my work especially my second reader.
2. What are the project drivers, constraints &
degrees of freedom you can identify in relation to
your FYP?
The key drivers I can identity are to develop a good
quality application that produces accurate results and
presents these results in an intuitive fashion. The
constraints are to work within the given deadlines and
have deliverables for each deadline. The degrees of
freedom are some additional features that could be
added to the application if my timeline permits. These
41. CS4457 - Final Report
Individual Section - Brian Greene
Group B2
39
additional features are not essential to the application
however I believe they could really add value to the
finished product.
This answer does lack some of the constraints I iden-
tified along the development cycle, such as hardware
constraints when developing a predictive model and
a rate limit imposed on an API used for a third party
predictive model to accompany the predicative model
I was creating. Also a driver I now realise is to please
& impress my supervisor & second reader. Other than
these amendments I believe the answer is still relevant.
3. What are your criteria for determining whether
the product is ready for consumption (i.e. release,
screening, or audition)?
The criteria for release of the application would be
when all testing is complete, and at least 90% of bugs
resolved or identified.
This answer is still correct, although I would add that I
did also seek the advice of my supervisor on whether
or not the final product was of a releasable standard
before demo day.
4. What commitments must you take on this pro-
ject are they achievable?
The minimum commitments required are three hours
coding, one hour of report writing and thirty minutes
project review, all per day for the following three
weeks. I believe this is achievable as I have been work-
ing to this schedule since January 10th 2015.
This commitment was maintained, however once demo
day and final submission dates were rescheduled times,
these commitments we reduced.
5. What were your main considerations in writing
your project plan?
The main considerations I addressed while writing
my project plan were to identify the most challenging
aspects of the project. These related mostly to coding
issues, learning new technologies & identifying relevant
research. I prioritised these critical aspects, & tackled
them from the outset of the project
This approach served me well, as when it came to the
development & report writing phase of the project I
was well prepared.
6. What level of granularity are you using to
categorise your project milestones and what are
they?
The level of granularity from a programming perspec-
tive is at the functional level. I have separated the
application into a number of different tasks. Each task
represents a functional requirement of the application.
Each milestone is essentially a fully implemented and
tested functional requirement. I have set no milestones
for the report section yet.
This level of granularity was followed for the devel-
opment cycle. Once the report writing phase began I
sought advice from my supervisor on how to structure
the report. From the advice given I reduced the report
into five chapters including Introduction, Research,
Design & Implementation, Evaluation and Conclusion.
7. What common large tasks have you identified
in your project and what processes have you de-
veloped for modularising them?
Some of the views incorporated in my UI design are
very similar, so I have developed a base class from
which to work from so code can be reused for these
elements.
This aspect of my design held true throughout the de-
velopment cycle.
8. How much time have you budgeted for rework,
reshoots, remixing, bug fixing, and why?
I have budgeted two weeks for rework. I intend to test
and bug fix as I develop so I don’t expect major re-
works. However I decided to air on the side of caution
and budgeted more than I think I require.
Testing was carried out during development, with
all these tests being automated at the final stage of
development to allow for regression testing. Due to
the rescheduling of final submission & demo and since
I had stayed on track in terms of timeline, I had the
opportunity to carry out more testing than had been
anticipated while also adding features.
9. Have you identified potential problems that
could arise during project development if so what
is your contingency if these problems material-
ise?
A major problem that could have arose was that I was
not granted an Academic licence for a piece of software
I am using to build a classification model. Although I
have been granted this licence my contingency was to
pay for a month’s subscription to the suppliers cloud
service. Other potential problems were identified early
in the research phase of my project and factored into
the schedule as to allow time to overcome.
Other problems were encountered during development,
mainly in relation to rate limits on the Twitter service
I was using as a data source for my application. Also
rate limits imposed by the third party prediction model
I used to compare results to the model I had created.
Both these rate limits were overcome by reducing the
data usage of my application, thus maintaining liveness
while the application was in use.
42. CS4457 - Final Report
Individual Section - Brian Greene
Group B2
40
10. How and when will you critically review the
processes used throughout the project to improve
efficiency?
I consentingly monitor how long certain task take me
to code and log any bugs found during testing. This has
allowed me to improve the coding process as I develop
the project.
This I did throughout development and it is a habit I
intend on maintaining. I believe it gives me greater
ability to estimate completion times of tasks and thus
allows me to devise superior & useable strategies. On
advice from my Project Management tutor, I started
using a pomodoro timer to help me stay focused while
writing. This I found very effective for a number of
reasons. It removes my hunger to procrastinate while
report writing, and allows me to better estimate how
much I can write within an hour. It is certainly a habit I
intend on maintaining.
11. Have you budgeted time for adapting to new
processes, tools, or technologies?
Yes I have, during the research & prep phase of the
project I had identified the new technologies I would be
using and this was factored into to my project plan.
This is one of the main factors I believe led to my suc-
cess, knowing & learning the technologies I was unfa-
miliar with well before the development phase allowed
me to concentrate on producing a high quality final
product.
12. What do you estimate the project requires in
labour-hours and how does this compare with the
nominal time available to spend on it?
I require twenty seven hours per six day week for 3
weeks to complete ahead of time. This compared to the
nominal time available is achievable but strict discipline
is required.
I maintained this discipline over the entire project
until the rescheduling was announced. While it was
tough going, I think it paid off in the end. I finished
well ahead of schedule and the final product was good
quality.
13. How have you accommodated the
task-switching overhead associated with parallel
assignments into your schedule?
As the project deadlines for some modules are still not
concrete this aspect is not yet addressed fully.
Completing other projects and course work was a strain
on maintaining my FYP schedule. However by burning
the midnight oil I succeeded in completing all other
required course work.
14. This question is already asked by question/
tip #11
As stated in question 11.
15. How did you arrive at each of your estimates?
Are they Realistic?
During the research & prep phase of the project I
developed a set of prototypes of certain features that
would be incorporated in the application. I derived my
development time estimate from the time taken to
create these prototypes. I believe these estimates are
accurate as I am currently on schedule.
My estimates were more or less accurate when it came
to development, although a few bugs did take quite
some time to resolve. My initial estimates on complet-
ing the report were a different case. I had plenty of
material to write about, but building a narrative was
the most difficult task and took much longer than I had
anticipated.
16. Have you used any tools in the process of es-
timating your work?
No I have not used any tools to estimate, I did not
think this would be useful given the scope of the pro-
ject.
As I mentioned earlier I started using a pomodoro
timer desktop application. This app tracks and main-
tains a log of all tasks complete & uncompleted. This I
found very useful during the report writing phase of the
project.
17. Have you factored a schedule contingency
buffer into your project plan to allow for unfore-
seen issues that may arise?
Yes I have set a completion date of March 6th to com-
plete the project. This allows three weeks of contingen-
cy time in the project plan.
Due to the rescheduling of the FYP I also rescheduled
the timeline of the project creating even more contin-
gency. The application was complete in March however
not on the 6th. This extra time was used to add more
functionality to the application and complete further
testing.
18. Do you foresee a potential utility in the his-
torical data offered by your project and are you
recording actuals as well as estimates of your
working time?
I do see a potential use from the data produced. It will
allow me to better estimate certain coding tasks in the
future. I have been recording development time since
I started coding as well as cataloguing estimates and
also logging bugs on a source control system I use.
Also I have currently started to use a pomodoro timer
to record the time it takes me to write.
This data as I mentioned earlier is precious, allowing
me to estimate both coding times and writing times
more accurately. I intend on maintaining and using this
data going forward.
