CMPSCI 520/620

Fall 2003

Project Presentations

October 20, 2003

 

  1. Each group should be prepared to discuss each of the questions, but to avoid overlap, I have made specific assignments. Each group will have 10 minutes, but allow time for discussion. At the end, we will discuss the subset for Project 2.
  2. Ordering and assignments

a.        Order: 2-5-1-3-4 (used the Mass Millions results)

b.        Assignment

Group 2: Developers - Flint, Holbrook, Sunderkoetter

[3d] Describe the Òconceptual decompositionÓ explicit/implicit in the specifications, down at least two levels (e.g. the UMass RFB identifies Bursar activities, and within that ÒcashieringÓ). Compare the approaches and discuss the implications for later design stage.

[3h] Provide an overall assessment of the specification included in the RFP and RFB from the perspective of your team stakeholder assignment, and for the subset you have identified so far, discuss the completeness and consistency of the specifications.

Group 5: Users (Bursar, Registrar, FA, Housing, etc.) - Bellissimo, Caron, Kumela, Maxwell, Miller

[2] Identify (and categorize) the stakeholders in the AIS/SIS systems proposed by UMass and UCSC. Look for generalizations, ÒactorsÓ for later use cases.

[3b] Discuss whether functional and non-functional specifications are given. Give examples of non-functional requirements, if any.

[3h] Provide an overall assessment of the specification included in the RFP and RFB from the perspective of your team stakeholder assignment, and for the subset you have identified so far, discuss the completeness and consistency of the specifications.

Group 1:  Buyers (Campus & System Administration, CIO) - Atenasio, Bahree, Bansal, Cardillo

[1] Discuss the strategy, justification, risk analyses, etc. in documents 1 & 2

[4] Discuss if the Peoplesoft bid on the UCSC AIS system was responsive to the RFP. Did it provide any additional insight?

[3h] Provide an overall assessment of the specification included in the RFP and RFB from the perspective of your team stakeholder assignment, and for the subset you have identified so far, discuss the completeness and consistency of the specifications.

Group 3: Validation & Verification - Swallow, Wedig, Weinger, Williams

[3a] Describe and contrast the ÒnotationÓ used. Give examples of similar functions from each.

[3h] Provide an overall assessment of the specification included in the RFP and RFB from the perspective of your team stakeholder assignment, and for the subset you have identified so far, discuss the completeness and consistency of the specifications.

Group 4: Users (Students, Faculty, Academic Staff) - Dragon, Frederick, Ritzinger, Zhu

[3e] Discuss how well external and internal functions, behavior and communications are defined for the system level. Give examples as a comparison.

[3c] If provided, discuss the proposed system architecture.

[3h] Provide an overall assessment of the specification included in the RFP and RFB from the perspective of your team stakeholder assignment, and for the subset you have identified so far, discuss the completeness and consistency of the specifications.

All groups

Pick a subset of the specifications (either UMass or UCSC or some combination that includes the functions included in MaciaszekÕs example, e.g., course enrollment), define the included components, and discuss how well the functions, behavior and communications are defined for the component level.