VC Evaluation Report for LCP (Exploration Phase, Version 1.0)

VC Evaluation Report for LCP (Exploration Phase, Version 1.0)

CSCI577a / Fall 2012Simone Lojeck, Team06

VCEval- LCP / Due Date: October 8, 2012

VC Evaluation Report for LCP – (Exploration Phase, Version 1.0)

______

  1. Management Overview

The items below are characteristics of the project solution described in the LCP which should be noted by the client(s) and their representatives.

  • The current status of the project and its LCP is included in the section A.1.2. Key details and upgrades from the previous version are noted there.
  • The current list of assumptions for the project is included in the LCP section A.1.3.
  • A description of the project strategy detailing the process to be followed and the current phase specifics are included in the LCP section A.1.4.
  • Table 1 of the LCP (section 1.5.1) includes the various artifacts that has or will be produced for the current phase.
  1. Technical Details

The items below are characteristics of the project solution described in the LCP which should be noted by any technical reviewer.

  • The current list of assumptions for the project is included in the LCP section A.1.3.
  • Table 1 of the LCP (section 1.5.1) includes the various artifacts that has or will be produced for the current phase.
  • The skillsets (programming languages and application experience) as well as role, for each team member is included in the LCP Section A.1.8.
  • Potential tools to be used during the project development are listed in the LCP section A.1.10.
  1. Major Errors & Omissions

The items below are the top three errors or omissions, with applicable explanation, with the LCP that would be relevant to the client(s) and their representatives.

1) The LCP contains information in the later sections that are part of the template or are placeholders. Users of the LCP should be aware of the existence of this placeholder information to avoid accidentally using this data for the project.

2) The LCP numbering is incorrect in that the letter A is appended to certain levels. This numbering denotes sections of an appendix which could lead to misunderstanding of the LCP sections. This could also lead to problems later as the LCP develops (and possibly includes appendices).

3) The LCP does not align to the structure of the LCP template with regards to the header and footer information. The document when printed could easily become misarranged without identifying information on each and every page.

  1. Critical Concerns

The items below are the top three concerns, with applicable explanation and possible steps for mitigation, with the project solution within the LCP that would be relevant to the client(s) and their representatives

1) While many of the sections have the requisite model or diagrams, there is very little description to introduce and explain these visuals. Often there is only the model with no associated text. Without these descriptions it is possible that a user of the LCP would misinterpret the data or misunderstand the statement that is supposed to be provided by the table or figure. The author should add descriptions to introduce and identify each table and figure. Also include any relevant, important details that a reader should see in the table or figure.

2) Error # (1), described above, is a top concern because of the possibility of the user to misinterpret the example data as part of the project. The author should remove the placeholder data and identify that these sections are not yet applicable, or that the data will be determined at a later phase.

3) As described in Error #s (2) and (3) (and other lower level defects), the document as a whole has several defects in presentation and formatting that could affect how the technical information could be interpreted. Mistakes such as incorrect Version date, incorrect section numbering, etc., are minor individually, but as a group of defects within a single document, lead the user to an incorrect conclusion on the capability of the development team or its results. The development team should institute a peer review process, where the documents submitted by an author is reviewed both for technical content and also for non-technical agreement. This should be done prior to submission of the artifact for Valuation.

- Page 1 of 2 -

Top View