[Fiware-wpa] [Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report)

[Sandfuchs, Thorsten]

Ah nice - just discovered that this email didn't get out this morning and got delivered only "now" - so sorry for the delay - content wise it was mentioned in the WPL/WPA meeting.
Comments as always still welcome...

Best & sorry again for the "late" submission.

                                                                /Thorsten


From: fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Sandfuchs, Thorsten
Sent: Dienstag, 19. März 2013 19:13
To: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu
Cc: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu
Subject: Re: [Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report)

Hi,
There might be a valid third option for case 1 (UC requirements) to cater for UC1 projects only

1.III.  Take every "Accpeted for inclusion for FIWARE backlog", "Already part of baseline asset" and "Covered by fi-ware backlog entries" ticket out of the DEPRECATED tracker of feature-requests: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/tracker/?atid=163&group_id=7&func=browse

-          present this list as one part of the validation to the particular UC or all of them.

-          As attached that would be around 70 tickets

As these fields do not exist in the chapter-specific trackers, this can't be applied to the new UCs right?

What do you think?

Please let me know if this topic gets into the WPL meeting today and when - I have an all-day event, which I can't

Best,
                                                                /Thorsten

From: Sandfuchs, Thorsten
Sent: Montag, 18. März 2013 08:50
To: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu>; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu>
Cc: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu>
Subject: Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report)

Dear WPL/WPA,
This is to make you all aware and start the discussion on one of the parts of the Review report concerning the validation topic (10.5.X).

Status:

-          D.10.5.1 (validation report) was rejected (as attached below) and they expect a resolved version of the validation report (and major changes) for M24 (already end of April).

-          Main point from the reviewers: validation report does not met the expectations set by the DoW.

1.       UC requirements are not linked to the validation
(Personal assumption: ... as these requirements are not fully recorded in the first place, it is almost impossible to resolve this )

2.       Non-functional capabilities are not part of the presented evaluation approach

-          This can't be resolved on the testbed-level, we have to start the resolution and discussion on the WPL/WPA level

My personal opinion to the matter:

-          The validation process was aligned between the UC and FI-WARE and was part of an official AB-resolution

-          The requirement matrix can't be established, as we do not have a concise list of requirements by the UCs

-          For the non-functional capabilities we need to come up with a new approach
currently I don't know have a good idea on how to approach this - do you have any other agile processes where non-functional capabilities are part of the validation?

Our (quiet obvious) options for 1. (UC requirement links) are:

I.                    Give in to the reviewers and try to intro a link between the "requirements"/"feature"-list and the UC validation

(if we take "FEATURES": I personally won't know who would really be able to judge if a feature is really present in a given GE and given the high amount of "FEATURES" in our wikis, this would be a hard job... )

(if we take "requirements": we would firstly need to consolidate and aggregate a list of requirements - who would be able to input here, as the UC projects in phase 1 are probably not responsive any more and the UC2 are just starting )

II.                  Convince the reviewers that the AB board decision overrules the DoW

(potentially and just-to-be-sure: this should be communicated before the next review and potentially clarified with the PO)

(potentially this should be reflected in one upcoming amendment of the DoW)

III.                ... < your options go here > :)

Our (quiet obvious) options for 2. (non-functional capabilities) are:

I.                    Give in to the reviewers and introduce a new process on how to validate non-functional capabilities of GEs or the platform in a whole

(Who can contribute here?)

II.                  ... < your options go here > :)

Unfortunately I won't be able to join the next WPL/WPA call for long (and iff, only for the first slot) on Tuesday, therefore I would appreciate if you would take the topic in the first slot and make it the first topic.

Thanks for any feedback and input and best regards,

                                                                /Thorsten

Attachement:
D10.5.1 Report on Validation Process including Validation with Use Case projects
This deliverable outlines the designed and recommended validation process for the use cases
to follow. Additionally the initial feedback survey, which was initiate and send to the use
case projects and the main findings are outlined.
The validation process described in the document is generally well thought and detailed;
however, it has been devised without sufficient consideration of the FI-WARE project and
FI-WARE Releases.
The validation approach is also considered insufficient, in view of what is envisaged in the
DoW in supporting Use Case projects on deployment, execution and validation of the
conceptual prototypes in respect of the available GEs. According to the deliverable, the
design phase of FI-WARE incorporates requirements that have been successfully
communicated from the Use Cases Projects to the FI-WARE chapters. As the link between
Use Case requirements and the actual content of the individual chapters is not readily
traceable, this has a significant impact on the validation, and the extent to which the Agile
best practices have been embraced. As explained in the document, there is no tight linkage
between the defined requirements and the features provided by the GE providers. Hence, the
validation and requirements evaluation will not be based on a requirements matrix, but will
follow an open questionnaire approach. The available questionnaire is presently basic, and is
a long way off from providing the validation required to enrich the characterisation of Use
Case scenarios (as a contribution towards Phase 2 trials) and generally boost GE uptake.
Additionally, how testing and evaluation would be conducted in relation to the non-functional
capabilities that are listed for the first releases in the Technical Roadmap is yet to be
described.
Deliverable D10.5.1 is rejected. No re-submission is required,


--

Thorsten Sandfuchs

SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany | www.sap.com<http://www.sap.com/>


Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx

Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Geschäftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrtümlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielfältigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdrücklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank.

This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation.

Please consider the environment before printing this mail!


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-wpa/attachments/20130319/94245acb/attachment.html>