FYI -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Observations regarding rejection of deliverable “D10.5.1 Report on Validation Process including Validation with Use Case projects” Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 01:31:15 +0200 From: Juanjo Hierro <jhierro at tid.es><mailto:jhierro at tid.es> To: Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu> <Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu><mailto:Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu>, Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu> <Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu><mailto:Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu> CC: Fatelnig Peter <peter.fatelnig at ec.europa.eu><mailto:peter.fatelnig at ec.europa.eu>, EC - Jesús Villasante <Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu><mailto:Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu>, Miguel Carrillo <mcp at tid.es><mailto:mcp at tid.es>, stefano de panfilis <stefano.depanfilis at eng.it><mailto:stefano.depanfilis at eng.it>, "jhierro >> \"Juan J. Hierro\"" <jhierro at tid.es><mailto:jhierro at tid.es>, "subsidies at tid.es"<mailto:subsidies at tid.es> <subsidies at tid.es><mailto:subsidies at tid.es> Dear Arian, Ragnar, Peter, Jesus, After careful analysis of the report associated to the M18 review, we would like to submit to you the following observations regarding comments provided in the review report that you provided as justification of the rejection of deliverable “D10.5.1 Report on Validation Process including Validation with Use Case projects”. Please take them into account in the final assessment of this deliverable during the 2nd year review. Your feedback, of course, is more than welcome. We will be also happy to provide any further clarifications if needed. We leave to you the decision on how/when to share this with the project reviewers. Thanks and best regards, -- Juanjo Hierro 1. “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.” Observation by FI-WARE: - The validation process was initially proposed by FI-WARE to the Use-Case projects. This approach was discussed and agreed by representatives of the Use-Case projects within the Architecture Board. - The architecture board recognized the reviewers comments in M6 and FI-WARE proposed a subsequent “initial feedback survey” to cater for short-term feedback cycle and to allow feedback on the first Testbed instances (therefore being closely aligned with the FI-WARE project and FI-WARE release – major FI-WARE release end of M17/30.09.2012 - survey send out: Di 02.10.2012 01:03). - Subsequent and proposed validation schedules are by definition of the process to be aligned within the involved stakeholders: FI-WARE and use case projects. There is no defined schedule by the validation process, therefore alignment towards subsequent FI-WARE Release is part of the involved partners and not of the process. The process allows maximum flexibility. 2. “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. “ Observation by FI-WARE: - FI-WARE Testbed Team including the GE instances owner gave continuous support to the UC projects in the access and use of the GEis of interest. Due to this continuous support FI-WARE provided dedicated webinars for each chapter and sometimes more for the same chapter in order to cover different aspects on different GEis. This continuous support welcomed by the UCs (it can be seen in the answers of the "first initial survey") is not explicitly reported in the deliverable as we intend it more to describe the validation itself rather than the support provided. - FI-WARE agrees with the reviewers comments that the validation process as outlined and executed within the FI-WARE project within Task 10.5 does not completely follow the description of the task in the DoW – but again as this was decided and discussed within the highest possible technology board (the FI-WARE architecture board) this deviation from the DoW is in line with all related parties and the deviation in general should be acceptable. As changes to the DoW take time, these changes in the process could only be reflected as part of the upcoming amendment 4 to the DoW. 3. “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. [..]The available questionnaire is presently basic, and is a long way off from providing the validation required to enrich the characterization of Use Case scenarios (as a contribution towards Phase 2 trials) and generally boost GE uptake. Observation by FI-WARE - The D.10.5.1 deliverables states: “The design phase occurs taking care also requirements that have been successfully communicated from the Use Cases Projects to the FI-WARE chapters.” – which should imply a given fact that requirements actually were formally communicated and does not imply that these requirements can be tracked throughout the whole process in the current way, agile is implemented and “lived”. The deliverable in this point may have wrongly lead to the assumption that there were successfully communicated requirements, which the validation team itself couldn’t really judge or imply. As the deliverable outlined later there is no tight linkage between defined requirements and the features provided. - Secondly the decision taken by the Architecture board was bond to the fact that validation based on all relevant features/epics provided by the FI-WARE project was not reasonable for the given amount of time and expected efforts - FI-WARE features do comprise of more than 900 features (please bear in mind that only limited resources were foreseen in the DoW to actually execute on the validation task towards the core platform). - Finally it was decided by the Architecture board that a “validation questionnaire” to be provided by FI-WARE has to cater for validation and mainly will be based upon questions related to “validation context” and “generic enablers” and not based on features and requirements. The use case projects therefore were only bound to give the scenarios and their descriptions to FI-WARE and not their requirements. - Enrichment of the characterization of use case scenarios and boost of GE uptake was not in scope of the validation approach as implied in the reviewer statement. - As the amendment 4 foresees there will be again a reiteration of the validation process towards the phase 2 projects and their trials, where further changes in the process are currently being considered by the architecture board, potentially leading to a tighter linkage between requirements and GEs which might lead to a better validation. E.g. it is foreseen that use case projects will input their requirements to GE-based trackers and not to a common fi-ware tracker any more. One of the feedbacks received by the use case projects almost speaks for itself: As a general impression, the validation questions were quite helpful to provide feedback. The only issue we faced in our case was due to the fact that we evaluated the GEs per prototype component and not for specific scenarios. 4. 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. Observation by FI-WARE - Checking non-functional capabilities was again reiterated within the architecture board and no common consensus could be found towards the validation process. This recommendation will be taken into the next discussion which will redefine the process for FIWARE v2 (but will not be part of the D.10.5.2 deliverable as for time constraints: phase 2 projects did not start to redefine the validation process and potentially won’t do so for the next two month ) ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-wpa/attachments/20130522/7cddb0a2/attachment.html>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy