200 likes | 388 Views
Outsourcing Project Library Management System (LMS). Team ITC: Seng Kheang Sengly Leng Sophea Chhun Vichet Vireak Aing Chitsaya Chanesakhone Team Pace : Alex Apelbaum Thomas Achtemichuk Chad Brokaw Team India: Deepti Arora Shweta Mehra.
E N D
Outsourcing Project Library Management System (LMS) Team ITC: Seng KheangSengly LengSophea ChhunVichet Vireak AingChitsaya Chanesakhone Team Pace : Alex ApelbaumThomas AchtemichukChad Brokaw Team India: Deepti AroraShweta Mehra : Leader: Quality Assurance: Communication : Documentation: Localization :Leader: Communication: Quality Assurance : Leader: Documentation 1/19
Presentation Outline Introduction Software requirements Technology overview Client responsibilities Interaction and communication Reviews Software demonstration Feedbacks Software acceptation Conclusion 2/19
Introduction/Description of LMS Description of ITC (Institut de Technologie du Cambodge) • 6 departments (GIC, GCI, GEE, GCA, GRU, GIM) • Engineers and Technicians • Library ITC Library description • 2 computers No software specific • Pen and paper filling system • Difficult to search for books Constraints in library of ITC • Open from Tuesday to Saturday • Do the registration to borrow the books • Borrow books on Friday afternoon and Saturday • Students can borrow only 2 books (3 days) • Some books can’t lend 3/19
Introduction/Teams in project LMS(1/2) The Client : ITC (Team Cambodia) Sopheap Seng : Professor of Software Engineering Longchrea Neak : Moderator Seng Kheang : Leader Sengly Leng : Quality Assurance Sophea Chhun : Communication Vichet Vireak Aing : Documentation Chitsaya Chanesakhone : Localization 4/19
Introduction/Teams in project LMS(2/2) The Developers Pace (Team US) Christelle Scharff : Professor of Software of Engineering Alex Apelbaum : Leader Thomas Achtemichuk : Communication Chad Brokaw : Quality Assurance Delhi (Team India) Vidya kulkarni : Professor Deepti Arora : Leader Shweta Mehra : Documentation 5/19
Software requirements Functional requirements • Patron Management • Add, Remove, Modify, Search, Display • Book Management • Add, Remove, Modify, Search, Catalogue • Borrowing functions • Lend, Return, Display the books • Search (book loans, borrowers) Non-Functional requirements • GUI must be intuitive • User guide for this software • Language using is French • Security 6/19
Technology overview/Developer US students (Pace university) • Languages & Tools • Java 1.5 • HTML 4.0 • CSS 2.0 • Eclipse 3.1.2 • Subversion 1.3.1 • Trac 0.9.5 • Web Server • Apache 2.x • Java Servlet Container • Tomcat 5.5.x • DBMS • MySQL 5.0.x • Operating Environment • Windows XP Service Pack 2 • Mozilla Firefox 1.5 Web Browser 7/19
Client responsibilities • Requirement phase • Find out all our need • Give our need to developer • Explanation and meeting (Chat and mail) • Validate the requirement document (Wiki) • Posting the blog and survey • Design phase • Accept or reject the track (Trac) • Validate and feedbacks the design document • Meeting online and discussion (chat and mail) • Survey and blog • Testing phase • Test the software with the requirement (bug) • Feedback • Software evaluation (USA and Indian students) • Accept or reject the software • US software : http://389.tomchuk.com/servlet/Librarian/ • Indian software : http://csdb.du.ac.in:8090/library/ROOT1/Main.htm 8/19
Interaction and communication • Yahoo! Messenger • 8 conferences : US and Cambodian • Many individuals chats • Mailing Lists • US Team: 389@tomchuk.com • Indian team: Online_library@yahoo.com • 119 mails (US and Cambodian) • 6 mails (Indian and Cambodian) • Blog (http://www.blogger.com) • 20 messages • Wiki • Requirement discussion • Questions posted and answered • http://389.tomchuk.com/trac/wiki/Requirements • Trac • Interactive requirement/design verification • Bug tracking 9/19
Reviews (2/3) How to make the client unhappy? • Don’t respect the requirement • Don’t respect the deadline • Pay no attention • Tell lie • Have many assumption • Don’t inform or show what they should do • Can’t realize what the clients really need • Software is not attractive or not complete • Software is difficult to use • Software has a lot of bugs 10/19
Reviews (1/3) How to make the client happy? • Respect their requirement • Respect the deadline • Inform or discuss with the clients if there are something • change • Motivation in the group of project (client and developer) • Give some ideas to the client • Good communication with the client • Software interface is attractive • Software must be easy to use • Software must respect the client need • Software must be easy to find out the information 11/19
Reviews (3/3) How to be a good client? • Requirement is clear • Good explanation • Don’t have a lot of modification • Reply the information needed on time • Good communication • Can test the program • Can give the feedback and the evaluation software • Reasonable 12/19
Software demonstration (1/2) US software http://389.tomchuk.com/servlet/Librarian/ http://389.tomchuk.com/servlet/Index 13/19
Software demonstration (2/2) Indian software http://csdb.du.ac.in:8090/library/ROOT1/Main.htm 14/19
Feedbacks (1/2) US software http://389.tomchuk.com/servlet/Librarian/ • Interface • Cool and easy to use (Not so attractive) • Easy to find information • Always have a link to the home page (not clear) • Can’t contact the webmaster • Software • Process is good (short time) • Functions have relationship • Security • No description about the software (Help, Description of LMS) • Have some assumption • Can’t resolve the specials cases in our library • Accept or reject • Accept 75% 15/19
Feedbacks (2/2) Indian software http://csdb.du.ac.in:8090/library/ROOT1/Main.htm • Interface • Colour is not good looking • Easy to find information • Lost the way to return to Menu of software (sometime) • Each link have clear name and identity • Can contact the webmaster • Software • Add some good functions, LMS description, Help • Security • Functions work independently • Process isn’t so good (long time) • Assumption • Can’t resolve the specials cases in our library • Accept or reject • Accept 70% 16/19
Software acceptation • Comparison • US Software • Easy to use • Interface is good • Many requirement are completed (75%) • Always have a link to menu • Indian Software • Easy to use • Interface have more colours • Lost the link to menu • Assumption • Can’t modify or delete the books • Decision • US software is better • Should add some information about LMS, ITC, Help, Webmaster • Respect the constraints of LMS 17/19
Conclusion • Likes • Meeting new people (US and Indian) • Outsourcing experiences (as client) • Real life experiences • Knowledge (Trac, Blogger, Track change in MS-word, Instant massagers) • Dislikes • Not all US students join the conference • Culture • Don’t like working at the week-end • Difficulty communicating • Time zones, Language, Trac • Conclusion • Like both sides : developer and client 18/19
Acknowledgments • Professor Scharff and Professor Sopheap Seng • Teacher Longchrea Neak • Our classmates • Pace University and US students • University of Delhi and Indian students 19/19