- page 1Tim Lock

H-DP Requirements and Design Assessment Review

01 August 2007

Agenda Point 9 Summary and Conclusions

Herschel Data Processing Requirements and Design Assessment Review

9. Summary and Conclusions –my notes from today

Tim LockProduct Assurance Manager

- page 2Tim Lock

H-DP Requirements and Design Assessment Review

01 August 2007

Agenda Point 9 Summary and Conclusions

• WPs– Kiymet doing good job overseeing WPs and flagging

to DPMG when work is late, more effort than planned is needed, new WPs needed etc, etc.

– Concern that work running late already.

– Concern Vision doc will lead to more WPs, more work

– WPs are mainly defining items for people to implement, (not UCs), possibly low level req docs are also input to ‘developers’.

Summary from agenda points 1 to 5

- page 3Tim Lock

H-DP Requirements and Design Assessment Review

01 August 2007

Agenda Point 9 Summary and Conclusions

• vision document– Useful for Cal.Sc. needs as well as Joe Astr.

and others• Needs completion, review and WPs stemming from

it to be defined and prioritised.• Deadline(s) needed for documents defined in vision

document. REC: DPMG- define timeline for Vision doc

completion, review(incls. assessment of knock work), WP updating and get implementation on track.

Summary from agenda points 1 to 5

- page 4Tim Lock

H-DP Requirements and Design Assessment Review

01 August 2007

Agenda Point 9 Summary and Conclusions

• Training and workshops– [SL] need training and workshop plan(s)– Workshops held show usefulness but effort

required.– Can more hands-on working meetings fill gap

and delay getting user needs understood by developers and implemented and documented (UM)

REC: DPMG to define and assign manpower to workshops, hands-on events and training.

Summary from agenda points 1 to 5

- page 5Tim Lock

H-DP Requirements and Design Assessment Review

01 August 2007

Agenda Point 9 Summary and Conclusions

• User Manual– Todays user manual is quite detailed and going

in ‘right’direction– Need a high level UM above present UM– User Reference Manual, low level and needs

improvement.

Is this generally approved ?

Is Editorial group involved and doing an efficient job ?

Summary from agenda points 1 to 5

- page 6Tim Lock

H-DP Requirements and Design Assessment Review

01 August 2007

Agenda Point 9 Summary and Conclusions

• User Group – User group identifying short-comings but not

getting a quick resolution of their concerns and problems.

– DPUG busy working on visions document and do DPUG members get sufficient time to do their job?

Summary from agenda points 1 to 5

- page 7Tim Lock

H-DP Requirements and Design Assessment Review

01 August 2007

Agenda Point 9 Summary and Conclusions

• Do we have a definition of a minimum system to support launch and PV?

• How will DP pass the GSRR if tests do not report against any requirements, (QA is making a check-off list for URs)

• Are low level functions, e.g. in plot and in numerics being tested and reported in a way that can be used by others ?

• DP CCB/SCR process too slow, ineffective.

Problem summary

- page 8Tim Lock

H-DP Requirements and Design Assessment Review

01 August 2007

Agenda Point 9 Summary and Conclusions

• Too little time to get new software working correctly [AC]

• Iteration 11 behind schedule, [KB], new WPs and work expected, will too much come too late? [from Vis. Doc, data access work [PM], producing needed FITS files [PM]

• Adding user-friendliness difficult and not easy to do via SCRs

Problem summary

- page 9Tim Lock

H-DP Requirements and Design Assessment Review

01 August 2007

Agenda Point 9 Summary and Conclusions

• Developers getting info from many sides, documents, teams etc. Need a document and team hierarchy.[PM]

Problem summary

- page 10Tim Lock

H-DP Requirements and Design Assessment Review

01 August 2007

Agenda Point 9 Summary and Conclusions

• Need to get developers and users together and identify, show and fix code and user documentation in a hands-on session (2 to x days)

• Visions document – liked but needs to be implemented – DPMG to drive

Conclusions

- page 11Tim Lock

H-DP Requirements and Design Assessment Review

01 August 2007

Agenda Point 9 Summary and Conclusions

• Does the DPMG need to strengthen the present DPUG and Editorial and documentation working group.

• Can the DPMG push the implementation of the vision doc and all the follow on WP update and work allocation and prioristation

• Does the DPMG want to set up more hands-on working days to short cut the SCR and slow/difficult user feedback/successful implementation loop.

Conclusions

- page 12Tim Lock

H-DP Requirements and Design Assessment Review

01 August 2007

Agenda Point 9 Summary and Conclusions

• Can DP SQA with DPMG support resolve testing evidence problem in order to satisfy us and the GSRR – and – provide status of DP UC.

• Will the next RaDaR be similar to this one ? Is it effective ?

Conclusions