linaro-project-management team mailing list archive

[Mounir Bsaibes <mounir.bsaibes@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Jamie Bennett <jamie.bennett@xxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> On 24 Nov 2010, at 21:30, Mounir Bsaibes wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Jamie Bennett <jamie.bennett@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >  * Use OpenProj [2] to setup the initial structure.
> >    Why did you choose  OpenProj ? it does not seem  to have web
> interface.
> >     See:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_project_management_software
> >     I think first we need figure out which tool is best to use.
>
> Reasons are familiarity and the fact that this would be a pilot. To select
> the
> right tool would require more effort than is necessary to just determine if
> we
> can work with standard models. I'd like to keep it small and gather the
> pro's
> and con's of using these tools before selecting a solution we could use in
> a
> more wide-spread way.
>
  So if understand correctly, the pilot will make use of various tools
before selecting a solution for general deployment?

>
> >  * Work with the implementor(s) to define the requirements and gather
> timing
> >   data at the beginning or the project.
> >  * Regularly monitor the project against the requirements and timing
> data.
> >  * Regularly produce a professional report on the progress of the
> project.
> >  * Produce a post-mortem to determine if we would like to carry this on,
> with
> >   or without improvements, to a further pilot project(s).
> >
> > How does this sound to everyone else?
> >    Sounds very good, as long as we don't impose a lot of overhead on the
> engineers.
>
> I see this as working with the engineer at the start to clearly identify
> the
> requirements, a quick once-a-week call to be updated on the status
> (alternatively
> the engineer could email the status) and a post-mortem at the end to see if
> it
> was worth-while, very little overhead I feel.
>



>
> Regards,
> Jamie.
>
>