Mira 01 MJH

Project management course: experience from the first year and second version
Mirjana Ivanovi, Zoran Putnik, University of Novi Sad

DAAD Project Joint Course on Software Engineering
Humboldt University Berlin, University of Novi Sad, University of Plovdiv, University of Skopje, University of Belgrade, University of Ni, University of Kragujevac
Version: Oct. 23, 2003 (D Sep. 22, 2003)
SPM Modification and improvement

2 Weeks (January 2006, DAAD support) Prof. Klaus Bothe, Institut fr Informatik, HumboldtUniversitt zu Berlin Modification and improvements of existing material (presentations) Additional sources
Internet sources Books
- T. DeMarco, T. Lister, Waltzing with Bears, Managing Risk on Software Projects, Dorset House Publishing, 1998, (for additional, further topic) - P. Martin, K. Tate, Getting started in Project Management, John Wiley & Sons,
Prof. Dr. Holger Schlingloff slides (Humboldt University, mostly for HR topics)
DAAD project Joint Course on Software Engineering 2
Course Organization
IV year students of Business Informatics, 14 students + significant number of voluntaries concluded that course could be useful for them based on experience of previous generation of students VIII semester, 2 hrs lecture, 1 hr exercises Exam and final mark:
1/5 of points obtained by regular class attendance Practical assignment in MS Project Continual assessment (3 times during semester) Questionnaire of 10-20 different kinds of questions (multiplechoice, short answers, ) Final questionnaire (improve results obtained during semester, for those who missed some of questionnaires)
Content of Course Lectures

Introduction + general overview of PMBOK (117 slides now 116+74) IT management (59 +132) avoided this year, a lot of overlapping subjects with other topics CMM and process improvement (51 now 56) Cost estimation and COCOMO (71 now 84) Software measurement and metrics (51 now 55) Planning (77) Using tools - Microsoft project (65, Exercise) Ethical issues (87 now 90, + Exercise) NEW - Human resources and management (students opinion is that part is extremely interesting and useful)
SPM - Introduction
Essential project properties Classifications of projects What is software, management Tasks of management, Why projects fail Activities of project management Real world example Project Management Body Of Knowledge, general overview
DAAD project Joint Course on Software Engineering

Introduction + general overview of PMBOK (117 slides now 116+74) IT management (59 +132) avoided this year, a lot of overlapping subjects with other topics CMM and process improvement (51 now 56) Cost estimation and COCOMO (71 now 84) Software measurement and metrics (51 now 55) Planning (77) Using tools - Microsoft project (65, Exercise) Ethical issues (87 now 90, + Exercise) NEW - Human resources and management
SPM CMM and process improvement
Software Process, Improvement, Process Improvement Frameworks Quagmire Maturity Models, Improvement levels, Level Requirements CMM Integration and benefits

SPM Cost estimation and COCOMO
Software cost estimation, general information and some techniques, problems Quality and productivity COCOMO and COCOMO II model

SPM Software measurement and metrics
Software Measurement, Classification Project Metrics, Typical Metrics Defects, Removal Efficiency Software Metrics Classification Personnel Metrics Hardware Metrics
11

SPM Planning
Kinds of planning (Time, Capacity, Cost) Net-planning (rules, steps, activity lists, critical paths) Management of big software projects, PERT Technique, MPM: Metra-Potential-Method Gantt chart Tools and algorithms
13

SPM Ethical issues

Ethics introduction
Software Engineering Ethics and Professional Conduct Computer Ethics, Computer Crime, Privacy and Anonymity, Intellectual Property, Professional Responsibility Case Study: 10 Big Myths about copyright Case Study: E Voting
15

Human resources and management
Managing conflicts (27)

Communication techniques (27) Moderation (29)
Attitude theories (50)
17
Organization of Exercises
Exercises are organized on-the-need bases. During the first few weeks, students were introduced to the body-of-knowledge for the subject, so there was nothing to practice on. On some of the following weeks, professor needed additional classes to manage all of the material. The first real exercises were held in connection with the Planning topic.
After theoretical lesson about planning, exercises were held using MS Project software.
It was first presented theoretically at a 3-hour class On another 3-hour class, it is presented practically (using representative examples) After that, students had 4 hours of practical work, to gain experience with MS Project
Additionally, this year our e-Learning favourite Moodle was used to help with MS Project too. Elements from MS Project help system were translated, adjusted, and situated as an e-Lesson in Moodle system. Lucky us those are the same students that have usernames, passwords, and knowledge of Moodle from the SE course.
Finally, students were given a software project that they have to manage using MS Project, in a classroom, or at home This project served as a part of the exam
Students had to manage a project: Organization of a scientific conference (new example, but similar to previous one) Students were given a written material, and one lecture about how conferences are organized in a real life. They were also given a use-case type of a document for all of the activities in connection with the conference organization. Assistant for this subject was a working member of 12 conferences so far. Real-life.
This allowed us to present a lot of possibilities of MS Project. One additional possibility is to torture students until they create a satisfactory project. This possibility was not over-used, there was only one student that completely missed the point (or tried to manage this part of the exam as-easy-as-possible). He had to do it all over again, this time almost perfectly.
Practical exercises were also held on a topic of ethical aspects! 10 situations from a programmers real or imaginary life were presented to the students.
Stories were read and discussed during a class, each new one receiving bigger and better reception (maybe because a choice of order of stories?)
This part of exercises had a very good reception last year, so we were looking forward to this years happening.
Unfortunately for us, the exercises were held during the week while a lot of students went to a final-year 7-days excursion. This IS something NO exercise could compete with! All of the students who were present yet, only about 1/3 of a group actively participated in a discussion, all of them had an idea, an opinion, a thought, and were willing to share it with the others Actually, there WERE some of them not too willing to participate at first, but in such a small group, with others presenting their thoughts, with the assistant asking them for their opinions directly, they became involved in a short time! Another theme students were willing to participate in was a case study on e-mail etiquette. They were adding their suggestions to the presented material throughout the whole lesson!
Final Exam Results

Of 14 students, 12 successfully finished their practical assignment last year. This year 11 (out of 14) students solved the practical assignment so far. (Additional 2 are currently in USA). Marks:
7 once, 8 eight times, 9 three times
This year
7 once, 8 twice, 9 five times, 10 three times
Final Exam Results

Of 12 students eligible for exam, 11 showed up, each one passing both tests, marks 6 10. (last year) After that, they accepted offered marks. This year 9 out of 11 showed up, and accepted marks. (The last 2 finished their project during this summer. Through e-mail conversation they agreed to their marks and will approach the exam in September.)
Students Opinion Questionnaire

Effort: Attendance Post-processing [lectures] Post-processing [assignments]
5 - 100% 1 - 20%
Hours Hours
Students attended 50% of the lectures on the average, and it took them 1.7 hour post-processing time for lectures and the assignments. (2005) .. more than 80% . 2.7 hours! (2006)

Contents: Amount of knowledge Contents Course well structured
5 - Too much 1- Too few 5 - Too easy 1 - Too difficult 5 - Very well 1 Unstructured
Students assessed that they received (2005)

perfect amount of knowledge, (3,00) almost perfect content, (3,20) but the structure of the course was just average. (2,86)
Almost the same! (2006) The only difference was the improvement in the structure (it is 3,20).

Needed pre-knowledge?: SE + English (5x) Experience. Not too much - just basics of everything
Needed pre-knowledge was assessed usually as:
nothing, a little bit of everything, experience, and with 40% of students as Software Engineering + English language (2005).
Almost the same! (2006) (percent a bit higher!)


Which topics in Serbian?:
Lectures in Serbian slides in English (1x) All (11 x) None (1x)
Percent of students thinking that they need slides in Serbian was even higher. This wasnt possible till now, because slides are still changing, yet we are seriously considering this option.

Style of the lectures: According to the questionnaire, we improved on almost every issue: Mark (last year) 4.10 (4.00) 4.10 (3.50) 4.10 (3.64) 4.50 (4.92) 4.50 (4.70) Wanted mark 5 5 5 5 3
Lecturer familiar Lectures well prepared Lecturer engaged Willingness to answer students' questions Presentation Presentation style encourage to follow the lecture
3.00 (2.90)
Remarks: This year, we had one interesting idea: some of the lectures
should be given to students that would be more interesting and engaging

30

Using media
Amount of info on slides adequate Slides well structured and clearly organized
5 - Very well 1 - Not so much 5 - Very well 1 - Not so much
Average marks last year:

amount of info adequate slides well structured and clearly organized 3.14 3.29
This year, after some improvements, marks were significantly higher:

amount of info adequate slides well structured and clearly organized
4.50 3.90
31

Assignments:
Difficulty Motivating
5 -Too high 1 -Too low
5 -Very much
1 -Not so much
Similar with the assignments:

difficulty to solve motivating 2.36 3.14
In 2006. season:
difficulty to solve motivating
3.14 3.29
32

Benefit of the course:
New things learned Contents useful Overall rank of the course
5 Much 1 -Not so much
5 Completely
5 - Very well
1 -Not so much
1 - Bad
Average marks for a course improved:

New things learned Contents useful Overall rank 3.25 (2005) 3.75 (2005) 3.83 (2005) 4.00 3.70 4.10
This year, we asked students how important for them is that the course is internationally supported.
On a scale of 5 (very) to 1 (not at all), the mark was 4!!!


Remarks: Overall comments of the course, for the last year (2005) were:
Everything OK. Everything according to curriculum. Good and useful. Very useful but also: Pure theory, not connected to real life. Lack of practical lessons evident. Not connected to students experiences (?)
This year (2006), comments were:

Ethical issues and Human resources interesting and very important
Lecturers Opinion
Positive Good and representative material (topics) Prepared slides, acceptable quality, coverage to final version Acceptable level of familiarity, preparation of additional topics (Risk management, Agile project management, Methodologies of Software Project Management) Negative A lot of different sources maybe further refinement is needed Static structure of slides, too much text, introduction of animation and graphics Further readings and deeper involvement in whole material, introduction of other software tools for project management
Conclusion
Additional support to upgrade the course on SPM Further improvement is (needed) expected
Questionnaire results are satisfied (better then obtained last year) Better and more student-oriented organization of practical work and exercises (work in real environment) permanent problem
Additional support to upgrade the course on SPM

1 year project for modification of existing course
37

The course will cover the following topics (the order will be influenced by the order of practical assignments):
Introduction to project management Communications management Software process models Deeper coverage of some software process models Quality of software development process and its standardization Project management processes according to PMBOK and life-cycle processes (primary, supporting, organizational) Assessment procedures: ISO, SPICE, PSP (Personal Software Process), TSP (Team Software Process), CMM (Capability Maturity Model), SPICE,

The course will cover the following topics (the order will be influenced by the order of practical assignments):
Project management
Feasibility study, the role in requirements engineering, Cost estimation and COCOMO model Risk analysis Tracking (tools, metrics, )
Methodologies of Software Project Management: RUP, Prince, ... Software process metrics Maintenance and maintenance metrics Advanced topics in Professional Responsibilities and Computer Ethics

Teaching Methodology Lectures will be supported by animated, multimedia power-point' slides. Handouts for these slides will be delivered to students after the lecture. We also plan to write and publish a textbook for the course. During practical exercises students (divided into teams) will 'simulate' the real-world process of managing the software project. During the life of the project teams would exchange roles in order to better appreciate:
a) the role of proper documentation throughout the life of project and b) the difference between managing and 'doing'.
40

Teaching Methodology Complete teaching material
copies of presented slides, text of practical assignments, documents produced by students groups
will be available on the web-site (after the presentation of certain lectures).


Examining Methodology Constant review of practical work done during practical exercises (work on the project.) This will be conducted continuously during the semester. Short tests on theoretical aspects taught during the lectures. Discussion on documents and solutions produced during the work on the project. Oral exam covering topics taught during lectures, at the end of the semester - for the students unsatisfied with a grade acquired throughout the semester.

Mira 01 MJH

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Mira 01 MJH

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Project management course: experience from the first year and second version

Mirjana Ivanovi, Zoran Putnik, University of Novi Sad

Version: Oct. 23, 2003 (D Sep. 22, 2003)

SPM Modification and improvement

Content of Course Lectures

DAAD project Joint Course on Software Engineering

Content of Course Lectures

SPM CMM and process improvement

DAAD project Joint Course on Software Engineering

Content of Course Lectures

SPM Cost estimation and COCOMO

DAAD project Joint Course on Software Engineering

Content of Course Lectures

SPM Software measurement and metrics

DAAD project Joint Course on Software Engineering

Content of Course Lectures

DAAD project Joint Course on Software Engineering

Content of Course Lectures

SPM Ethical issues

DAAD project Joint Course on Software Engineering

Content of Course Lectures

Human resources and management

Managing conflicts (27)

Attitude theories (50)

DAAD project Joint Course on Software Engineering

Final Exam Results

Final Exam Results

Students Opinion Questionnaire

Students Opinion Questionnaire

Students assessed that they received (2005)

Students Opinion Questionnaire

Almost the same! (2006) (percent a bit higher!)

Students Opinion Questionnaire

Students Opinion Questionnaire

should be given to students that would be more interesting and engaging

DAAD project Joint Course on Software Engineering

Students Opinion Questionnaire

Average marks last year:

This year, after some improvements, marks were significantly higher:

Students Opinion Questionnaire

Similar with the assignments:

Students Opinion Questionnaire

Average marks for a course improved:

On a scale of 5 (very) to 1 (not at all), the mark was 4!!!

Students Opinion Questionnaire

This year (2006), comments were:

Additional support to upgrade the course on SPM

DAAD project Joint Course on Software Engineering

Additional support to upgrade the course on SPM

Additional support to upgrade the course on SPM

Additional support to upgrade the course on SPM

DAAD project Joint Course on Software Engineering

Additional support to upgrade the course on SPM

will be available on the web-site (after the presentation of certain lectures).

Additional support to upgrade the course on SPM

Вам также может понравиться