Read the case study scenario and analyze the scenario using the material from the course. There are several potential tie

$-$

ins to the course material. Be explicit when you are applying a theory. The primary objective is to demonstrate you can apply the course material to a practical scenario.

Feel free to add other discussion based on your experience, but this should not be the sole reason for your conclusion

$$

it should reinforce your conclusion. If your experience agrees with the theory you are applying, please reinforce the point with an example. This shows you understand the material more deeply and can identify situations in your experience where they applied.

Use documentation like work breakdown structure, concept of operations, top

level requirements, interface control document, systems specification

Scenario:

Reviewing the project documentation provided by the Chief Engineer causes you some concern. There

was no Concept of Operations or top$-$level requirements document. Each of the primary functions

$($navigation$,$ phone interface, etc.$)$ had an associated specification. There was also a specification for the

hardware. You are unable to find an Interface Control Document $($ICD$).$ Looking at the test logs for the

formal test effort, the subsystem requirements were tested in detail $($every requirement verified$).$

However, at the system level, test procedures were developed to test high level functions $($change the

radio station, turn on defrost, etc.$),$ but the procedures didn$$t appear to map to any requirements.

You then spoke to the design teams. None of the design teams had a good appreciation for the depth of

the technical issues that occurred during fielding. They seemed to be comfortable with their part in the

project$$they met their requirements, after all. Looking at the Navigation Team$$s documentation, you

notice something alarming. The specification the Navigation Team used for development did not match

the specification you saw previously. Requirements in the Navigation Team$$s specification did not exist

in the requirements the Chief Engineer provided. They actually had a handful of requirements in their

specification that were completely omitted from the specification the Chief Engineer provided. You

called the Chief Engineer and confirmed the specification he gave you was the most current. You asked

the Navigation Team about the discrepancy and they told you the customer has requested those

features, so they added them to the specification. It didn$$t impact any other team, so they didn$$t bother

communicating the changes.

The hardware team was frustrated with the whole project. The hardware design kept changing due to

updated requirements from the customer. The hardware changes led to several workarounds being

developed for maintenance and repair. The documentation couldn$$t keep up which led to numerous

discrepancies in the maintenance procedures and the drawings.

Next, you met with the integration team. You were surprised to learn there was no integration plan to

review. Since, they didn$$t have an ICD or System Specification, they felt the integration effort was pretty

straightforward. They integrated the software together and continually regression tested and reverified

the requirements in the software specifications $($navigation$,$ music, radio, etc.$)$ to ensure they didn$$t

break each other when integrated. They did find significant interface issues that they passed along to

the design teams for resolution.

Finally, you talk to the test team who are completely disgruntled. The project slipped several months

during integration and the test team was asked to make up the difference. They had three months of

their six$-$month test schedule cut. The test team felt the quality issues were blamed on them by the

development team. However, many of the software crashes are the result of features they did not

know about. These features were not in the requirements and were not explicitly tested. No user input

was provided so the interface testing was done ad$-$hoc. Many of the defects they wrote up and

provided the design teams were not addressed because the designers claimed there were no

requirements for the requested changes.

You wrap up your investigation and go to your office. The CTO would like to meet with you tomorrow

and discuss your findings and recommendations.