Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- report:prm [2026/05/13 20:31] – [Sprint 1: Foundation & Research] epsatisep
+++ report:prm [2026/05/26 10:39] (current) – [Sprint Evaluations] team3
@@ Line 550: / Line 550: @@
 Period: March 5, 2026 – March 12, 2026
-<color #ed1c24>Sprint {{ref>fig:sprint1}}</color> was characterized by a heavy "Discovery" phase. The team focused on setting up the technical environment (TRAQ-43) and conducting deep-dive research into water quality and filtration systems. Because this was the inaugural sprint, a significant amount of time was spent refining the backlog and defining the complexity of the Interim Report. The team considered a total of 40 story points.
+Sprint {{ref>fig:sprint1}} was characterized by a heavy "Discovery" phase. The team focused on setting up the technical environment (TRAQ-43) and conducting deep-dive research into water quality and filtration systems. Because this was the inaugural sprint, a significant amount of time was spent refining the backlog and defining the complexity of the Interim Report. The team considered a total of 40 story points.
 **Key work streams**
@@ Line 619: / Line 619: @@
 === Sprint 5: Interim Report Hand-in and Presentation Prep ===
 Period: **April 1st, 2026 – April 13th, 2026**
 Sprint Goal: Hand in the Interim Report.
 Sprint {{ref>fig:sprint5}} was originally scheduled to end earlier, but the team extended it by two days for two reasons: a vacation period fell near the original end date, and the new end date was aligned with the scheduled meeting with the teachers, giving the team additional time to prepare for the Interim Report presentation. The sprint started with a commitment of 32 story points, which grew to 33.5 after TRAQ-164 ("Table of power budget", 1.5 pts) was added to scope on the first day. The team closed out 21.5 points across 7 work items, including the report hand-in itself (TRAQ-155), the Interim Report (TRAQ-20, 10 pts), Schematics Version 3, the Website, the Application Prototype, and Retrospective 5. TRAQ-88 ("Chapter Project Management", 12 pts) remained in progress and carried over to Sprint 6. The burndown tracked below the ideal guideline through most of the sprint, with the steepest drop between April 8–10 as the interim report deliverables were finalized.
 <WRAP centeralign>
@@ Line 630: / Line 632: @@
 === Sprint 6: Post-Interim Recovery and Final Push Preparation ===
 Period: **April 16th, 2026 – April 28th, 2026**
 Sprint Goal: Address feedback from the Interim Report and prepare deliverables for the final stretch.
 Sprint {{ref>fig:sprint6}} displayed the most extreme "late-crunch" pattern of the project so far. The remaining work stayed flat at the initial commitment of 40 story points until April 20th, with the entire burndown collapsing into a 2-day window between April 22nd and April 24th. The team closed 24.5 points across 9 work items, including the 3D model video (TRAQ-21, 8 pts), the report fixes following interim feedback (TRAQ-168, 8 pts), the leaflet, the poster, the smart system schematics review, the video addition, the lab parts check, three daily meetings, and Retrospective 6. TRAQ-88 ("Chapter Project Management", 12 pts) remained in progress as expected — this item is intentionally kept open across sprints since new content is added to it on every cycle, and it will only be closed at the end of the project. The flat-then-cliff burndown shape reflects the team prioritizing deep work on the larger report and design items before logging completions in a single batch near the end of the sprint, rather than a true delivery delay.
 <WRAP centeralign>
@@ Line 642: / Line 646: @@
 === Sprint 7: Mid-Project Deliverables ===
 Period: **April 23rd, 2026 – April 30th, 2026**
 Sprint Goal: Continue progress on project deliverables following the interim milestone.
 Sprint {{ref>fig:sprint7}} was the shortest sprint so far at one week, a tighter cadence following the interim report milestone. The sprint started with a commitment of approximately 23 story points. The burndown once again exhibited the team's characteristic "late-crunch" pattern: remaining work stayed flat from April 23rd through April 27th, dropped by a small amount on April 27th, then plateaued again before the bulk of completions were logged on the final day, April 30th. By the end of the sprint window shown, roughly 9 points had been burned down, leaving approximately 14 points still in progress at the time of capture. As in previous sprints, TRAQ-88 ("Chapter Project Management") is expected to remain open by design, since content continues to be added to it across every sprint and will only close at the end of the project.
 <WRAP centeralign>
@@ Line 650: / Line 656: @@
 </figure>
 </WRAP>
+=== Sprint 8 ===
+Sprint 8 in Figure {{ref>fig:sprint8}} covered the period from April 30th to May 14th, 2026, with an initial workload of approximately 61 story points. The burndown chart showed a typical late-crunch pattern: after a small reduction at the start of the sprint, progress stayed mostly flat until May 12th, when most tasks were completed. By the end of the sprint, the remaining workload had decreased to around 23 story points, showing significant progress despite work being completed mainly at the end of the sprint.
+{{:report:sprint_8.png?800|}}
+=== Sprint 9 ===
+Sprint 9 in Figure {{ref>fig:sprint9}} covered the period from May 14th to May 21st, 2026, with an initial workload of approximately 55 story points. The burndown chart showed very limited progress during most of the sprint, with only small reductions in remaining work occurring near the end of the sprint period.
+By the end of the sprint, the workload had decreased to around 43 story points, indicating that only a small portion of tasks was completed during this sprint. The burndown remained far above the ideal progression line throughout the sprint, suggesting that several tasks were still ongoing at the time of capture.
+{{:report:sprint_9.png?800|}}
 ==== Sprint Outcomes ====
 /*
@@ Line 663: / Line 680: @@
 This section evaluates the effectiveness of each sprint by reflecting on what went well and what could be improved. It includes insights into challenges faced, team performance, and lessons learned to optimize future sprints.
-The teams' first retrospective in <color #ed1c24>Figure</color> {{ref>fig:retro1}} showed the teams' different education backgrounds and speed, the teams' general workload, and the main idea being lost. To fix this the team decided to book a 1-hour meeting where everyone spoke for 5 min and said where they think the project should head. This helped us find common ground. Other conclusions regarding speed and workload: the team decided to meet more often to spread the workload fairly through the team.
+The teams' first retrospective in Figure {{ref>fig:retro1}} showed the teams' different education backgrounds and speed, the teams' general workload, and the main idea being lost. To fix this the team decided to book a 1-hour meeting where everyone spoke for 5 min and said where they think the project should head. This helped us find common ground. Other conclusions regarding speed and workload: the team decided to meet more often to spread the workload fairly through the team.
-<WRAP centeralign>
 <figure fig:retro1>
 {{ :report:retrospective1.png?800 |}}
@@ Line 673: / Line 690: @@
-The teams' second retrospective (<color #ed1c24>Figure</color> {{ref>fig:retro2}}) underlines less issues then the first sprint. The team also wrote what they will be improving inside the retrospective.
+The teams' second retrospective (Figure {{ref>fig:retro2}}) underlines less issues then the first sprint. The team also wrote what they will be improving inside the retrospective.
 <WRAP centeralign>
@@ Line 682: / Line 699: @@
 </WRAP>
-Retrospective 3 in <color #ed1c24>Figure</color> {{ref>fig:retro3}} mentions 3 main issues: sometimes it can be hard to define an equal amount of work for the team, some members being late, and lastly, some members still not being exactly familiar with the Scrum environment. The team decided to arrange a meeting where they would go over Scrum again and also to have longer sprint planning to properly define workload. General progress is still going good.
+Retrospective 3 in Figure {{ref>fig:retro3}} mentions 3 main issues: sometimes it can be hard to define an equal amount of work for the team, some members being late, and lastly, some members still not being exactly familiar with the Scrum environment. The team decided to arrange a meeting where they would go over Scrum again and also to have longer sprint planning to properly define workload. General progress is still going good.
 <WRAP centeralign>
@@ Line 693: / Line 710: @@
-Retrospective 4 in <color #ed1c24>Figure</color>  {{ref>fig:retro4}} was before the Easter break. The team now is getting ready for their interim report. No major issues faces the team will contact directly teachers regarding certain documents.
+Retrospective 4 in Figure {{ref>fig:retro4}} was before the Easter break. The team now is getting ready for their interim report. No major issues faces the team will contact directly teachers regarding certain documents.
@@ Line 705: / Line 722: @@
-Retrospective 5 (<color #ed1c24>Figure</color> {{ref>fig:retro5}}) took place after the interim report hand-in and presentation, with Max and Maria absent. The team agreed that the sprint went well overall: the interim report, the presentation, and all related deliverables were finished on time, and communication remained good throughout the Easter break despite the team not meeting in person due to the vacation. The main concern raised was workload distribution — the team relied heavily on Bernardo to finish tasks that were originally assigned to other members, and the conclusion was that every team member should take responsibility for completing their own tasks on time. No major blockers were identified, and the team felt ready going into the next sprint.
+Retrospective 5 (Figure {{ref>fig:retro5}}) took place after the interim report hand-in and presentation, with Max absent. The team agreed that the sprint went well overall: the interim report, the presentation, and all related deliverables were finished on time, and communication remained good throughout the Easter break despite the team not meeting in person due to the vacation. The main concern raised was workload distribution — the team relied heavily on Bernardo to finish tasks that were originally assigned to other members, and the conclusion was that every team member should take responsibility for completing their own tasks on time. No major blockers were identified, and the team felt ready going into the next sprint.
 <WRAP centeralign>
 <figure fig:retro5>
@@ Line 714: / Line 731: @@
-Retrospective 6 (<color #ed1c24>Figure</color> {{ref>fig:retro6}}) was held after the interim presentation, with Maria absent. The team reported strong overall progress: the schematics were finalized, the mistakes identified during the interim presentation were addressed, and the report was fixed based on teacher feedback. Task distribution was praised, with the team noting they had even managed to get a head start on upcoming work. Two recurring issues were raised: slow response times from teachers on Teams and email — particularly regarding lab equipment access — which had blocked progress in previous sprints as well, and inconsistent task updates on Jira from some members, making it harder for the team to track who was working on what. As an improvement point, the team suggested starting to think concretely about the prototype design and build, and committed to keeping each other better updated on task progress.
+Retrospective 6 (Figure {{ref>fig:retro6}}) was held after the interim presentation, with Maria absent. The team reported strong overall progress: the schematics were finalized, the mistakes identified during the interim presentation were addressed, and the report was fixed based on teacher feedback. Task distribution was praised, with the team noting they had even managed to get a head start on upcoming work. Two recurring issues were raised: slow response times from teachers on Teams and email — particularly regarding lab equipment access — which had blocked progress in previous sprints as well, and inconsistent task updates on Jira from some members, making it harder for the team to track who was working on what. As an improvement point, the team suggested starting to think concretely about the prototype design and build, and committed to keeping each other better updated on task progress.
 <WRAP centeralign>
 <figure fig:retro6>
@@ Line 722: / Line 739: @@
 </WRAP>
-Retrospective 7 in <color #ed1c24>Figure</color> {{ref>fig:retro7}} was held with Inès absent. The team reported continued strong progress: tasks were being completed on schedule, the teachers were happy with the project's direction, and components were being ordered. The sprint also covered planning for the physical assembly of the bottle and early ideas for product packaging. Several improvement points were raised: task distribution and coordination could still be better, communication around absences and progress updates needed to improve — with some members announcing absences too late or not updating the team on their work — and component links should be checked and verified before weekly meetings to avoid delays. The team also noted that since lessons are now less frequent, internal progress updates need to happen more regularly to compensate. The packaging strategy was identified as the next area to focus on.
+Retrospective 7 in Figure {{ref>fig:retro7}} was held with Inès absent. The team reported continued strong progress: tasks were being completed on schedule, the teachers were happy with the project's direction, and components were being ordered. The sprint also covered planning for the physical assembly of the bottle and early ideas for product packaging. Several improvement points were raised: task distribution and coordination could still be better, communication around absences and progress updates needed to improve — with some members announcing absences too late or not updating the team on their work — and component links should be checked and verified before weekly meetings to avoid delays. The team also noted that since lessons are now less frequent, internal progress updates need to happen more regularly to compensate. The packaging strategy was identified as the next area to focus on.
 <WRAP centeralign>
 <figure fig:retro7>
@@ Line 729: / Line 746: @@
 </figure>
 </WRAP>
+Restrospective 8 in Figure was held with Inès absent. The team reported good overall progress: tasks were completed on schedule, the teachers were satisfied with the project’s direction, and most parts of the report had already been approved.
+Several improvement points were identified. Communication was weaker during the holiday break, and the team agreed that more regular progress updates are needed. Some inconsistencies in poster designs were also noted, highlighting the need for a more unified visual style. In addition, tasks and deliverables for the rest of the semester should be divided more clearly so everyone knows their responsibilities. Delays with STL files and issues with materials provided by the teachers were also mentioned as challenges during the sprint.
+<WRAP centeralign>
+{{:report:restrospective_8.png?800|}}
+Retrospective 9 in Figure {{ref>fig:retro9}} was held with Maria absent. The team reported strong technical progress during the sprint: the prototype advanced significantly, the application was successfully connected to the hardware, most sensors were functioning, and the 3D design was completed and ready for printing. The team also received the project components and was finally able to begin working with the physical sensors. Teachers were satisfied with the project’s direction and overall progress.
+Several challenges were also identified. Some incorrect components were delivered, which affected the initial electrical system design, and the approaching prototype deadline created additional pressure on the team. Workload distribution was mentioned multiple times as an area for improvement, with some members experiencing a heavy workload depending on their technical background. The team also agreed that communication about weekly progress should improve further.
+<WRAP centeralign>
+{{:report:restrospective_9.png?800|}}
+{{:report:restrospective_9bis.png?800|}}
 ==== Summary ====