meeting -*- Outline -*-

* Inception (Larman, Ch. 4)

------------------------------------------
      INCEPTION (LARMAN, CH. 4)

        The best is the enemy of the good.
                               -- Voltaire

Goal is to explore:
 - Vision and business case
 - Is the project feasible?
 - Buy or build it?
 - Roughly estimate cost (order of mag.)
 - Proceed or stop?

Get agreement from stakeholders on these
------------------------------------------
        Have to explore requirements for this,
             but don't want to define all requirements,
             or even generate believable estimate

        Idea: it costs time and money to estimate a project seriously,
              this step is to see if that should be done

        Q: How long should inception take?  A week? A month? A year?
           not much more than a week

           it can be very brief or omitted if this kind of project has
           been done before

** an analogy (4.1)
   consulting with a doctor to do exploratory surgery

   or deciding to do exploratory drilling for oil

** artifacts (4.3)
------------------------------------------
        INCEPTION ARTIFACTS (4.3)

Key idea:
 - only partially completed in inception,
 - only create if will add value,
 - content should be light

Possible Artifacts:
 - Vision and Business case
 - Use Case Model (names of cases)
 - Supplementary specification
 - Glossary
 - Risk List and Risk Management Plan
 - Prototypes
 - Iteration Plan (for first elab. iter.)
 - Phase Plan and Software Devel. Plan
 - Developement Case
------------------------------------------
       The programming of prototypes should look to clarify a few key
       requirements (typically in UI) or to look for techical "show stoppers"

       The point is not the artifacts, but thinking, analysis,
           the artifacts should just record these

       Record objects digitally and on-line rather than on paper

** questions (4.4)
       Q: Should you deine the software architecture in inception?
       Q: Should there definitely be a Business case or Vision artifact?
          Larman seems to contradict himself here, saying no above, yes here
       Q: Should the names of most of the use cases and actors be identified?
          yes
       Q: Should all of the use cases be written in detail?  Some of them?
          Larman suggests 10-20% of them