SAD Review - SENG-350-2024-fall/Team4 GitHub Wiki

To establish whether the Software Architecture Document is fit for the purpose of describing the Mister Ed system in a thorough level of detail.

The subjects of this review are all of the complete sections of the SAD, since there are still some that remain empty.

1. How are different user types and privileges handled? (criteria: should have some authentication for higher privilege levels)
2. What plan do you have to ensure high uptime? (criteria: no single point of failure for the whole system should exist)
3. How do you intend to store user data? (criteria: user-submitted data must be accessible to service providers in a great enough capacity to provide medical care, and should not have a single point of failure that could result in data loss)
4. What mechanism do you have for medical personnel to review cases? (criteria: medical decisions must be subject to human decision and expertise, and not just performed automatically)
5. What groups do you have informing your design decisions? (criteria: should have a plan for receiving medical staff and patient feedback, and integrating that into the design)

The review is to be conducted within a 50 minute time slot, with both groups being given the other's question set and given ~35 minutes to answer them. The remainder of the time is then to be used a question period, should any additional inquiries exist.

During the performance of the review, both groups successfully answered every question posed.

Since all questions were answered correctly and within the allotted time, we know our document is fit for its intended purpose.

To establish whether the Software Architecture Document is fit for the purpose of describing the Mister Ed system in a thorough level of detail.

The subjects of this review are all of the complete sections of the SAD, since there are still some that remain empty. It will also cover the current working implementation of the Mister Ed system.

1. How are different user types and privileges handled? (criteria: should have some authentication for higher privilege levels)
2. What plan do you have to ensure high uptime? (criteria: no single point of failure for the whole system should exist)
3. How do you intend to store user data? (criteria: user-submitted data must be accessible to service providers in a great enough capacity to provide medical care, and should not have a single point of failure that could result in data loss)
4. What mechanism do you have for medical personnel to review cases? (criteria: medical decisions must be subject to human decision and expertise, and not just performed automatically)
5. What groups do you have informing your design decisions? (criteria: should have a plan for receiving medical staff and patient feedback, and integrating that into the design)

The review is to be conducted within a 50 minute time slot, with both groups being given the other's question set and given ~20 minutes to answer them. The remainder of the time is then to be used to demonstrate the applications of each group.

During the performance of the review, both groups successfully answered every question posed. The demonstrations were executed well, and provided valuable insight into the working framework of each project.

Since all questions were answered correctly and within the allotted time, we know our document is fit for its intended purpose. Positive feedback regarding our demonstration tells us that we are doing a good job fitting the implementation to the requirements established in the SAD.