TirsvadandClaude Sonnet 5.5
28ec0e85d8
Replace `pending` in the Version History of the planning documents and
review records with the link to commit c24f412, and add the framework
gitlink that was missing from that commit.
Refs #1
Refs #2
Refs #3
Refs #4
Refs #5
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
3.4 KiB
3.4 KiB
Stakeholder Analysis: OOP Coffee Machine
Metadata
| Key | Value |
|---|---|
| ID | SA-001 |
| CrossReference | BC-001 |
| Language | en |
| Domain | it |
Version History
| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-07 | Deprecated | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S01 | Initial version | c24f412 |
| 2026-10-07 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S01 | Accepted after RC-002 (Go) | c24f412 |
Purpose
Identifies who is affected by the coffee machine repository and how closely each party is managed. Method: Mendelow's power/interest grid, with concerns mapped to FURPS+.
Stakeholder Summary Table
| ID | Name | Role/Title | Organization | Power Level | Interest Level | Quadrant | Primary Concern (Business Language) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S01 | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | Course participant; Product Owner, developer and reviewer | Tirsvad | HIGH | HIGH | Manage Closely | Finish the assignment with clean code, tests and documentation |
| S02 | Udemy coursists | Fellow course participants | Udemy course community | LOW | HIGH | Keep Informed | Readable, runnable code with the assignment's function names, and README instructions to run it |
| S03 | GitHub viewers | Repository browsers | Public | LOW | LOW | Monitor | A clear repository description, topics and README, and no runtime dependencies |
Power/Interest Classification Rationale
- Manage Closely (S01): decides scope, writes and reviews everything.
- Keep Informed (S02): cannot change the project but depends on its usability; the README is the channel.
- Monitor (S03): casual visitors with no influence; the repository presentation is enough.
Primary Concerns and FURPS+ Mapping
| ID | Concern | FURPS+ attribute |
|---|---|---|
| S01 | Complete, tested assignment solution | Functionality, Reliability |
| S01 | Traceable steps via pull requests | Supportability |
| S02 | Assignment function names kept | Functionality |
| S02 | Run instructions that work | Usability |
| S03 | Clear description, topics and README | Usability |
| S03 | No runtime dependencies | Implementation constraint, Supportability |
Communication Requirements
| ID | Channel | Frequency | Deliverable | Phase / Milestone |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S01 | Chat and pull request review | Per phase | Working-tree changes and PRs | MIL-001, MIL-002, MIL-003 |
| S02 | README | Once, updated on change | Setup, run and test instructions | MIL-003 |
| S03 | Repository description, topics, README | Once | Repository presentation | MIL-003 |
Conflicting Interests and Mitigations
| Conflict | Stakeholders | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|
| S02 wants assignment names, while clean Python style prefers other names | S01, S02 | Keep the assignment's method names; follow the style rules elsewhere |
Traceability Analysis
Business Goal Alignment
| Stakeholder | Concern | Business Case objective |
|---|---|---|
| S01 | Complete, tested solution | BC-001 objectives 1 and 2 |
| S02 | Runnable instructions | BC-001 objective 3 |
| S03 | Presentable repository | BC-001 objective 4 |
Sign-Off
| Stakeholder ID | Decision | Date |
|---|---|---|
| S01 | Pending review |