3.4 KiB
3.4 KiB
Stakeholder Analysis
Metadata
| Key | Value |
|---|---|
| ID | SA-001 |
| CrossReference | BC-001, PP-001 |
Version History
| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-04 | Proposed | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S01 | Initial version | ddfe96f |
Purpose
Identify who is affected by the Higher Lower project and what each needs, using a power/interest grid. Stakeholder IDs are stable and cited by every other artifact.
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 | A correct, tested, well-documented solution that shows good practice |
| S02 | Udemy coursists | Course participants who share and compare solutions | Udemy community | LOW | HIGH | Keep Informed | Readable, runnable code with the assignment's function names, and README instructions to run it |
| S03 | GitHub viewers | Visitors browsing the repository for ideas | Public | LOW | LOW | Monitor | Clear repository description, topics and README; no runtime dependencies |
Power/Interest Classification Rationale
- Manage Closely (S01): decides scope, writes and reviews everything.
- Keep Informed (S02): no decision power, but they are the main audience; served by README and code clarity.
- Monitor (S03): casual visitors; served by repository metadata and a short README.
Primary Concerns and FURPS+ Mapping
| ID | Concern | FURPS+ attribute |
|---|---|---|
| S01 | Game behaves correctly and is covered by tests | Functionality, Reliability |
| S01 | Planning trail and review records exist | Supportability |
| S02 | Code is readable and uses the assignment's function names | Supportability |
| S02 | Can run the game and tests from the README | Usability |
| S03 | Findable and understandable repository | Usability |
| S03 | Nothing extra to install | Implementation (no runtime dependencies) |
Communication Requirements
| ID | Channel | Frequency | Deliverable | Phase / Milestone |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S01 | Pull request review | Per milestone | Reviewed milestone deliverable | MIL-001 to MIL-004 |
| S02 | README | At release | Run and test instructions | MIL-004 |
| S03 | Repository description, topics, README | At release | Repository metadata | MIL-001, MIL-004 |
Conflicting Interests and Mitigations
| Conflict | Stakeholders | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|
| Heavy tooling (Doxygen, review records) versus a simple repository for visitors | S01, S03 | Keep tooling in docs/ and config files; README stays short and runtime stays dependency-free |
Traceability Analysis
Business Goal Alignment
| Stakeholder | Concern | Business Case objective |
|---|---|---|
| S01 | Correct, tested game | BC-001 O1, O3 |
| S02 | Readable code, run instructions | BC-001 O2, O4 |
| S03 | Description, topics, no dependencies | BC-001 O4, O5 |
Sign-Off
| Stakeholder | Decision | Date |
|---|---|---|
| S01 | Pending review |