| Risks |
| There is no process standard for development. |
| The lack of a write-up on the process may result in |
| design and development in an ad-hoc fashion. |
| Communication barriers between Livermore and Northern Arizona |
| University can result in discrepancies in the process design. |
| There has not been any full projects similar to PPF to base |
| the process on. |
| Both members of the project are relatively inexperienced in |
| organized process for design and development. |
| Time constraints will limit testing and code review. |
| The nature of the PPF limits test case design and use cases. |
| Mitigation |
| The PPF should follow a commonly used process that has |
| proven to be effective on other projects. |
| An effort should be made to document all aspects of the |
| process to aid in a structured development stage. |
| Planned weekly meetings and regular email exchanges will |
| help ensure both parties are on the same page. |
| Attention of the process selection based on the nature of |
| the project will provide a basis for design in the absence of |
| experience. |
| Reviewing process decisions with professors/managers will |
| help correct mistakes made from inexperience. |
| The project scope must be limited in light of time constraints |
| to guarantee a functional and stable product. |
| Interface issues can be resolved by approaching developers |
| who intend to use the PPF library. |