Software Demo

OP3, which is the final oral presentation for C1 module, is actually a software demo of our product software in CT module. I have no prior in doing software demo, but I have witnessed a few real software demos on stage. Although it is entirely another level for us, but I think it is good to learn from examples.

I am in charge of the introduction part of OP3. Therefore, I have been watching a few videos of software demos from YouTube. I find that there are actually many ways of introducing software before doing the exact demo. Some started with playing an attractive short video, some started with a story, some started with a joke, and other ways. There so many of them that I find it hard to select one and use it on OP3. But it is a good learning experience to see so many interesting introductions, and I may be able to have a style of my own in the future.

One aspect of software demo that I find it to be controversial is the person who does the demo. Should it be the developer of the software? Or is it more appropriate to let the audience to try the software on the spot? From what I have seen on YouTube, all the software demos done on stage are handled by the developers of the software. This is clearly better in the sense that the audience would know how to use the software at first glance, while the developers know how to test it on the spot. However, this is done in pre-assumptions that how they do it on stage will be exactly how it works when the audiences use the software. It is possible to turn out to be entirely different when the users use the software. Therefore, it is arguable that they should let the audiences to try the software during the demo.

For OP3, my group has not decided whether we should do the demo ourselves or let the audiences try the software. However, for me, if I have another software demo to be done in the future, I would try my best to give chances for the audiences to try the software on the spot. This way, not only the audiences will be convinced by the demo, they can have a better understanding on the software’s behavior as well. However, there will some risks where the audiences would screw up the software demo. I cannot say for sure how exactly it may happen, but there is such possibility. But it is my job to reduce these risks by making the software as bulletproof as possible. This would require the knowledge I learned from CT module.

In a nutshell, software demo is an essential stage that every software engineer will have to go through in their project. Therefore, it is crucial for us to apply what we have learned in C1 module to make the demo as smooth as possible, and ultimately, to persuade the audiences to use our product software.

Crisis...

It is very common for a project to have many problems to be solved. No matter it is a small or big problems, it is crucial for us to solve it by analyzing what cause them to appear. By then, we can figure out the best solution.

In CT project, one of the biggest problems that I think I should mention here is, “What kind of TDM are we suppose to create?”. Before the 5th lecture of CT module, we already have a great vision what kind of TDM we want to build. We have been using a few existing popular TDM and discovered their strengths and weaknesses. Then, we planned to implement their strengths without their weaknesses into our own TDM. We have even thought of a few possibly implementable special features. After having so many meetings and making so many struggling decisions, we finally have the idea of our own TDM. But after the 5th lecture, we are confused. In the lecture, Dr. D implied that most of us have been off tracked. He showed us a demo of what he wanted for the TDM. The demo TDM is very different from our ideal TDM.

The major cause of this problem is the lack of understanding on Dr. D’s vision. We thought that what he wanted is a very special TDM with special features that distinguishes itself from the others. We thought that the TDM should be for both general users and power users. However, it turns out that Dr. D only wanted a simple TDM for power users.

Another minor cause is that many of us are just perfectionists. We wanted to build the best TDM. It will be much better than all the existing ones, and more popular than the other teams’ TDM. Thus, it is inevitable for us to think of so many great ideas to be implemented into our TDM. Besides, by seeing the OP from other groups in C1 module, I can personally deduced that most of us have been off tracked due to this minor cause.

Another cause is that “Dreaming is free of charge.”. No matter how big our dreams are, it will not cost us anything. So why not think bigger? We thought that we should first think of a magnificent TDM. If we failed to implement it, then we shall try to implement a slightly less magnificent TDM. This process continues until we can build a TDM which implemented most of our big ideas. In our case, we thought too much.

The best solution for this problem is to consult Dr. D or our project tutor, and make sure we understand fully what kind of TDM we should build. This should be done as soon as possible since a lot of time has been wasted to plan for the “magnificent TDM”.

In a nutshell, we have misunderstood Dr. D’s instructions. Therefore, I think it is crucial for us to consult him or our project tutor to confirm again the instructions before we start building the TDM.

So far so good! Let's do our best T2G3!!

The principles of communication and team behavior cover a lot of things, but my group have not make use of all the principles. I will explain which principles we have used throughout the meetings.

For “Twelve Cs for Teambuilding”, I think we have make use all of them except “Charter” which I do not understand the meaning of that word. Secondly, we also make use of the principle of “The Making of the A-Team”. Each member in my group has been punctual and prepared for the meetings. As far as I know, we have been honest in communication and responding to one and another during the meetings. We are open to ideas and criticism from one and another, and we definitely have lots of sense of humour. As far as I know, my group’s meeting behavior belongs to “Task facilitating behaviors”.  We always seek for opinions when we provide an idea.

In terms of the individual behavior of each member, I think we are all very responsible. When one of us is speaking, others will listen and speak up whenever it is necessary. In every meeting, each of us will be punctual, and we will always stick to the agenda that our leader has made before each meeting. Despite that, sometimes, we would discuss more on the future things after we have reached the agenda of the meeting. Our leader also did a great job in arranging and chairing every meeting. Whenever a meeting is over, he would set the time for another meeting in the future. Before the meeting, he would secure a suitable meeting place for us and text us about it. Personally, I think he is doing great so far.

In every meeting, whenever we run out of ideas, we would take a break. It is during the break that we would talk about other things and learn more about each other. After knowing each other better, we begin to switch our formal meeting style to a more casual one. We would add in some of our mother language into the discussion and if one of us do not understand, we would translate it into English and he would learn something new. That is how we conduct the interpersonal communication in our meetings.

 When we are preparing the oral presentation with the topic “intercultural communication”, I observed that while we are researching on other cultures for the presentation, we would ask about other’s culture in the process. For example, when NTH is researching about the different meaning of pointing out the thumb in different country, he found the meaning in my country is to point at a person in a polite manner. He even asked me about it before he includes that finding into the presentation.

Most teams would have faced many conflicts during the meeting, including my team. As far as I remember, there were two major conflicts that happened in the meeting. The first major conflict is to decide a leader in C1 and another leader in CT, and the second major conflict is to decide who would present which main points. Fortunately, we were able to resolve the conflicts through discussions and understandings.

Overall, I like the performances of my team in tackling C1. But I do hope that we could a great job in CT as well. So just as my post’s title, let’s do our best to be the best!!