\documentclass[onecolumn]{article}

\usepackage[hmargin=1in,vmargin=1in]{geometry}
\usepackage{natbib}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{rotating}
\usepackage{tikz}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{float} \floatstyle{ruled} \restylefloat{figure} \restylefloat{table}
\input{LogicalDivisionCommands}

\newcommand{\bi}{\begin{itemize}}
\newcommand{\biTight}{\vspace{-\parskip}\bi\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt} }
\newcommand{\ei}{\end{itemize}}

% 1 - fitness for purpose
% 2 - cost of operation
% 3 - fitness for future
% 4 - cost of prouction
\newcommand{\radar}[4]{
    %\begin{wrapfigure}{R}{0.25in}
    \begin{tikzpicture} 
    \pgftransformscale{0.3}
    \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0);
    \draw (0,-1) -- (0,1);
    \draw (0,0) circle (1cm);
    \draw[thick,rounded corners=2pt,fill=red] 
        (0,#1) -- 
        (#2,0) -- 
        (0,-#3) -- 
        (-#4,0) -- 
        cycle;
    \end{tikzpicture}
    %\end{wrapfigure}
} % end newcommand

\begin{document}

\section*{Scribed notes for SE 464 - May 6, 2011}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection*{Design Disciplines \citet[p658]{Moggridge07mitp}}

% Moggridge's chart
\begin{figure}[h]
\caption{Contextualization of design disciplines \cite{Moggridge07mitp}}
\label{moggridge2d}
\begin{tabular}{ccc|ccc}
\multirow{6}{*}{\begin{sideways}\emph{Human \& Subjective}\end{sideways}} 
& \multicolumn{4}{c}{\emph{Physical Design}} &
\multirow{6}{*}{\begin{sideways}\emph{Technical \& Objective}\end{sideways}} 
\\
& industrial & & mech. eng. & & \\
& graphic & ergo & production eng. & physics & \\
\cline{2-5} 
& web & H.C.I. & hardware & CS & \\
& interaction & & software & & \\
\multicolumn{6}{c}{\emph{Conceptual Design}} \\
\end{tabular}
\vspace{0.4in}
\end{figure}

(Actually, Moggridge uses the term `digital'.  I have switched to
`conceptual' here at the suggestion of Daniel Jackson.)

\subsection*{Design Analysis}

\begin{figure}[h]
\caption{Criteria for Design Analysis}
\label{analysis-criteria}
\emph{Criteria} \fourdivdesc
    {fitness for purpose}
        {\fivediv{safety}{performance}{environment}{usability}{security}}
    {fitness for future}{}
    {production cost}{\threediv{parts}{labour\twodiv{skill}{time}}{tools/capital}}
    {operating cost}{}
\end{figure}

\subsubsection*{Class Discussion of Fitness for Purpose}

\biTight
	\item{Speed \& performance}
	\item{Accuracy \& completeness}
	\item{Reliability}
	\item{Security}
	\item{Robustness: In terms of robustness for changes in requirements, this
	is a fitness for future criterion. In terms of robustness for changes in
	the environment, this is a fitness for purpose criterion.}
	\item{Power consumption: If you're maintaining a massive data centre, this
	is a cost of operations criterion, but if you're sending a probe to Mars,
	this is a fitness for purpose criterion.}
	\item{Feasibility: This can also be a cost of production criterion.}
	\item{Safety: NullPointerExceptions are generally a bad idea, but even
	more so should it cause an airplane to go boom in the sky.}
\end{itemize}

\clearpage

\subsection*{Functional \& Non-Functional Requirements}

The division of requirements into \emph{functional} and
\emph{non-functional} is orthogonal to our design analysis criteria
above.  
%
One would expect that most functional requirements would fall under
fitness for purpose.
%
Non-functional requirements could fall under any of the design analysis
criteria.



\subsection*{Class Discussion of Different Design Contexts}

These are generalizations, for discussion purposes. Each individual
project will have its own relative importance for each criteria.

\begin{figure}[h]
\caption{Guide to reading radar plots}
    \begin{center}
    \begin{tikzpicture} 
    \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0);
    \draw (0,-1) -- (0,1);
    \draw (0,0) circle (1cm);
    \draw (-1,0) node [anchor=east] {Cost of Production};
    \draw (1,0) node [anchor=west] {Cost of Operation};
    \draw (0,1) node [anchor=south] {Fitness for Purpose};
    \draw (0,-1) node [anchor=north] {Fitness for Future};
    \end{tikzpicture}
    \end{center}
\end{figure}

\subsubsection*{Web Startup}
\radar{1}{0.5}{0.7}{1}
In a typical web startup, fitness for purpose is considered very important,
while fitness for future less so; similarly, cost of production is considered
very important, and cost of operations less so. This is mostly to do with the
fact that most web startups hinge their futures on the execution of a single
idea; if the idea is poorly executed, or if there is no product, then there is
no future for the company.

\subsubsection*{NASA}
Any NASA project clearly weights fitness for purpose very heavily; above all,
the project should do what it is meant to do. 
In terms of fitness for future,
there are two situations: a one-time project, such as landing a man on the
moon, 
%
\radar{1}{0.5}{0.1}{0.1} % moon
%
does not have a very high fitness for future criterion, whereas a
longterm project, such as launching a space shuttle, has a very high fitness
for future criterion. 
%
\radar{1}{0.5}{1}{0.1} % shuttle
%
Cost of production is deemed to be fairly low, whereas
cost of operations is a middling factor.

\subsubsection*{Fourth-Year Design Project}

\radar{0.5}{0.1}{0.1}{1} % the rest of the world
The majority of fourth-year design projects have a highly weighted cost of
production criterion, with the remaining three criteria rated as low or
middling. This is mostly because the design project must be balanced with other
courses and extracurricular activities. Fitness for purpose is even not very
high because the project isn't necessarily required to work perfectly
(although, bonus points if it does).

\radar{0.5}{0.1}{1}{1} % jay
Certain students may find themselves with a high fitness for future criterion,
particularly if they are expected to hand the project off to another party.

\bibliographystyle{plainnat}
\bibliography{main}

\end{document}
