Team 3 - Use cases - Homework 7 - Use case B review

[bourdelin]

Please review the use case B in the Word document in the share point : [https://maasallianceeu.sharepoint.com/:w:/r/sites/europeandigitalticketinginterfaces/Shared%20Documents/General/Working%20documents/BUC%20-WIP/buc-b-shop-and-price.docx?d=wf6c991748d08424cb0cba586c9fc85a4&csf=1&web=1&e=HK7c6w](url)

Review use-case B checking : ​

• Check that it fully covers EUDIT scope ​

• Check that your use case is covered by Use Case (AI can be used here to detect gaps)

[OlivierBigex]

I suppose that we are all waiting for a new version which takes into account our discussion during the last plenary meeting.
But on Sharepoint, the document hasn't changed since 22th April (except comments from Juanjo). I would be great if our discussions had an impact on deliverables.

[bourdelin]

I made the clarification about CUSTOMER PURCHASE PACKAGE. It was written OFFER instead of PURCHASE; an unfortunate mix-up with SALES OFFER PACKAGE.
For remarks about the fact that some systems don't use TRAVEL BASKET or managing only one SALES OFFER PACKAGE by purchase, we answered that the use case is written with conditional and the features are pretty all optional. Some systems need the features (TRAVEL BASKET management).
We spent a lot of time with the role schema; positioning the interface between customer-retailer on one side and distributor-fare product owner-reservation manager on another side. The schema available in GitHub and SharePoint (Corom project report) would certainly be added in the final document but not in the use case.
On use case A, I, together with others, checked that most of the comments are welcome and relevant, but they do not affect the structure or the substance of the text in any significant way. All comments are replied with action if needed. We concentrate on having drafts of each BUC for the Forge.
I clarify in this conversation header what can be carefully check by each for you in your business context. If not clear on the process, please ask in this conversation.

[bourdelin]

BUC-B rewritten with comments and modifications from team 3 meetings.
Please review and/or comment / close comments
Thanks

[OlivierBigex]

ok, I will continue to make comments and suggestions on Sharepoint. Even if it would be more readable to start a new cycle of comments on a new version of the document.

What do you mean by " I, together with others" ? Are there any parallel workshops ? Where are these workshops desribed in EUDIT organisation ? Could it be possible to be included in these workshops ?

[bourdelin]

I was said during last meeting.

[TOP-PHE]

On the subject of the EUDIT Business Use Cases, I would like to propose a more iterative approach to our delivery strategy.

Our current working time of 1:30 is valuable but limited, making it difficult to reach deep consensus on complex details in a single session. I feel it would be beneficial to focus our initial efforts on finalizing one Use Case that has full cross-functional agreement, rather than presenting multiple partial drafts.

It is important to remember that while we must respect the timeline, the quality and scope of our deliverables cannot be compromised. Starting with a validated agreement on the scope ensures we aren't inadvertently reducing quality to meet deadlines.

Furthermore, the scope of Work Stream 3 should be defined by what we can robustly deliver: a validated Business Use Case. Delivering unvalidated drafts three weeks before the Forge meeting creates unnecessary risk. I strongly encourage us to adopt a 'one-at-a-time' validation model: agree on one case, validate it together, and then move to the next. This ensures we never deliver something that isn't fully aligned, keeping the momentum going without creating bottlenecks.

[bobvinke]

I agree we need more discussion time together. one use case at a time.

I however also think that if we defvide the work, we can create more use cases to review online first.

[OlivierBigex]

How about scheduling additional meetings for this sub-group between plenary meetings ? To work on comments on BUC, update BUC in live and reach an agreement ?