Editing Final Report 2011 (section)

===Review and Audit Process===
The process of reviewing and auditing progress and revising group member roles was well managed throughout the lifecycle of the project. The strategy used focused on several key areas:
# Regular (internal) meetings and Gantt chart
# Project wiki page
# SVN Repository
# Extensive email Communication

A minimum of one informal meeting per week was held between project members to discuss progress and ensure both Patrick and Steven were satisfied with the current status. These meetings provided a platform to discuss individual challenges encountered and brainstorm solutions to these problems. They also enabled members to query each other’s work to ensure it was at a satisfactory level of quality.

The project wiki page played two main roles. Firstly, the [[Cipher cracking 2011 weekly progress|Weekly Progress]] page was updated each week by both team members. This provided both a self-check mechanism to ensure goals were being achieved and an additional update for the other group member as to their counterpart’s progress. Secondly, shared database areas, such as the Cipher Cross-off List, enabled group members to review each other’s work ensuring it was comprehensive and of high quality.

The svn repository requested from the School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering proved extremely valuable as both an auditing function and a work integration tool. The repository was used extensively throughout the project for both the CipherGUI and the Web Crawler system. The top level of the repository is shown in the image below.

<center>[[Image:Snv repos screenshot.png|The svn repository used by the project in 2011]]</center>
<center>'''Figure 19 - Project SVN repository'''</center>

Finally, a high level of communication played a key role in organising and collaborating project work. Communication was both in person and through the University email system including the Gmail chat functionality. Without this high level of communication, it is unlikely the project would have been as successful as it was, nor achieved nearly as much as it did.

It may be noted that in the Work Allocation graph displayed in the previous section, tasks allocated to one project member were not completed 100% by that member. While partially due to the team self-auditing approach resulting in both members working on sections, there was also an aspect of role re-assignment responsible. Role re-assignment was primarily due to differing workloads combining with schedule requirements. Role re-assignment was organised both through email communications channels and at the regular internal group meetings.