over time our information strategy has gone all over the place and we are looking to have a clearer policy and a more explicit way for everyone to be in sync on information sharing. Some things to note is that the org is 300+ people and is in multiple countries across the world. Also, we have people that are comfortable in Sharepoint, people that are comfortable in confluence, etc so there is definately a "change" factor here
Here are our current issues and what we are thinking about doing about them. I would love to hear feedback, suggestions, etc.
The content we have today:
Technical design info / architecture docs
Meeting minutes, action items, etc
Project plans and roadmaps
organization business mgmt info - travel, budget info, headcount info, etc
Project pages with business analysis, requirements, etc
Here are some of our main issues:
Where should data go - Confluence WIKI versus Sharepoint versus intranet site - we use confluence WIKI for #1, #2, #3, #5 but we also use sharepoint for #1, #3, #4, #5. We are trying to figure out if we should mandate each number to a specific place to make things consistent. We are using Sharepoint more a directory structure of documents, and we are using confluence for more adhoc changable content.
Stale Data - this is maybe a cultural thing with the org but at certain points in time data just becomes stale and is no longer relevant. What is the best way to ensure old data doesn't create a lot of noise and to ensure that the latest correct data is up to date. Should there be people in the org responsible for this or should it be an implicit "everyones job". This is more of an issue when people leave, join, etc . .
More active usage - whats is the best way to get people off of email and trying to stop and think "could this be useful for others . . let me put it in a centralized place instead of in email chains" . .
also, any other stories of good ways to improve an org's communication and information management
A fundamental root cause of information clutter is "no ownership".
People are assigned to projects. The projects end (or are cancelled), the people move on and the documents remain behind to gather "dust" and become information clutter.
This is hard to prevent. The wiki vs. sharepoint doesn't address the clutter, it just shifts the technology base that's used to accumulate clutter.
Let's look at the clutter
Technical design info / architecture docs. Old ones don't matter. There's current and there's irrelevant. Wiki.
Last year's obsolete design information is -- well -- obsolete.
Meeting minutes, action items, etc. Action items become part of someone's backlog in a development sprint, or, they're probably never going to get done. Backlogs are wiki items. Everything else is history that might be interesting but usually isn't. If it didn't create a sprint backlog items, update an architecture, or solve a development problem, the meeting was probably a waste of time.
Project plans and roadmaps. The sprint backlog matters -- this is what a "plan and roadmap" aspires to be. If you have to supplement your plans with roadmaps, you probably ought to give up on the planning and just use Scrum and just keep the backlog current.
The original plan is someone's guess at project inception time, and not really very interesting to the current project team.
Organization business mgmt info - travel, budget info, headcount info, etc. This is a weird mixture of highly structured stuff (budget, organization) and unstructured stuff ("travel"?)
How much history do you need? None? Wiki at best. Financial or HR System is where it belongs. But, in big organizations, the accounting systems can be difficult and cumbersome to use, so we create secondary sources of information like a SharePoint page with out-of-date budget numbers because the real budget numbers are buried inside Oracle Financials.
Project pages with business analysis, requirements, etc. This is your backlog. Your project roadmap and your requirements and your analysis ought to be a single document. In the wiki.
History rarely matters. Someone's concept at project inception time of what the requirements are doesn't matter very much any more. What the requirements evolved to in their final form matters far more than any history. This is wiki material.
How old is 'too old'?
I've worked with customers that have 30-year old software. The software -- obviously -- is relevant because it's in production.
The documentation, however, is all junk. The software has been maintained. It's full of change control records. The "original" specifications would have to be meticulously rewritten with each change control folded in. Since the change control documents can be remarkably pervasive, the only way to see where the changes were applied is to read the source and -- from that -- reverse engineer the current-state specification.
If we can only understand a 30-year old app by reverse engineering the source, then, chuck the 30-year old pile of paper. It's useless.
As soon as maintenance is done, the "original" specification has been devalued.
How to clean it up?
If you create the wiki page or sharepoint site, you own it forever.
When you leave, your replacement owns it forever.
Each manager is 100% responsible for every piece of information their staff creates. They have to delete things. The weak solution is to "archive" stuff. Which is just a polite way of saying "delete" without the "D-word".
Cleanup must be every manager's ongoing responsibility. If they can't remember what it is, or why they own it, they should be required (or "encouraged") to delete it. Everything unaccessed in the last two years should be archived without question. Everything 10 years old is just irrelevant history.
It's painful, and it doesn't appear to be value-creating work. After all, we work in IT. Our job is to "write" software, not delete it. No one will do it unless compelled on threat of firing.
The cost of storage is relatively low. The cost of cleanup appears higher.
How to stop the email chain?
Refuse to participate. Create a "Break the Chain" campaign focused on replacing email chains with wiki updates (or sharepoint updates).
Be sure your wiki provides links and is faster to edit than an email.
You can't force people to give up a really, really convenient solution (Email). You have to make the wiki more valuable and almost as convenient as email.
Ramp up the value on the wiki. Deprecate email chains. Refuse to respond to email chains. Refuse to accept "to do" action items through email.
You can use Confluence Wiki for storing documents as attachements and have the Wiki's paths work as the file paths in Sharepoint.
Re: stale data: have ownership of the data (both person and team) and ensure that deliverables for the owners include maintenance of ALL the data.
As far as "Off email", this is hard to do as you can't force people to do this short of actively monitoring all email... but you can try some deliverables with metrics regarding content added to the Wiki. That way people would be more likely to want to re-use the work already done on the email to paste into Wiki to meet the "quota" instead of composing fresh stuff.
Our company and/or team used all 3 of these approaches with some degree of success in the past
Is there a reason not to have the wiki hold the files?
Also, perhaps limiting the mail server to not allowing attachments on internal emails is too draconian, but asking folks to put everything in the wiki that needs to be emailed more than once is pretty darn useful.
Efficient information management is indeed a very hard problem. We found that "the simpler the better" principle can make miracles to solve it.
Where should data go - we are big believers of the wiki approach. In fact, we use Confluence for sharing possibly every type of information, except really large binary files. For those, we use Dropbox. Its simplicity is an absolutely killer feature. (Tip: you can integrate them with the Dropbox in Confluence plugin.)
Finding stale data - in our definition, stale data is something that is not updated or viewed for a specific period of time. The Archiving Plugin of Confluence can quickly and automatically find these, then report them to the authors and administrators, who may potentially update them (or remove them, see next item). There is, of course, information that never expires, but the plugin is able to skip them after you mark the corresponding pages.
Removing stale data - we are fairly aggressive on this. If the data is not (highly) relevant anymore, clean it up now! We can safely follow this practice, because we never actually delete data. We just move outdated data to hidden archive spaces using, again, the Archiving Plugin. If we changed our mind later, it is very easy to find it in the the archive, view it or even to recover it.
More active usage - our rule: if the information is required to be persistent, don't email it. Put it to a wiki page instead. The hard thing for some people is to find the best location for the information (which space? where in the page hierarchy?). Badly organized spaces with vague scope are another big efficiency divider, unfortunately. Large companies may consider introducing a wiki gardener to cure this.
Related
I know in waterfall, they are gathered and documented at an early stage of SDLC, I believe very first stage. Therefore, they are captured and documented before development and testing even starts.
But I am confused how is that done in Agile?
If I understand correctly, user stories should be written with acceptance criteria which capture non-functional requirements. But in Agile, we pick project, create it, and start working on it right away.
So, my guess is that someone (perhaps product owner) goes through user stories and collects acceptance criteria into a formatted document which then becomes Non-Functional-Requirements document?
First, to answer your question, I must be clear that no Agile frameworks or methodologies attempt to define everything that a team might need to do (especially Scrum) so there is nothing wrong with adding extra artifacts or practices that the team finds useful as long as they aren't contradicting a defined practice.
There are a few places I typically see non-functional requirements recorded. Here are a few of the most common ones:
Definition of Done
The definition of done contains standards for quality that should be applied across all backlog items that come through. Often times this includes things like "n% unit test coverage of code", "code and configuration changes have been peer reviewed", and "all automated regression tests have been run and pass". I've sometimes seen broader non-functional requirements like "no changes cause the application load time to exceed X ms".
Architectural Design Documents
You can still have these in Agile. Rather than establishing the finished architecture at the beginning of the project, they introduce constraints that the architecture has to stay within. As the project progresses and architectural decisions are made or changed, these documents are updated to reflect that information. Examples of constraints may include "System X is considered to be the authoritative source of customer personal data" or "Details needed for payment processing should never be available to a public-facing server in order to reduce attack opportunities on that data."
Product Chartering
Depending on the project, "starting right away" is a bit fluid. On very large projects or products, it is not uncommon to take a few days (in my experience, 1 - 3 is a good number) to charter the project. This would include identifying personas, making sure business stakeholders and team members have a shared understanding of the vision, talk through some expected user experiences and problems at a high level, etc. It is very common that non-functional needs come out here and should be recorded either in the DoD, existing architectural documents, or in some cases, in backlog items. One good example of this happening is something called a trade-off matrix. When building a tradeoff matrix, we talk about constraints on the project like performance, adaptability, feature set, budget, time, etc. We identify one as a primary constraint, two as secondary, and all others are considered tertiary. This isn't a hard-and-fast rule, but it establishes an general understanding of how trade-offs on non-functional needs will be decided in the work.
Backlog Items
Ok, last one. Not all backlog items have to be User Stories. If you have an actionable non-functional requirement (set up a server, reconfigure a firewall, team needs to convert to a new version of the IDE) there is nothing that stops you from creating a backlog item for this. It isn't a User Story, but that's ok. I will warn that most teams find a correlation between the number of items in the backlog that are User Stories and their ability to effectively deliver value and adapt to changes along the way, so don't get carries away. But I'd rather see a team put in a non-US in their backlog than try to pass off those things as user stories like "As a firewall, I want to be updated, so we don't get h#XX0rD" <- real backlog item I saw.
As a final note: remember that in Agile, we strive to adapt to change, so don't worry about getting the DoD or architectural document perfect the first time. It can change as you learn more.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
This thread is a follow up to my previous one. It's in fact 2 questions, so I hope no one minds, as they are dependent on each other.
We are starting a new project at work and we consider it as a great opportunity to try Agile techniques in action. We had a brainstorming about ideas we read in several books and articles, and came up with concept that would suit us the best: 2 weeks iteration, followed by call with clients who would choose what stuff they want to have in next iteration. I just have few more questions, which we couldn't figure out ourselves.
What to do in the first iteration?
What to, generally, do in the first few iterations if we start from the scratch? Just give it a month of development to code core of the application or start with simple wire-frames with limited pre-coded functionality? What usually clients want to see? Shiny stuff that doesn't work or ugly stuff that does work?
How to communicate with clients?
Our initial thought it to set the process to something like this:
alt text http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/2553/communication.png
Is it a good idea to have a Focal Point on client side or is it better to communicate straight with all the clients to prevent miscommunication?
Any thoughts are welcome! Thanks in advance.
In my opinion, a key success factor for agile development is to focus on delivering value for the customer in each iteration. I would definitely pick "ugly stuff that does work" over "shiny stuff that doesn't work". Doing shiny UIs and trying to get the client to understand hat business logic takes a lot of time to implement is always risky which Joel Spolsky has written a good article about.
If the client wants enhancements to the UI, they can always put that as a requirement for the next iteration.
Regarding communication with clients I think that your scetch should be slightly adjusted. Talking in scrum terms your "focal point" is called "product owner". Having one person coordinating with the clients is good, as it can take quite a lot of time to get the different stakeholders agree on the needs. However the product owner (or focal point) should be in direct contact with the developer, without going through the project manager. In fact, the product owner and the project manager has quite distinct roles that gain a lot by being split on two people.
The product owner is the stakeholders' voice to the development team. The project manager on the other hand is responsible for the wellbeing of the project team and often keeps track of budget etc. These roles sometimes has opposing agendas, and having them split on two people gives a healthy opportunity for negotiation between conflicting interests. If one person has both roles, that person often tend to favour one of them, automatically reducing the other one. You don't want to work on a team where the project manager always puts the client before the team's needs. On the other hand no customer wants a product owner that always puts the team's needs first, neglegting the customer. Splitting the responsibilities on two people helps to remedy that situation.
I'd agree with Anders answer. My one extra observation is that many clients find it impossible to ignoire the Ugly. They get concerned about presentation rather than function. Hence you may need to bite the bullet and do at least one "Nice" screen to show that you will pay attention to presentation details.
What to, generally, do in the first few iterations if we start from the scratch?
Many teams use an Iteration Zero to:
setup the development infrastructure (source control, development machines, the automated build, a continuous integration process, a testing environment, etc),
educated the customer and agree with him on the methodology,
create an initial list of features, identify the most important and do an initial estimation,
define time of meetings (planning meeting, demo, retrospective), choose the the iteration length.
Iteration Zero is very special because it doesn't deliver any functionality to the customer but focus on what is necessary to run the next iterations in an agile way. But subsequent iterations should start to deliver value to the customer.
Just give it a month of development to code core of the application or start with simple wire-frames with limited pre-coded functionality?
No, don't develop the core of your application during one month. Instead, start delivering vertical slice of the application (from the UI to the database) immediately, not horizontal slices. This doesn't mean that a screen has to be complete (e.g. implement only one search field in a search screen) but it should ideally be representative of the final look & feel (unless you agreed with the customer on an intermediate step). The important part is to build things that provide immediate value to the customer incrementally.
What usually clients want to see? Shiny stuff that doesn't work or ugly stuff that does work?
To my experience, they want to see demonstrable progresses and you want to get feedback as soon as possible.
Is it a good idea to have a Focal Point on client side or is it better to communicate straight with all the clients to prevent miscommunication?
You need one person to represent the clients (who is called the Product Owner in Scrum):
he provides a single authoritative voice
he has a perfect knowledge of the business (i.e. he can answer questions)
he knows how to maximize the ROI (i.e. how to prioritize functionalities)
Agile generally wants to provide the client something valuable, quickly.
So I certainly would not spend "month of development to code core of the application". To me, that smells of the "big up front design" anti-pattern. Also, see YAGNI.
Get as much information from the clients about what they need soonest, and implement that in your first iteration. "Valuable" is in the eye of the client. Thet will know if they want to see slick UI (maybe they want to give a slide show about the product at a trade show, so functionality can be fake) or simple working features (maybe you're developing something that they need to start using ASAP). Business Value is what they say will help them do their job.
I'd make my iterations as short as I can (your 2 weeks could work, I suggest considering 1 week) If you absolutely can't have your dev team and your clients co-located, instead of having a call with the clients, I suggest a meeting. Demo what you've done over the previous iteration and solicit feedback about what should stay, what should change, and what should be added.
As others have said, your "Focal point" sounds like a Product Owner. What worries me about your drawing is if it is meant to imply that devs don't interact with the PO or the clients. One thing that makes Agile work is when there is lots of communication. Having communication to/from the dev team always filtered through the Project Manager is almost certainly bound to result in miscommunication, unnecessary work, and missed details.
I agree with the two answers given but I would just add one thing from personal experience. Are your customers bought in to the change towards quick iterations? As well as providing feedback after each iteration which is going to require the customer performing usability tests on each feature.
Now I don't know what your groups relationship is with your customer but its not unusual for customers to take a "Put request in - get working system out" attitude in that they are enthusiastic when giving requirements but not so forthoming with time when it comes to testing the feature.
Now this may be totally inappropriate to your situation but its always worth considering how your customer workflow will have to change as well as your groups.
Cheers
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
Referring to this buddy question, I want to know how one can manage specs in Scrum process ? I'm facing this problem while assigning tasks to my team for the sprint. Needless to say - I'm new to Agile/Scrum.
Currently, we are using our own specs sheet to map StoryId to SpecId and vice versa. I'm getting the felling that Scrum is more about project management [getting things done on time] and you need a seperate process to manage specs and requirements.
How do we manage specs in a Scrum process ?
The short answer is, you don't.
The important question to ask yourself when writing these specs, is why do we do them? What is the value in the spec?
The value in the spec usually comes in communicating the ideas of the business with the development team. Scrum is designed to bring the business (in the form of the Product Owner) to the development team. By interacting with the team frequently (remember, individuals and interactions over processes and tools), and by seeing working software frequently, the business can work hand in hand with developers to produce software that solves business problems better than by trying to spec out the whole thing before you get to try it out.
This is how Agile projects do a better job of delivering the product the business wants instead of the product they requested.
That said, there are certain base criteria that need to be met. We can test for this, and as with any good tests, we can automate it.
Have a look at BDD and Cucumber. In addition to your User Story, it's good to have a basic set of conditions of satisfaction, preferably in the "Give/When/Then" format. These conditions are the minimum set of criteria for the story to be accepted as complete.
For example, "Given I am logged in, when I log out, then I am taken back to the home page".
If you're going to have acceptance criteria, you're going to want to automate it. The worst part of most specifications is they often end up out of date and collecting dust when the project is complete.
Also, you shouldn't be assigning tasks to the team. Scrum teams are self organizing and anyone should be able to grab any task they feel they can work on while respecting the priority of the stories. Swarming is a big part of the performance benefits of Scrum.
You may want to consider bringing in an outside coach to assist with your transition.
I think that the easiest way is to make the specifications a part of the user stories within the tasks, themselves. Clearly list the acceptance criteria in each one (or if your issue tracking software allows you, create them as first class work item types). Let the issue in whatever you use for work item tracking become the living document.
There are drawbacks, such as finding related issues as specs change over time, but this can usually be managed in the work item tracking tooling, assuming your can relate issues to each other.
The way that we do it is that we (actually a BA, not the developers) creates a sign-off deck for the product owner to review and we collaboratively create tasks off of that. If we cannot create a task, or there are open questions, we will go back to the product owner with those questions and update the deck. All of our decks are organized (in SharePoint) so that we can easily find them in the future.
For me the specs is in the user stories. We define the specs and the tasks duing out initial scrum meeting along with the product owner. The specs and tasks are just for the life time of the scrum iteration as everything might change in the next iteration(in the worst case but there will definitively be changes).
We usually keep track of the specifications and task on a spreadsheet just so that everybody know what they are working on. I have also tried a few software to do this and one of the most interesting ones I have come across is from [VersionOne][1] and also from [Rally][2].
But I still find that using a simple spreadsheet is the fastest and simplest solution.
As I understand SCRUM, it does not take care about specs management. You have to broke/map your specs or specs changes to stories and tasks separately. But you can have a task for this :).
There is a real tension between Scrum and other agile dev methodologies and spec writing. I think there are two big points of tension:
Because agile says everything should
be on an index card, that means you
have to have stuff planned out
enough to fit on an index card.
(E.g. you have to know how it's all
going to work.)
Some things don't make sense in
isolation (what's the use of an
upload file page without a manage
uploaded files page, for instance.)
You don't have to design the whole app all at once, but you have to have a vision of the whole app. Then, especially if you have a separation of designers and programmers, you do functional design for a sprint-sized chunk at a time. Those designs then have to be broken down to story-sized chunks.
This is a lot of up front functional design, and I think that's overlooked in a lot of the talk about agile methodologies. Perhaps some shops have the devs do more of the design. Also, I think it's a lot easier to use scrum/agile for making changes/bug fixes to existing apps rather than building new ones.
The thing I've found most helpful is to fight back on story size. A lot of organizations have gone crazy, saying stories need to be only a few hours. The original scrum book says 16 hours, I think, which is often large enough to fit an entire screen of a web app. So "implement manage my account" could be a story (as opposed to the hundreds-of-tiny-stories approach of "implement username", "implement password" etc.) Then reference your design doc for "Manage My Account" and make sure to have word-perfect screenshots/prototype/mockup so the dev can look at them and copy/paste the text directly into the code they're writing, and they know for sure which fields need to be there (or which links, or which pictures, or whatever).
This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
What should a good BugTracking tool be capable of?
Although there is a large set of features that a bug tracker can have I feel like it is a little overkill and was considering rolling out my own solution. With that being said I didn't want to remove any core functionality that might be used frequently with existing solutions.
The ones I can think of so far:
- creating bugs
- assigning bugs
- closing bugs
- adding description to the bug
Thanks!
Communication between the developer and the user.
Ability for the user to assign certain bits of information such as severity (how much that bug relates to them).
Ability for the developer to override that priority and, if possible, give a reason.
Ability to assign tasks to a developer.
Ability to sort between bug, enhancement, and feature request. The difference between an enhancement and feature request is very subtle but VERY important.
Ability to attach files (such as screen shots)
Ability to have custom fields (such as being able to select which OS, which service pack level, application version, etc).
Ability to have custom user profiles which also give detailed information about their hardware. It's also nice to be able to have the users phone number (if they are on your LAN) so you can ask questions, if needed.
Privacy. Some items, such as security exploits or information that deals with financial information, will need to be kept secret. Even OSS does this from time to time until they can get a patch ready. Everyone has their own rules.
Ability to show the changes between revisions so you can email out a Change Log so users know what you have and have not done.
Reminders about which items are left undone and are assigned to you / unassigned at all.
That's all I can think of...
A good search engine.
It's amazing how many bug tracking products that cost thousands of dollars get this horribly wrong.
Without a really decent search your bug tracking is more like a "bug logging" - log and forget - system which is pretty much useless.
create a bug
close a bug
this is sufficient for closure over the life-cycle of a 'bug' entity. Whether it is enough features for your purpose is another matter.
Take a look at the features of Mantis, choose the features that you need, calculate how long it would take you to write them, and then spend your time on something more useful unless you absolutely have to create your own. ;-)
For most systems like a bug tracking one, it's usually not the creation or editing of the data that makes the system useful. It all comes down to how easily you can navigate through the information to 'add-value' on top of just collecting the data.
Think about the people who will use the system, the programmers, managers, etc. For each group of people, what type of information will make it worth their while to come back to the system over and over again. How can you make it easier for them to get this information?
Collecting information is easy, adding value to it is the hard part.
Paul.
A bug tracker is nothing more than a list of things that need to be done.
It can be as simple as a text file in the software's directory to a fully fledged bug tracker with hundreds of users.
Start with what you need to work with, then expand as needed.
Use Jira, you'll be in good hands.
Here are some important features:
Assign priority to bug (e.g. critical, major, medium, minor, trivial)
Assign bug to a specific release in which it will be fixed
Watcher functionality (so you can be e-mailed when the status changes)
Workflow (i.e. who is working on it, what's the status)
Categorization, Prioritization, and Standardization.
And an easy way to query it so that you can reap the rewards of your hard work on the above three.
Also, make sure whatever you do is extensible! We always decide to add/edit our bug templates during the project depending on needs/fires.
There are a lot of great solutions out there, you probably don't need to roll your own.. But either way you're going to have to make the same decisions. We use a solution that allows us to roll our own templates, so at the beginning of every project we revisit this same discussion.
FWIW: When we rolled our own request tracking system, we built it around procmail and our existing internal web authentication system because we wanted it to be extremely unobtrusive to use: we just send e-mails to the developers (using group aliases if we want) and add a "[t]" to the subject to open a ticket. The recipients get a modified e-mail with the original request and an additional link to the web page that displays the ticket and allows them to close it with 1 mouse click. So the most common tasks are performed through the e-mail client (opening, requesting more information, replying, ...), although there is also a simple web interface for searching etc.
It took only a few hours to write and after more than 34000 request tickets in 7 years or so, I guess it's OK to claim that it has only the essential core features:
create a ticket (by e-mail with marked subject)
close a ticket (clicking on the link in the e-mail, then clicking on "done")
all communication goes over e-mail, not through a web interface(!)
people who were recipients or sender of the original e-mail (opening ticket) are notified about closed tickets ("Subject: <old subject> closed by <someone>" + link to ticket in the body, enough information for most people so they don't have to go look which ticket/bug that was etc.)
a simple web interface provides a search function for own/open/sent/team tickets
Notable absent features that might be needed for a bigger development team / more intense software development:
flexible status for the tickets (dupe, wontfix, reopened etc.)
priorities
reassigning tickets explicitly (in our dev team, the e-mail just gets resent to the unlucky guy who has to do it)
adding comments to the ticket that don't get sent to everyone
assigning the bug to a particular version of the software
YMMV, but it has worked very well for us so far, both for bugs and for simple requests that the sender wants to keep track of.
Define bug.
Thinking about that will most likely make you realize that you're gonna spend a lot of time "rolling your own".
This might be a little beyond what you had in mind, but for me, integration with source control is a must-have. To be able to view the diffs between versions associated with a bug/issue is very handy.
Please please please don;t spend much time "rolling your own". Your time is better spent researching and learning to use real tracking systems.
Some to look at
Trac, Bugzilla and FogBugz. The last one has free hosted solution for small (one or two man shops?) companies.
SO has lots of threads about this topic.
Try not to roll your own unless it is just a word doc or a spreadsheet. Any time you spend making your own is a TOTAL waste.
EDIT
Since you won't be dissuaded, then I'll maybe add some things others have not mentioned.
You need reporting functionality - users need to be able to run queries and they should be able to select the fields they want to "view".
Workflow/lifecycle of a defect is also a good feature. (basically a state machine of the states the defect will go through. ) In fact, this is a useful exercise for you to define all your use cases and functionality. Given that you are in college and did not start out as aa CS major, I doubt you will come up with many on your own. Take some time to browse the feature lists and demos of existing products.
Ability for emails to be sent to various interested parties.
Anonymous users able to see a SPECIFIC defect that they entered
Different access levels and authorities (admin, manager, developer, tester, end-user)
Our bug tracking system is one of the two essential links between my company and our customers ("live" product reviews where existing customers are encouraged to suggest improvements and user interface tweaks being the other).
A bug tracking system must, first and foremost, encourage trackable "dialogs" with your customers. It must answer the question "Have you fixed the problem (defined broadly) that I have been having yet?"
It must have (in no particular order):
A short description of the problem or feature request (the title)
Room for an extended description
The ability to attach files/images (screenshots)
The ability to prioritize bugs/features
The ability to categorize entries as bugs, features, inquiry, etc.
The ability to assign bugs/features to areas (UI, database, documentation, etc.)
he ability to assign bugs/features to products (we track bugs on five products)
The ability to assign bugs/features to releases ("to be fixed in version 5.1")
The ability to assign bugs/features to people (developers/writers)
The ability to assign bugs/features to customers (reporters)
The ability to re-assign to a different person (developer)
The ability to Resolve bugs/features (mark them as finished and ready for testing)
The ability to mark resolution status (fixed, won't fix, can't reproduce, etc.)
The ability to Close bugs/features (take them off list after resolution & testing)
The ability to Reopen bugs/features (restore to "Open" if testing fails)
The ability to inform customers the bug has been resolved (e.g. via email)
Date and Time stamp on every step (Open, Resolve, Close, Re-open)
The ability to report on the number of Open bugs! (how close to release are we?)
The ability to show bug reports versus resolutions
The ability to search on bugs/features by date, priority, product, person, etc.
The ability to list and sort bugs for easy scanning!
Those are the things that we typically use in our system (FogBugz). While this may seem like a long list, we really do use every feature that I've listed here!
On a particular project we're working with a total of 10 team members.
After about a year working on the project (and using Mantis as a bug-/feature-tracker eversince), the bugtracker gets more and more difficult to use, as no standard has been setup that explains how to create new tasks, how to comment tasks etc. This leads to multiple entries for the same bugs, inability to easily find bugs when searching for them etc.
How do you organize your bugtracker? Do you use a lot of (sub)categories for different portions of your application (GUI, Backend etc), do you use tags in the title of tasks (i.e. "[GUI][OptionPage] The error")?
Is anyone in your team allowed to introduce new tasks or is this step channeled through a single "Mantis-master" (who would then know whether a new report is a duplicate or an entirely new entry)?
Always link a version control system commit to an issue and back so that you know which commits were made do solve which issue and why a certain commit was done.
What we did is to introduce a role for approve entries to the bug tracker. This role can be shared by different people. The process is either to approve, to approve with a small edit, or to reject the entry with the request for further editing or clarification.
It is better for the general understanding if the role is not given to people working in the (core) team.
In a "large" mantis system on the open web, I've seen the rules go something like
New: Anyone can enter a bug.
Acknowledged: A select few people can upgrade it to this level. These people have seen every new bug for a while, and thus they'll know if it's a duplicate. Or they can pass it back to the reporter for clarification until they understand it well enough to do this job.
Confirmed: Set by decision makers who basically say "We will be doing this".
I don't actually remember where it was, and more importantly I don't know how well it worked.