Site Tools

Trace:
team_report

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
Last revisionBoth sides next revision
team_report [2015/09/27 16:46] – [Marking Criteria] scmfclteam_report [2015/11/15 16:47] – [Marking Criteria] scmfcl
Line 63: Line 63:
  
 Your supervisor and moderator will mark your plan according to the following criteria: Your supervisor and moderator will mark your plan according to the following criteria:
-  * Project description with aims and objectives are clear, sufficiently detailed and provide a suitable challenge for each member of the team. +  * Project initiation documentation (20%): 
-  * A suitable, well-justified project management and software development process has been selected with a discussion of associates risks and how these will be mitigated. +    * Clarity and detail of project description with aims and objectives, constraints and context 
-  * Legal, social, ethical and professional issues: Clear understanding and broader appreciation of how legal, ethical and social issues are addressed. +    * Suitability and justification of project management and software development approach 
-  * Team working: Quality and extent of contributions to group tasks to ensure fair distribution of workload and opportunity for originality for each team member. The ability to interact effectively with others through the use of excellent communication, via all appropriate media. +    * Quality of discussion of associated risks and how these will be mitigated 
-  * System requirements: Coherency and completeness of functional and non-functional systems requirements with clear justification/derivation. Identification of system scope and boundaries with clear declaration of any assumptions made. +    * Level of understanding, consideration and broader appreciation of legal, ethical and social issues 
-  * Acceptance criteria: Testable acceptance criteria are associated with both the functional and non-functional requirements. Benefit and risk assessment and relevant quality factors. +    * Effectiveness of communication and suggested methods 
-  * Good, high-level, expandable and flexible software architecture in sufficient detail to progress with the individual projects without over-constraining them by unnecessary detail. +  * Requirements Specification (20%): 
-  * Integration: the individual projects of each member of the team are aligned to integrate into a complete system. +    * Coherency and completeness of functional and non-functional systems requirements with clear justification/derivation 
-  * Work plan is feasible, sufficiently specific to the project, and has a clear timeline and milestones; deliverables are suitable and clearly specified for each member of the team; approximate dates for at least two review meetings per student are given; the amount of work is suitable for the credits and level of the module. +    * Testable acceptance criteria are associated with both the functional and non-functional requirements 
-  * The report is well written and clearly structured. It shows clarity of expression without going into unnecessary detail.+    * Identification of system scope and boundaries with clear declaration of any assumptions made. 
 +  * Software architecture (20%): 
 +    * Quality of documentation of main components, interactions, services and dependencies 
 +    * Level of detail sufficient to progress with individual projects without over-constraining them by unnecessary detail 
 +    * Quality and suitability of software architecture adopting core concepts and principles of good software design relating to decomposition, abstraction, modularity, extensibility, adaptability to change, etc. 
 +    * Level of alignment of individual team members' components to integrate into a complete system 
 +  * Work plan (20%): 
 +    * Quality of work plan, feasibility and specificity to the project 
 +    * Clarity of timeline and milestones and how these are achieved 
 +    * Suitability of deliverables and assignment of work to team members 
 +    * Suitability of meeting schedule and approximate dates for at least two review meetings per student are given 
 +    * Amount of work is suitable for the credits and level of the module. 
 +  * Communication skills (20%): 
 +    * Quality of report writing and structure 
 +    * Clarity of expression without going into unnecessary detail 
 +    * Frontmatter contains all required information and the declaration
  
-All criteria carry the weight as indicated above for the mark of the team report and will be evaluated on the following scale: +All main criteria carry the weight as indicated above for the mark of the team report and will be evaluated on the following scale: 
-  * 70 - 100% - Excellent (rigorous, methodical, analytic, content meets all requirements of the work, very few errors or omissions) +  * **70 - 100% - Excellent** (rigorous, methodical, analytic, content meets all requirements of the work, very few errors or omissions) 
-  * 60 - 60% - Good (competent, reasoned, coherent, content very sound, few errors/omissions) +  * **60 - 60% - Good** (competent, reasoned, coherent, content very sound, few errors/omissions) 
-  * 50 - 59% - Fair (satisfactory, relevant, content meets many of the required elements, some errors and omissions) +  * **50 - 59% - Fair** (satisfactory, relevant, content meets many of the required elements, some errors and omissions) 
-  * 40 - 49% - Bare Pass (Passable, basic relevant content, weaknesses in execution errors or omissions) +  * **40 - 49% - Bare Pass** (Passable, basic relevant content, weaknesses in execution errors or omissions) 
-  * 0 - 39% - Fail (not passable, evident weaknesses, gaps in content, evident errors or omissions) +  * **1 - 39% - Fail** (not passable, evident weaknesses, gaps in content, evident errors or omissions) 
-  * 0% indicates that the team has not adequately covered the topic or addressed the issue.+  * **0%** indicates that the team has **not at all covered** the topic or addressed the issue.
 Supervisor and moderator will mark the report independently and your overall mark for the report is the average of the two marks. Supervisor and moderator will mark the report independently and your overall mark for the report is the average of the two marks.
  
 Supervisor and moderator will provide formal feedback about your report explaining any concerns they may have and their expectations regarding the aims and objectives and deliverables. You will further get informal feedback from your supervisor in your meetings. Make sure you consider this when executing the remainder of the project. Supervisor and moderator will provide formal feedback about your report explaining any concerns they may have and their expectations regarding the aims and objectives and deliverables. You will further get informal feedback from your supervisor in your meetings. Make sure you consider this when executing the remainder of the project.
  
 +Team Report coursework instructions: {{::cm3301-teamreport.odt|ODT}} {{::cm3301-teamreport.pdf|PDF}}

Page Tools

Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: CC Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International