|
|
Sprint 2 Marking Criteria
As with Sprint 1, clients are asked to bear in mind that maximum marks for a criterion, eg 5/5, should
only be awarded sparingly.
As before, the marks for group-based part of Sprint 2 will be the sum of the individual criteria.
The marking critera of the components of Sprint 2 are:
- Extent to which the goals for Sprint 2 were met (/10).
| 0 | Nothing to show |
| 1-3 | About 25% of the goals have been completed, or more, but less well |
| 4-6 | About 50% of the goals have been completed, or more, but less well |
| 7-9 | About 75% of the goals have been completed, or more, but less well |
| 10 | Everything done, and completed to an exceptional standard |
- Quality of the retrospective (from the client's perspective) (/5)
This is not about whether the goals of Sprint 1 were met, but the quality of the Teams
assessment about process of meeting those goals. What went well? What did not go so well?
What can be improved?
| 0 | Nothing to show |
| 1 | A rudimentary or very abbreviated discussion |
| 2 | A reasonable discussion, but with significant omissions or other issues |
| 3 | A reasonable discussion with some insights |
| 4 | A superior discussion with evidence of solid understanding of the what has occurred and the processes going forward |
| 5 | Utterly outstanding |
- Coherence and reasonablenesss of the set of next set of goals (stories) (/5)
| 0 | No plan |
| 1 | Incoherent set of goals that bear little relationship to desired final outomes |
| 2 | Sprint 3 goals bear some relationship to final outcome |
| 3 | Sprint 3 goals clearly heading to final outcome, but are either too close (essentially just final goal recapitulated) or too unambitious, leaving far too much for the final Sprint |
| 4 | A solid set of goals, with appropriate phasing, but something missing |
| 5 | An extremely solid plan |
|
