|
|
Sprint 3 Marking Criteria
As with Sprint 2, 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 3 will be the sum of the individual criteria.
The marking critera of the components of Sprint 3 are:
- The overall quality of user/system documention (/5)
| 0 | Totally garbled |
| 1 | The document is: incoherently laid out; has little evidence of proof reading; inconsistent; difficult to use; very poorly written |
| 2 | The document has a little useful content but is seriously deficient on the other criteria; poorly written |
| 3 | A reasonable standard of presentation but has many small defects or content is imprecise or inconsistent |
| 4 | Very few errors in presentation |
| 5 | Remarkable job. Has high clarity and appeal |
- Acceptance Tests (/20)
| 0 | It was impossible to start the system at all |
| 1-4 | System did start up, but failed to work much at all |
| 5-8 | Some important features worked, but not reliably |
| 9-12 | A few essential facilities, about 40% of the value ($40), work reasonably reliably |
| 13-16 | A majority of the facilities, about 70% of the value ($70), work more or less |
| 17-19 | Pretty much everything that was planned was implemented and worked faultlessly |
| 20 | Perfection |
- Additional Features (/5)
These marks will only be awarded if more than 60% of the acceptance tests have
passed.
This is an opportunity for your group to show real virtuosity, but bells and
whistles should never be at the expense of solidly implementing the basic
functionality.
| 0 | No additional features |
| 1-2 | Some minor additional features |
| 3-4 | Many/Major worthwhile additional features |
| 5 | Wow |
|
