DD1363, Mjukvarukonstruktion

Aktuell kursomgång: period 2-4 07/08

Kursledare: Rand Waltzman
Datorpostadress(er): rand@nada.kth.se

Project Overview Document (POD) Review Instructions

You will review the Project Overview Documents for 3 other groups. These reviews will not be anonymous – you must stand for what you say. This page contains instructions on how to do the reviews and the exact format of the form that you will fill out for each review. You will then send a copy of each review in a pdf file to the respective group coordinators of the PODs you review and one copy of all three reviews, combined into a single pdf file, to us. Each pdf file should be called “PODReviewGroup<X>”. The addresses of the group coordinators can be found here.

There will be 100 points possible distributed over a number of categories as indicated below. For each item, indicate the score followed by your rational.

1. (15) Who are the users and what problem does the system solve for them?

a. (3) Do they clearly explain who the users are?

b. (2) Do you think that the defined set of users is complete or are there other types of users not mentioned that have the same problem and would clearly benefit from the solution being offered?

c. (2) Do you think the set of users is consistent in the sense that it is reasonable to build a system that will adequately address the needs of all users?

d. (4) Do they clearly explain the problem they will solve?

e. (4) Do they clearly make the case that the problem solution provides real value to the users?

2. (25) The main uses of the system. (Scores shown are per usage narrative – comment on only two narratives if more are included.)

a. (10) Does each usage narrative give you a clear understanding of some aspect or set of aspects of the use of the system?

1. (5) Answer for first narrative.

2. (5) Answer for second narrative.

b. (8) Does each usage narrative make a clear connection between the usage being shown in the narrative and the problem being solved as described in Section 1?

1. (4) Answer for first narrative.

2. (4) Answer for second narrative.

c. (6) Does each usage narrative make a clear connection between the usage being shown and users defined in Section 1?

1. (3) Answer for first narrative.

2. (3) Answer for the second narrative.

3. (15) The context/environment in which the system is to be used.

a. (5) Is the description clear?

b. (5) Does the description contain all essential features? Have they taken into account all relevant features of the context/environment given the problem they are going to solve and their intended users?

c. (5) Have they excluded features of the environment/context that do not seem relevant?

4. (15) The scope of the system.

a. (5) Is the meaning of each item in the in/out list clear? Do you get a clear sense of the boundaries of the system, i.e., which aspects of the stated problem will and will not be addressed by the system.

b. (5) Have they included all items that you feel are required to solve the stated problem?

c. (5) Do they exclude all non-essential items.

5. (15) The main factors that need to be taken in to account when designing and building the system.

a. (5) Is the meaning of each factor clear?

b. (5) Have they included all factors relevant to the stated purpose of the system?

c. (5) Have they excluded irrelevant factors?

6. (15) Technologies and Risks

a. (5) Does the list contain all technologies that will be required?

b. (5) Does the list contain technologies that do not seem essential to the project?

c. (5) Is the risk of using each technology clearly explained.

The exact format of the review will be as follows:

Review of POD for Group <X>

Total Score: <total score>

<total score for 1>

<score for 1a>
<justification>
<score for 1b>
<justification>
<score for 1c>
<justification>
<score for 1d>
<justification>
<score for 1e>
<justification>

<total score for 2>

<score for 2a>
<justification>

Etc.

The PODs for review are listed below. The algorithm for deciding which POD you are supposed to review is simple. If you are in Group N, you will review PODs from Groups N+1, N+2, and N+3 (cycle back to Group 1 if this algorithm puts you past Group 24). The only exception to this rule is that Group 15 is missing. Simply skip over that group to 16 if you are supposed to do 15. Even though all members of each group review the same set of PODs, you are on your honor to write the reviews individually. Once they are written and submitted, feel free to discuss the reviews with the others members of your group to compare notes.