A checklist for grading the second software engineering report

Report format described here

Points will be deducted from the maximum possible score if the following issues are found in the report.

Project Management—typical issues:    (max score: 10 points)

  1. project was apparently poorly managed, because the report is of substandard quality
  2. the perceived novelty of the project is low
  3. unfocused project with too many (unrelated) features that are haphazardly conceived and superficially designed
  4. poor and inconsistent writing, different styles, difficult to read and understand
  5. it is clear that different sections were created by a different students who did not bother to make any explicit connections in their diagrams and text to other sections of the report
  6. diagrams unclear, unintelligible, UML diagrams created using different tools
  7. lack of consistency and traceability between the requirements, use cases, user interface, and the domain model
  8. report is incomplete, not self-contained and no references are provided to additional relevant information
  9. missing page labeling (pagination), section headings, section numbering is messed up, figures and tables are not labeled, missing captions, or not described and referenced in the text
  10. the report is not following the prescribed format
  11. different diagramming tools used for different UML diagrams, but without explaining why this was necessary
  12. some diagrams are impossible to read; even worse, there is so much white space left on the margins around them
  13. your project is heavily relying on a third-party hardware or software platform, but you are not providing adequate information about that platform, which makes it is hard to read your report. You do not need to give tutorials on third-party systems, but at least say in your references where such tutorials can be found. Also, a brief comment (one sentence) on each concept or construct from third-party systems would help improve the readability of your report
  14. Other: ______________________________

Section 6: Domain Modeling Analysis—typical issues:    (max score: 20 points)

  1. the report shows a lack of understanding of what the domain model is and how it is to be derived
  2. poor modular design:  there are fewer (or much fewer!) domain concepts than use cases or system requirements—this implies that concepts are too coarse grained and are assigned too many responsibilities per concept
  3. unclear or not explained how the concepts/attributes/associations were derived
  4. poor choice of concepts and concept names, such as “login”, “buy”, “sell”, etc. (concept name should be a noun-phrase, such that it represents the role for a given concept)
  5. methods/functions shown as concepts or elements of concepts—although functions are “modules,” in object-oriented domain modeling we focus on identifying objects, not their methods or stand-alone functions
    if you are using functional programming for your modular design, this fact must be explicitly stated
  6. some concepts have unclear/undefined responsibility, or a disproportionally large responsibility, or too many responsibilities, resulting in a poor modular design
  7. missing specification of the protocol for communicating with other systems (used by your system but developed by 3rd party)
  8. traceability matrix missing or inaccurate, or no description provided;  some concepts appeared out of nowhere and are not responding to the use cases and elements of the user interface
  9. system operation contracts are mostly trivial (no effort was made to identify significant potential issues that need to be enforced by a contract)
  10. contracts are missing for some preconditions/postconditions identified in detailed use cases that evidently must be enforced by contracts
  11. mathematical model missing, but apparently should be present
  12. terms specific to the problem domain are used in the domain model, but they are not defined in the glossary
  13. Other: ______________________________

Section 7: Interaction Diagrams—typical issues:    (max score: 20 points)

  1. the diagrams in your Report #2 seem to have been invented independently of all analysis that you did for Report #1;
    in particular,  some concepts from the Domain Model (Report #1) do not appear in any of the interaction diagrams and there is no explanation why they are omitted (see more details about traceability)
  2. it is not clear a particular UML sequence diagrams relate to one another, particularly where these diagrams originate and where they end in the context of the system sequence diagrams anduse cases for this project (Report #1)
  3. diagrams are shown alone, with none or inadequate description of each diagram
  4. it is not explicity stated with which system method (in the context of the system sequence diagrams) a particular sequence diagram originates—what is the initiating event?
    refer to a system sequence diagram from Report #1 and say which system method you're elaborating with your current interaction diagram
  5. concepts that you identified in your domain model (Report #1) are not used in your sequence diagrams; new concepts are introduced without explanation of how they relate to the domain model of Report #1
  6. some objects/classes are never explained, they just pop up out of nowhere; much guesswork is needed for reading your report;
    although it is acceptable to introduce new concepts/objects that were not introduced in the Domain Model (Report #1), the new concepts must be described and justified
  7. the names of classes/objects/methods/variable are unintuitive and they are not defined or described
  8. the description of a UML diagram does not refer to specific elements of the diagram, so it is difficult to connect to the diagram that it supposedly describes
  9. the project uses the Web architectural style (client running in a browser and connecting to a server), but in sequence diagrams it is not clear where the client-side ends and where the server-side begins
  10. the project uses classes from a third-party, but the attribution is not clear and the sources are not properly credited
  11. Other: ______________________________

Section 8: Class Diagram and Interface Specification—typical issues:    (max score: 10 points)

  1. class diagram and method signatures are provided without text description of classes, methods and attributes—each class, method and attribute must be defined
  2. class diagram is split and shown on several pages to improve readability (which is fine), but the connection points are not indicated and it is unclear how diagrams connect to each other and how they form a single program
  3. multiple class diagrams are shown, but it is not explained how they relate to one another
  4. association links in the class diagram(s) are not shown (inheritance, aggregation, navigation, ...), inadequately labeled, or not described—provide some text to explain your diagrams
  5. traceability matrix missing or not described
  6. some classes cannot be traced back to a domain concept and explanation is missing as to why new classes are introduced
  7. some concepts from the domain model do not have corresponding classes in the class diagram, and there is no explanation why so
  8. Other: ______________________________

Section 9: Algorithms and Data Structures)—typical issues:    (max score: 5 points, if applicable)

  1. algorithms for mathematical models from Report #1 are missing
  2. algorithms used in your project are inadequately described—some things are simply not describable precisely in plain language—provide clear diagrams, classical flowcharts or better, use UML activity diagrams
  3. Other: ______________________________

Section 10: User Interface Design and Implementation—typical issues:    (max score: 10 points)

  1. none or little visible progress made compared to the user interface description from your Report #1
  2. no sketches of visual appearance provided for different screens
  3. some screens unexplained or unclear description
  4. the navigation path through the screens is unclear or missing
  5. not described how each component of the user interface addresses the specific requirements (referred by their label);
    difficult to see how the user interface will support the execution of your use cases
  6. all of the estimations are vague and shown just as “variable keystrokes”—you should instead analyze the user effort with some sample typical input sequence
  7. Other: ______________________________

Section 11: Design of Tests—typical issues:    (max score: 10 points)

  1. misguided claim that “our system doesn’t require testing” — how else can you know that it works?!
  2. no systematic approach to the system testing is presented:  tests appear to be random
  3. only acceptance tests for use cases are provided, but unit tests for modules or classes are missing
  4. test coverage not analyzed or the analysis is inadequate
  5. Other: ______________________________

Section 12: Plan of Work—typical issues:    (max score: 5 points)

  1. no timeline diagram, or the diagram is cluttered and difficult to read
  2. breakdown of responsibilities missing, or uneven (some students assumed disproportionate responsibilities), or fuzzy
  3. Other: ______________________________

Section 13: References—typical issues:    (up to 5 negative points)

  1. your references are totally inadequate; it is clear from your report that you have drawn on many sources, but you never mentioned any of them
  2. there is generally an issue of attribution in your report. Your reference list is extremely thin, but there seems to be so many great ideas that you are mentioning, and you do not offer any evidence that you invented all of them
  3. only URL without a title shown
  4. some parts of text or figures or design ideas appear to be adopted from elsewhere, but citations are missing—for anything that you did not invent and is not part of general knowledge, a reference should be cited
  5. references not cited by number or author’s name, or otherwise mentioned in the main document
  6. Other: ______________________________

BACK TO:

Mike Mireku Kwakye
Mon Nov 27 16:14:16 EDT 2023