Sunteți pe pagina 1din 8

Course: COMP1714 Software Engineering Contribution: 50% of course

Management
82: Software Engineering Management - Term 1 - PDF file required
MAC
Greenwich Course Leader: Dr Simon Scola Due date: 12th November
2019

This coursework should take an average student who is up-to-date with tutorial work
approximately 25 hours

Learning Outcomes:
ALL

Plagiarism is presenting somebody else’s work as your own. It


includes: copying information directly from the Web or books without
referencing the material; submitting joint coursework as an individual
effort; copying another student’s coursework; stealing or buying
coursework from someone else and submitting it as your own
work. Suspected plagiarism will be investigated and if found to have
occurred will be dealt with according to the procedures set down by the
University.

All material copied or amended from any source (e.g. internet,


books) must be referenced correctly according to the reference
style you are using.

Your work will be submitted for electronic plagiarism


checking. Any attempt to bypass our plagiarism detection
systems will be treated as a severe Assessment Offence.

Coursework Submission Requirements

 An electronic copy of your work for this coursework should be fully


uploaded by midnight (local time) on the Deadline Date.
 The last version you upload will be the one that is marked.
 For this coursework you must submit a single Acrobat PDF document. In
general, any text in the document must not be an image (i.e. must not be
scanned) and would normally be generated from other documents (e.g.
MS Office using "Save As .. PDF").
 There are limits on the file size. The current limits are displayed on the
coursework submission page on the Intranet
 Make sure that any files you upload are virus-free and not protected by a
password or corrupted otherwise they will be treated as null submissions.
 Comments on your work will be available from the Coursework page on
the Intranet. The grade will be made available in the portal.
 You must NOT submit a paper copy of this coursework.
08/12/2019 Page 1 of 8
 All coursework must be submitted as above

The University website has details of the current Coursework Regulations,


including details of penalties for late submission, procedures for Extenuating
Circumstances, and penalties for Assessment
Offences. See http://www2.gre.ac.uk/current-students/regs for details.

08/12/2019 Page 2 of 8
Specification

This is an individual coursework


Part 1 (40%):

You are to research and prepare a section of your report describing the application of quality
assurance to your work.

For this task you are required to perform some quality assurance on your coursework. You should
document as a detailed section in your coursework how you will ensure both process and product
quality. This should include the development of a quality plan for your work and a review of your
plan once the work is complete.

As part of the quality process, you should give a presentation that facilitates the review of your quality
plan. You are required to deliver the presentation formally and should also include it as part of your
coursework.

Summary of Report - Part 1 (40%)

This part your coursework should include the following:

1. A description of your process and product quality assurance procedure for your
coursework. This should include a description of any change control that you have
employed.
2. A description of your 5 minute presentation (approximately 5 slides) aims/objectives, the
power point slides, and a critical review.
3. A review of your quality assurance procedures.

Your QA plan should guide your production of Part 2

08/12/2019 Page 3 of 8
Part 2 (60%):

You are to submit an academic style paper.

Brief:
In his seminal paper “No Silver Bullet – Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering1” Fred
Brooks Jr. questioned whether there could be a “silver bullet” that could lay to rest the monsters of
missed schedules, blown budgets and flawed products. He argued that software development is
ultimately reliant on good designers and good managers and so advances in technology and
methodology such as object-orientated analysis and design or programming languages can never give
more than marginal gains. He concluded that “Building software will always be hard. There is
inherently no silver bullet.”

However, that paper was written nearly thirty years ago and in that time there have been a number of
advances which claim to specifically address the problems of large scale systems development.

You are to research and prepare a report on one of these techniques from the following list:
 Python,
 Semantic Programing.

Your report should be an academic style discussion that critically evaluates the technique’s value in
light of software engineering’s inherent problems and concludes by discussing how far the technology
does, or does not, go toward supporting the view expressed by Brooks in the quotation given above.

The report should have solid academic content and you should therefore base your discussion on at
least one refereed paper from a leading computing or software engineering journal such as IEEE
Software, IEEE Computing or Communications of the ACM.

The paper in Part 2 should following typical format of a formal academic paper. You may consider
looking at the ‘information for authors’ found in all referred archived journals for examples of
formatting and layout. An example of the IEEE style manual and article templates can be found at
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/authors/authors_journals.html

1
Brooks Jr., F. P., “No Silver Bullet: Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering”,
Computer, Vol. 20(4), (April 1987) pp. 10-19. (A copy of this can be found online)
08/12/2019 Page 4 of 8
Deliverables:
You are required to deliver a two part report as follows:

Section 1 (worth 40% of the total marks):

A report detailing your quality assurance produced in producing this work (around 3-5 pages).
This should include:

 A quality plan for the production of your essay in Section 2.


 A description of your 5 minute QA presentation aims/objectives, the power point slides
(approximately 5 slides), and a critical review of your presentation.
 A review of the quality assurance plan process itself.

Section 2 (worth 60% of the total marks):

A report of between 1,500 and 2,000 words arranged in the following order:

1 Title
2 Author name, degree program and email address
3 An abstract description of your paper,
4 The main body of your, suitably divided under headings and where necessary, sub-headings
(for example, Introduction, Discussion, Conclusions, Evaluation, Future Work)
5 Acknowledgements (if any)
6 References (Harvard standard)
7 Appendices including a glossary of terms and list of acronyms used (if any).

The paper in Section 2 should following typical format of a formal academic paper.

08/12/2019 Page 5 of 8
Assessment Criteria

This is a level six degree coursework and therefore, as well as a demonstrating that you have learnt some
facts or skills, you are being assessed on your ability to research, think and reason and then articulate your
findings and conclusions.

You will be assessed on the following points:

Knowledge & Comprehension:


 A clear demonstration of background reading and research into the issues discussed.
 A demonstration of your understanding of the field, i.e. clearly identifying and enumerating the
fundamental issues, use of correct terminology and facts including knowledge of the existence and names
of methods, classifications, abstractions, generalizations and theories.
 Discussion summarizing the topic area and ability to extrapolate beyond the given situation.
 Can explain or summarize information giving a good account of work done by others and reporting ideas
intelligibly with accuracy and thoroughness and without introducing gross distortions

Analysis, Application & Synthesis


 Able to apply abstractions in particular and concrete situations, e.g. use of examples to illustrate and
support your argument.
 General organizational structures can be identified
 Assumptions can be recognized.
 Can produce sensible, reasoned and substantiated criticism and suggest alternatives
 Does not indulge in pointless and unsubstantiated criticism
 Able to combine elements or parts in such a way as to produce a pattern or structure that was not clearly
there before

Evaluation / critique
 Demonstration of insight
 A strong argument supporting or rejecting the technique with a sound conclusion given your stated
premises.
 Can make qualitative and quantitative judgments about the value of methods, processes or artefacts.

Consider how these will be met within your academic paper

08/12/2019 Page 6 of 8
Grading Criteria
Specifically the following marking guidelines will be used for the assessment:

70..100% 1st Class.


This level demonstrates strong critique.
In addition to the criteria of lower classifications work at this level must demonstrate
significant substantiated critique and insight. Strong academic assertions are made.

The QA plan contains both excellent project management and well specified quality
objectives that are excellent and relevant. Section 1 is complete.

60 … 70% Upper-second class


This level demonstrates strong synthesis, analysis and application, knowledge and
comprehension, weak critique.
Provides some critique and insight but its not well supported by evidence or logic. Provides
relevant contextual examples of the techniques to support the discussion, such examples are
mostly based on evidence or sound logic. The combination of work demonstrates good
synthesis and generates additional information beyond the original sources. Occasional
strong academic assertions are made. The student demonstrates and clear analytical
approach to answering the question posed.

The QA plan contains either excellent project management and somewhat relevant, well
specified quality objectives or vice-versa. Section 1 is complete.

50 … 60% Lower-second class


This level demonstrates occasional examples of application and, analysis and strong
knowledge and comprehension, little or no synthesis or critique.
Some attempt is made to give relevant examples of the technique but they are somewhat
weak and lack supporting evidence or are logically unsound. Some spurious assertions are
made in addition to the occasional strong argument. The student demonstrates strong
knowledge and comprehension. An attempt at analysis is made but the approach lacks
consistency or design. The work does not add much beyond the original sources.

The QA plan contains either some project management or some relevant quality objectives
but they are incomplete. Some deliverable may be absent.

40 … 50% Third class.


This level demonstrates the occasional presentation of relevant knowledge and
comprehension applied and contextualised to the question posed, absent or unsound
synthesis, analysis and critique. The student demonstrates sufficient knowledge and
comprehension. This includes the use of academic sources of information to present
information accurately. The paper fails to make relevant examples and/or the examples are
unsound.

The QA plan makes an attempt at project management and quality objectives but they are in
places quite weak and erroneous. Deliverables are absent but those provided are of sufficient
quality to warrant a pass.

08/12/2019 Page 7 of 8
0 … 40% Fail
This level demonstrates unsound presentation of relevant knowledge and comprehension
applied and/or the presentation of material is not contextualised to the question posed,
absent or unsound synthesis, analysis and critique.
Does not demonstrate accurate reporting of information. The references are unsound.
Does not answer the question posed.

The QA plan is incomplete. The plan does not provide project management and/or quality
objectives. A factual presentation without application to the specific task of writing an
academic paper warrants a failure.

YOUR ATTENTION IS ONCE AGAIN DRAWN TO THE UNIVERSITY RULES ON


PLAGIARISM

08/12/2019 Page 8 of 8

S-ar putea să vă placă și