CSE 432 Requirements II Grading and Feedback Form
Part I: Grading
1. Project Information and Score
Current Development Stage: Requirements I
Assignment Value: 8% of course grade
Team Number:
Team Members:
Grader:
Score: / 100
2. Comments and Observations
[Accolades, questions, and concerns regarding the submitted document, and their implications for the project. Explanation of deductions made in grading the document, for example listing requirements and design forces that appear to have been missed.]
3. Suggestions and Feedback
[Thoughts from the professor and TAs that may help in subsequent stages of the project. For example, design patterns that may be worth considering for the second high level design stage, based on the requirements and design forces described in the requirements document.]
Part II: Grading Rubric
1. Problem Definition (25 points)
[Did the document give sufficient detail to convince the reader that the problem being addressed is (1) self-contained and appropriately scoped, and (2) suitably challenging in requiring non-trivial design, implementation, and evaluation decisions to be made and carried out at the appropriate development stages that will follow the requirements stage?]
2. Requirements (25 points)
[Did the document give concrete statements of how the defined problem will be addressed, in sufficient detail to convince the reader that meeting those requirements will result in a reasonable solution to that specific problem? Are there any major gaps in the requirements that will need to be filled before moving to high level design?
3. Design Forces (25 points)
[Do the design forces described adequately capture the design issues that will need to be addressed in moving from requirements to high level design? Are there missing forces that need to be added? Are the implications of the set of design forces described reasonable, or are any trade-offs overly difficult, which may indicate a need to reconsider one or more of the requirements?]
4. Evaluation Plan (25 points)
[Does the evaluation plan offer sufficient detail to convince the reader that following it will offer an adequate evaluation of the project’s success? Is the evaluation plan achievable, or are there any potential problems in conducting it or in interpreting or analyzing its potential results?]