Assessment Brief: BIS3003 IS Capstone Industry Project A Trimester 3, 2021 Assessment Overview Assessment TaskTypeWeightingDueLengthULOAssessment 1: Project Definition and Scope The report defines the problem, describing the background and context, and detailing the scope of the project to be undertaken.Individual 10%Week 3 1500 wordsULO1 ULO2Assessment 2: Requirements Analysis Students submit a report covering their requirements analysis for the project.Individual20%Week 6 1500 wordsULO2 ULO3Assessment 3: Project Reflection Reflection on the student’s journey in the unit focused on (a) the skills and knowledge they were able to draw on from earlier parts of the course; (b) the areas where they needed development and how they addressed those; (c) how they would approach a project like this next time; (d) considerations for BIS3006 IS Capstone Industry Project BIndividual 30%First: Week 7 and Second: Week 12 2*1000 wordsULO5Assessment 4: Report and Oral Defence Students prepare and the Project Design, Feasibility Analysis, and Initial Implementation Plan and present and defend their solution design through an oral defence.Group Invigilated40%Week 11 3000 words Presentation 15 minutes maximum; 15 slides maximum (1500 word equiv.)ULO1 ULO2 ULO3 ULO4 Assessment 1: Project Definition and Scope Due date:Week 3Group/individual:IndividualWord count/Time provided:10%Weighting:1500 wordsUnit Learning Outcomes:ULO1, ULO2 Assessment 1 Detail Assessment 1: Project Definition and Scope The report defines the problem, describing the background and context, and detailing the scope of the project to be undertaken. Assessment 1 Marking Criteria and Rubric The assessment will be marked out of 10 and will be weighted 10% of the total unit mark. The marking criteria and rubric are shown on the following page. Assessment 1 Marking Criteria and Rubric Marking CriteriaNot Satisfactory (0-49% of the criterion mark)Satisfactory (50-64% of the criterion mark)Good (65-74% of the criterion mark)Very Good (75-84% of the criterion mark)Excellent (85-100% of the criterion mark)Criterion -1 (1 mark) Does the business case is established for the project proposal, and the project scope described .Business case is not established for the project proposal, and the project scope is not describedBusiness case is established for the project proposal, and the project scope generally describedBusiness case is established for the project proposal, and the project scope describedBusiness case is established for the project proposal, and the project scope clearly describedBusiness case is established for the project proposal, and the project scope clearly and specifically described .Criterion-2 (1 mark) Does project charter identifies your goal and sets out the work commitments expected of youProject charter is not identifies your goal and sets out the work commitments expected of youProject charter is generally identifies your goal and sets out the work commitments expected of youProject charter is identifies your goal and sets out the work commitments expected of youProject charter is clearly identifies your goal and sets out the work commitments expected of youProject charter is clearly and specifically identifies your goal and sets out the work commitments expected of youCriterion-4 (8 marks) Does the Vision document demonstrate the ability of spelling out the core idea and the business case justifying the development effort.Business case is not addressed and captures the business value of the proposed system. All stakeholders is not identified. Business needs is not expressed. Functional and Non-functional requirements are related to business needs and identified. Business case is addressed and vaguely captures the business value of the proposed system. Some stakeholders identified. Business needs generally expressed. Some Functional and Non-functional requirements are related to business needs and identified. Business case is addressed and captures the business value of the proposed system. All stakeholders identified. Business needs expressed. Functional and Non-functional requirements are related to business needs and identified. Business case is clearly addressed and captures the business value of the proposed system. All stakeholders clearly identified. Business needs clearly expressed. Functional and Non-functional requirements are related to business needs and clearly and specifically identified. Business case is clearly and specifically addressed and captures the business value of the proposed system. All stakeholders clearly and specifically identified. Business needs clearly and specifically expressed. Functional and Non-functional requirements are related to business needs and clearly and specifically identified. Assessment 2: Requirements Analysis Due date:Week 6Group/individual:IndividualWord count/Time provided:1500 wordsWeighting:20%Unit Learning Outcomes:ULO2, ULO3 Assessment 2 Detail Assessment 2: Requirements Analysis Students submit a report covering their requirements analysis for the project. Assessments 2 Marking Criteria and Rubric The assessment will be marked out of 20 and will be weighted 20% of the total unit mark. The marking criteria and rubric are shown on the following page. Assessment 2 Marking Criteria and Rubric Marking CriteriaNot Satisfactory (0-49% of the criterion mark)Satisfactory (50-64% of the criterion mark)Good (65-74% of the criterion mark)Very Good (75-84% of the criterion mark)Excellent (85-100% of the criterion mark)Criterion (5 marks) Does the Interaction Model helps to identify user requirements? Does modelling of highlights the communication problems that may arise. Does Modelling the component interaction helps in understanding if a proposed system structure is likely to deliver the required system performance and dependability. No critical and minor Use Cases identified Some critical and minor Use Cases identified and correctly named. The identified Use Cases completely consistent with needs and features of your proposed system. The use case diagram built including all identified use cases. The use case descriptions provided for all identified use. All Use case diagrams built that show clear and significant interactions between a system and its environment. Sequence diagrams built that show clear and significant interactions between actors and the system and between system components.Several critical and minor Use Cases identified and correctly named. The identified Use Cases completely consistent with needs and features of your proposed system. The use case diagram built including all identified use cases. The use case descriptions provided for all identified use. All Use case diagrams built that show clear and significant interactions between a system and its environment. Sequence diagrams built that show clear and significant interactions between actors and the system and between system components.Almost critical and minor Use Cases identified and correctly named. The identified Use Cases completely consistent with needs and features of your proposed system. The use case diagram built including all identified use cases. The use case descriptions provided for all identified use. All Use case diagrams built that show clear and significant interactions between a system and its environment. Sequence diagrams built that show clear and significant interactions between actors and the system and between system components.All critical and minor Use Cases identified and correctly named. The identified Use Cases completely consistent with needs and features of your proposed system. The use case diagram built including all identified use cases. The use case descriptions provided for all identified use. All Use case diagrams built that show clear and significant interactions between a system and its environment. Sequence diagrams built that show clear and significant interactions between actors and the system and between system components.Criterion (5 marks) Does the structural model of the software display the organization of a system in terms of the components that make up that system and their relationships?. Does it show the dynamic models, which show the organization of the system when it is executing?. No critical and minor classes identified Some critical and minor classes identified based on the identified requirements and correctly named. All Domain Class diagrams built and show the object classes in the system and the associations between these classes. Relationships between domain objects correct. Completely correct concept of inheritance and aggregation/composition shown (if appropriate). All domain class diagrams built without concerning about the implementation detail. No application concepts such as databases or user interfaces present in domain model.Several critical and minor classes identified based on the identified requirements and correctly named. All Domain Class diagrams built and show the object classes in the system and the associations between these classes. Relationships between domain objects correct. Completely correct concept of inheritance and aggregation/composition shown (if appropriate). All domain class diagrams built without concerning about the implementation detail. No application concepts such as databases or user interfaces present in domain model.Almost critical and minor classes identified based on the identified requirements and correctly named. All Domain Class diagrams built and show the object classes in the system and the associations between these classes. Relationships between domain objects correct. Completely correct concept of inheritance and aggregation/composition shown (if appropriate). All domain class diagrams built without concerning about the implementation detail. No application concepts such as databases or user interfaces present in domain model.All critical and minor classes identified based on the identified requirements and correctly named. All Domain Class diagrams built and show the object classes in the system and the associations between these classes. Relationships between domain objects correct. Completely correct concept of inheritance and aggregation/composition shown (if appropriate). All domain class diagrams built without concerning about the implementation detail. No application concepts such as databases or user interfaces present in domain model.Criterion (5 marks) Does the behavioural models Show the dynamic behavior of a system as it is executing. Show what happens or what is supposed to happen when a system responds to a stimulus from its environment.No activity diagrams builtSome activity diagrams built and clearly and significantly show the sequence of actions involved in processing input data and generating an associated output. All state machine diagrams built and clearly and significantly Shows how a system responds to external and internal events. All state machine diagrams built based on the assumption and that events may cause a transition from one state to another. Several activity diagrams built and clearly and significantly show the sequence of actions involved in processing input data and generating an associated output. All state machine diagrams built and clearly and significantly Shows how a system responds to external and internal events. All state machine diagrams built based on the assumption and that events may cause a transition from one state to another. Almost activity diagrams built and clearly and significantly show the sequence of actions involved in processing input data and generating an associated output. All state machine diagrams built and clearly and significantly Shows how a system responds to external and internal events. All state machine diagrams built based on the assumption and that events may cause a transition from one state to another. All activity diagrams built and clearly and significantly show the sequence of actions involved in processing input data and generating an associated output. All state machine diagrams built and clearly and significantly Shows how a system responds to external and internal events. All state machine diagrams built based on the assumption and that events may cause a transition from one state to another. Criterion (5 marks) Does the analysis of non-functional requirements demonstrate an ability to identify, quantify, prioritise, and communicate required system qualities? No critical and significant Non-Functional requirements Some critical and significant Non-Functional requirements addressed and justified. Prioritisation of them clearly and correctly justified against specific needs of project. Costs and benefits of addressing all of them clearly identified and discussed in relation to specific needs of project. All critical and significant external interfaces identified. All critical and significant system constraints identified.Several critical and significant Non-Functional requirements addressed and justified. Prioritisation of them clearly and correctly justified against specific needs of project. Costs and benefits of addressing all of them clearly identified and discussed in relation to specific needs of project. All critical and significant external interfaces identified. All critical and significant system constraints identified.Almost critical and significant Non-Functional requirements addressed and justified. Prioritisation of them clearly and correctly justified against specific needs of project. Costs and benefits of addressing all of them clearly identified and discussed in relation to specific needs of project. All critical and significant external interfaces identified. All critical and significant system constraints identified.All critical and significant Non-Functional requirements addressed and justified. Prioritisation of them clearly and correctly justified against specific needs of project. Costs and benefits of addressing all of them clearly identified and discussed in relation to specific needs of project. All critical and significant external interfaces identified. All critical and significant system constraints identified. Assessment 3: Project Reflection Due date:First: Week 7 and Second: Week 12Group/individual:IndividualWord count/Time provided:2*1000 wordsWeighting:30%Unit Learning Outcomes:ULO5 Assessment 3 Detail Assessment 3: Project Reflection Reflection on the student’s journey in the unit focused on (a) the skills and knowledge they were able to draw on from earlier parts of the course; (b) the areas where they needed development and how they addressed those; (c) how they would approach a project like this next time; (d) considerations for BIS3006 IS Capstone Industry Project B Assessments 3 Marking Criteria and Rubric The assessment will be marked out of 30 and will be weighted 30% of the total unit mark. The marking criteria and rubric are shown on the following page. Part-A Marking CriteriaNot Satisfactory (0-49% of the criterion mark)Satisfactory (50-64% of the criterion mark)Good (65-74% of the criterion mark)Very Good (75-84% of the criterion mark)Excellent (85-100% of the criterion mark)Criterion (5 marks) Does the initial project architecture design plan set an achievable schedule to achieve the desired project results? The plan is not clear in regard to the project. The plan is fairly clear in regard to the project. The plan fairly clearly and specific identifies the main structural components in a system and the relationships between them. The plan is fairly clear in linking between the design and requirements model. The plan shows clearly when each architectural element and element of functionality will be delivered as iteration targets. All identified risk mitigation strategies are accounted for Contingency planning is thorough.The plan is clear in regard to the project. The plan clearly identifies the main structural components in a system and the relationships between them. The plan is clear in linking between the design and requirements model. The plan shows clearly when each architectural element and element of functionality will be delivered as iteration targets. All identified risk mitigation strategies are accounted for Contingency planning is thorough.The plan is clear in and fairly specific regard to the project. The plan clearly and fairly specific identifies the main structural components in a system and the relationships between them. The plan is clear and fairly specific in linking between the design and requirements model. The plan shows clearly when each architectural element and element of functionality will be delivered as iteration targets. All identified risk mitigation strategies are accounted for Contingency planning is thorough.The plan is clear and specific in regard to the project. The plan clearly and specific identifies the main structural components in a system and the relationships between them. The plan is clear and specific in linking between the design and requirements model. The plan shows clearly when each architectural element and element of functionality will be delivered as iteration targets. All identified risk mitigation strategies are accounted for Contingency planning is thorough. Part-B Marking CriteriaNot Satisfactory (0-49% of the criterion mark)Satisfactory (50-64% of the criterion mark)Good (65-74% of the criterion mark)Very Good (75-84% of the criterion mark)Excellent (85-100% of the criterion mark)Criterion (5 marks) Does the layer model organize the major components that make up the system and their interactions? Layered model is not organised the sub-systems. Layered model is organised the sub-systems. Layered model organised the system into a set of layers, each of which provide a set of services.Layered model is clear organised the sub-systems. Layered model organised the system into a set of layers, each of which provide a set of services.Layered model is fairly clear and specifically organised the sub-systems. Layered model organised the system into a set of layers, each of which provide a set of services.Layered model is clear and specifically organised the sub-systems. Layered model organised the system into a set of layers, each of which provide a set of services.Criterion (5 marks) Does thestructural models Show logical groupings of objects into coherent subsystems?There is no design class diagrams .Some design class diagram with each subsystem shown as a package with enclosed objects.Several design class diagram with each subsystem shown as a package with enclosed objects.Almost design class diagram with each subsystem shown as a package with enclosed objects.All design class diagram with each subsystem shown as a package with enclosed objects.Criterion (5 marks) Does the dynamic models build in early stage of the design process?Sequence models are not designed Some Sequence models clearly and specifically designed and showed the object interactions. All State machine models clearly and specifically designed and Showed how individual objects change their state in response to events.Several Sequence models clearly and specifically designed and showed the object interactions. All State machine models clearly and specifically designed and Showed how individual objects change their state in response to events.Almost Sequence models clearly and specifically designed and showed the object interactions. All State machine models clearly and specifically designed and Showed how individual objects change their state in response to events.All Sequence models clearly and specifically designed and showed the object interactions. All State machine models clearly and specifically designed and Showed how individual objects change their state in response to events.Criterion (5 marks) Does the interfaces specify so that objects and subsystems can be designed in parallel.?Component interfaces are not defined Some Component interfaces defined precisely so that other objects can use them. All system and user interfaces defined. . Several Component interfaces defined precisely so that other objects can use them. All system and user interfaces defined. Almost Component interfaces defined precisely so that other objects can use them. All system and user interfaces defined. All Component interfaces defined precisely so that other objects can use them. All system and user interfaces defined. Criterion (5s marks) Does the relational data model and data dictionary build for all subsystems? data base tables and the data dictionary are not identifiedSome data base tables and the data dictionary are identifiedSeveral data base tables and the data dictionary are identifiedAlmost data base tables and the data dictionary are identifiedAll data base tables and the data dictionary are identified Assessment 4 Marking Criteria and Rubric Assessment 4: Report and Oral Defence Due date:Week 11Group/individual: GroupWord count/Time provided: 3000 wordsWeighting: 40%Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO1, ULO2, ULO3, ULO4 Assessment 4 Detail Assessment 4: Report and Oral Defence Students prepare and the Project Design, Feasibility Analysis, and Initial Implementation Plan and present and defend their solution design through an oral defence. Assessments 4 Marking Criteria and Rubric The assessment will be marked out of 40 and will be weighted 40% of the total unit mark. The marking criteria and rubric are shown on the following page. Assessment 4 Marking Criteria and Rubric Marking CriteriaNot Satisfactory (0-49% of the criterion mark)Satisfactory (50-64% of the criterion mark)Good (65-74% of the criterion mark)Very Good (75-84% of the criterion mark)Excellent (85-100% of the criterion mark)Criterion (2.5 marks) Does the revised Vision give a clear idea of the business case and final functional and non-functional requirements of the project The Vision has not been updated even though the expected outcomes of the project clearly need to be revised.The Vision has been partially updated to reflect a few changes in project scope.The Vision has been updated to reflect some changes in project scope.The Vision has been updated to reflect most changes in project scope.The Vision has been thoroughly updated to reflect any and all changes in project scope.Criterion (2.5 marks) Does the report demonstrate the skills in Feasibility Analysis? Does the revised requirement model clearly define the functional, non-functional, and data requirements for the project? Report hasn’t provide a demonstration about the skills in Feasibility Analysis. . The requirement model has not been updated even though the functional, non-functional, and data requirements for the project clearly need to be revised.Reporting demonstrates the basic skills in Feasibility Analysis, and present and justified their solution. The requirement model provided with an explanation. . The requirement model has been thoroughly updated to reflect any and fewchanges in functional, non-functional, and data requirements for theReporting demonstrates competent or basic skills in Feasibility Analysis, and present and justified their solution. The requirement model provided with an explanation. . The requirement model has been thoroughly updated to reflect some changes in functional, non-functional, and data requirements for theReporting demonstrates high-level skills in Feasibility Analysis, and present and justified their solution . The requirement model provided with an explanation. . The requirement model has been thoroughly updated tochanges in functional, non-functional, and data requirements for theReporting demonstrates highly advanced skills in Feasibility Analysis, and present and justified their solution . The requirement model provided with an explanation. The requirement model has been thoroughly updated to reflect any and all changes in functional, non-functional, and data requirements for the project? Criterion (2.5 marks) Does the report demonstrate the skills in Initial Implementation Plan? Does the revised Master Test Plan clearly indicate the overall testing strategy, the priority, level of effort, basic techniques, and coverage to be achieved in each type of testing, as well as acceptance and remediation procedures? Report hasn’t provide a demonstration about the skills in Initial Implementation Plan. The master test plan does not set out a reasonable plan for testing.Reporting demonstrates the basic skills in Initial Implementation Plan and present and justified their solution . The initial plan provided with an explanation. The master test plan sets out a plan for testing during the remaining development.Reporting demonstrates competent or basic skills in Initial Implementation Plan and present and justified their solution. The initial plan provided with an explanation. The master test plan sets out a prioritised, reasonable and achievable plan for testing during the remaining development.Reporting demonstrates high-level skills in Initial Implementation Plan and present and justified their solution. The initial plan provided with an explanation. The master test plan sets out a good quality, prioritised, justified, reasonable and achievable plan for testing during the remaining development. The master test plan sets out a prioritised, reasonable and achievable plan for testing during the remaining development.Reporting demonstrates highly advanced skills in Initial Implementation Plan and present and justified their solution . The initial plan provided with an explanation. The master test plan sets out a very high quality, well thought out, clearly prioritised, well justified, reasonable and achievable plan for testing during the remaining development.Criterion (2.5 marks) Does the report demonstrate the skills in Project Design? Does the revised executable Architectural of your project clearly identified?Report hasn’t provide a demonstration about the skills in Project DesignReporting demonstrates the basic skills in Project Design, present and justified their solution Reporting demonstrates competent or basic skills in Project Design, present and justified their solution Reporting demonstrates high-level skills in Project Design, present and justified their solution. The executable architecture implements the proposed architecture, with no significantelements missing Reporting demonstrates highly advanced skills in Project Design, present and justified their solution . The fully implements the proposed architecture, with nomissing elements.Criterion (2 marks) Does the proposed architecture formulate set of goals and describes the philosophy? The goals and philosophies haven’t explainedSome goals that the architecture needs to meet in its structure and behaviour , and philosophies well explained. The Issues that drive the philosophy identifiedSeveral goals that the architecture needs to meet in its structure and behaviour , and philosophies well explained. The Issues that drive the philosophy identifiedAlmost goals that the architecture needs to meet in its structure and behaviour , and philosophies well explained. The Issues that drive the philosophy identifiedAll goals that the architecture needs to meet in its structure and behaviour , and philosophies well explained. The Issues that drive the philosophy identified.Criterion (2marks) Does the proposed architecture identified and link to the requirements ?The critical architecturally significant requirements not correctly identified Some critical architecturally significant requirements correctly identified and link to the requirements that must be implemented to realize the architecture.Several critical architecturally significant requirements correctly identified and link to the requirements that must be implemented to realize the architecture.Almost critical architecturally significant requirements correctly identified and link to the requirements that must be implemented to realize the architecture.All critical architecturally significant requirements correctly identified and link to the requirements that must be implemented to realize the architecture.Criterion (2 marks) Does the proposed architecture listed the assumptions and dependencies that drive architectural decisions? Does the proposed architecture Listed the decisions that have been made?The list of the assumptions and dependencies not provided.A comprehensive list of the assumptions and dependencies , and list of decisions and constraints identified. Decisions completely consistent with goals and philosophies, sensible, and well justified with reference to specific needs of project. A comprehensive list of the assumptions and dependencies , and list of decisions and constraints identified. Decisions completely consistent with goals and philosophies, sensible, and well justified with reference to specific needs of project. A comprehensive list of the assumptions and dependencies , and list of decisions and constraints identified. Decisions completely consistent with goals and philosophies, sensible, and well justified with reference to specific needs of project. A comprehensive list of the assumptions and dependencies , and list of decisions and constraints identified. Decisions completely consistent with goals and philosophies, sensible, and well justified with reference to specific needs of project. Criterion (2 marks) Does the proposed architecture described the mechanisms?The architectural mechanisms are not listed .Some architectural mechanisms are listed and described the current state of each one. Mechanisms related to architecturally significant requirements.Several architectural mechanisms are listed and described the current state of each one. Mechanisms related to architecturally significant requirements.Almost the architectural mechanisms are listed and described the current state of each one. Mechanisms related to architecturally significant requirements.All the architectural mechanisms are listed and described the current state of each one. Mechanisms related to architecturally significant requirements.Criterion (12 marks) Does the test plangive a clear idea of the acceptance testing?All features to be tested, features not to be tested, resource requirements, testing schedule, test writing, test coverage, test deliverables, pre-requisite for test execution, bug reporting and tracking mechanism, test metrics identified in the test plan.Some features to be tested, features not to be tested, resource requirements, testing schedule, test writing, test coverage, test deliverables, pre-requisite for test execution, bug reporting and tracking mechanism, test metrics identified in the test plan.Several features to be tested, features not to be tested, resource requirements, testing schedule, test writing, test coverage, test deliverables, pre-requisite for test execution, bug reporting and tracking mechanism, test metrics identified in the test plan.Almost features to be tested, features not to be tested, resource requirements, testing schedule, test writing, test coverage, test deliverables, pre-requisite for test execution, bug reporting and tracking mechanism, test metrics identified in the test plan.All features to be tested, features not to be tested, resource requirements, testing schedule, test writing, test coverage, test deliverables, pre-requisite for test execution, bug reporting and tracking mechanism, test metrics identified in the test plan.Criterion (2.5 marks) Logical sequence and ease of presentation. Use of available time and overall organisation of the seminar.There is no Logical sequenceAudience cannot understandsome of the presentation because there is no sequence of information and either falls short or goes over the time limit.Audience has difficulty following presentation because student jumps around but is close to being on time.Presents information in logical sequence that the audience can follow and delivered close to time given.Presents information in logical, interesting sequence that the audience can easily follow and delivered on time.Criterion (5 marks) Audience engagement and interest maintained. Expertise and ability is shown to justify results and conclusions to peers.Audience engagement and interest haven’t maintainedDemonstrates just a basic does grasp of information about the project throughout the report; Student reads all of report with no eye contact or the video sounds like a prepared speech. Student mumbles or incorrectly pronounces terms, and speaks too quietly audience members or viewers to hear.Demonstrates comfort with explanations, but fails to elaborate at times in the report. Student occasionally uses eye contact, but still reads most of report from notes or the screen. Student’s voice is low. Studentincorrectly pronounces terms.Audience members or viewers have difficulty hearing all the presentation.Demonstrates ease with explanations and willing to elaborate at times in the report. Student maintains eye contact most of the time but frequently returns to notes. Student’s voice is clear. Student pronounces most words correctly. Most audience members or viewers can hear the presentation.Demonstrates full knowledge (more than required) withexplanations and elaboration of the project in the report;Maintains eye contact withaudience or the camera, seldom returning to notes.Student uses a clear voice that all audience members or viewers can hear the presentation.Criterion (2.5marks) Audience Interaction and Impact SkillsHow well thequestions were handledin the ‘live’ seminar.Thequestions were handledCannot answer all questions about subject.Able to answer only rudimentary questions from the audience.Answers to all questions, but fails to elaborate at times. Answers all questions with detailed explanations and elaboration.
- Assignment status: Already Solved By Our Experts
- (USA, AUS, UK & CA PhD. Writers)
- CLICK HERE TO GET A PROFESSIONAL WRITER TO WORK ON THIS PAPER AND OTHER SIMILAR PAPERS, GET A NON PLAGIARIZED PAPER FROM OUR EXPERTS
