The final version of your project plan will need to be submitted on Canvas as a PDF document and a link again.
Total marks possible: 20 points.
| Criteria | Meets/Exceeds Expectations [2 pts] |
Below Expectations [1 pt] |
No Submission [0 pt] |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overview: Scope Is the solution appropriate for the project option? Does it seem appropriate for the team size? |
Appropriate, the proposed solution addresses the intended project goal for the intended user groups, the proposed features are suitable for the team | Somewhat inappropriate, the proposed solution either does not address the intended project goal or neglects to meet the intended user needs, the proposed features require too much or too little work for the team | Not provided |
| Overview: Clarity Is the solution written in an easy to understand way? |
Very clear and well-written, a non-technical reader is able to understand it clearly | Somewhat clear, only a technical reader is able to understand the solution, or the description is full of mistakes/typos | Not clear at all |
| Overview: Cohesiveness Does the solution provide a complete scenario of use for the intended user? |
Solution seems complete, the finished prototype should demonstrate how the intended users will use the software to achieve the intended project goal | Partially complete solution is provided, the finished product will not enable any single user group or a subset of the user groups to complete a meaningful use case | Not provided or cannot make sense of the solution |
| Overview: Usage Scenario Does the solution explain how the target user(s) will use the software? Are the different user groups supported adequately based on their varying needs? |
Very Good Coverage, all user groups have descriptions of how they are expected to use the software, scenarios are coherent based on the project option | Reasonable Coverage, descriptions for some user groups may be missing, or descriptions do not illustrate a complete use case | Not provided or largely missing |
| Milestones Are reasonable milestones set for each of the deadlines? Is the quantity of work evenly spread out across the project? |
Reasonable plan of features, size of features are roughly the same across team members | Somewhat unreasonable, some features are too big/small, schedule is too ambiguous/slack | Not provided or largely missing |
| Technology Stack: Choices Is the chosen technology stack mentioned? Can this stack be used to achieve the intended project? Is anything missing that should have been mentioned? |
Completely specified | Partially complete, some choices are missing | Not provided or largely missing |
| Technology Stack: Justifications Did the team justify the choices made for the technology stack? Are there unjustified choices? Do the justifications make sense for the project and client, or were they made for the convenience of the team members? |
Well justified based on project needs and the needs of the intended users | Somewhat unclear, technology may be outdated or chosen based on convenience of the team | Not provided or generally unreasonable |
| Teamwork Distribution: Team Expertise Are there enough details to explain what everyone is good at and what everyone needs to learn for this project? |
Detailed descriptions, shows good team communication and understanding of individual strengths | Somewhat vague and unclear, more details needed, team needs to communicate better | Not provided or largely missing |
| Teamwork Distribution: Project Work Is everyone contributing to the project effectively? Is the team working together? Does the work distribution align with expertise and areas of learning? |
Relatively evenly distributed, team works together as appropriate | Work is too skewed, no coordination demonstrated in the team | Not provided or largely missing |
| Teamwork Distribution: Class Work Is everyone contributing to the work that gets presented and reviewed by the class and by the clients? Is the team working together? |
Relatively evenly distributed, team works together as appropriate | Work is too skewed, no coordination demonstrated in the team | Not provided or largely missing |