ASSESSMENT BRIEF - COVER SHEET

Course: BSc Computing Year: 1 CSY1019 - Software Engineering 1

TCA No: 1 Title: Client Interview Plans and Interviews
Date due out: Date due in: Extension date: Extension agreed by:
01/11/2021 WC 15th November

Student Name:

Student ID:

Tutor: Mark Johnson

ASSESSMENT FEEDBACK:
RATING SCALE A+ - A- B+ - B- C+ - C- D+ - D- F+ - F-

Draft Interview Plans

(50%)
Interview: Appropriate
client engagement (e.g.
Polite, Friendly, Empathy)
(10%)
Interview: Rapport
development with client
(10%)
Interview: Question quality
and delivery
(10%)
Interview: Appropriate use
of terminology and
language relevant to
client’s background
knowledge.
(10%)
Interview: Understanding
and clarification of answers
provided
(10%)
Specific aspects of your assignment that the Specific aspects of your assignment that need more
marker likes: work:

Tutor’s Signature: Date: Grade:

Important Notes: -

The subsequent TCA activity, the first assessment activity in the module CSY1019, is based on the
Claybrook zoo simulated project background/client specification. (See the document: CSY1019 TC1 +
PJ1 - 2021-22 Overview of assessment and client background)

Background

Becoming competent at planning, conducting and recording outcomes from client elicitation interviews is an
essential part of the software engineering life cycle. Based on the brief provided for Claybrook zoo the
following students activities should be attempted:-

Student Activities

 Read through the brief and identify the appropriate problem domain characteristics for the project. This
can be done initially in your groups.

 Individually, construct a suitable set of interview plans for each of the characters available for interview as
a continuation of the problem domain investigation. (See Appendix 2 – Recommended Format for
Interview Plans (Individual and Group) for details of how to format your interview plans).

 Your tutor and support staff will roleplay each of the characters. You will be provided with the dates and
times of these interviews. (See Appendix 3.)

 By the deadline specified by your tutor, submit your individual client interview plans, for checking and
approval. The deadline for the individual interview plan submission is Sunday 7 th November (23:59)

 Once your individual plans have been submitted (or approved by your tutor) work in a group to create the
master interview plans that you will use in your group client interviews. Make sure you review all the
ideas in the individually produced plans when compiling the final master document. This should ensure
you get the best possible interview plans developed.

 Each client interview will last approximately 1-hour, so you will need to allocate one or two interview
objectives to each member of the group, to ensure ALL members of the group have a chance to interact
with the clients during the interviews. Ensure your group ALL know the areas they are supposed to discuss
with the client during the interviews.

 As a group, Interview the key stakeholders at the specified dates and times provided by your tutor. (See
Appendix 3 – TCA dates and times, by groups)

 Ensure that you obtain all the relevant information required to enable you to provide a full description of
the problem domain and produce a comprehensive requirements specification for the proposed system.
You should record your interview findings in the format outlined in Topic 5 class notes.

 Your individual grade will be based on your individual plan (50%) plus your individual client interview
performance (50%). See the Appendix 1 for a detailed set of marking criteria for this TCA.

Assessable Component
Draft Interview Plans
(50%)
Interview: Appropriate client
engagement (e.g. Polite, Friendly,
Empathy)
(10%)
Interview: Rapport development
with client (10%)
F- - F+
The student identifies no
meaningful objectives for the
client interviews. The
questions formulated do not
facilitate the elicitation of
meaningful problem domain
information required for a
comprehensive requirements
specification.
The student’s general
engagement with the client
isn’t appropriate.
The student may be perceived
as being impolite, overfriendly,
unempathetic to the needs of
the client or a combination of
the above.
The student’s engagement
cannot be considered as
professional.
The student is unable to
develop any rapport with the
client.
Approaches that can be
utilized to develop rapport with
the client, such showing as
genuine interest, appropriate
body language and active
listening are not deployed.
Appendix 1 - Detailed Marking Criteria Breakdown
D- to D+
The student identifies some, but
not all, of the major objectives for
the client interviews.
Some of the required objectives
for the client interviews are
recorded but they include several
inaccuracies or ambiguities.
The questions produced to explore
the objectives are valid but lack
the required detail and rigour
needed to allow a detailed
understanding of the problem
domain information required for a
comprehensive requirements
specification
The student’s engagement with
the client is considered to be
generally acceptable.
The student may be perceived as
being reasonably friendly and
polite but may not show empathy
for the client’s position.
The student’s engagement can be
considered to be reasonably
professional.
The student is able to develop a
basic level of rapport with the
client.
The student uses at least one of
the following approaches to
develop rapport with the client: a)
genuine interest, b) appropriate
body language c) and active
listening; but these techniques are
not used in combination.
C- to C+
The student identifies most of the
major objectives for the client
interviews.
Many of the required objectives for
the client interviews are recorded
but may include a few
inaccuracies or ambiguities.
The questions produced to explore
the objectives are valid and have
enough detail and rigour needed
to allow a reasonably detailed
understanding of the problem
domain information required for a
good requirements specification
The student’s engagement with
the client is considered to be
generally good.
The student is perceived as being
appropriately friendly, polite and
shows some understanding of the
client’s position.
The student’s engagement can be
considered to be professional.
The student is able to develop a
reasonable level of rapport with
the client.
The student uses at least two of
the following approaches to
develop rapport with the client: a)
genuine interest, b) appropriate
body language c) and active
listening.
B- to B+
The student identifies the
majority of the objectives for
the client interviews.
The majority of the required
objectives for the client
interviews are recorded and
include only very minor
inaccuracies or ambiguities.
The questions produced to
explore the objectives are
valid and have enough detail
and rigour needed to allow a
detailed understanding of the
problem domain information
required for a comprehensive
requirements specification
The student’s engagement
with the client is considered to
be very good.
The student is perceived as
being appropriately friendly,
very polite and shows a good
understanding of the client’s
position.
The student’s engagement
can be considered to be very
professional.
The student is able to develop
a good level of rapport with
the client.
The student uses at all three
of the following approaches to
develop rapport with the
client: a) genuine interest, b)
appropriate body language c)
and active listening.
The client is left feeling that
the interview experience has
been a positive one and
believes the interview was
productive.
A- to A+
The student identifies all of the
objectives for the client
interviews.
All of the required objectives
for the client interviews are
recorded and include no
inaccuracies or ambiguities.
The questions produced to
explore the objectives are
comprehensive allow a
detailed understanding of the
problem domain information
required for a very
comprehensive requirements
specification
The student’s engagement
with the client is considered to
be excellent.
The student is perceived as
being appropriately friendly,
very polite and shows a real
empathy and understanding of
the client’s position.
The student’s engagement is
considered to be an excellent
example of professional
behaviour.
The student is able to develop
an excellent level of rapport
with the client.
The student uses at all three
of the following approaches to
develop rapport with the client:
a) genuine interest, b)
appropriate body language c)
and active listening.
The client is left feeling the
interview experience has been
a positive one and is confident
the interview was highly
productive.

Interview: Question quality and
delivery
(10%)
Interview: Appropriate use of
terminology and language
relevant to client’s background
knowledge.
(10%)
Interview: Understanding and
clarification of answers provided
(10%)
The student asks unnecessary
or irrelevant interview
questions.
The delivery style of the
questions is poor (possibly
incoherent or difficult
understand).
The client is left feeling unsure
about the value of the
questions and/or the interview
process.
The student uses jargon or
technical terminology that is
inappropriate for the client’s
background knowledge and/or
expertise.
The student makes no attempt
to check their understanding of
the answers provided by the
client, even when the answers
are complex and/or
incomplete.
The student asks some
meaningful questions, that the
client can clearly understand.
However, some irrelevant or
difficult to answer questions may
be used.
The delivery style of the majority of
questions is reasonable and clear
The client is left feeling that there
was some value to the questions
asked and the interview process
used.
The student uses a mixture of
clear language interspersed by
jargon and/or inappropriate
technical terminology which may
cause some confusion to the
client.
The student clarifies at least one
question ambiguity during their
interaction with the client, but
many complex answers or
incomplete questions are ignored.
The student asks mostly
meaningful questions that the
client can clearly understand.
However, some irrelevant,
erroneous or difficult to answer
questions may be used.
The delivery style of the majority of
questions is reasonable and clear
The client is left feeling that there
was value to the questions asked
and the interview process used.
The student uses, for the most
part, clear language that is
appropriate for the client’s
background knowledge and/or
expertise.
Only one or two inappropriate
technical terms or instances of
jargon are used
The student makes occasional
attempts to check their
understanding of the answers
provided by the client, especially
when the answers are complex
and/or incomplete.
The student asks only
meaningful questions that the
client can clearly understand.
No irrelevant, erroneous or
difficult to answer questions
are used in the interview.
The delivery style of the vast
majority of questions is
reasonable and clear
The client is left feeling that
there was considerable value
to the questions asked and
the interview process used.
The student uses clear
language that is appropriate
for the client’s background
knowledge and/or expertise.
There are no instances of
inappropriate technical terms
or instances of jargon being
used.
The student frequently
attempts to check their
understanding of the answers
provided by the client,
especially when the answers
are complex and/or
incomplete. Some ambiguities
may be missed.
The student may use ongoing
summaries and/or clarification
statements like “so what
you’re saying is….”, where
appropriate.
The student asks only
meaningful, well-crafted
questions that the client can
clearly understand. No
irrelevant, erroneous or
difficult to answer questions
are used in the interview.
The delivery style of all of
questions is clear, concise and
effective in extracting the
required problem domain
information
The client is left feeling that
there was exceptional value to
the questions asked and the
interview process used.
The student uses clear,
concise, language that is
appropriate for the client’s
background knowledge and/or
expertise.
There are no instances of
inappropriate technical terms
or instances of jargon being
used.
The use of consistent
appropriate language makes
the client feel comfortable with
the interview process and
encourages effective client
engagement.
The student consistently
attempts to check their
understanding of the answers
provided by the client,
especially when the answers
are complex and/or
incomplete. No ambiguities
are ignored.
The student uses ongoing
summaries and/or clarification
statements like “so what
you’re saying is…” as an
effective way of illustrating
understanding.
 Appendix 2 – Recommended Format for Interview Plans (Individual and Group)

Claybrook Zoo Client Interview Plans (Objectives and Key Questions)

Interview Subject: Matthew Jones (Key Stakeholder)

Objectives
1) Objective 1

Sub question 1 – Used to obtain the information needed to achieve objective 1

Sub question 2 – Used to obtain the information needed to achieve objective 1
..
Sub question x - Used to obtain the information needed to achieve objective 1

2) Objective 2

Sub question 1 – Used to obtain the information needed to achieve objective 2

Sub question 2 – Used to obtain the information needed to achieve objective 2
..
Sub question x - Used to obtain the information needed to achieve objective 2

3) Objective X
etc. etc.
*************************************************************************
Interview Subject: Jonathan Rodgers (Zoo Administrator)

1) Objective 1

Sub question 1 – Used to obtain the information needed to achieve objective 1

Sub question 2 – Used to obtain the information needed to achieve objective 1
..
Sub question x - Used to obtain the information needed to achieve objective 1

2) Objective 2

Sub question 1 – Used to obtain the information needed to achieve objective 2

Sub question 2 – Used to obtain the information needed to achieve objective 2
..
Sub question x - Used to obtain the information needed to achieve objective 2
 3) Objective X

etc. etc.
************************************************************************
Interview Subject: Paul Smith (Visitor)

1) Objective 1

Sub question 1 – Used to obtain the information needed to achieve objective 1

Sub question 2 – Used to obtain the information needed to achieve objective 1
..
Sub question x - Used to obtain the information needed to achieve objective 1

2) Objective 2

Sub question 1 – Used to obtain the information needed to achieve objective 2

Sub question 2 – Used to obtain the information needed to achieve objective 2
..
Sub question x - Used to obtain the information needed to achieve objective 2

3) Objective X
etc. etc.
****************************************************************************
Interview Subject: Phil Brown (Sponsor)

1) Objective 1

Sub question 1 – Used to obtain the information needed to achieve objective 1

Sub question 2 – Used to obtain the information needed to achieve objective 1
..
Sub question x - Used to obtain the information needed to achieve objective 1

2) Objective 2

Sub question 1 – Used to obtain the information needed to achieve objective 2

Sub question 2 – Used to obtain the information needed to achieve objective 2
..
Sub question x - Used to obtain the information needed to achieve objective 2

3) Objective X
etc. etc.
******************************************************************************
 Appendix 3 – TCA dates and times, by groups

Group Company Name
1 Mawkish Development
2 Orion Solutions
3 DIA Solutions
4 Synergy solutions Ltd
5 Trident Ltd
6 Codex Frameworks
7 Goodware Solutions
8 TechTrip Solutions
9 Union IT Solutions
Mock Interviews (Matthew Jones + Jonathan Rodgers) Assessable Interview (Tom Smith + Phil Brown)
8th Nov - 9-10 am and 12p-1pm Feedback 15th Nov - 9-10 am
8th Nov - 10-11 am and 12p-1pm Feedback 15th Nov - 10-11 am
8th Nov - 11-12pm and 12p-1pm Feedback 15th Nov - 11-12pm
9th Nov - 2-3pm and 5-6pm Feedback 16th Nov - 2-3pm
9th Nov - 3-4pm and 5-6pm Feedback 16th Nov - 3-4pm
9th Nov - 4-5pm and 5-6pm Feedback 16th Nov - 4-5pm
10th Nov - 9-10 am and 12p-1pm Feedback 17th Nov - 9-10 am
10th Nov - 10-11 am and 12p-1pm Feedback 17th Nov - 10-11 am
10th Nov - 11-12pm and 12p-1pm Feedback 17th Nov - 11-12pm

NOTE: The final interview performance grade will be based on the second interview event. The first event will effectively be a mock event designed to allow you to
practice your interview skills prior to the formal assessment.