Group Assignment Group No : ______________________________ Total = _______ /70

CSFF Very Poor No evidence in documentation or softcopy Poor Done but missing critical information such as problems, solutions or assumptions. Mostly irrelevant information. Adequate Brief introduction. Some missing / vague description of problems, solutions or assumptions. Some irrelevant information. 3 Both feasibility reports done. Gantt chart done using Ms Project. Only basic tasks are depicted. No breakdown of subtasks etc. Illogical sequencing of tasks. Unrealistic timelines. Brief / illogical explanation of operational feasibility with regards to PIECES framework. 3 Some description of at least two phases with some description of the purposes of these phases and the deliverables generated Explanation brief and / or vague in most areas. 3 At least 1 investigation technique selected and samples made available. Some justification for selection and some conclusions were drawn from findings. 3

Intake: ____________
Good Clear, complete yet very basic introduction. All problems, solutions or assumptions made but briefly discussed/identified. No irrelevant information. 4 Gantt chart done using Ms Project with breakdown of tasks clearly shown. Realistic timelines and sequencing of tasks. Logical explanation of operational feasibility with regards to PIECES framework. Some minor errors in either component. 4 Three phases of the SDLC deployed, ie systems planning, Systems Analysis and System Design.. Explanation was clear and the respective deliverable of each stage are clearly indicated. Excellent Clear, complete and detailed introduction. Detailed and precise description of underlying problems, solutions and assumptions. All relevant information. 5 All criteria listed in previous grade achieved with no / minimal errors. Relevant and detailed explanation for PIECES framework. Evidence of other feasibility studies carried out over and above the existing requirements. 5 All stages of the SDLC for this project was clearly deployed and the purpose stated. Deliverables for each stage was clearly indicated. Explanation was detailed in all phases of the SDLC. 5 At least 2 investigation techniques selected and samples made available. Clear and detailed logical justification for selection and conclusions were drawn from findings 5

Introduction (5 marks)

Marks

0 No evidence in documentation or softcopy

Feasibility Report (5 marks)

1 2 Either one or both available but missing major elements such as Workload Matrix, Gantt chart and / or timelines and components of PIECES framework. Gantt chart created without using Ms Project.

Marks SDLC approach to develop the system (5 marks) Marks Selection / Application of Investigation Techniques (5 marks) Marks

0 No explicit evidence in documentation or softcopy in engaging the various stages of SDLC and the respective deliverables. 0 No evidence in documentation or softcopy

1 2 Identification of one or two stages with some / no description of the stages such as the purpose in relation to the project and the respective deliverables explicitly stated.

1 2 One investigation technique was selected. Sample of the application of the technique was available but no / minimal justification for selection. No / brief conclusion / findings. 1 2

4 At least 2 investigation techniques selected and samples made available. Justification for selection and conclusions were drawn from findings. 4

CSFF

Very Poor No evidence in documentation or softcopy

Analysis / Logical Design (25 marks)

Poor Some diagrams were available. Missing diagrams and / or components. Diagrams produced are not related to findings of the investigation phase. Many major errors in diagrams related to naming conventions, violation of diagramming rules. Totally illogical diagrams produced. No supporting documentation for the diagrams. 5 6 7 8 9 Some forms, reports or / and database designs were available. Physical designs were either in documentation only or in prototype only. Physical designs do not map with the logical design at all.

Adequate All diagrams available with many minor errors related to naming conventions, violation of diagramming rules. Some illogical components within the diagrams. Diagrams related to the findings in the investigation phase. Supporting documentation for the diagrams is available. Some illogical / wrong / unrelated entries in supporting documentation.

Good All logical diagrams available with hardly / some minor errors. Diagrams closely related with the findings of the investigation phase. Supporting documentation for the diagrams is available. Most entries in supporting documentation are related to the diagrams / are accurate. Minimal errors in supporting documentation.

Excellent All logical diagrams available with no errors. Diagrams closely related with the findings of the investigation phase. Supporting documentation for the diagrams is available and entries are related to the diagrams / are accurate. No errors in supporting documentation.

Marks

0 1 2 3 4 No evidence in documentation or softcopy

Physical Design (20 marks)

10 11 12 13 14 15 Some forms, reports or / and database designs were available in documentation and in prototype. Some of the physical designs do map accurately with the logical design. No explanation for the design in documentation.

16 17 18 19 20 Most forms, reports or / and database designs were available in documentation and in prototype. Most of the physical designs do map accurately with the logical design. Simple design overall. Some explanation for the design in documentation.

21 22 23 24 25 All forms, reports or / and database designs were available in documentation and in prototype. All physical designs do map accurately with the logical design. Professional outlook of the whole system. Clear and detailed explanation of the design in documentation. 17 18 19 20

Marks

0 1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13

14 15 16

CSFF

Overall Documentation Standards (5 marks)

Marks

Very Poor Mostly poor documentation standards with missing components such as table of contents, referencing, page numbering, captioning, poor command of the language, etc. 0

Poor Some missing / poor documentation standards such as table of contents, referencing, page numbering, captioning, poor command of the language. Referencing done does not adhere to Harvards Name Referencing style. 1 2

Adequate Overall average documentation standards in table of contents, referencing, page numbering, captioning, command of the language, etc.

Good Good documentation standards in most areas such as table of contents, referencing, page numbering, captioning, command of language.

Excellent Excellent documentation standards. Overall documentation has a professional outlook.

Comments:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________

Student Name (ID): ______________________________ Individual Assignment : Total = _______ /15

CSFF Very Poor No evidence in documentation. Poor Some forms, reports or / and database designs were available. Physical designs do not map with the logical design at all. No explanation for the design. Adequate Some forms, reports or / and database designs were available. Some of the physical designs do map accurately with the logical design. No explanation for the design.

Intake: ____________
Good Most forms, reports or / and database designs were available. Most of the physical designs do map accurately with the logical design. Simple design overall. Some explanation for the design in documentation. Excellent All forms, reports or / and database designs were available. All physical designs do map accurately with the logical design. Professional outlook of the whole system. Clear and detailed explanation of the design in documentation. 8 9 10 All document standards of excellent quality such as table of contents, referencing, page numbering, captioning, excellent command of the language. Referencing adheres to the Harvards Name Referencing style. Excellent critical evaluation which contains all of the following: problems encountered how they were overcome and / or lessons learnt with no missing details. 5

Physical Design (10 marks)

Marks

Overall Documentation Standards (5 marks)

0 1 Mostly poor documentation standards with missing components such as table of contents, referencing, page numbering, captioning, poor command of the language, etc. No critical evaluation, problems encountered, how they were overcome or lessons learnt.

Marks

2 3 Some missing / poor documentation standards such as table of contents, referencing, page numbering, captioning, poor command of the language. Referencing done does not adhere to Harvards Name Referencing style. Poor critical evaluation done which contains one or more of the following: problems encountered how they were overcome and / or lessons learnt. 1 2

4 5 Most document standards met such as table of contents, referencing, page numbering, captioning, average command of the language of average quality. Referencing adheres to the Harvards Name Referencing style. Average critical evaluation done which contains all of the following: problems encountered how they were overcome and / or lessons learnt.

6 7 All document standards of good quality such as table of contents, referencing, page numbering, captioning, good command of the language. Referencing adheres to the Harvards Name Referencing style. Good critical evaluation which contains all of the following: problems encountered how they were overcome and / or lessons learnt with some missing details.

Comments:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________

Student Name (ID): ______________________________ Individual Presentation : Total = _______ /15

CSFF Project Knowledge / Professionalism (5 marks) Very Poor Not able to explain own component of the project. Unable to provide answers to any questions posed with regards to own component of the project. Mostly inaccurate / illogical answers / explanation provided. 0 Overall evaluation indicates very poor. Contributed to less than 20% of project. 0 1 Poor Able to provide some information and / or answer some questions pertaining to only the individuals own aspects / components of the project done. Some inaccurate / illogical answers / explanation provided. 1 2 Overall evaluation indicates poor. Contributed to more than 20% but less than 40% of the project. 2 3 Adequate Able to provide all information / answer all questions posed on individuals own component of the project done. Answers given accurate but with some hesitation.

Intake: ____________
Good Able to provide all information and / or answer all questions with regards to own component of the project as well as assist some team members when not able to explain their components / answer questions posed. Answers questions accurately confidently. 4 Overall evaluation indicates good. Contributed to more than 60% but less than 80% of the project. 6 7 Excellent Able to provide all information and / or answer all questions with regards to own component of the project as well as assist most / all team members who were not able to explain their components / answer questions posed. Answers questions accurately and confidently. 5 Overall evaluation indicates excellent. Contributed to more than 80% of the project. 8 9 10

Marks Contribution as per Peer to Peer and Self Evaluation (10 marks) Marks

3 Overall evaluation indicates average. Contributed to more than 40% but less than 60% of the project. 4 5

Comments:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________