Assignment - Mass Transit System (MTS) Design
Scenario: You are continuing your work as part of a project team that has been directed to help improve the design of a Mass Transit Simulation (MTS) system that is being used to help model the behavior of the system to support business operations and decision-making. Recently, you were asked to propose modifications to the design of the system to improve the capability of the system to more accurately represent and simulate various aspects of the transit system to include riders, roads, and rail systems at a minimum. In this phase, you will review some of the designs prepared by your classmates, and provide feedback to them.
Disclaimer: This scenario has been developed solely for this course. Any similarities or differences between this scenario and any of the programs at Georgia Tech programs are purely coincidental.
Deliverables: This assignment requires you to submit the feedback to your fellow classmates via the Peer Feedback system.
What do you need to submit in terms of focus areas, formats, etc.?
- You will be asked to provide feedback to three students via the Peer Feedback System. Part of the beauty of this assignment is that, in reviewing their designs, you also have the opportunity to learn by observing different approaches to the same common problem.
- You will be assigned to review the design documents from three of your fellow classmates. You will then be asked to provide them feedback on the strengths, weaknesses and/or unique aspects of their designs.
- You must answer two questions for each reviewee, regarding: (1) the quality of the overall design; and, (2) the use of UML within the design.
- You will also have an open text area for each reviewee, and you must provide at least three distinctive observations about each of their designs. Each observation should be expressed in a few sentences, and should represent: (1) a strength or weakness of the design; or, (2) possibly a unique and novel approach that differs from the way that you might have represented that particular aspect.
- We will also award points for properly and effectively using the terminology that you have been learning during the course. Do not use lots of terms just to "rack up points": quantity over quality is not the goal. However, using key design terms from the SWEBOK, the various readings, Udacity videos, etc. in an appropriate and relevant way is highly encouraged.
- To ensure that your feedback is as clear and readable as possible, please organize it this format: Observation/Suggestion #1: Pros:
Cons:
Observation/Suggestion #2: Pros:
Cons:
How will my submission be evaluated?
-Each set of reviewee feedback will be worth approximately 16-17 points [50 points total].
-Our graders will evaluate the feedback that you provide to your peers. Given the summary nature of the feedback, our fundamental criteria will be to ensure that:
1. You have provided three distinct observations, and not just the same observation worded in multiple ways;
2. Your feedback is written in a reasonably clear and understandable way; and,
3. You haven't said anything grossly incorrect from a design or UML standpoint - for example, "...classes and operations are completely interchangeable..."
-It is important to recognize aspects of a design that represent potential weaknesses or errors. Sharing this information with your peers is key for learning, but the way you express your response is also important. Be as clear and concise as possible, but also be professional - avoid personal attacks and/or condescension in your response.
-It is also important to recognize that there are often many different ways to approach a design, each having very valid strengths. Give credit when one of your peers might have found a more clear, concise, consistent or otherwise novel or unique way to represent some of the design requirements. Keep in mind that "different and wrong are different": resist the temptation to immediately downgrade or disparage an approach that differs from your design, especially when your response is based solely on your initial instincts during the review.
-Though we will deduct points for factually incorrect comments, we will not go to extreme lengths to agree or disagree with the subjective and/or stylistic feedback that you've provided.
-If you would like to correspond further with your peers about the feedback received or provided afterwards, feel free to do so. Please remember to be as professional as possible: software architects and designers often work on teams, and the ability to communicate while being both direct and respectful is often essential to success.
Closing Comments & Suggestions: We (the OMSCS 6310 Team) will likely conduct an Office Hours where you will be permitted to ask us questions further questions about the feedback. We are often asked to provide an "official solution" for the design phase once the due date has passed, but we are generally reluctant for various reasons. This assignment offers, in some sense, the next best (or possibly better) option; and, allows you to develop your ability to review other's designs, while also receiving alternate feedback on your own.