Expected duration
10 hours per team member, including the time spent on the specification and implementation
Deadline
1645 on Lesson 37
Points
75 points

Learning Objectives

  • Analyze requirements for a software system and identify appropriate architectural approaches
  • Design, implement, test, and maintain software to satisfy the requirements of a software system
  • Communicate software requirements and designs effectively
  • Employ software project management principles to orchestrate team efforts, mitigate risks, and produce high quality software systems

Help Policy

Authorized Resources
Any, except classmates working on other teams
Notes
Never copy another person’s work and submit it as your own

You must document all help received from all sources, including the instructor and instructor-provided course materials (such as the textbook)

Assignment

Provide notes from your team’s sprint retrospective with the following information:

  • When the retrospective was held and who attended (which should be everyone on the team)
  • The URL of the pull request for your team’s specification
  • The URL(s) of the pull request(s) for your team’s implementation activities (i.e., source code and tests)
  • The change(s) that you made in response to the prior sprint’s retrospective
  • What issue(s) you encountered during the sprint
  • What change(s) you will make for the next sprint

Please ensure that the URLs are hyperlinked correctly – i.e., clicking on a URL should open the link in a new window.

Submission

Submit your retrospective notes using Blackboard. Include your documentation statement as part of your Blackboard submission.

Only one person on each team should submit the retrospective notes.

Grading

The following grading rubric will be used for this assignment:

Superb (100%)
Clearly defines issues and changes with reflection on underlying causes; ideas are feasible to implement
Proficient (80%)
Defines issues and changes, but with high-level reflection; ideas are feasible to implement
Competent (50%)
Describes issues and possible changes, but only with high-level reflection; ideas may be unrealistic to implement
Novice (30%)
Superficial coverage of issues and proposed changes
Missing (0%)