Sprints

Sprint demo

Sprint demos provide a mechanism for the team to get feedback on work in progress in regular intervals. Sprint demos will be conducted during class. No submission is required. Feedback will be delivered orally.

Sprint demos should:

demonstrate the current working behavior of any data science products
articulate to stakeholders what was accomplished during the sprint
receive feedback from stakeholders
suggest a path forward during the next sprint

Rubric

Sprint demo rubric
Criteria	Improvable	Good	Great
Clarity	The work the group is doing does not align with the needs of the project sponsor	It’s possible that the work being done might help to solve the problem, but it’s not entirely clear how the pieces will fit together.	It is clear how the work the group has done will solve the project sponsor’s problem
Focus	One or two group members are driving the work and other group members seem unprepared, unfocused, or unsure of what they should be working on.	All group members are working, but on entirely separate threads. Group members have little understanding of each other’s threads.	All group members are clear about what they are working on and how it will contribute to the group’s efforts as a whole
Progress	Little progress has been made since the previous sprint	Some progress has been made, but notably less than anticipated during sprint planning.	Considerable progress has been made since the previous sprint

Sprint retrospective

Sprint retrospectives provide a mechanism for continually improving the working relationship among your team. Sprint retrospectives will be conducted in class following a sprint demo. A written summary of the sprint retro should be submitted to Moodle within two days of the sprint demo.

Sprint retros should include the following five sections:

What went well in the sprint? (“I like…”)
What could be improved? (“I wish…”)
What will we commit to improve in the next Sprint? (“What if…”)
How can I help you?
Who will be the Product Owner for the next sprint?

Rubric

Sprint retrospective rubric
Criteria	Improvable	Good	Great
Overall Quality	Little thought or effort was apparent in retrospective. Areas for improvement are impractical, vague, and/or irrelevant. Focus is on blame or shame, rather than potential improvement.	Retrospective is honest but not insightful. Areas for improvement focus on general issues with time management, rather than concrete strategies.	Retrospective is honest and thoughtful. Areas for improvement are clearly identified. Team seems committed and unified.

Project presentations

Presentations should be aimed at a broader audience: think about presenting your project to the full SDS faculty, or to other SDS students. You can assume that they are knowledgeable about general statistical topics (e.g., regression), but you can not assume that they know anything about your project or your project sponsor.

Here is some guidance:

You will want at least one slide, probably at the very beginning, explaining who your project sponsor is, and what they do. This is a good place to include a logo, picture, and/or website link.
Resist the temptation to put many words on your slides. Do not read your slides! Slides should focus on visual cues for the audience, not a script for you to remember what to say! When you put words on slides, audience members start reading along with you and stop listening to what you are actually saying. It’s also boring.
Be liberal with your use of pictures, data graphics, data tables, diagrams, screenshots, and even logos. These give the audience something to look at while you are talking.
Don’t forget to have fun! The use of humorous GIFs, emojis, memes, and tweets are accepted practice in professional and academic presentations by data scientists. [Keep it clean and not too esoteric.]

For more guidance, consult Technically Speaking.

Rubric

Presentation rubric
Criteria	Two	Three	Four
Background & Context	Audience had no idea what was being discussed	Vaguely told audience what project was about; used jargon that was not explained	Clearly explained what project was about
Emphasis	Audience wasn’t told or doesn’t remember what the key points were	Key points were mentioned but not highlighted	Key points were clearly enunciated
Enthusiasm	Showed no interest in topic	Mostly on message with medium energy	Conveyed strong positive feeling throughout presentation
Mastery	Major flaws in reasoning; obvious mistakes in interpretation and/or analysis	Knowledge seems sufficient but not sophisticated	Impressive mastery of material