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. Grades and feedback will appear on Moodle.
Sprint demos should:
Criteria | One | Two | Three |
---|---|---|---|
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 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:
Criteria | One | Two | Three |
---|---|---|---|
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. |
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:
For more guidance, consult Technically Speaking.
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 |