Assignment 1 – Short answer responses 

This document provides you with information about the requirements for your assessment. Detailed instructions and resources are included for completing the task. The Criterion Reference Assessment (CRA) Rubric that markers use to grade the assessment task is included.

Task Overview  Task description Short answer response. What you need to do Answer all questions in Appendix 1 – Questions  Due Date 26th April 2020 – 23:59pm 

Task snapshots Length Length of written response for questions:  Question 4 is two cards  All other questions should be on average between ½ and 1 page in length each   Weighting 40 % Individual or Group individual Formative or Summative  Summative How will I be assessed Rubric  The table below outlines the alignment of marks and rubric criteria for the assignment.  No    Section   Mark  Rubric criteria  1   Question 12 1,2,3  2   Question 12 1,2,3 3   Question 12  1,2,3  4   2 cards    14  1,2,3 5   Question 12  1,2,3 6   Questions (2) 14   1,2,3 7  Question 12  1,2,3 8  Questions (5)  12  1,2,3  Learning outcomes/objectives/ criteria  No. 2 Undertake research and communicate information using an academic writing style. No. 3 Describe and appraise the major Agile methodologies used in the design and development of a business system. 



CIS3002 – Assignment 1 Page 2 of 6    

Submission information

Resources available to complete task

For Question 1, 6 and 8: you will find the case studies in Appendix 2  the “Agile PM Resource card –Retrospective is in the Assessment 1 resource section of study desk.  • Library services – https://www.usq.edu.au/library • Referencing guides – https://www.usq.edu.au/library/referencing • Study Support – https://www.usq.edu.au/library/study-support What you need to submit One document as a Microsoft Word document that contains the following items:  1. Assignment Cover Sheet – must include:  • course code and name, semester and year, assignment title, student name and student number  • the following statement of authorship:  In submitting this work, I understand that my work may be submitted to Turnitin and consent to this taking place.  2. The criteria sheet (landscape)  3. Please contact IT Support should you need assistance with preparing a document that contains both portrait and landscape pages.  

Submission requirements This assessment task must:  • use USQ Harvard referencing for citing academic literature  • be submitted in electronic format as an Adobe PDF document or  Microsoft Word document via Turnitin by following these steps:  1. Access the Turnitin Submission link   2. Click on the Submit button  3. Give the submission a title, select the correct file and click the Upload.  4. Click Confirm.  5. Click Return to Assignment list  6. To check successful submission, you will receive a text match %, and you are able to resubmit, view or download your paper.  7. ALWAYS check your student email for the submission receipt. 

Moderation (optional) All staff who are assessing your work meet to discuss and compare their judgements before marks or grades are finalised.

Academic Integrity

As a student of the USQ academic community, you are asked to work to uphold the principles of academic integrity during your course of study USQ sets expectations and responsibilities of students, more specifically it states that students “adopt an ethical approach to academic work and assessment in accordance with this policy and the USQ Academic Integrity Policy: web link

At university, students are expected to demonstrate their own understanding and thinking using the ideas provided by ‘others’ to support and inform their work, always making due acknowledgement to the source. While we encourage peer learning, it is not appropriate to share assignments with other students unless your assessment piece has been stated as being a group assignment. If you do share your assignment with another student, and they copy part of or all of your assignment for their submission, this is considered collusion and you may also be reported for academic misconduct.  If you are unsure and need further information you can find this at Academic Misconduct: web link


CIS3002 – Assignment 1  Page 3 of 6 

Assignment 1 Rubric Student Name: Date: Assessment name: Assignment 1 Short answer response Weighting: 40% Mark: 100 Criteria 7 (100 – 85%) 6 (84 – 75%) 5 (74 – 65%) 4 (65 – 50%) 3 – 1 (49 – 0%)

1. Critically apply specialist Agile skills to meet an identified IT problem. 

Compelling and well rounded Analyses key Agile skills of to meet problem and, bringing an originality of perspective 

Strong understanding of Agile and the tasks.  Answers all parts well.    

Sound understanding of Agile and the task.    Answers all parts of the tasks but still misses critical analysis of some relevant issues pertaining to the task.  

Basic to fair understanding of Agile and the task/s. May not have answered all the issues relevant to the task. 

Lacks a demonstrated understanding of Agile and the task/s. Not all issues relevant to the task/s have been answered. Misunderstood the assignment focus.

2. Synthesise multiple information sources to formulate best practice IT strategies and solutions. 

Strong supporting references Analysis evidence from relevant sources, synthesising and evaluating various perspectives and/or approaches Provides conclusions that draw logical links to the full range of solutions and information provided, including opposing viewpoints. Clearly outlines key consequences and implications.

Clear evidence of independent research and wider reading.  References are well integrated into the discussions.  Very good use of examples to support answers.   A good selection of scholarly sources.  Accurate Harvard AGPS referencing.

Rudimentary critical analysis. Maybe minor inaccuracies in understanding of Agile. Good use of examples from the case to support answer.   Uses the full number of prescribed references, 

Accurate Harvard AGPS referencing.  

Some irrelevancies and or inaccuracies in understanding of Agile and the tasks.  Included some additional references although integration of all or some of these references needs improvement.  

Limited range of citations, included some irrelevant material.   Minor errors in Harvard AGPS referencing.

Included mostly irrelevant material. Did not use the texts/readings as the primary source. Included irrelevant sources (web pages, study books, articles from magazines). Included few credible academic sources (peer reviewed books, journal articles). Limited examples from independent research to support answer.   Inaccurate Harvard AGPS referencing style

3. Communicate effectively, persuasively and professionally with stakeholders. 

Well formatted in a business style • Consistent use of business language throughout the document  • No spelling / grammatical errors 

Well formatted in a business style • Consistent use of business language throughout the document  • Little to no spelling / grammatical errors 

Formatting inconsistent with a business style • Inconsistent use of business language throughout the document • Minor spelling / grammatical errors  

Formatting inconsistent with a business style • Inconsistent use of business language throughout the document • Minor spelling / grammatical errors  

Poorly formatted document • Little to no use of business language throughout the document Significant spelling / grammatical errors

Result:  Additional Feedback


CIS3002 – Assignment 1  

Appendix 1 – Questions 

Research and answer the following questions

1. Refer to the case study in the text book (page 53 or appendix 2), using your knowledge of Agile suggest tools that could potentially be used to keep this project from resulting in failure.  Support your argument with references to statistics from the chaos report. (available in the course readings section of study desk) 

2. In the Scrum guide it recommends an ideal team size. There are numerous studies on project failure that sight communication as a primary factor.  Explain the link between these two statements supporting your argument with references to Agile visionaries,  communication theory & social psychology. 

3. In 2016 Scrum Values were added to the Scrum guide, almost 20 years after Scrum was introduced.  Speculate on the reasoning as to why they were added. Research and comment on if they have found widespread adoption. 

4. In the assessment 1 resource section, you will find a document called “Agile PM Resource card -Retrospective” using this as a template develop 2 more retrospective cards for different ways of running a retrospective meeting. 

5. Read: https://ronjeffries.com/articles/016-03/you-want/  From the perspective of the project manager what are the difficulties you see with what Ron Jefferies is saying?  What is the one metric or combination of metrics you think should be the most important and why? 

6. Read the ManFace case study (Appendix 2) then answer these questions: 

a. What PM framework do you think should be used, justify your answer with Cynefin.  b. With the PM framework you suggest what challenges do you see occurring during the project lifecycle? Explain what tools from the framework you would use to mitigate these challenges.  

7. Using 3 actors with different perspectives write 3 fully developed user stories that highlight how differing perspectives can alter the project outcome of building a bus stop shelter.   (refer to module 6.1.0 For an explanation of a User Story, Perspective of the Actor, Acceptance criteria & INVEST) 

8. Read the WHP case study (Appendix 2) then answer these questions:

a. What framework is being used to deliver WhatIf? b. Explain the significance of the 4 hour timebox meeting. What meeting is this and why is it that length?  c. Explain the rest of the meetings, what is their names in the framework?  d. Explain the cards, what phases they go through, what are the names of the phases in the framework?  e. Explain the roles in the project, what are their names in the framework?  


CIS3002 – Assignment 1  

Appendix 2 – Case Studies  Case Study 1 – From Textbook Learning Agile  Imagine you’re on a team building the very first handheld ebook reader. The hardware team delivered a prototype device that has a USB port that you can load ebooks into, and a little keyboard that lets you interact with it. It’s up to you and your team to build the software that will display ebooks to the user. Unfortunately, your company has a long history of building software using a particularly ineffective, “big requirements up front” waterfall process. So the first thing that your project manager does is to call a giant meeting with everyone she can find. Your whole team spends the next few weeks in a room with, at various times, the senior managers of your company, a representative from a friendly publisher who wants to publish ebooks that your reader can display, a senior salesperson from an online retailer hoping to sell those books, and any other stakeholder that your project manager can dig up and get to come to a meeting. After days of intense meetings and heavy debate, your business analysts were able to piece together a large specification with requirements from all of the different stakeholders who were consulted. It was a lot of work, but now you have a spec that everyone thinks is great. There are extensive features for the user that would make it the most advanced handheld reader software available. It includes features to capture marketing statistics for publishers, it provides an entire Internet storefront to make it easy to buy books, and it even has an innovative feature for authors to preview and edit their books as they write them, streamlining the publishing process. This would be truly revolutionary software. After you sit down with the rest of your team to estimate, you’ve come up with a schedule of 15 months. It seems like a long time, but everyone is excited, and you’re confident that you and your team can deliver.    Case Study 2 – ManFace  ManFace is a small software company located in Tromsø, Norway. They specialize in online facility management systems (FMS). FMS are used for managing, operating and maintaining buildings and properties.  ManFace was founded in 2006. They have nine employees in Norway and six employees in Sri-Lanka.  ManFace’s main product is called Facelite, customers range from small to large organizations in both private and governmental sectors.   Their main solution, Facelite, was launched in 2009 as a web based FMS solution. In 2012 they realized that mobile support was less than optimal. In February 2013, ManFace decided to set up a software shop in Sri-Lanka. A four-man team was formed. The goal was to enhance the existing solution with mobile apps for Android.   A project manager (PM) and a Business Analyst have been engaged, they are located in Tromsø and the rest of the team will remain in Sri-Lanka. The business requirements will be collected from the employees in Tromsø as well as major customers of the program.      It has been decided that the development team will commence work before all the requirements have been gathered.  Meaning the end solution has not been defined yet.  A delivery date has been set at 4 months from now & a budget approved. Management agree that they need a flexible approach for planning and implementing it with low governance overhead.       Case Study 3 – WHP  WHP is a consulting company located in Hull, England.  They specialize in tools for analysing risks in organizations.  They were founded in 1997 and have had local success since the beginning.  Their primary product is called WhatIf, it is a tool based on a physical board with different cards which represented various types of risk.  An opportunity has


CIS3002 – Assignment 1  

been recognised to expand their market by making their product into software solution.  WHP have the product knowledge but no IT experience so it was decided to set up a project to build the digital version of WhatIf.    First WHP hired a Project manager, Wendy.  With her advise they hired a group of 6 developers with a mix of skills.  The company’s top salesman, Derek was picked to work on the project as he has been selling & integrating WhatIf into local companies since its inception.             Wendy set up a workshop. First Derek walked the team through WhatIf.  They then spent some time writing on cards all the features WhatIf has. The developers discussed & decided on a platform & a language they would write the application in.  The whole group then walked through the cards they had written discussing & voting on the level of effort each card should take.  The developers then discussed each card with Derek working out if each feature was necessary or just desired for the product to work.    The next day Wendy took the effort votes from the cards & calculated out how long the project may take.  She went to the owners of WHP & explained what the team had done, how long the project should take & the cost based on that time frame.  The Owners approved the project to go ahead.  Armed with the good news Wendy set up a 4 hour meeting with the whole team.  They chose the first cards they thought they could achieve in two weeks, the development team asked Derek questions about the cards & then listed a set of tasks to be done on each card and a set of tests to be done on each card.    Wendy set up a daily meeting where each person in the development team explained what they had been up to the day before & what they intended to do that day.    At the end of two weeks Wendy set up a meeting with the whole team & the owners. The developers went through the work they had done that fortnight.  The owners were happy with the results & said they couldn’t wait for next fortnights results.   Straight after the meeting with the owners Wendy got the whole team to discuss how they had worked together for the last two weeks & if there was anything that should be done differently.  The next day the cycle started again with the whole team met for a 4 hour meeting to discuss what was next to build.