Project Assignment (1200 – 1500 Words) Finish it in 3 days. Read the Articles carefully or I will dispute. Rubric needs to be followed Mitigating Quality

Project Assignment (1200 – 1500 Words) Finish it in 3 days. Read the Articles carefully or I will dispute.

Rubric needs to be followed Mitigating Quality

Click here to Order a Custom answer to this Question from our writers. It’s fast and plagiarism-free.

Project Assignment (1200 – 1500 Words) Finish it in 3 days. Read the Articles carefully or I will dispute.

Rubric needs to be followed Mitigating Quality Risks
Overview
This assignment is intended to solidify your understanding of how and when
some of the techniques we are learning about can address specific software
quality risks. You will compare and contrast how scenario-based usability
engineering and architecture-oriented design affect different quality
attributes. The background for this assignment will come from prior reading
assignments and one new resource. The prior readings that are most relevant
to this assignment include:

l Pressman’s Chapter 14

l Chapter 3 in Scenario-Based Usability Engineering
The new resource is:
Air Traffic Control–A Case Study in Designing for High Availability

Assignment
Both Chapter 3 from Scenario-Based Usability Engineering and the case study
from Bass’ book focus on the design of air traffic control systems. The first
focuses on the use of usability engineering techniques, including participatory
design and scenario-based design, as a requirements gathering technique,
explaining how that played out in an air traffic control project. The case study
from Bass instead focuses on the software architecture that was used in an air
traffic control system as an example of how software architecture choices can
be used to address challenges in complex systems.

The main task of your assignment is to evaluate both scenario-based usability
engineering and software architecture-based design in terms of how they
affect each software quality attribute, using McCall’s list of software quality
attributes (see 14.2.2 in Pressman’s Chapter 14). Systematically go through
each of the quality attributes in that list and consider whether (and how) both
scenario-based usability engineering and architecture-based design addressed
or helped achieve that specific quality attribute.

Write up your results in a short paper (about 4-5 pages) that you will turn in.
Be sure to include the following elements in your solution:

1. Summary: provide a brief description of the two methods being
compared, using your own words, and provide an introduction to
the remainder of your paper.

2. Comparison: Using a separate subsection for each of the quality
attributes listed in McCall’s list, briefly but explicitly describe how
scenario-based usability engineering affects that attribute (or
whether it has no significant effect). You can use (but are not
limited to) the air traffic control examples as source material to
ground your argument. Your goal is to conclude whether scenario-
based usability engineering will help significantly increase the
chances of meeting a project’s goal with respect to that quality
attribute. Identify what you believe are the important
characteristics/properties of a software project that make scenario-
based usability engineering an important consideration for that
specific quality attribute on the project.

Then perform the same analysis for architecture-driven design with
respect to that quality (i.e., handle both techniques for one quality
attribute in each subsection, with a separate subsection for each
quality attribute in McCall’s list).

3. Conclusions: Look back over the analysis you have performed, and
summarize which group of quality attributes are affected by
scenario-based usability engineering, and what characteristics of a
software project make scenario-based usability engineering relevant
in order to meet desired quality goals. Similarly, summarize which
group of quality attributes are affected by architecture-driven
design, and what characteristics of a software project make
architectural decisions relevant in order to meet desired quality
goals.

Assessment
The following rubric will be used to assess your work:

Criteria Points

Project Summary 10
points

Excellent: Provides a clear explanation of both techniques and gives
an appropriate overview of the comparative analysis you are
performing, including a summary of the quality attributes used as
the basis for the comparison.

10/10

Criteria Points

Good: Provides an explanation of both techniques and lists the
quality attributes used in the analysis, but there is clear room for
improving the overview/introduction so it is more understandable.

8/10

Satisfactory: Names the techniques to be compared, but does not
provide a clear explanation of at least one of the techniques, or fails
to clearly articulate the quality attributes used in the analysis.

6/10

Poor: Provides an introductory summary that does not clearly
decribe either of the techniques analyzed.

3/10

No attempt: Section is missing. 0/10

Comparison 45
points

Excellent: Provides a clear, specific evaluation of how each of the
two techniques helps support (or does not support) each of the
quality attributes in the required list. The analysis is clearly broken
into sections based on the quality attribute list, and both techniques
are directly address in every section. Identifies the properties of a
software system that make each technique appropriate, when the
technique can directly affect software quality.

45/45

Good: Provides a clear evaluation of the two techniques for each
quality attribute, with the analysis broken down into sections based
on the quality attribute list indicated. A few sections may not
provide a clear analysis of one of the techniques, or may fail to
describe the properties of a software system that make the
technique relevant.

36/45

Satisfactory: All quality attributes are addressed, but many sections
do not clearly describe the effects of both techniques on the
attribute, mischaracterize the effects, or fail to clearly identify the
properties of software systems that make the technique relevant.

27/45

Poor: Simply restates basic concepts from the reading without
contributing a useful discussion of when/why a technique
addresses each quality attribute.

18/45

Criteria Points

No attempt: Section is missing. 0/45

Conclusions 35
points

Excellent: Explicitly identifies which quality attributes are
significantly affected by each of the two techniques analyzed, what
characteristics of a software project make the technique important
to use, and generalizes from this a coherent description of “when”
each of the two techniques should be applied (or at least
considered). Also discusses what kind of project would be
appropriate for applying both techniques.

35/35

Good: Identifies which quality attributes are significantly affected
by each of the two techniques analyzed, and what characteristics of
a software project make the technique important to use..

28/35

Satisfactory: Identifies which quality attributes are significantly
affected by each of the two techniques analyzed. One of more of
the attributes may be glossed over or omitted. Some important
system characteristics necessary for a technique to be important
may be identified, but some may be missing.

22/35

Poor: Attempts to evaluate the four architectures, but without any
clear connection to the presented evaluation critieria or any clear
summary of strengths and weaknesses for each architecture.

16/35

No attempt: Section is missing. 0/10

Writing/Presentation 10
points

Excellent: All writing is clear and readable, without grammar errors,
punctuation errors, or other writing problems. Figures or summary
tables are used appropriately where they clarify presentation. Clear
headings and a cohesive document organization are used. The
whole document looks like a professionally prepared report.

10/10

Criteria Points

Good: All writing is clear and readable, with only occasional minor
writing errors. An appropriate attempt is made to use appropriate
figures or summary tables where they help clarify presentation.
Clear headings and a cohesive document organization are used.

8/10

Satisfactory: The document is readable, but some significant errors
appear in the writing and/or organization. Some parts of the
exposition may not communicate clearly. Summary representations
of key portions of the work may be missing. Clear headings are
used.

6/10

Poor: The document is readable, but includes significant errors in
both writing and organization that make portions of the document
hard to follow.

3/10

No attempt: Section is missing. 0/10

Total 100
points

Mitigating Quality Risks
Overview
l Pressman’s Chapter 14
l Chapter 3 in Scenario-Based Usability Engineering
The new resource is:
Air Traffic Control–A Case Study in Designing for High Availability
Assignment
Assessment

Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by one of our experts, guaranteeing you an A result.

Need an Essay Written?

This sample is available to anyone. If you want a unique paper order it from one of our professional writers.

Get help with your academic paper right away

Quality & Timely Delivery

Free Editing & Plagiarism Check

Security, Privacy & Confidentiality