Hide menu

TDDE41 Software Architectures

The criteria for evaluating work in TDDE41

The grades will be based on the total of points acquired in the grading grid described below:
Level Grade
minimum 1 point in each cathegory Grade 3
minimum 11 points (at least 1 point in each cathegory) Grade 4
minimum 18 points (at least 1 point in each cathegory) Grade 5
If the submission does not the minimal criteria for a given section then the grade for that section is 0. When assigning a grade, we rely on common sense. Eg: a single spelling mistake in an otherwise very well written paper can tolerated. The poster should inculde:
  1. A clear statement of the problem
  2. A graphical representation of the overall architecture
  3. A concise descrtiption of the solution, highlighting important design decisions and what technical problems they are addressing
  4. An explanation of the integration mechanisms between different modules
  5. An overview of which main architectural qualities were prioritised and how
The report should include:
  1. An architecture desciption supported by relevant diagrams
  2. A discussion of architectural decisions, where relevant with presentation of tools and outline of alternatives
  3. Setup of validation of the implementation, description of tests executed
  4. Analysis and discussion of the solution with respect to the architectural requirements targeted
  5. Discussion of the integration process - was it succesful? why/why not? what compromises had to be made? how did it impact the development of the module?
  6. Description of how the architecture fits with a deployment strategy that ensures data confidentiality and integreity The strategy does not need to be implemented but needs to be described in sufficient technical detail.
  7. A good selection of technical and peer reviewed reference material to support design decisions and analysis
The poster should include:
  1. A graphical overview of all the architecture and the mechanisms of interaction between the different modules
  2. A highlight of architecturally significant requirements and an explanation of how the different architectural decisions contribute to overall properties of the application not just to individual modules.
  3. A highlight of the strong points of the architecture, potential for future development, societal and sustainability implicaitons of the design.
The grade is calculated on the following crtieria:

Report

Reference quality

  1. The work is based on the material referenced on the course web-site, includes a lot of direct quotes.
  2. The work generalizes from the course material and uses several own references to sources describing the selected technique(s) and it's applications.
  3. The work references mostly sources independent from course material and uses published references.

Context

  1. The work describes clearly in what context the technology should be used and justifies the advantages.
  2. The work does everything in 1, and in addition outlines alternatives and uses references to support the claims.
  3. The work does everything in 1 and 2 and in addition takes a critical approach to the feasibility of the claims, supported by references and outlines possible imporvements to the solution.

Architectural Soundness

  1. The work includes references to a concrete technological approach but is limited in scope or validity, a lot of the things are discussed in theory not supported by implemenation.
  2. The work does everything in 1 and is able to link well the implementation concepts with theoretical concepts presented in the the course and literature resources.
  3. The paper does everything in 1 and 2 and is able to provide a critical evaluation of the approach based on measurable data and/or a well motivated comparison to other techical approaches.

Architecture Analysis

  1. The work clearly outlines what architectural requirements were targeted, but they may be limited in scope or validity. Claims are based on own decisions with weak support from sources (eg. theoretical results from a different context).
  2. The work clearly defines what architectural requirements were targeted, they are relevant to the application and reasonable. Technical and design difficulties linked to these requirements are clearly identified. Some architectural strategy is proposed but not completely followed through. The solution is evaluated based on subjective criteria, insufficiently supported by tests and litterature.
  3. The work clearly defines what architectural requirements were targeted, they are relevant to the application and reasonable. Technical and design difficulties linked to these requirements are clearly identified. The design choices are motivated by claims based on litterature from multiple sources, with a critical evaluation of the results based on own implementation. The report should cover how aspects of ethics, social impact and sustainability are taken in consideration and integrated in the architectural decisions.

Integration, deployment and future development

  1. The report explains how the modules have been connected together but lacks connection to architectural decisions-
  2. The report does everything in 1 and explains how the modules have been designed to be connected together. The report should outline a deplyoment plan.
  3. The report does everything in 1 and 2 and also explains clearly the mechanisms that should be implemented to ensure data security and confidenciality in the real world. The report should describe a clear deplyoment plan. The report should motivate how current design decisions will facilitate further development and outline what needs to be done next.

Poster

Language and form

  1. The poster conveys the main ideas, the text is mostly error free. Some concepts are unexplained, the different concepts presented on the poster are not well connected together visually, the poster is hard to read and/or understand.
  2. The text contains no errors related to spelling, grammar or form and is easy to read. Some terms may be introduced without explanation, or there may be informal language used. The poster looks professional with minor issues. The layout of the poster does not help understand the concepts better.
  3. The text contains no errors related to spelling, grammar or form and is easy to read. The poster looks professional and sells the concept. All terms are sufficiently explained. All concepts introduced are relevant and necessary. The graphics and text used in the poster work cohesively to create an overview of the problem and the proposed solution.

Contents

  1. The poster sums up the report contents and provides a clear overview of the solution
  2. The poster provides a clear overview of the solution and presents the information in a way complementary to the reports, it highlights the architecturally significant requirements. The infomation presented contains inconsistencies between different modules.
  3. The poster provides a clear overview of the solution and presents the information in a way complementary to the reports, the poster highlights architecturally significant requirements and connects them clearly to the technical solutions chosen. All of the modules of the system are presented consistently.

Some examples from last year

Posters 1, 2 and 3 are some good posters from last year. The project topics were different last year, however the grading criteria were the same.

Plagiarism

Attention, the reports will be checked for plagiarism. Here are some good references on how to avoid plagiarism in your work:

PLAGIERING OCH UPPHOVSRÄTT

NoPlagiat: self-study tutorial for avoiding Plagiarism and Copyright Issues

Page responsible: Lena Buffoni
Last updated: 2022-04-27