Clean Brite Company Essay Sample
A limited time offer!
Get a custom sample essay written according to your requirements urgent 3h delivery guaranteedOrder Now
Clean Brite Company Essay Sample
Plagiarism is presenting somebody else’s work as your own. It includes: copying information directly from the Web or books without referencing the material; submitting joint coursework as an individual effort; copying another student’s coursework; stealing or buying coursework from someone else and submitting it as your own work. Suspected plagiarism will be investigated and if found to have occurred will be dealt with according to the procedures set down by the University.
All material copied or amended from any source (e.g. internet, books) must be referenced correctly according to the reference style you are using.
Your work will be submitted for electronic plagiarism checking. Any attempt to bypass our plagiarism detection systems will be treated as a severe Assessment Offence.
Coursework Submission Requirements
An electronic copy of your work for this coursework should be fully uploaded by midnight (local time) on the Deadline Date. The last version you upload will be the one that is marked.
For this coursework you must submit a single Acrobat PDF document. In general, any text in the document must not be an image (ie must not be scanned) and would normally be generated from other documents (eg MS Office using “Save As .. PDF”). Check whether you also need to upload a single ZIP file containing supporting evidence. There are limits on the file size.
Make sure that any files you upload are virus-free and not protected by a password or corrupted otherwise they will be treated as null submissions. Comments on your work will be available from the Coursework page on the Intranet. The grade will be made available in the portal. You must NOT submit a paper copy of this coursework.
1. Coursework submitted late without an Extenuating Circumstances claim will receive a ZERO grade. If you have extenuating circumstances you may submit your coursework up to two weeks after the published deadline without penalty but this is subject to acceptance of your claim by the School Extenuating Circumstances Panel. If your claim is rejected then you will receive a zero grade for your work.
2. Coursework submitted more than two weeks late will be given feedback but a grade of non-submission will be awarded regardless of any extenuating circumstances. However, if your Extenuating Circumstances claim is accepted then the Extenuating Circumstances Panel will recommend to the Progression and Award Board that you be permitted to retake a different item of assessment at a future assessment point.
All coursework must be submitted as above.
This is an individual coursework
Part 1 (40%):
You are to research and prepare a section of your report describing the
application of quality assurance to your work.
For this task you are required to perform some quality assurance on your coursework. You should document as a detailed section in your coursework how you will ensure both process and product quality. This should include the development of a quality plan for your work and a review of your plan once the work is complete.
As part of the quality process, you should give a presentation that facilitates the review of your quality plan. You are required to deliver the presentation formally and should also include it as part of your coursework.
Summary of Report – Part 1 (40%)
This part your coursework should include the following:
1. A description of your process and product quality assurance procedure for your coursework. This should include a description of any change control that you have employed.
2.A description of your 5 minute presentation (approximately 5 slides) aims/objectives, the power point slides, and a critical review.
3. A review of your quality assurance procedures.
Your QA plan should guide your production of Part 2
Part 2 (60%):
You are to submit an academic style paper.
In his seminal paper “No Silver Bullet – Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering1” Fred Brooks Jr. questioned whether there could be a “silver bullet” that could lay to rest the monsters of missed schedules, blown budgets and flawed products. He argued that software development is ultimately reliant on good designers and good managers and so advances in technology and methodology such as object-orientated analysis and design or programming languages can never give more than marginal gains. He concluded that “Building software will always be hard. There is inherently no silver bullet.”
However that paper was written twenty five years ago and in that time there have been a number of advances which claim to specifically address the problems of large scale systems development.
You are to research and prepare a report on one of these new techniques from the following list: TOGAF,
Your report should be an academic style discussion that critically evaluates the technique’s value in the light of software engineering’s inherent problems and concludes by discussing how far the technology does, or does not, go toward supporting the view expressed by Brooks in the quotation given above.
The report should have solid academic content and you should therefore base your discussion on at least one refereed paper from a leading computing or software engineering journal such as IEEE Software, IEEE Computing or Communications of the ACM. Copies of these and other leading software journals may be found online through the University eLibrary Portal. To access this log into the portal, click Library then Databases, Journals and e-books, you will then be able to find the IEEE online catalogues in the list provided. Due to our licensing agreement you may have to be logged into a University machine to access some of this material.
The paper in Part 2 should following typical format of a formal academic paper. You may consider looking at the ‘information for authors’ found in all referred archived journals for examples of formatting and layout.
You are required to deliver a two part report as follows:
Section 1 (worth 40% of the total marks):
A report detailing your quality assurance produced in producing this work (around 3-5 pages). This should include:
1. A quality plan for the production of your essay in Section 2. 2. A description of your 5 minute QA presentation aims/objectives, the power point slides (approximately 5 slides), and a critical review of your presentation. 3. A review of the quality assurance plan process itself.
Section 2 (worth 60% of the total marks):
A report of between 1,500 and 2,000 words arranged in the following order:
2Author name, degree program and email address
3An abstract description of your paper,
4The main body of your, suitably divided under headings and where necessary, sub-headings (for example, Introduction, Discussion, Conclusions, Evaluation, Future Work) 5Acknowledgements (if any)
6References (Harvard standard)
7Appendices including a glossary of terms and list of acronyms used (if any).
The paper in Section 2 should following typical format of a formal academic paper. Assessment Criteria
This is a level three degree coursework and therefore, as well as a demonstrating that you have learnt some facts or skills, you are being assessed on your ability to research, think and reason and then articulate your findings and conclusions.
You will be assessed on the following points:
A clear demonstration of background reading and research into the issues discussed. A demonstration of your understanding of the field, i.e. clearly identifying and enumerating the fundamental issues, use of correct terminology and facts including knowledge of the existence and names of methods, classifications, abstractions, generalizations and theories.
Discussion summarizing the topic area and ability to extrapolate beyond the given situation. Can explain or summarize information giving a good account of work done by others and reporting ideas intelligibly with accuracy and thoroughness and without introducing gross distortions
Able to apply abstractions in particular and concrete situations, e.g. use of examples to illustrate and support your argument
General organizational structures can be identified
Assumptions can be recognized
Can produce sensible, reasoned and substantiated criticism and suggest alternatives Does not indulge in pointless and unsubstantiated criticism
Able to combine elements or parts in such a way as to produce a pattern or structure that was not clearly there before
Demonstration of insight
A strong argument supporting or rejecting the technique with a sound conclusion given your stated premises. Can make qualitative and quantitative judgments about the value of methods, processes or artefacts.
This is a course in system building and not graphics design therefore no marks are allocated for desktop publishing or even word processing. However, a well structured piece and clarity of language is essential to the assessor’s deliberations.
Specifically the following marking guidelines will be used for the assessment:
70..100% 1st Class. Distinctive/Outstanding in all elements. Demonstrates ability to engage independently in researching material. Reports ideas with accuracy and thoroughness. Demonstrates evidence of synthesis and evaluation. Produces sensible, reasoned and substantiated criticism. Addresses complex concepts and problem-solving.
60 … 70%Meritorious. Good standard overall and distinctive in some elements. Demonstrates some ability in researching material. Gives good accounts of work done by others. Does not indulge in pointless and unsubstantiated criticism and is able to avoid irrelevant or personal critical comments. Addresses an interesting or difficult problem and demonstrates powers of analysis.
50 … 60%Good Pass. Achieved the aims of the work with good ability shown in some areas. Demonstrates learning, good communication and some independent work. Reports ideas intelligibly without introducing gross distortions and demonstrates knowledge and comprehension.
40 … 50%Pass.
Achieved the aims of the work and demonstrated basic skills in acquiring and reporting facts. Has investigated the topic in a limited way. Demonstrates
application but lacks critical analysis and evaluation.
0 … 40%Fail – does not meet level 6 undergraduate degree standard.
YOUR ATTENTION IS ONCE AGAIN DRAWN TO THE UNIVERSITY RULES ON PLAGIARISM