ENGG2050 A5 Case study 2: SE Process in Practice Answers

Reading the provided case study:

All questions are of equal value. Submit in your own words in response to the following questions:1.What was the objective of the project, and what were the technical and project challenges?2.What management mechanism did the author attribute the project success to? 3.Comment and justify: why wasn’t this project using a more agile method of project management and delivery process?4.How were cost savings achieved? What sort of processes were used when determining requirements for the project? Give an example of this.5.How was the team assembled, and what different people management strategies were used?6.Explain how “better to spend money to save time than to spend money to optimise performance” was justified in this project?7.Comment on the layers of management that the team opted for? What were the advantages and disadvantages to this number and style of layers? How did they directly help with the success of the project?8.What strategies were used for the integration and testing phase?9.How was design for maintenance incorporated in the spacecraft?10.List out how one might adopt these strategies for a similar project at University.

Marking rubrics:

Presentation[overall document] (10%)Addressing the question + supporting evidence [for each question] (90%)HD Highly professional, well-formatted, appropriate use of headings, bullet points, tables, figures, and appendices. All inserts are captioned. Citations are well utilised.Able to address the question in a succinct and logical format.Detail supporting the answer and pointing to contrary facts and caveat where appropriate. Formulated a well thought through an answer that demonstrates their understanding in the question and the topic. Page references to the case study.Cr –

D Well, formatted and good use of listing, headings, fonts to help articulate argument. Figures and tables are captioned. Citations are included.Able to address questions that are more than a few simple sentences.Substantially more effort in supporting evidence for the answer to the questions. High-level descriptors and keywords being quoted in the response.

P Acceptable formatting, minimal use of fonts, headings, or listings to aid in the delivery of the argument.Able to address the questions in simple wordings.1-2 simple statements that references the case study, with references to page number where appropriate.

F Unformatted, OR poor use of fonts or listing of any sort. OR information was not cited.The case study submission was substantially late and/or there is significant amount of work found to have been plagiarised from other sources.Not able to answer the questions directly or succinctly.No detail supporting evidence referring to the case study.The case study submission was substantially late and/or there is significant amount of work found to have been plagiarised from other sources.