Chat with us, powered by LiveChat TIME REMAINING: NONE need 8 different docs same question 8 copies of answers with no plagarism 1,500 and 2,000 words each | Coms Paper
+1(978)310-4246 credencewriters@gmail.com
  

please check out the part 2 and you need to work on part 2 and get 8 different answers in different docs please no plagarism please follow instructions7 answers in 7 docs with 1500-2000 words eachCOMP1470
(2019/20)
Course Leader:
Dr Simon Scola
Systems Development,
Management and
Governance
Management Report
Faculty
Header ID:
300692
Contribution: 50% of
course
Deadline Date:
Monday 02/03/2020
This coursework will be marked anonymously
YOU MUST NOT PUT ANY INDICATION OF YOUR IDENTITY IN YOUR SUBMISSION
This coursework should take an average student who is up-to-date with tutorial work
approximately 25 hours
Feedback and grades are normally made available within 15 working days of the
coursework deadline
Learning Outcomes:
ALL
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 coursework from another student
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. Please see your student
handbook for further details of what is / isn’t plagiarism.
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 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 must be fully uploaded
on the Deadline Date of Monday 02/03/2020 using the link on the
coursework Moodle page for COMP1470.
For this coursework you must submit a single PDF document. In general,
any text in the document must not be an image (i.e. must not be scanned)
and would normally be generated from other documents (e.g. MS Office
using “Save As .. PDF”). An exception to this is hand written mathematical
notation, but when scanning do ensure the file size is not excessive.
There are limits on the file size (see the relevant course Moodle page).
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.
02/03/2020
Page 1 of 9



Your work will not be printed in colour. Please ensure that any pages with
colour are acceptable when printed in Black and White.
You must NOT submit a paper copy of this coursework.
All courseworks must be submitted as above. Under no circumstances can
they be accepted by academic staff
The University website has details of the current Coursework Regulations,
including details of penalties for late submission, procedures for Extenuating
Circumstances, and penalties for Assessment
Offences. See http://www2.gre.ac.uk/current-students/regs
02/03/2020
Page 2 of 9
Specification
Part 1: Project planning case study- worth 20%
In this section you are required to work as a GROUP to define a set of requirements for the Hospital
Sterile Services case (G1). A preliminary design (G2) should follow again as part of your GROUP
work. You each need to complete and submit the group pro-forma (I3) that can be found at the bottom
of this specification.
You should then individually create a CoCoMo estimation for the project (I4) and conduct a Social,
Legal and Ethical review of the project (I5).
Deliverables from part 1:
G1: Requirements specification (5 marks) – GROUP WORK
G2: Group design work (5 marks) – GROUP WORK
I3: Completed pro-forma.
I4: CoCoMo (10 marks) – INDIVIDUAL WORK
I5: Social, Legal and Ethical review of the project (10 marks) – INDIVIDUAL WORK
The Case Study: Hospital Sterile Services
The sterile services department of a large hospital manages the cleaning and sterilisation of surgical
and other medical instruments used at various medical procedures such as medical operations in the
hospital. Surgical instrument are organised in trays, each identified by a unique identification number.
A medical procedure will typically use one or more of trays of surgical instruments. The tray id is
recorded in the procedure notes, so that the history of any instruments used can be traced at any time
in the future and cross-referenced to individual patients and medical personnel. Each procedure type
requires a prescribed number of trays, each with a predetermined list of contents, specific for this type
of operation.
After a procedure, some or all of the instruments used may need to be disposed of. Any individual
instruments disposed of are replaced by brand new ones. The trays are then loaded on trolleys and
taken through a series of cleansing and sterilisation procedures. Typically, each tray is washed to
remove any organic matter and then put through a series of operations to sterilise them. The series of
required sterilisation operations depend on the tray instrument list type. For each sterilisation
operation, the operator name, sterilisation machine identification, date and time need to be recorded.
Your software consultancy company has been approached to automate the current process that is
largely paper based. The aim is to create a software system that can automate the process and allow
integration with other hospital information systems.
You are required to model the current business system and propose a new, integrated software system
that will include all current functionality and enhancements needed.
Your job is to elicit the exact requirements from the case study. Any clarifications that you need to
make will be done in questions and answer sessions with your client (your lecturer) during class. You
can make further assumptions, as well. However, you will (as good software engineers) record any
conclusions and assumptions you make from these discussions to be included in your final
documentation/report appendix.
02/03/2020
Page 3 of 9
Part 2: Management report for the production of an academic essay – worth 30%
(INDIVIDUAL WORK)
For this task you are required to perform some management for the production of a quality assurance
on your essay part 3. You should document as a detailed section in your coursework how you will
ensure both process and product quality, time management using project planning techniques and
risk assessment. You should also include 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 as a peer review and should also include
it as part of your coursework.
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.
Deliverables from part 2:
I6: QA plan with commercial risk assessment (10 marks) and time management (10 marks)
I7: Evidence of your peer review presentation and evaluation – worth 10 marks
Your QA plan should guide your production of Part 3
02/03/2020
Page 4 of 9
Part 3: Academic essay – worth 40%
(Individual work)
You are to submit an academic style paper.
Brief:
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 nearly thirty 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 techniques from the following list:
• TOGAF,
• Extreme Programming.
Your report should be an academic style discussion that critically evaluates the technique’s value in
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.
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. An example of the IEEE style manual and article templates can be found at
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/authors/authors_journals.html
The essay should be between 1,500 and 2,000 words arranged in the following order:
1
2
3
4
Title
Author name, degree program and email address
An abstract description of your paper,
The main body of your, suitably divided under headings and where necessary, sub-headings
(for example, Introduction, Discussion, Conclusions, Evaluation, Future Work)
5 Acknowledgements (if any)
6 References (Harvard standard)
7 Appendices 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.
Deliverables from part 3:
I8: Academic essay
1
Brooks Jr., F. P., “No Silver Bullet: Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering”,
Computer, Vol. 20(4), (April 1987) pp. 10-19. (A copy of this can be found online)
02/03/2020
Page 5 of 9
Deliverable summary and checklist
The following deliverables are expected as part of this coursework. You can complete this table on
your printed sheet to ensure that you have not forgotten to include any of the items.
Deliverable
G1
G2
I3
I4
I5
I6
I7
I8
Description
Group requirements specification
Group design work
Completed pro-forma
CoCoMo cost estimations
Social, Legal and Ethical review of
the project
QA plan with commercial risk
assessment
Time management
Evidence of your peer review
presentation and evaluation
Academic essay
Knowledge and Comprehension
Analysis and Synthesis
Evaluation
Academic writing
Overall
02/03/2020
Marks
awarded
5 (only with I3)
5 (only with I3)
0
10
10
Tick when
completed
10
10
10
8
8
8
8
8
Page 6 of 9
Grading Criteria
80-100
Exceptional
70-79
Excellent/very
good
60-69
Good
50-59
Satisfactory
40-49
Fail
0-39
Fail
Exceptional
In addition to the criteria of excellent this level must show excellent referencing and the
work has the possibility of publication; subject to suitable editing.
Excellent / Very good
In addition to the criteria of good work at this level must demonstrate significant
substantiated critique, insight and academically sound assertions.
The QA plan contains both excellent project management and well specified quality
objectives that are exceptional. Section 1 is complete.
Good
In addition to the criteria of satisfactory, this level this level demonstrates strong synthesis,
analysis and application, knowledge and comprehension but somewhat weak critique.
The work provides some critique and insight but its not well supported by evidence or logic.
Provides relevant contextual examples of the techniques to support the discussion, such
examples are mostly based on evidence or sound logic.
The combination of work
demonstrates good synthesis and generates additional information beyond the original
sources. Occasional strong academic assertions are made. The student demonstrates and
clear analytical approach to answering the question posed.
The QA plan contains either good project management and somewhat relevant, well
specified quality objectives or vice-versa. Section 1 is complete.
Satisfactory
This level demonstrates the occasional presentation of relevant knowledge and
comprehension applied and contextualised to the question posed, absent or unsound
synthesis, analysis and critique. The student demonstrates sufficient knowledge and
comprehension. This includes the use of academic sources of information to present
information accurately. The paper fails to make relevant examples and/or the examples are
unsound.
The QA plan makes an attempt at project management and quality objectives but they are in
places quite weak and erroneous. Deliverables are absent but those provided are of sufficient
quality to warrant a pass.
Fail
This level demonstrates unsound presentation of relevant knowledge and comprehension
applied and/or the presentation of material is not contextualised to the question posed,
absent or unsound synthesis, analysis and critique. Does not demonstrate accurate
reporting of information. The references are unsound. Does not answer the question
posed.
The QA plan is incomplete. The plan does not provide project management and/or quality
objectives. A factual presentation without application to the specific task of writing an
academic paper warrants a failure.
02/03/2020
Page 7 of 9
YOUR ATTENTION IS ONCE AGAIN DRAWN TO THE UNIVERSITY RULES ON
PLAGIARISM
Definitions
This is a level seven 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:
Knowledge & Comprehension:
• 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
Analysis, Application & Synthesis
• 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
Evaluation / critique
• 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.
Consider how these will be met within your academic paper
02/03/2020
Page 8 of 9
Group work pro-forma
Each group member should fill in this pro-forma and attached it as an Appendix in your report.
Group
Member
Name
Main tasks accomplished
02/03/2020
Effort
(%)
Page 9 of 9

Purchase answer to see full
attachment

error: Content is protected !!