Project
A team project in three sprints
You and your team will build a complete product, and we will review your progress three times along the way.
- You will work in a team of four or five students. Teams are formed by random allocation within each section, and a sixth member needs justification and approval.
- Your project will be deployed to the cloud and will use a CI/CD pipeline. We will look at your version control history for structured contribution: branching, merging, and meaningful commit messages.
- Your team tracks its work in OpenProject, produces wireframes and mockups in Figma or Frame0, and draws its models in StarUML.
- At each review you present to a panel of faculty and teaching assistants, who act as your product owner and stakeholders. You defend your design and architecture decisions as claims, and we talk through the trade offs and the alternatives.
- Between sprints we introduce changes, as a client would. Your team reconciles each change with its existing design, priorities, and constraints.
- At every review, each of you answers individual questions on the work attributed to you.
Project calendar
| Phase | Window | Project activity |
|---|---|---|
| Team formation, repository and OpenProject setup | Mon 16 Nov to Fri 27 Nov 2026 | Teams of four to five students formed by randomized allocation within each section, project allocation, repository and OpenProject setup. |
| Sprint 0, Inception | Mon 16 Nov to Thu 24 Dec 2026 | Problem framing, personas, epics, user stories with acceptance criteria, prioritization, estimates, and release slices on a User Story Board in OpenProject. Ends with Review 0, the class presentation of the board. |
| Sprint 1, Core Implementation | Mon 4 Jan to Sat 20 Feb 2027 | About 40% working build deployed on the cloud, tests, CI pipeline, and backlog visibility. Runs in two stretches with a pause for the winter break and the midterm week. A short re-plan on Mon 1 Feb follows the pause. Ends with Review 1. |
| Sprint 2, Completion and Validation | Mon 1 Mar to Sat 20 Mar 2027 | Near complete functionality, test coverage, performance evaluation, documentation, live demonstration, retrospective, and closure. Three weeks, then Review 2. The Sprint 2 backlog is fixed at Review 1. |
Sprint 1 active days
Sprint 1 runs in two stretches, with a pause for the winter break and the midterm week. It has 26 active days, within the limit of 30. Burndown and velocity are plotted against active days only, on an axis from 0 to 26. Days shown in gray are Sundays and holidays inside the two stretches.
Stretch 1: Mon 4 Jan to Sat 9 Jan 2027, active days 1 to 6
Pause: winter break and midterm week. A short re-plan follows on Mon 1 Feb 2027.
Stretch 2: Mon 1 Feb to Sat 20 Feb 2027, active days 7 to 26
Reviews
| Review | Marks | Progress | Window | Focus |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Review 0: User Story Board | 10 | 10 to 15% | Thu 31 Dec to Thu 7 Jan 2027 | Team presentation to the class of the User Story Board in OpenProject: epics, user stories with acceptance criteria, priorities, estimates, and release slices for Sprint 1 and Sprint 2. |
| Review 1: Sprint 1 | 15 | about 40% | Mon 22 Feb to Fri 26 Feb 2027 | Working build deployed on the cloud, SRS and design diagrams, AI usage plan and instruction file, test and CI evidence, backlog and burndown, AI usage log, and individual code walkthrough. |
| Review 2: Sprint 2, Retrospective, and Release | 15 | 100% | Tue 23 Mar to Tue 30 Mar 2027 | Complete tested system, deployment with CI/CD and observability, documentation, retrospective, closure report, and live demonstration. |
At each review your team presents to a panel of faculty and teaching assistants who act as product owner and stakeholders. We score the individual lines of the rubric from your own answers and your repository record, and the group lines for the team. Your group marks may be adjusted when your individual record shows a substantially different contribution.
The User Story Board
The User Story Board is the product plan that the team builds together and presents to the whole class at Review 0. It is the baseline from which the Sprint 1 and Sprint 2 backlogs are drawn, and Review 1 and Review 2 measure progress against it. It is kept in the team's OpenProject workspace, and the repository is linked to it. The board contains the following.
- The problem statement, the users (personas), and the product goal.
- Epics, decomposed into user stories written in the form of role, goal, and reason.
- Acceptance criteria for every story, written as conditions that can be tested, and a team Definition of Done that states the unit testing expectation.
- A story map along the user journey, with a priority and a story point estimate for each story and the reason for the order.
- Release slices: the stories planned for Sprint 1 (the first working build of about 40%) and for Sprint 2, with dependencies and the main risks to the plan.
Every team member presents part of the board and answers questions on any part of it. If the board changes after Review 0, record the change in OpenProject with a reason, and we will talk about it at Review 1 and Review 2.
Tool chain and UML by review
| Review | Tool chain | UML diagrams |
|---|---|---|
| Review 0 | Git, OpenProject, and one tool of the team’s choice for the story map (the OpenProject board is sufficient). | None. UML diagrams are first assessed at Review 1. |
| Review 1 | Git, OpenProject, StarUML, development stack, CI tool, and one tool chosen to make the team stand out. | Mandatory: Use case and activity diagrams; Class diagram; Sequence diagram. Optional: Communication, state machine, and package diagrams. |
| Review 2 | Git, OpenProject, StarUML, Jenkins or another CI/CD tool, and one tool for testing, performance, or security. | Mandatory: Use case, activity, class, and sequence diagrams (final). Optional: Component, deployment, and state machine diagrams (refined). |
Rubric for Review 0: User Story Board
10 marks. The 5 criteria carry 2 marks each. The panel awards the full mark, one mark, or no mark, using the descriptors that follow, and may award a half mark between levels.
| Criterion and evidence | Level | Marks |
|---|---|---|
| Coverage: problem statement, personas, epics, and user stories that together cover the project statement | Group | 2 |
| Story quality: role, goal, reason form, invest properties, testable acceptance criteria, and a definition of done | Group | 2 |
| Prioritization and estimation: ordered backlog with reasons and story point estimates | Group | 2 |
| Release planning: story map, sprint 1 and sprint 2 slices, dependencies, and risks | Group | 2 |
| Presentation and defense: each member presents and answers questions on the board | Individual | 2 |
| Total | 10 |
Level descriptors
| Criterion | Full mark (2) | One mark (1) | No mark (0) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coverage | Personas are specific. Epics cover every part of the project statement, and each epic is broken into stories with no gaps or overlaps. | Epics cover most of the statement. Some stories are missing, duplicated, or too large to be built in one sprint. | Stories are a loose feature list with no personas or epics, or do not match the project statement. |
| Story quality | Every story is written for a named role with a clear reason. Stories are independent, small, and testable. Acceptance criteria are concrete conditions, and the Definition of Done includes unit testing. | Most stories follow the form. Acceptance criteria exist but are vague, repeat the story, or cannot be tested. | Stories are tasks or technical items. Acceptance criteria and Definition of Done are absent. |
| Prioritization and estimation | The order of the backlog follows stated value and risk reasons. Estimates are relative, consistent across stories, and the team can explain them. | A priority order is present but the reasons are weak. Estimates are present but inconsistent or all alike. | No order or estimates, or the order is arbitrary and cannot be justified. |
| Release planning | The story map follows the user journey. Sprint 1 holds a coherent first slice of about 40% that can be deployed. Sprint 2 completes the product. Dependencies and risks are named. | Stories are allocated to sprints, but the first slice is not a working whole, or dependencies and risks are missing. | No allocation to sprints, or the allocation is infeasible for the time available. |
| Presentation and defense | Every member presents. Answers show that the member understands the whole board and the reasons behind it. The board in OpenProject matches the presentation. | Some members present or answer only on their own part. The board and presentation differ in places. | A member cannot explain the board, or the board is not shown in OpenProject. |
Rubric for Review 1: Sprint 1
15 marks.
| Component and evidence | Level | Marks |
|---|---|---|
| Working build of about 40% of the planned functionality, deployed on the cloud | Group | 3 |
| SRS derived from the User Story Board, and UML diagrams as listed for Review 1 | Group | 2 |
| Architecture diagram, ERD, API specification, and design justification | Group | 2 |
| Testing evidence: unit and integration tests, with the CI pipeline running | Group | 2 |
| OpenProject progress: board, work packages, and actual against planned burndown on active days (role based) | Individual | 2 |
| Version control contribution (branching, commits, pull requests) and individual code walkthrough | Individual | 2 |
| AI usage plan, instruction file, and usage log, with verification evidence for accepted AI output | Group | 2 |
| Total | 15 |
Rubric for Review 2: Sprint 2, Retrospective, and Release
15 marks.
| Component and evidence | Level | Marks |
|---|---|---|
| Complete implementation and live demonstration | Group | 3 |
| Test automation, coverage, regression, and performance evaluation | Group | 3 |
| Deployment through CI/CD, with logging and monitoring | Group | 2 |
| Documentation: installation guide, release notes, user manual, and final UML diagrams | Group | 2 |
| Retrospective record, lessons learned, and project closure report | Group | 2 |
| OpenProject closure (role based), individual contribution, and individual code walkthrough | Individual | 2 |
| Innovation or use of a new tool, with AI usage log reviewed against verification evidence | Group | 1 |
| Total | 15 |