Team Diff: Grading Scheme
Here’s my grading scheme, or at least what I think is a reasonable grading scheme.
SUBJECTIVE COMPONENT
Participant: Meeting attendance w/ constructive participation – 15%
“OBJECTIVE” COMPONENTS
Worker: Completes “promised” work each week – 25%
Tester: Tests “promised” work each week – 15%
Enabler: Reviews one other team members’ work each week -25%
(follow through to ensure no blocking of teammate for that period)
Supporter: Has a 5-10 minute discussion by phone each week w/ provided log – 20%
(starting now for the logs, follows up on items brought up by the team)
TOTAL: 100%
—
So, the workflow for a given week would be:
1. In meeting, announce “promised” work for next week. 1-2 small, achievable goals.
2. Complete said work.
3. Test said work.
4. During the following week, see who needs a review. Give them a review and follow up through the next week’s meeting so they don’t get blocked.
5. During the following week, have a chat with everyone. Make sure that we don’t have “communication deadlock”.
6. Attend the next meeting, provide constructive input where knowledgeable.
Conclusion / Motivation
If I can be a participant, worker, tester, enabler, and supporter all at once, then hell, I’ve been a good Basie team member!
Now the tough question: should this be applied retroactively (i.e., starting from early September) or only for the remaining five weeks?
Greg Wilson
28 Oct 09 at 12:45 pm
@Greg: I had the same question during our meeting.
For the ‘participant’ role there is probably no issue marking retroactively. However, for roles like the ‘reviewer’ I feel like you are setting a standard for yourself to meet that may be unfair to apply to past performance. This becomes an issue in that we would be effectively giving all of the semesters marks to only the last month.
Then again, this would probably be the same if we were merely being marked based on our final product and/or checkpoint implementations.
Overall, I’m quite smitten with this scheme. Kudos to Bill for expressing it so nicely.
For
Ted
29 Oct 09 at 4:48 am
[...] to the developers’ mailing list. Bill Konrad took the initiative during the meeting and posted the scheme for his ‘team’. Bill categorized his work on Basie into five roles: [...]
Basie weekly meeting: Oct. 28, 2009 « UCOSP
30 Oct 09 at 1:23 am
[...] spend a meeting talking about grading schemes, and while everyone liked Bill’s role oriented grading scheme, it still required some tuning to be more inline with what other teams were doing. So here’s [...]
Team IRC: Grading Scheme at Basie Blog
30 Oct 09 at 4:36 pm
[...] scheme for the tagging ‘team’. As you can probably tell, it borrows from the IRC and diff teams’ [...]
‘Team’ Tagging: Grading Scheme at Basie Blog
31 Oct 09 at 4:35 am
[...] Diff, IRC, Tagging, and more to [...]
Grading Schemes at a Glance « UCOSP
5 Nov 09 at 10:29 am