# Yhteenveto kehityskohteista - Level 1: mietitään parallel / exclusive jne - level 1 yksinkertaistetaan alkua (kurssin aloitus) - monessa paikkaa puhutaan exclusive gatewayn sulkemisesta - selvitetään mitä se on - Lanet kuntoon (eli poistetaan tasolta 1) - LA1-5 yhdistäminen - exercise 5 vapaaehtoiseksi - Samannimisiä laatikoita -> yhdistetään yhdeksi laatikoiksi ja ohjataan gatewaylla - katsotaan onko meillä distribution of work jossain # Part A) ## Level 0 consider making model read left to right instead of up to down - Courses are divided into periods, which is good. I would maybe design the process so that it goes from left to right (1st period on the left and proceeding from there). ## SW Assignment 3 document model "The lecture slides could be added here" Grades and possible feedback could be considered as a output of a process (document) ## Working environment "The addition of extra roles is good, but I did not see them used anywhere in the models." You should have assigned one manager for Teacher unit. That should be Karin. For the Student unit that is not that important. ## Level 1: There could be an exclusive gateway before process 20 and before the second process 13. The student should conduct LA1 first. After that SW1 can be completed. So for the first parallelity, you need to “chop” it to smaller pieces. One parallel modelling for these is not enough. Remember to close the gateways with an exclusive gateway. Activities 7-11 should not be included in a single concurrent block as Lecture Assignment 1 should be completed before SW Assignment 1 and Lecture Assignment 2 should be completed before SW Assignment 2. In addition, completing Lecture Assignments 4 and 5 is not a prerequisite to conducting SW Assignment 3. - The lecture assignments and software assignments at the beginning should not be in a parallel process flow since there is and order they should be completed in. Also, it doesn’t make sense that “Conduct lecture assignment 4” and “Conduct lecture assignment 5” appear twice in the process flow. For example, the question “Is lecture assignment 4 missing?” is irrelevant since lecture assignment 4 must have been completed before for the process flow to continue. Is the process logic correct (e.g., important activities missing that should be there?) - Some exclusive gateways are left unclosed, so they should be fixed. I think there might be too many activities and some of them are a bit irrelevant, such as “18. Send email to students”. I don’t think you need to be this specific with modelling the course. - All of the necessary activities are there, but some of them are mistakenly placed in a parallel process and some of them repeat themselves. The order is also wrong, for example, you can participate in SW3 without completing LA4 or LA5. - when you take a look at some of the subprocesses some activities have. For example, lecture assignments and software assignments are placed in the “Student” lane, but when you look at e.g. activity “Conduct lecture assignment 1”, it has got both “Student” and “Teacher” lanes inside of it. Maybe simplify the model a bit by removing some unnecessary activities. some submodels do not match the higher level lanes, for example conduct software assingment 1 I do not quite understand the flow from process 3 to 4. Does opening the course mean to open the Moodle space? You could have made the Level 1 model simpler without using lanes. Some activities are unnecessary, like the “prepare the course” or “open the course”, which are conducted by teacher. ## 7 LA1 (huom. sama kommentti myös muissa LA2-5) Lanes do not match higher level lanes The subprocess 7.9 Evaluate Lecture Assignment is named Review submission in this process which verbally does not link the two processes together. Depending on how you look it, the Lecture1 and the starting lecture (Level 1) are almost the same. You could delete attending starting lecture from Level 1. ## 7.9 Evaluate lecture ssignment Checking for late submissions is a good addition. Some exclusive gateways could be closed before the process continues. I would maybe delete the activity “Don’t deduct points”, because in reality, this means that nothing is done, so why model it? I think it would be better if there was a different end node for failed assignment. ## 10 SW1 I’m not sure if there should be an activity for extracting the files from ADONIS. The process 10.6 Evaluate Software Assignment is named Review submission here which creates confusion. The activities should be named in a consistent manner: activity “10.6. Evaluate Software Assignment” is named “10.6. Review submission” here, while they should have the same name. Lanes: Does not match the higher level lane usage ## 10.6 Evaluate SW (sama myös muissa SW2-5) Before process 10.6.10 there could be an exclusive gateway. - Mostly yes, but the exclusive gateways in the beginning create confusion. I am not sure why assignments 3 and 4 follow a different process flow than the other ones. Some activities repeat, for example “Evaluate as failed”. This activity should be modelled as one activity. Also, there are three different endings “Evaluation done”, and “Evaluation completed” twice. These should all be one same ending. The activities 10.6.4 and 10.6.10 are the same activity, so I think they should be modelled as one, or at least with the same number. Maybe evaluate criteria could have been more detailed No need for “don’t deduct points”. You should represent the question better than “Is the assignment submitted in time or max 2 days late?” because this could mean that in “yes” the assignment is submitted in time and “no” would mean max 2 days late, but this is not the case in this model. For this you could also use different end nodes for failed and completed assignment. ## 11 SW 2 There could be an exclusive gateway after 11.4 before the non-exclusive gateway. Lanes do not match the higher level ones ## 12 LA4 Lanes do not match the higher level ones When you model it like this, you don’t show the difference to other assignments. By this I mean that the student’s answer is not only text, but he submits a model as well. ## 13 LA5 Lanes do not match the higher level ones ## 20 SW3 the model is too specific. I would format some of the text in a different way like “work on levels 1 and 2” is not good. This means they have to do them first and not start from Level 0 models. You could add an activity where the students form a team and get to know each other, but maybe it is not that severe to have that missing. Exercise 5 is marked as optional, but in the model, it is required to do before proceeding. An exclusive gateway would be perfect here. Also there is no mention of the estimation of work distribution. - Exercise 5 is optional, but here it is modelled as mandatory. So it should be modelled as optional using parallellity. Possibly missing the estimation of work sharing. Lanes do not match higher level lanes ## 21 SW4 Lanes do not match higher level lanes 21.7 is named Review submission, but it is not a subprocess. Yet, in 10.6 Evaluate Software Assignment there is SWA 4 marked as an option. ## 22 SW 5 Lanes do not match higher level lanes There could be an exclusive gateway before 22.9. The “All errors fixed?” exclusive gateway is redundant, because the model implies, that all errors have already been fixed after the task “Correct the errors found in assigned model” has been completed. It would also be nice if the exclusive gateway “Need for corrections or improvements” closed before the process continues. ## 22.19 Evaluate Bonus You don’t have to use a different end node everytime. You can use one for all of them. But again, I think it would be better to have different end nodes for failed course and the ones where student gets a grade. - There could be an exclusive gateway before 22.19.8. The exclusive gateways could be closed before the process continues. This model is practically the same as 7.9 Evaluate Lecture Assignment without the addition of late submission options. Evaluation criteria could have been more detailed ## 23 Calculate final grades There could be an exclusive gateway between 23.3 and 23.4 and before 23.12. Activity 23.10 is redundant as the lowest points are checked again later. The Mark student as failed should appear only once. There are too many repeating activities and endings, that in reality, mean the same thing. There should be only one “Mark student as failed” activity, as well as one ending “Final grade evaluation completed”. The exclusive gateways are not closed at any point. It seems to be missing the fact that there is a deadline for the assignments as well as a late deadline (two separate things). So this could be taken into account. The name of the activity should be the same as in the 1st level model. There, it is called “Final grade calculation” while here it is called “Calculate final grades”. Instead of having 11 end points, you could have just had one and with some moving around you could just have one mark as failed # PART B ## 1) Generally, you need to add more Exclusive gateways on many of the models. When you start a gateway, you have to close it. Level 1: Lanes are not used correctly. For example, conducting LA1 is on student lane. This means, that in level 2 process this could only continue on the student lane. But there is also teacher lane. This is incorrect. The processes that will have different lanes should not be placed on any lane. As I suggested before, it is easier to not have any lanes on Level 1 model. The first level was maybe the faultiest of them all and created problems in the 2nd level subprocesses. I would fix this by removing the lanes altogether from level 1. There were some duplicate activities and endings, these could be fixed by creating only a single activity/event for all of them. Exclusive gateways should be closed before the process continues. a lot of the teachers activities in level 1 are quite specific considering the student and team activities are very broad creating this unbalance between the lanes. Other than that, the levels are clear and well utilised. Mostly well done, lane usage was an issue across multiple models. Lower-level lanes did not match the higher level ones. The lecture assignments are pretty similar, they could maybe be generalized ## 2) Lecture Assignment 1 should be conducted before SW Assignment 1, Lecture Assignment 2 should be conducted before SW Assignment 2, and Lecture Assignments 4 and 5 are not mandatory to complete before SW Assignment 3. I think it was well done. Order of the assingments were present and different choises student could make in this regard were shown in the model in a clear fashion It is not modelled correctly. Activities 7-11 are placed in a parallel process, when in reality, they should be completed in sequence, not in parallel. Also, “Conduct lecture assignment 4” and “Conduct lecture assignment 5” both appear twice as separate activities, which is a mistake. They should appear only once. In reality, you do not have to complete LA4 and LA5 to participate in SW3, but in this model you do, which is also a mistake. ## 3) From student’s perspective, it is very detailed. Although the sequence on Level 1 in incorrect, I admire your work on for example modelling different outcomes for the grades. The architecture is generally very clear and informative. There were some problems with naming conventions and the forementioned concurrency problem, but other than that, a new student could get all the information they need regarding the course. Some useless information when considering the student for example “prepare the course” in the level 1 model. Some grading criteria could have been shown in more detail. Other than that its well modeled for the student. ## 4) Performance indicators are well used. No suggestions for improvement. Indicators are present, maybe some of them could have more detail They are in correct places. They could be more informative and describe better the things they are indicating. ## 5) The process architecture is quite good in representing the course. There are no missing activities. It reflects the course well All of the necessary activities are there, but some of them in the wrong order or modelled incorrectly. I even think there were some activities modelled that could be left our to make the model more simple and clear, such as “1 Prepare the course”, “18 Send email to students” etc. As said before, models are very detailed. Didn’t see any crucial activities missing, more like there were some unnecessary activities that make the model harder to read. I commented on this matter on some of the models before. ## 6a) All the above were modelled fully. I do think that modelling every Lecture Assignment as a completely different activity is not the most efficient way to do it, as the models were all just copies with different reading materials. ## 6b) This is shown in the level 1 model and in the grade course model. All the SW and Lecture Assignments were their own activities with the course process halting if they were not completed. ## 6c) Yes and no. The first Lecture Assignments were sequenced as being concurrent with the first SW Assignments and the Lecture Assignments 4 and 5 were modelled as being a prerequisite to Software Assignment 3. There was a point of decision to complete Lecture Assignments 4 and 5 right after 1, 2, and 3, but without the possibility of conducting assignments 4 and 5 concurrently with team appointments. ## 6d) The optionality of exercises 1 and 2 was correctly modelled. SW 5 exercise was not correctly modelled, since it is optional, but it was modelled as mandatory. The other exercises were correctly modelled as mandatory exercises. The models clearly show a decision point in the optional exercises. These are shown correctly in the different conduct software assingment models. ## 6e) The exercises are modelled as activities inside the assignments so I would say they are correct. This is modeled correctly and all exercises are present in the conduct software assingment models The exercises are modelled in the subprocesses of different assignments. Exercise 5 was modelled incorrectly, the other ones are good. You could add an exclusive gateway before exercise 5 to fix the problem. ## 6f) there is no need for so many end nodes. And some end nodes could be more descriptive, when it comes to inspecting is the accomplishment of the course success or failed? Not just “Final grade evaluation completed”. The requirements are modelled well in a separate level 2 process. More details in the model review. These are correctly modeled in the grade course model ## 6g) Yes, all the Assignment are found in the model. (...) the Software Assignments were modelled correctly. (In our own model we modelled SWA 1 and 2 as sequential as the tutorial to use ADONIS is in SWA 1, but it was not written down as a prerequisite.) ## 6h) The evaluation is done in process 23 Calculate final grades. Before that if the student does not communicate with their team the student fails the course. Mostly yes. I remember there being a thing about failing the course if software assignment 2 was not well modeled, this is not present in the model. Course grading is modeled in the course grading model. ## 7) All level 0 models are solid. Conducting the Lecture assignment 1 is good, it is simple and easy to read. I was impressed of the final grade calculation. You have put a lot of work into that. I really liked the fact that you modelled the points reduction in the evaluation process. In addition, I think that the evaluation of final grades was done exceptionally well with very high complexity. I also liked the layout of the level 1 model as it had a nice reading flow to it. Level 1 model, grade course and evaluate lecture assignment models were well made. I liked how the lecture assignments and some software assignments were modelled. The document model was also nice with its categorization. ## 8) I wish that the explanation document you supplied would have been a bit more informative with more of your own thoughts behind the architecture. I also wish that you had modelled more of the different activities like enrolling in the course or choosing a team. Great job! # Part C This was a good task to help me reflect on my own work and I got some ideas of how we could improve our team’s model. I also learned that it is best to keep things quite simple and not to model redundant things. I liked the way team 35 modelled a separate evaluating process for the assignments submitted in the course. I could make use of this with our team’s model, since we had some confusion with the evaluation process. Team 35 also thought about how returning the assignments late affec