P11216: Wandering Campus Ambassador (part 6)
/public/

Team Values and Norms

Team Values

The items below are the team's values and norms. Each team member will be assessed several times during the quarter by their peers on these values.

Punctual
Each team member will be prompt and arrive at the team meetings on time. If an unexpected conflict comes up, the absent team member will notify at least one team-mate prior to the expected absence. An absent team-member should confirm that a team-mate has received their message (in person, voice mail, email, etc).
Thorough
Each team member will complete their tasks thoroughly and completely, so that the work does not have to be re-done by a peer on the team. If a member does not know how to complete a task, feels overwhelmed, or needs assistance then the member notifies peers, and seeks assistance either from a peer, the faculty guide, a faculty consultant, or another person.
Accurate
Each team member completes their work accurately and in a way that can be easily checked for accuracy by peers and the faculty guide. All work is fully documented and easy to follow.
Professional and Ethical
Each team member gives credit where credit is due. All work completed includes citations to appropriate literature, or sources of assistance. If a team member has gotten assistance from a publication or individual, then that assistance or guidance is fully documented in the reports prepared. Each team member is honest and trustworthy in their dealings with their peers.
Proactive
Each team member will actively take on tasks as needed.

Team Norms: Periodic Peer Assessment Rubric

Every team member will conduct peer assessment of their team-mates by the end of weeks 3, 6 and 9 of each quarter. The rubric below indicates how each team member will assess their peers. These 'Norms' reflect how each team member expects their peers to meet the team 'Values'. The entries in the table below represent a starting point, or example, typical of what other design teams have successfully employed in the past. Each team should modify or update their Norms each time the team Values are updated.

Accepted Norms of Performance: Bi-quarterly Peer Assessment Rubric
Value 0 1 2 3
Punctual The team member has had one or more unexcused absences or tardy arrivals to a scheduled team activity. The team member is not notifying others of conflicts with meeting times, or has allowed other committments to impede the member's duties to this team. The team member is detracting from the performance of the entire team. The team member has had one or more unexcused absences or tardy arrivals. The individual could and should have done a better job at notifying (in advance) a peer of the absence or tradiness. At the current time, the problem has not caused significant harm to the team, but this behavior needs to improve. It is not unusual for a team member to receive this rating a couple of times during the project. The team member was prompt and present at every team event this week, or any absences were excused in advance. If there was an unexcused absence or tardiness, then the team-mates agreed that the reason disclosed after the fact was indeed unavoidable. For example, a member is in a fender bender on the way to campus, and was unable to contact a team-mate about being late. The absent member caught up with a peer as soon as practical, and informed them of the problem. Not only is the team member always prompt and present, but the member clearly plans ahead for excused absences (such as job trips) and insures that the absence will not adversely affect the team's performance. The member notifies the team of heavy loads and external conflicts (such as exams in other classes) that COULD have an adverse impact on the team, and works with the peers on this team to make sure that the information flow from the member to and from the peers is smooth even in such cases.
Thorough The team member has not completed the task assigned, or has submitted a response that is clearly insufficient. The work will need to be re-done by another team member in order for the team to move forward. Some of the work may have been done, but it was incomplete. The team member is detracting from the performance of the entire team. The team member made some progress towards the task assigned, but not as much progress as should have been accomplished. The work may be done, but the other team member's have no way of checking the results, because the supporting documentation is incomplete. The team member is getting behind on the tasks that need to be completed. The team member needs to make up the missed work during the next evaluation period. The team member has made solid progress towards the task assigned. The task is complete, and is well done, though it may need some additional work and refinement to be fully complete. The assignment may be incomplete, but the team member has clearly made a good effort towards getting the task done. In retrospect, this task may have been too much for the member to do in the time allocated, so the fact that the task is not done yet is not due to lack of effort by the member. The task has been completed fully, and is in essentially finished form. The other team members can readily check the work submitted since the documentation is so clear. Not only is the work done, but everyone on the team recognizes that the task is complete with little or no need for additional effort.
Accurate The work completed by the team member is unacceptable and does not meet the basic standards of engineering work. Engineering principles were not applied, or were grossly mis-applied. Basic elements of the engineering task were overlooked. The work completed must be re-done completely. The work completed by the member contains many errors that must be corrected. While the basic approach to problem solving may be ok, the actual work completed needs to be largely re-done in order to be useful to the team. Some things were not done by the team member, that should have been obvious to complete. The work completed by the member contains a few errors that must be corrected. The basic approach to problem solving is good, and the errors are relatively minor and could be readily corrected through normal peer review and checking. The work was corrected through consultation with the team members or faculty guide. The team member completed the task with virtually no errors or omissions. The work was accurate, and can be easily scaled to other applications or tasks that the team may encounter.
Professional and Ethical The team member has committed plagiarism, falsified data, ignored their responsibility as an engineer. The team member may have behaved inappropriately at a team event, or in a manner that reflects adversely on the team. The members' actions may cause the entire team to fail. The team member has overlooked some references or consistently fails to cite sources and conduct individual tasks. The team member may have made some off-color remarks or been offensive to a team-mate or other individual. The team member needs to clean up his/her act. The team member behaves responsibly and fully documents sources and collaborators on all work. The team member is a role model for others, and behaves in a professional and ethical fashion even under very trying and difficult circumstances.
Proactive Team member does not volunteer for additional tasks once delegated work is completed. Team member reluctantly volunteers for additional tasks. Team member volunteers for additional tasks when needed. Team member actively seeks additional tasks.

Peer Assessment Form

A peer assessment was completed by the group during week 3. Additional peer assessments will be completed weeks 6 and 9.

Week 3 Peer Assessment
Member Name Punctual Thorough Accurate Professional and Ethical Proactive Overall Additional Comments
Dave Ladner 3 3 3 2 3 2.8
Joe Stevens 3 3 3 2 3 2.8
Phil Gibson 2 3 3 2 3 2.6
Nick Leathe 3 3 3 2 3 2.8
Anna Gilgur 3 3 3 2 3 2.8
Rui Zhou 2 3 3 2 2 2.4
Ken Hertzog 2 3 3 2 3 2.6
Week 6 Peer Assessment
Member Name Punctual Thorough Accurate Professional and Ethical Proactive Overall Additional Comments
Dave Ladner 2.83 2.67 2.50 2.67 2.67 2.83 Very proactive in trying to get the board working.

Dave and the other SEs have been dedicating a lot of time to the project.

They have been working hard on getting QNX on the beagleboard and in designing the software framework.

Joe Stevens 2.83 2.67 2.67 2.50 2.67 2.83 Great work ethic.

Pulls his weight and is not afraid to help others with theirs.

Joe and the other SEs have been dedicating a lot of time to the project.

They have been working hard on getting QNX on the beagleboard and in designing the software framework.

Phil Gibson 2.67 2.83 2.67 2.50 2.83 2.83 Great work ethic.

Phil and the other SEs have been dedicating a lot of time to the project.

They have been working hard on getting QNX on the beagleboard and in designing the software framework.

Nick Leathe 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.50 2.67 2.83 Nick is a great team leader.

Great leadership and work ethic.

A good team leader who makes sure we have everything we need.

Anna Gilgur 2.83 2.67 2.67 2.33 2.83 2.83 Great organization skills.

Does good work.

On top of things.

Awesome at keeping up with everything that needs to be done.

Anna contributes a lot to the meetings and has been very proactive with the Edge site.

Rui Zhou 0.67 1.33 1.33 1.17 0.50 1.17 Rarely shows up for anything.

Rui is unavailable for most of our meetings.

Needs to be in the lab more often getting accustomed to robot design and layout.

Worried that when P11215 leaves, Rui will have a lot of work to do in the terms of getting caught up to where they were.

Ken Hertzog 2.67 2.83 2.83 2.50 2.83 2.67 Great work ethic.

Has been working hard on his portion.

Impressed with the progress made so far this quarter.

Week 9 Peer Assessment
Member Name Punctual Thorough Accurate Professional and Ethical Proactive Overall Additional Comments
Dave Ladner 2.83 2.83 2.67 2.50 2.83 2.83 Good

Dave is great

A good team member.

Excellent work so far!

Joe Stevens 2.67 2.83 2.83 2.50 2.67 2.83 Good

good

Joe is great

Good at keeping us on track.

Excellent job! Hopefully the software writing will be easier than all of the planning/paperwork!

Phil Gibson 2.67 2.83 2.67 2.50 2.83 2.83 Good

good

Phil is great

Excellent work so far!

Nick Leathe 2.83 2.67 2.83 2.50 2.83 2.83 Good

good

Nick is great

A good team lead.

Doing a great job.

Anna Gilgur 2.83 2.83 2.67 2.33 2.83 2.83 Good

good

Anna is great

Very proactive at working with the edge site.

Very knowledgable in her field.

Good job in keeping edge updated

Rui Zhou 1.83 1.83 1.67 1.67 1.67 2.00 Rui really picked it up lately

still missing for some meetings

Definitely improving, but sometimes seems to make stuff up.

She's gotten better since the last review. There is still room for improvement.

Glad to see that Rui has improved in the last few weeks. Keep up the work!

Major improvement since the last peer eval. Still some work to be done but on the right track.

Ken Hertzog 2.83 2.67 2.83 2.67 2.50 2.83 Good

good

Ken is amazing!

Doing a great job, and very knowledgable.

Very good at working with the previous team.

Very knowledgeable. Project would be lost without Ken's help.

Would be nice if he could get data when asked for originally without extra reminders; good work though. (even though it's last minute occasionally)


Home | Project Summary | Customer Needs | Engineering Specifications | Weekly Status Report | Milestone Chart | Plan Breakdown Structure | Risk Management | Mechanical Engineering Concept Selection