Reference no: EM13341974

Task 

The assignment also revolves around the same Case Study as Assignment 1. This may be found as a separate PDF document in the Resources/Assignment 2 section of the subject Interact site. 

The objective of this assignment is to apply and consolidate skills acquired in the analysis, architecture, and design disciplines through analysis of a simple case study, and to express the results through the relevant UML diagrams. 

Part A – Non Functional Requirements  

1. Analyse the Case Study documents and determine the non-functional requirements (NFRs) or system quality attributes necessary to meet the needs identified in the Case Study. Document your analysis with a System Wide Requirement document. Make sure your document addresses: 

a) Required system functionality not captured by a single use case (eg auditing, printing, authentication).-b) The FURPS+ categories of system attributes.-c) Any required system interfaces with external systems.-d) Any business rules that must be applied.-e) Any constraints that will affect the design of the system. 

Use the System Wide Requirement Specification template provided in the Resources/Assignment 2 section of the subject Interact site. (20 marks) 

Part B – System Architecture

2. Analyse the Case Study documents and develop a candidate architecture to meet the functional and non-functional requirements you have identified in Assignment 1 and Part A of Assignment 2. Document this candidate architecture with: 

i. An Architectural Notebook. Make sure this notebook addresses: 

a) The key concerns driving the overall architecture.-b) Assumptions and dependencies-c) Architecturally significant requirements-d) Decisions, constraints, and justifications that shape the architecture-e) Architectural mechanisms to be applied-f) Key abstractions-g) Any architectural frameworks or patterns that will be applied 

Use the Architectural Notebook template provided in the Resources/Assignment 2 section of the subject Interact site.

ii. A high level Logical View of the architecture in the form of a UML component diagram. 

iii. A Physical View of the architecture showing how components will be deployed on hardware in the form of a UML Deployment Diagram. (10 marks) 

Part C – Detailed Design 

3. Show how your architecture will support the critical core use case for the system by developing a detailed design to support that use case. Your design should be consistent with your architecture and respect any component and hardware boundaries. Document your design with: 

i. A UML Communication Diagram showing the interaction between user interface, control, and domain object classes for the critical core use case.  

ii. A UML Sequence Diagram showing the interaction between user interface, control, and domain object classes for the critical core use case. 

iii. A UML Design Class Diagram showing all classes, attributes, methods, and relationships required to support the critical core use case.

Part D – Reflection on Object Oriented Design 

4. Reflect on the design principles you have employed in your architecture and design in a written text of between 200 to 1000 words (between 1 and 5 pages). Make sure your reflection addresses: 

a) A discussion of any issues you encountered in deciding on a particular architectural framework or pattern.-b) Identifies and discusses any object oriented design principles you applied in your detailed design.-c) Identifies and discusses any software design patterns you applied in your detailed design.- 

Rationale 

This assignment elicits performance of taught skills in the requirement and analysis areas relevant to the following learning objectives: 

- be able to analyse and validate system requirements; 

- be able to produce and validate analysis and design models for a system; 

- be able to evaluate a problem and determine the appropriate architectural style for the solutio 

- be able to evaluate and choose appropriate software design patterns to compose the design of a software system 

- be able to demonstrate use of a CASE tool to document the models in a system 

Marking criteria 

System Wide Requirements 

• How well does the System Wide document address its intended purpose--• How well are the system wide functional requirements addressed--• How well are the FURPS+ system attributes addressed--• How well are all system interfaces identified and specified--• How well are all business rules identified and specified--• How well are all key constraints and considerations identified--• How suitable for further use is the document- 

System Architecture 

Architectural Notebook 

• How well are key concerns identified and described--• How well are assumptions and dependencies identified and described--• How well are architecturally significant requirements identified and described--• How well are decisions and constraints identified and justified--• How well are architectural mechanisms identified and described--• How well are key abstractions identified and described--• How well are any relevant architectural frameworks or patterns identified and described- 

Logical View – Component Diagram 

• Is a correct concept of architectural components demonstrated--• Is correct UML syntax for component diagrams applied- 

Physical View – Deployment Diagram 

• Is a correct concept of mapping between components and physical nodes demonstrated--• Is correct UML syntax for deployment diagrams applied- 

Detailed Design 

Communication Diagram 

• Is a correct concept of objects and message passing demonstrated--• Is the diagram consistent with the architecture--• Is the diagram consistent with the critical core use case--• Is the diagram consistent with the sequence diagram- -• Is correct UML syntax for communication diagrams applied- 

Sequence Diagram 

• Is a correct concept of objects and message passing demonstrated--• Is the diagram consistent with the architecture--• Is the diagram consistent with the critical core use case--• Is the diagram consistent with the communication diagram- -• Is correct UML syntax for sequence diagrams applied- 

Design Class Diagram (DCD) 

• Are correct concepts of design classes demonstrated- -• Is the DCD consistent with the architecture--• Is the DCD consistent with the use case--• Is the DCD consistent with the communication and sequence diagrams--• Is correct UML syntax for class diagrams applied- 

Reflection 

• How well are any architectural issues encountered discussed--• How well are software design patterns identified and discussed--• How well are object oriented design principles identified and discussed- 

Detailed objective standards for the criteria may be found in the Marking Criteria document in the Resources/Assignment 2 section of the subject Interact site.- 

Presentation 

Submit assignments either as a single word processed document compatible with Microsoft Office, a PDF (.doc, .docx, or .pdf formats only) or as a single zip file containing all files submitted for the assignment. 

Note: no other compression format apart from zip is acceptable. Any assignments submitted using some other compression format will be regarded as 'did not submit'. 

Any diagrams must be contained in a word processed document, presented as images, or as an exported XML file from Visual Paradigm. Visual Paradigm Projects are not an acceptable format.--