Software Engineering for Smart Data Analytics & Smart Data Analytics for Software Engineering

User Tools

Site Tools

Reflection of the second preparation meeting

Anonymous Feedback

Overall Satisfaction

[The following interpretation of the scale was given before the poll: 5 represents a rather neutral feeling. Below 5 there is dissatisfaction and above 5 satisfaction. The light blue columns give the result for the first meeting.]

Technology learned

[The following interpretation of the scale was given before the poll: Interpret 0 as “nothing learned” and 10 as “learned as much as possible in the given time”. The light blue columns give the result for the first meeting.]


[In alphabetical order.]

  • Do not waste time with games.
  • Everything was fine.
  • Need more practical stuff. Hands-on!
  • Plus: time (Minus: Too much text, need more graphics in talks.)
  • Presenter must know their time and prepare according to it.
  • Simply it was too much stuff presented in less time. If there was time to present it also in a more practical way I think I would be more comfortable looking forward to the lab, considering I have to know all the stuff that was presented today.
  • The information about each package/view available in JFace/SWT was too much at once and the slides were clouded with source.
  • These preparation meetings seems to be very useful. There were some presentations very good, some of them were satisfying, but overall the result will be very good!
  • Too much time constraints.
  • Too much or too great topics for too little time.
  • Would prefer more input on Cultivate.

dsp's comments on the comments

  • The games should of course be fun for everyone. Although the majority at the end of the last meeting had the opinion that the games were useful, it is really important for us to know that not everybody was comfortable with it. We have long time experience with one certain game, that we played even with professional developers, we are new to other games. So wee need the feedback on these games and will discuss with you what's the most useful approach. The idea would be of course that we learn something from these games that we can't learn theoretically. For the game we played this time we have to admit that the goal was not that clear.1) We just had fun playing it and hoped that you have, too. The overall idea is that we learn something about collaboration. Maybe one result is that collaborating can be fun, but also sometimes challenging?
  • Thanks for the comments that the time was tight and that hand's on experience would have been helpful. This was an obvious experience. There are two consequences:
    • We plan to have a real seminar in advance of the practical course starting this summer. There will be much more time, and we will make sure that we even do some hands on.
    • In the cases where the time constraints are as strict as they have been this time, we will follow the goal of having more focused presentations. It was clear this time, that a lot of good information was collected before, and we are looking forward to have all this knowledge in the lab. We learn from this time, that the presentation really have to focus on the essentials of the topic.

Collective Review


  • Keeping the time schedule.
  • Five points summary.


  • Question board.


  • Basic introduction to Agile first.
  • To show less slides if time is tight.
  • Gather the state of the previous Know How before the meetings.
  • More technical details.
  • [Jan: A uniform layout of the slides would make listening easier.]
The literature doesn't name a clear goal as well. Kriz/Nöbauer 2008, Teamkompetenz, p.207f. So the game some sort of a collaboration experiment that is open to any result.
teaching/labs/xp/2009a/preparation_second_meeting_reflection.txt · Last modified: 2018/05/09 01:59 (external edit)

SEWiki, © 2024