Senior Design Architecture Gate Review
Peer Evaluation
Date: _______________________
Team: _________________________________
Evaluation Criteria
OVERVIEW: Are the architectural layers clearly defined (purpose, function,
dependencies, processing, data input and output)?
Fully and clearly defined (20 points)? Layers are presented, but not thoroughly
described (15 – 19 points)? Many questions remain (10 – 14 points)? Layers
are confusing, unrelated to each other, poorly described, etc. (0 – 10 points)?
OVERVIEW: Are subsystems and key components well defined (purpose,
function, dependencies, processing, data input and output)? Is there a clear
relationship to the layers in which they appear?
Fully and clearly defined (20 points)? Subsystems and components are
presented, but not thoroughly described (15 – 19 points)? Many questions
remain, especially about relationships and interdependencies (10 – 14 points)?
Grouping of subsystems and components is confusing and/or poorly defined (0
– 10 points)?
Requirements mapping: Is the relationship to the requirements
clearly motivated? Is it clear why the proposed architecture realizes the
requirements? (0 - 10 points)
Simplicity: Is the architecture as simple as possible (but no simpler)? (No
more than 7 loosely-coupled coherent high-level components? Lower-level
components possibly clustered into high-level components (hierarchy)? Is any
deviation from intuitively obvious solution motivated? (0 - 10 points)
Completeness: Is the architecture complete? Are all requirements covered?
Does the document trace some critical requirements through the architecture
(e.g. via use cases)? (0 – 10 points)
Precision: Are the layer/subsystem/component descriptions sufficiently
precise? Do they allow independent construction? Are interfaces and external
functionality of the high-level components described in sufficient detail? Have
implementation details been avoided? (0 – 10 points)
Relationships/interdependencies: Are the relationships and
interdependencies between the layers/subsystems/components
explicitly documented? Is it clear and which layers/subsystems/
components depend on which others, and why these dependencies/
relationships exist?
Relationships are complete and clearly described at every level of the
architecture (20 points)? Relationships are clear at a high level, but not
completely defined (10 – 19 points)? Relationships/interdependencies
are poorly and incompletely described (0 – 10 points)?
Page 1 of 2
Senior Design Architecture Gate Review
Peer Evaluation
Evaluation Criteria
Motivation: Are design decisions clearly motivated? Were alternative
considered/addressed in this architecture? Are there clear pros/cons associated
with the architectural approach that was taken? (0 – 10 points)
Flexibility: Is the architecture flexible enough to adapt to changes in
requirements without massive overhaul? Are various design and
implementation approaches feasible within the constraints imposed by this
architecture? (0 – 10 points)
Feasibility: Can this be done? Is this architecture achievable? Will this
architectural approach yield a design and implementation that can be expected
to be completed within the constraints of Senior Design? (0 – 10 points)
OVERALL, based on this gate review and your review of the ADS, the team’s
Q & A, and your subjective opinion of what you heard and saw today, how
would you rate this architecture? Superior/Outstanding (20 points)? Excellent
(18 – 19 points)? Good (15 - 17 points)? Fair (13 - 14 points)? Weak (9 – 12
points)? Poor (0 – 10 points)?
Other Comments/Advice (continue on reverse, if required):
Evaluator’s Name (please print): __________________________________________
Evaluator’s Signature: ___________________________________________________
Page 2 of 2