*You are to subjectively judge the abstract contribution made by each group member. Contributions can be of many kinds: for example, a group member that had excellent facilitation skills and really kept the group on target might be ranked number one, even though they spent little time on the project, did not write any code, and were not well-liked. Conversely, a person that spent twice as much time as anyone else, and wrote lots of code, but caused time-consuming problems might, conceivably be ranked last. Most contributions will be straightforward: design, attendence at group meetings, writing code, rehearsing demos, etc. Popularity should rank low on your list of items to use in your assessment. Ask yourself, how much did this person help us to get the project designed, built, delivered, and demoed, on time? If your job were on the line, who would you want to be working with, based on your experience with them this time around?
An alternative, more quantitative worksheet mechanism is as follows: Review all the work performed by each group member (and include good-faith work that might, ultimately, not have made it into the project). Write down the number of adjusted** hours it would reasonably take you to perform the tasks that they did assuming some average level of expertise. Sum up the total hours. Calculate a percentage by dividing each member's hours by the total hours. Multiply the percentage by the toal points for the group, to determine preliminary assignment of points. Use this as a quantitative guide for your final qualitative assignment of points. [Example: let there be a group with three members, A, B, and C. YOU assign hours as A=100, B=60, C=40, for a total of 200 hours. A is at 50% (100/200), B is at 30% (60/200), C is at 20% (40/200). Total points is 150 (for a group of three members). A gets 75 points, and is ranked first (50% * 150 = 50 * 150 / 100 = 75), B gets 45 points and is ranked second (30 * 150 / 100); C gets 30 points and is ranked third (20 * 150 / 100).] (Thanks John Dibbling.)
** However, keep in mind that hours does not always translate into contribution, as discussed above. For example, a skilled and dedicated project manager might well have kept the group on track, which required much thought, and took a large emotional/intellectual outlay, but not necessarily much time. How would this fit your scheme? Accordingly, you would want to adjust the "hours" to reflect contribution.
Groups should talk over time logs and give each member a chance to discuss their contribution. However, there should be NO group discussion of points assigned by, and for, individuals. This is private, and to be done alone, as fairly as possible.
Your grade: You must assess yourself along with everyone else. The sheet that you turn in will be used to test how well you are able to realistically assess the strengths and weaknesses of each group member. The rating and points you give yourself will not be used in calculating your own grade, except indirectly by examing your ability to assess your own contribution along with everyone else's. The other N-1 point ratings, and rankings, by your peers will be partially used in determining your project grade. Outlying low scores will tend to be discounted.
This sheet must be executed flawlessly. Any errors in arithmetic or alphabetizing, and any omissions, will be charged against your grade.
I strongly recommend that groups devote at least a few minutes, prior to the exam, to give each group member a chance to remind others about their own, respective, contributions. (Your personal log file / time sheet will be very helpful at this time!) Furthermore, I encourage you to ask others, offline, what their contributions have been this quarter. It should be understood that the final ratings and points given will be kept private, and should not be discussed with anyone.