What the marking goes by
The rubric Kai checks against
The site says in several places that every exercise is checked against a stored rubric. You can either claim that or show it. Below is one of those rubrics, word for word as it sits in the database. Nothing about it has been tidied up for this page.
Why we publish this
Criteria you can read are criteria you can argue with. That is exactly what makes them worth something: they turn marking you have to trust into marking you can check. If you want to know whether a piece of feedback was fair, you can read here what it was measured against.
Which exercise this belongs to
Mastering Agile Project Management · Chapter 4.4
Exercise: Define Roles and Responsibilities in Your Team
The rubric, verbatim
Kai receives exactly this text, together with your submission. What isn't in here doesn't get checked.
SCENARIO: The participant leads an agile project introducing a digital onboarding process for new employees. The five-person team and its agile roles are GIVEN: Anna M. (HR Manager, Product Owner), Ben K. (IT System Admin, Development Team), Clara S. (Internal Communications, Development Team), David R. (Project Manager, Scrum Master), Eva T. (External Consultant, Development Team).
TASK 1 — Team overview: A spreadsheet table with columns Person | Background | Agile Role plus an added Notes column recording WHY each role was assigned (1–2 sentences per person, five people).
TASK 2 — RACI matrix: The given matrix for three project tasks (define requirements; set up technical infrastructure; develop communication strategy) extended by TWO further project tasks from the participant's own professional context, with RACI entries (R = Responsible, A = Accountable, C = Consulted, I = Informed) filled in by the participant.
TASK 3 — Backlog list: The three tasks from Task 2 listed with Title, Responsible person (the R-role from the matrix), Priority (High / Medium / Low) and Status: Backlog.
Do not invent additional tasks, sprints or estimates.
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA:
1. Counts are correct (5 justified roles, 2 self-chosen RACI tasks, 3 backlog entries with all four fields) — if fewer, ask for the rest; do not sign off.
2. Notes in Task 1 connect background to role (e.g. why an HR Manager suits Product Owner here), not circular statements ("she is PO because she is PO").
3. R and A are correctly separated in the self-chosen tasks — exactly one A per task, R with the person who executes; flag any R-A confusion explicitly.
4. Backlog responsible persons match the R-roles from the matrix, and the High/Medium/Low logic is coherent.
TYPICAL WEAKNESSES (check for these specifically): missing Notes column, R and A on the same person for everything, self-chosen tasks without real RACI differentiation (all C/I), backlog priorities without any recognisable logic.And the other exercises?
Every exercise with a submission has its own rubric, across all courses and in both languages. They vary in length but follow the same build: the task, the assessment criteria, and the typical weaknesses Kai is told to look for.
Read a full lesson
One reading unit from the course is open — no account, no email address.