The proposal for my mobile application "Backpacker" is up and available at:
http://cs.unm.edu/~adkuntz/AlanKuntzCS460Proposal.pdf
Comments are most desired and welcome!
Try this URL instead:
http://www.cs.unm.edu/~adkuntz/AlanKuntzCS460Proposal.pdf
Review of Proposal: “Backpacker”
ReplyDeleteProposal author: Alan Kuntz
Reviewer: Ronald Shaw (wraith55@gmail.com)
Part 1: Proposal restatement
The proposal is to create a mobile app that will specifically gear to a backpacker's needs. These include tracking consumables, keeping battery life low, and the possibility of sending out an emergency broadcast. This application would be a lightweight accessory for a relatively new market.
Part 2: Reviewer reaction
This idea is simple and lightweight, and exactly the kind of mobile app that will hit a niche market. Because the proposer has experience in backpacking, he clearly knows the needs that should be met when developing a mobile application geared to backpackers. The emergency broadcast alone, though not new, could be extremely helpful when applied to backpackers. I really do think that this idea has potential to change the world.
Part 3: Quantitative scores
Format: 4
The format is easy to read, though sometimes sections seemed to be repeated and it was not clear upon referencing which section I read something in. However, there were still clear sections that the writer did not write outside the bounds of.
Writing: 4
The writing is clear, and very conversational. I really like how the proposer didn't get caught up in the technical aspects of the proposal (that being said, there were some issues with this I will address later), and the whole thing gelled very well. Sometimes I felt the proposer was repeating himself, however.
Goals and tasks: 5
This section was excellent. The proposer clearly thought through his target audience, and exactly what he wanted to achieve. The different features of the application are well defined and fleshed out.
Scope: 4
The features are fleshed out very well, as mentioned previously, but one thing that bothered me was there was not a mention of what platform would be used, or how the thing would be programmed. Given, though, in the timeline there was time dedicated to discussing with the team, but I would say you should pick a platform and it can be changed later.
Plausibility: 5
Everything proposed is very doable on a mobile platform, and there are other services out there that perform similar functions.
Novelty: 3.5
On one hand, it seems like the application of this to backpacking is actually very new and I would like to applaud that. On the other, I feel like many other applications out there can do very similar things. Still, though, I think that it is different enough it can find a niche market.
Stakeholder identification: 1
The stakeholders are not identified, and this needs to be addressed.
Support and impact: 4
Great job talking about how this could impact, with the emergency broadcast system having the possibility of saving a life, there will always be impact. Not much about supporting the application was covered though.
Evidence: 5
You gave evidence of other applications, all of the functionality is clearly capable with mobile technology, and just well justified in general.
Challenges and risks: 3
Technical challenges weren't really addressed, though this could be because you did not really see them as a challenge. Still, they should at least be mentioned.