What strikes me is that in the teams with good documentation all documents are good, regardless of author. How come? There could be several explanations:
- Good students want to work with each other (they could choose their teammates, they weren't assigned by us teachers).
- In good teams they cooperate on everything, inlcuding reviewing each others documents. In not-so-good teams they instead might try to split the tasks and work as independently as possible.
- In the good teams there is an exceptional student that functions as a mentor to the others.
- Excellent documementation from one role supports the others in their roles, e.g. an excellent architeture description supports testing etc.
- The good teams had not only a notion about what to deliver when they started, they also had a good notion on how to do it early on, e.g. they discussed so they had a common understanding of coding responsibility (everybody had to write code) and they choose an interative process or SCRUM already the first week.
- The good teams started with coding as quickly as possible. This is counterintuitive, but I think they felt more comfortable spending time on documentation if they already had some prototype running.
- It seems that analysis paralysis actually produces worse documentation. I think this is due to an inability to focus on the vital concerns and stop when they are sufficiently covered.
- It is hard to excel if your teammates drag you down. This could explain why there are no groups where just one role shines above the rest.