Chapter 34 — Group project II: deliver
Lesson map
Lesson 34 published. Map, example, EX100.
flowchart TD
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["34.1 Building the package"]
N2["34.2 Integration problems"]
N3["34.3 Client presentation"]
N4["34.4 Reflection"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4
N4 --> EX["Worked example"]
EX --> Q["Exercise EX100"]
Logical drawing
flowchart LR
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["34.1 Building the package"]
N2["34.2 Integration problems"]
N3["34.3 Client presentation"]
N4["34.4 Reflection"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> Q["EX100"]
[Learning outcomes]
|
v
[34.1 Building the package]
|
v
[34.2 Integration problems]
|
v
[34.3 Client presentation]
|
v
[34.4 Reflection]
|
v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX100]
Learning outcomes
You will (1) deliver a governance package as a team; (2) integrate work from several authors; (3) present to a client.
34.1 Building the package
The group builds its deliverables. The inventory lists twenty-two data fields across orders, customers, deliveries and payments. Amara writes quality rules for addresses and delivery slots and a retention schedule keeping order histories for the period required by tax law and delivery addresses for one year after the last order. The privacy assessment recommends that payment tokens be held only by the payment processor. Each lead's work is reviewed before integration. Amara's reviewer finds one missing rule for postcodes, which she adds before integration.
34.2 Integration problems
When combining sections, the group finds inconsistencies: the inventory calls a field delivery address, the rules call it shipping address and the privacy assessment counts two address fields where the inventory has one. Amara proposes using the inventory as the authority for names and fields, and each lead updates their section. She notes that the problem mirrors Harbourline's own definition disputes, and that a shared glossary would have prevented it from the start. The updates take two days, and the group adds a glossary page.
34.3 Client presentation
The group presents to Dr. Lindqvist acting as client. He asks why delivery addresses need keeping for a year, and Amara explains that it supports repeat orders and complaint handling, with deletion afterwards. He asks what happens if the online service adds a subscription feature. The group explains how their inventory and assessment would be updated through the change process. He approves the package with minor changes, praising the consistency achieved after integration. The group makes the changes and submits the final package a week later.
34.4 Reflection
Each member writes a reflection. Amara notes that the integration problems taught her more than any single deliverable, and that the group's weekly meetings and review pairs worked well. She would start a glossary on day one next time. She also reflects that defending choices to a client required understanding reasons, not just following templates. Dr. Lindqvist uses the reflections to improve next year's project brief. Amara keeps her reflection in her journal and uses its lessons when planning her dissertation and later her work as a steward.
Worked example
Amara's group delivers an inventory of twenty-two fields, rules, retention and a privacy assessment, resolves naming inconsistencies using the inventory as authority and defends choices to the client.
Synthetic case. The project is synthetic.
Errors and limits
Sections written separately drift apart; agree names first.
Exercises
- EX100 — Field count. How many fields did the inventory list? Rubric: 3 = twenty-two;; 2 = partly correct;; 1 = wrong;; 0 = none.
- EX101 — Payment tokens. Who should hold payment tokens? Rubric: 3 = only the payment processor;; 2 = partly correct;; 1 = other;; 0 = none.
- EX102 — Next-time change. What would Amara do differently? Rubric: 3 = start a glossary on day one;; 2 = partly correct;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
Continue studying — lesson 34 (chapter 34 of 40)
← Chapter 33 · Course chapter index · Chapter 35 →
Continue to the next authored lesson.