Chapter 39 — Capstone evaluation

Chapter 39 — Capstone evaluation

Lesson map

Lesson 39 published. Map, example, EX115.

flowchart TD
  N0["Learning outcomes"]
  N1["39.1 Against the criteria"]
  N2["39.2 Independent review"]
  N3["39.3 Achievement and gaps"]
  N4["Synthesis"]
  N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4
  N4 --> EX["Worked example"]
  EX --> Q["Exercise EX115"]

Logical drawing

flowchart LR
  N0["Learning outcomes"]
  N1["39.1 Against the criteria"]
  N2["39.2 Independent review"]
  N3["39.3 Achievement and gaps"]
  N4["Synthesis"]
  N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> Q["EX115"]

[Learning outcomes]
    |
    v
[39.1 Against the criteria]
    |
    v
[39.2 Independent review]
    |
    v
[39.3 Achievement and gaps]
    |
    v
[Synthesis]
    |
    v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX115]

Learning outcomes

You will (1) evaluate the capstone against agreed criteria; (2) use an independent reviewer; (3) separate achievement from remaining gaps.

39.1 Against the criteria

Lucas returns to the criteria from his proposal. Adoption: Fernway adopted the architecture overview and controls for the new warehouse. Verification: four of five key tests passed; the fifth, robot network isolation, could not be run because the robots had not arrived. Independent review: a security architect from a partner co-operative reviewed the design. He reports each criterion with evidence and does not stretch the incomplete test into a pass. Pre-agreed criteria make evaluation straightforward and honest. The incomplete test is marked as pending, not passed.

39.2 Independent review

The reviewer finds no major gaps but two moderate ones: no plan for patching robot controllers, which often cannot be updated during operation, and no process for revoking the vendor's access if the contract ends. Lucas accepts both, adds a maintenance-window plan agreed with the vendor and a contract exit checklist. He notes that the reviewer saw gaps he had missed because she had worked with operational technology before. Independent review is valuable precisely because the reviewer brings different experience.

39.3 Achievement and gaps

Lucas's evaluation lists achievements, the two fixed review findings and remaining gaps: the isolation test awaits the robots, and the identity provider remains a single point of failure across both warehouses. He gives each remaining gap an owner at Fernway. Dr Bellini notes that a good evaluation leaves the sponsor knowing exactly what is done and what is not. Hannah schedules the isolation test for the robots' installation week and adds the identity resilience question to next year's budget. The handover note lists every open item with a date.

Worked example

Lucas evaluates his capstone against three pre-agreed criteria, incorporates two reviewer findings and hands remaining gaps to named owners.

Synthetic case. The evaluation and people are synthetic.

Errors and limits

Reviewer availability limits depth. Tests deferred to installation may be forgotten without owners.

Exercises

• EX115 — Unrun test. Which test could not be run and why? Rubric: 3 = robot network isolation; robots had not arrived;; 2 = isolation;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
• EX116 — Reviewer findings. What two gaps did the reviewer find? Rubric: 3 = no robot controller patching plan and no vendor access revocation process;; 2 = one;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
• EX117 — Remaining gap owners. What happened to remaining gaps? Rubric: 3 = each received an owner at Fernway;; 2 = owners;; 1 = ignored;; 0 = none.

Synthesis

Honest evaluation against pre-agreed criteria, plus independent review, shows what is done and what remains.

Continue studying — chapter 39 of 40

← Chapter 38 (draft) · Course chapter index · Chapter 40 (draft) →