Chapter 34 — Comparative project
Lesson map
Lesson 34 published. Map, example, EX100.
flowchart TD
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["34.1 Partner"]
N2["34.2 Comparison"]
N3["34.3 Practices"]
N4["34.5 Value"]
N5["Explaining to non-specialists"]
N6["One page"]
N7["Tone"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> N5 --> N6 --> N7
N7 --> EX["Worked example"]
EX --> Q["Exercise EX100"]
Logical drawing
flowchart LR
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["34.1 Partner"]
N2["34.2 Comparison"]
N3["34.3 Practices"]
N4["34.5 Value"]
N5["Explaining to non-specialists"]
N6["One page"]
N7["Tone"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> N5 --> N6 --> N7 --> Q["EX100"]
[Learning outcomes]
|
v
[34.1 Partner]
|
v
[34.2 Comparison]
|
v
[34.3 Practices]
|
v
[34.5 Value]
|
v
[Explaining to non-specialists]
|
v
[One page]
|
v
[Tone]
|
v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX100]
Learning outcomes
You will (1) compare Bramley with a similar organisation; (2) identify transferable practices.
34.1 Partner
A second charity of similar size shares anonymised measures.
The partner is another small charity with a similar number of laptops and one IT officer, found through Dr Grant's contacts. It shares only aggregated measures: laptops encrypted, share patched within 14 days and unmanaged devices. No system names, staff names or tenant data are exchanged, and both organisations agree which figures each may quote. The two charities agree to share measures quarterly, using the same definitions so the figures stay comparable.
34.2 Comparison
It encrypts all laptops but patches more slowly.
The partner had encrypted every laptop from the start, so a theft like Bramley's would have exposed less. Its patching is slower, because it has no forced restart policy and relies on staff to restart. Aisha reports the comparison as counts and shares for each organisation, without ranking one above the other. Aisha notes that the partner's encryption by default is the practice Bramley has now adopted, though Bramley needed a theft to start it.
34.3 Practices
It uses a simple loan-laptop scheme Bramley adopts; Bramley shares its forced restart policy.
The loan-laptop scheme answers a problem Bramley had already found: a volunteer's personal PC enrolled with an old code. In return, Bramley shares its forced restart policy, which addresses the partner's slower patching. Each organisation records the borrowed practice in its decision log, so its effect can be checked at the next quarterly exchange. Bramley's loan laptops are encrypted, baselined and enrolled before they are lent, and wiped when they return.
34.4 Limits
Organisations differ in staff and software.
The partner has different software, a different number of home workers and no old application server like S04. Those differences limit what the comparison between the two charities can show. A practice that works at one charity is a candidate for the other, not proof that it will work there, and Aisha says so in her chapter. Aisha lists these differences in a short table beside the comparison, so readers can judge each practice's fit themselves.
34.5 Value
Comparison suggests ideas, not proof.
The comparison gave Bramley one practice to adopt and the partner one in return, at the cost of a short exchange of counts. Its value is in ideas tested elsewhere, not in a verdict on either charity. Aisha keeps the comparison in her dissertation as context and bases her evaluation only on Bramley's own baseline and final measures. The quarterly exchange continues after the project, which gives both officers a peer to compare notes with.
Explaining to non-specialists
Bramley's board includes tenants and volunteers without technical backgrounds. Aisha writes the board summary in plain words: what happened with the stolen laptop, what has changed, what the numbers show and what still needs money or time. She avoids terms like TPM and baseline, or explains them in a sentence.
The summary leads with the main message: every laptop is now encrypted, so a stolen laptop would no longer expose tenant data. Then it shows four before-and-after numbers and two remaining risks: the old application server and limited IT cover.
Board members ask good questions, such as what happens if Gareth leaves; the answer is the documented routine and a trained colleague. The board approves funding to replace the old server.
One page
The summary fits on one page with a small table. Detail is in an appendix for those who want it.
Tone
The tone is calm and factual, crediting staff for cooperating.
Follow-up
A six-month update to the board is scheduled.
Visuals
One simple bar chart shows the four before-and-after measures side by side. Aisha avoids colours that carry no meaning and labels every bar with its count, so the board can read it at a glance.
Project log entry
Before the meeting, Aisha rehearses the presentation with Gareth playing a sceptical board member. His questions about cost and staff time lead her to add a single line showing hours spent, which turns out to be the board's first question.
Worked example
Both charities agree to share measures quarterly.
Synthetic case. Synthetic.
Errors and limits
Comparing without context can mislead.
Exercises
- EX100 — Difference. How did the other charity differ? Rubric: 3 = all encrypted, slower patching; 2 = partial; 1 = vague; 0 = none.
- EX101 — Exchange. What practices were exchanged? Rubric: 3 = loan laptops; forced restarts; 2 = partial; 1 = vague; 0 = none.
- EX102 — Agreement. What did they agree? Rubric: 3 = quarterly sharing; 2 = partial; 1 = vague; 0 = none.
Synthesis
Comparisons spread good practice.
Continue studying — chapter 34 of 40
← Chapter 33 (draft) · Course chapter index · Chapter 35 (draft) →