Chapter 11 — Applied project
Lesson map
Lesson 11 published. Map, example, EX051.
flowchart TD
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["11.1 Project scope"]
N2["11.2 Outcomes"]
N3["11.3 Comparing with criteria"]
N4["11.4 Documentation for the partner"]
N5["11.5 Reflection on the project"]
N6["Synthesis"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> N5 --> N6
N6 --> EX["Worked example"]
EX --> Q["Exercise EX051"]
Logical drawing
flowchart LR
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["11.1 Project scope"]
N2["11.2 Outcomes"]
N3["11.3 Comparing with criteria"]
N4["11.4 Documentation for the partner"]
N5["11.5 Reflection on the project"]
N6["Synthesis"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> N5 --> N6 --> Q["EX051"]
[Learning outcomes]
|
v
[11.1 Project scope]
|
v
[11.2 Outcomes]
|
v
[11.3 Comparing with criteria]
|
v
[11.4 Documentation for the partner]
|
v
[11.5 Reflection on the project]
|
v
[Synthesis]
|
v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX051]
Learning outcomes
You will (1) complete the applied project; (2) measure outcomes; (3) document for the partner.
11.1 Project scope
Marta's applied project delivers three changes at Fenwick Valley: migration of all provider-controlled VPN peers to IKEv2 with certificates and a joint plan for the partner link; staged route origin validation with lower preference for invalid routes; and ingress filtering for all residential customers after a counting trial. The project runs over six months of the programme's second year. Each change has requirements, a plan, evidence of completion and an owner in the operations team who will continue the work after her placement ends.
11.2 Outcomes
By the end, seven of eight VPN peers use IKEv2 with certificates; the partner link runs in parallel with its old tunnel and is scheduled to switch the following month. Route validation has run for four months, with twenty-three invalid routes observed, nine contacts made and one incident handled without customer impact. Ingress filtering is enforced for residential customers after the counting trial; matches fell from forty customers to three after corrections, and support tickets stayed within normal range in the first month.
11.3 Comparing with criteria
Marta compares outcomes with criteria set at the start. VPN migration met its target for provider-controlled peers but not for the partner link, which she explains. Route validation met its criteria for the staged period, and the directors scheduled a review of moving to rejection. Ingress filtering met all criteria. She presents results in a table with criterion, target, result and evidence reference. Presenting unmet criteria as clearly as met ones maintains the credibility built through earlier reporting. Each evidence reference points to the dossier.
11.4 Documentation for the partner
The provider receives a documentation pack: decision records for each change, runbooks, the responsibility table, the customer notice and support scripts, the validation contact template, and the trial results. Marta writes a one-page index explaining where each item lives and who owns it. She checks each runbook by watching an engineer follow it without her help, fixing two unclear steps. Documentation tested by its users is far more likely to work when needed. The pack is stored in the provider's version-controlled documentation repository, so later changes to runbooks are tracked.
11.5 Reflection on the project
Marta reflects that the hardest parts were not technical: winning the partner's trust, handling the director's conflict of interest and reporting delays honestly. She also notes what she would change: starting the counting trial earlier and involving support staff in the customer notice from the beginning. The reflection becomes part of her final submission and of the provider's lessons log, so future projects at Fenwick Valley can benefit from her experience. She also notes that early, honest reporting earned the directors' trust, which made later decisions faster and easier to agree.
Worked example
Seven of eight peers migrated; twenty-three invalid routes seen; filter matches fell from forty to three customers.
Synthetic case. Outcomes are synthetic.
Errors and limits
Reporting only met criteria hides information directors need to manage remaining risk.
Exercises
- EX051 — VPN outcome. How many peers use IKEv2 with certificates at the end? Rubric: 3 = seven of eight, partner link pending;; 2 = seven;; 1 = all;; 0 = none.
- EX052 — Filter matches. How did filter matches change after corrections? Rubric: 3 = forty to three customers;; 2 = fell;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
- EX053 — Runbook test. How were runbooks tested? Rubric: 3 = engineer followed them unaided, two steps fixed;; 2 = tried;; 1 = reviewed;; 0 = none.
- EX054 — Unmet criterion. Which criterion was not fully met, and why? Rubric: 3 = partner link, coordination delay;; 2 = partner link;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
- EX055 — Reflection change. Name one thing Marta would do differently. Rubric: 3 = start counting trial earlier or involve support sooner;; 2 = one;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
Synthesis
The applied project delivers measured outcomes, honest comparison with criteria and tested documentation.
Continue studying — chapter 11 of 12
← Chapter 10 (draft) · Course chapter index · Chapter 12 (draft) →