Chapter 11 — Applied project
Lesson map
Lesson 11 published. Map, example, EX051.
flowchart TD
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["11.1 The project"]
N2["11.2 Assessment with a rubric"]
N3["Lab — Comparing self and assessor rubric scores"]
N4["11.3 Handover"]
N5["Synthesis"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> N5
N5 --> EX["Worked example"]
EX --> Q["Exercise EX051"]
Logical drawing
flowchart LR
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["11.1 The project"]
N2["11.2 Assessment with a rubric"]
N3["Lab — Comparing self and assessor rubric scores"]
N4["11.3 Handover"]
N5["Synthesis"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> N5 --> Q["EX051"]
[Learning outcomes]
|
v
[11.1 The project]
|
v
[11.2 Assessment with a rubric]
|
v
[Lab — Comparing self and assessor rubric scores]
|
v
[11.3 Handover]
|
v
[Synthesis]
|
v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX051]
Learning outcomes
You will (1) deliver an architecture project end to end; (2) assess it with a rubric; (3) document outcomes for handover.
11.1 The project
Priya's applied project is the clinical device segmentation for nine clinics where devices shared networks with laptops. She delivers a design, a migration plan agreed with clinical engineering, test scripts and an operations handbook. Migration happens clinic by clinic outside clinic hours, with a rollback plan for each. The first clinic reveals an undocumented connection from a blood analyser to a laboratory service, which would have broken results reporting. She adds a discovery week to each later clinic's plan before any rule changes.
11.2 Assessment with a rubric
Dr Voss and Corvane's chief information officer assess the project against a rubric agreed at the start: design quality, evidence of verification, stakeholder engagement, handling of surprises and quality of handover. Each criterion is scored from zero to three with descriptions for each level. Priya scores herself first, then compares. She scores herself lower than the assessors on stakeholder engagement and higher on verification, where the assessors note that two clinics were verified by her alone without an independent tester.
Lab — Comparing self and assessor rubric scores
# Compare self and assessor rubric scores (0-3, synthetic).
crit = ["design", "verification", "stakeholders", "surprises", "handover"]
self_s = [3, 3, 1, 2, 2]; assess = [3, 2, 2, 2, 2]
for c, s, a in zip(crit, self_s, assess): print(f"{c:12} self {s} assessors {a} diff {s - a:+d}")
print(f"totals: self {sum(self_s)}/15, assessors {sum(assess)}/15")
Run with python3 lab_rubric.py. Verified output:
design self 3 assessors 3 diff +0
verification self 3 assessors 2 diff +1
stakeholders self 1 assessors 2 diff -1
surprises self 2 assessors 2 diff +0
handover self 2 assessors 2 diff +0
totals: self 11/15, assessors 11/15
11.3 Handover
Priya writes a handover pack: final architecture diagrams, the decision records, exceptions with owners and dates, verification results and a list of known gaps. She runs two sessions with the operations team, who will maintain the segmentation. Verification of the two clinics without independent testers is repeated by an operations engineer, closing the assessors' concern. The project is assessed as complete only after handover, because a design that only its author can operate has not really been delivered. Operations signs the handover as accepted.
Worked example
Priya delivers segmentation in nine clinics, adds discovery weeks after a surprise, compares rubric scores and completes a handover with independent re-verification.
Synthetic case. Project details and scores are synthetic.
Errors and limits
Rubrics compress judgement into numbers. Discovery weeks add time.
Exercises
- EX051 — First-clinic surprise. What did the first clinic reveal? Rubric: 3 = an undocumented blood analyser connection to a laboratory service;; 2 = undocumented;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
- EX052 — Response to surprise. How did Priya change later clinic plans? Rubric: 3 = added a discovery week before rule changes;; 2 = discovery;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
- EX053 — Rubric gap. On which criterion did Priya score herself above the assessors in the lab? Rubric: 3 = verification: self 3, assessors 2;; 2 = verification;; 1 = stakeholders;; 0 = none.
- EX054 — Assessors' concern. What was the assessors' concern about verification? Rubric: 3 = two clinics were verified by Priya alone;; 2 = independence;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
- EX055 — Completion rule. Why was the project complete only after handover? Rubric: 3 = a design only its author can operate is not delivered;; 2 = handover;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
Synthesis
An applied project is complete when surprises are absorbed, a rubric is honestly compared and others can run the result.
Continue studying — chapter 11 of 12
← Chapter 10 (draft) · Course chapter index · Chapter 12 (draft) →