Chapter 12 — Presenting the applied project
Lesson map
Lesson 12 published. Map, example, EX056.
flowchart TD
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["12.1 Structure"]
N2["12.2 Defending choices"]
N3["12.3 Handover"]
N4["12.4 Reflection"]
N5["Writing for two audiences"]
N6["Citing sources well"]
N7["What she would change, and who owns it next"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> N5 --> N6 --> N7
N7 --> EX["Worked example"]
EX --> Q["Exercise EX056"]
Logical drawing
flowchart LR
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["12.1 Structure"]
N2["12.2 Defending choices"]
N3["12.3 Handover"]
N4["12.4 Reflection"]
N5["Writing for two audiences"]
N6["Citing sources well"]
N7["What she would change, and who owns it next"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> N5 --> N6 --> N7 --> Q["EX056"]
[Learning outcomes]
|
v
[12.1 Structure]
|
v
[12.2 Defending choices]
|
v
[12.3 Handover]
|
v
[12.4 Reflection]
|
v
[Writing for two audiences]
|
v
[Citing sources well]
|
v
[What she would change, and who owns it next]
|
v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX056]
Learning outcomes
You will (1) structure the report; (2) defend choices; (3) hand over.
12.1 Structure
The report follows question, method, results, discussion, recommendations. This structure lets examiners and Kestrel read the report in the order they need. The question shows what Priya set out to do; the method explains how she merged lists, checked status and measured compliance; the results report each measure against the starting point; the discussion covers attribution and limits; and the recommendations name owners and dates. Appendices hold the inventory, register template and lab code. Dr Hale reads a full draft and returns comments before submission, and Priya records each change she made in response.
12.2 Defending choices
Priya explains why isolation, not immediate upgrade, was chosen for some machines, citing vendor evidence. Upgrading every imaging PC at once would have needed licence upgrades, new capture cards and engineer visits across all clinics in one period, with more clinical disruption. The vendor's letters show what was possible and when. Isolation with compensating controls kept the remaining machines in service while reducing exposure, under named owners and expiry dates. In the viva, Priya explains these trade-offs and admits that isolation reduces risk but does not remove it, which is why each exception expires.
12.3 Handover
The supplier and operations manager receive the register, baseline notes and reporting template. Each document comes with a short explanation of how to use it and when it is next due. The register lists every exception with its owner and expiry; the baseline notes record each adjusted setting and the reason; the reporting template defines each measure so the next report is comparable. Priya walks through them with both parties before she leaves and answers their questions. Kestrel stores the documents where the supplier and operations manager can both find them.
12.4 Reflection
Working with vendors took longer than technical changes. Technical work, such as applying a baseline or encrypting laptops, followed known steps and took weeks. Getting vendor compatibility lists, written commitments and quotes took months, and the project depended on them. Priya writes that a similar project should contact vendors early and ask for commitments in writing from the start. She also notes that agreeing measures with the operations manager before collecting data made the final report much easier to defend, because nobody could say the targets had changed. Dr Hale asks her to include this in her final reflection.
Writing for two audiences
The report has two readers with different needs. The polytechnic's examiners look for method, evidence and reasoning; Kestrel's managers want decisions, costs and dates. Priya writes one main report for the examiners and a four-page summary for Kestrel, both drawn from the same data so they never disagree. The examiner version includes the labs, the inventory merge method and the reasoning behind each exception. The Kestrel version leads with the decisions needed next year and their costs, and puts technical detail in an appendix. Writing both forces her to check that every number in the summary can be traced back to the full report.
Citing sources well
Every recommendation is linked to a source that actually supports it: CIS Controls v8 safeguards 1.1 and 2.2 for inventory and supported software, NIST SP 800-40 Rev. 4 for patch planning, SP 800-92 for log management and SP 800-53 Rev. 5 control SA-22 for unsupported components. Dr Hale checks each citation against the claim it is attached to, rather than accepting a list of references as decoration. Two citations are moved because they supported a general point rather than the specific one. Good citation practice also helps Kestrel later, since an auditor can follow each recommendation back to recognised guidance without asking Priya.
What she would change, and who owns it next
Looking back, Priya would contact the imaging vendor in the first week rather than the third, since vendor scheduling drove the whole timeline. She would also agree the reporting template with managers before collecting data, so the first quarterly report would need fewer revisions. For continuity, ownership is made explicit before she leaves: the supplier's account manager owns the monthly inventory and patch checks, and the operations manager owns the exception register and its quarterly review. Both names, with deputies, appear on the roadmap, so the programme does not depend on a student who has finished her project.
Worked example
The viva asks why not replace all imaging PCs at once; Priya cites cost, vendor availability and clinical disruption.
Synthetic case. The case is fictional.
Errors and limits
Hiding unfinished work weakens credibility; she reports it openly.
Exercises
- EX056 — Report order. List the report sections. Rubric: 3 = five in order;; 2 = unordered;; 1 = partial;; 0 = none.
- EX057 — Defence. Defend isolation as a temporary measure. Rubric: 3 = evidence-based;; 2 = vague;; 1 = minimal attempt;; 0 = none.
- EX058 — Handover. Name three handover items. Rubric: 3 = three;; 2 = two;; 1 = one;; 0 = none.
- EX059 — Reflection. Why did vendor work take longest? Rubric: 3 = dependencies and scheduling;; 2 = vague;; 1 = minimal attempt;; 0 = none.
- EX060 — Honesty. Why report unfinished items openly? Rubric: 3 = credibility;; 2 = vague;; 1 = minimal attempt;; 0 = none.
Synthesis
The project ends with a governed, measured estate and a clear plan for what remains.
Continue studying — chapter 12 of 12
← Chapter 11 (draft) · Course chapter index · Worked results ↓ · Next course via chapter index →