Moderator's comments - Example 6

Criterion A: Planning

The client is clearly stated with implicit evidence of consultation and the scenario is clearly described. The rationale is explained – both for product and for software. The criteria for success are specific and testable. This criterion is a borderline 4/5. To achieve a 6, the consultation in the appendix should have been discussed and referred to explicitly.

Criterion B: Solution overview

The record of tasks contains all 5 stages (plan, design, develop, test and implement) in sufficient detail. The design overview is very detailed, but should have been explained for full marks. A test plan is outlined but should have addressed all the criteria for success. This is on the border of a 4/5 and benefit of doubt was given, due to the quality of the design itself.

Criterion C: Development

The complexity of the solution is sufficiently high and there is lots of visual evidence. However, most techniques have only been explained in a superficial manner – therefore moderate to high complexity. There is clear evidence of algorithmic thinking and creativity – high ingenuity. Candidates should aim to explain their understanding of and the use of the techniques involved and to showcase their algorithmic thinking and creativity.

Criterion D: Functionality and extensibility of product

Functionality of the solution in the video is only partially evidenced as not all criteria for success have been addressed. Narration of the video would have helped to clarify functionality. Extensibility is impacted by the minimal amount of explanation both in the design overview and in the development section. The code should be properly annotated.

Criterion E: Evaluation

Please note that assessment will be based only on the material presented in this section with the exception of evidence of client/adviser feedback in an appendix. Therefore a limited attempt is made to evaluate the product against the success criteria. The recommendations are realistic, but there is only implicit evidence of client/adviser feedback. A proper evaluation should include a discussion of success criteria based on significant client/adviser feedback and recommendations for improvement should be justified.