Moderator's comments - Example 7

Criterion A: Planning

The client is clearly stated with implicit evidence of consultation and the scenario is described. The rationale is only partially explained – a better case should have been made both for product and for software. The criteria for success are specific and testable. To achieve a 6, a consultation should have been added to the appendix, and discussed and referred to explicitly in this section.

Criterion B: Solution overview

The record of tasks contains all 5 stages (plan, design, develop, test and implement) in limited, but sufficient detail. The design overview is detailed, but should have been explained for better understanding. A test plan is outlined which addresses most criteria for success. For full marks, the design overview should include UML diagrams with interdependencies explained and the test plan should address all success criteria.

Criterion C: Development

The complexity of the solution is sufficiently high and techniques are well documented with screenshots. 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, but most algorithms have not been explained – moderate to high ingenuity. The documentation is clear and structured. 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 fully evidenced and most criteria for success have been addressed. Extensibility is straightforward due to the detailed design overview and to proper attention to programming style.

Criterion E: Evaluation

The product has been evaluated against the success criteria. The recommendations are realistic, but there is no explicit evidence of client/adviser feedback. A proper evaluation should include a discussion of success criteria based on significant client/adviser feedback (added in an appendix, but referenced in the evaluation) and recommendations for improvement should be justified.