Assessment Brief: ICT3055 IT Capstone Industry Project B Trimester 3, 2024 Assessment Overview Assessment Task Type Weighting Due Length ULO Assessmen

Assessment Brief: ICT3055 IT Capstone Industry Project B Trimester 3, 2024
Assessment Overview

Assessment Task Type Weighting Due Length ULO
Assessment 1: Project Log-book (Individual) Students attend weekly team meeting and every two weeks submit an individual project Log-book. The log-book is a cumulative log of:
• Key group meeting discussion points and decisions made;
• All activities undertaken during the project. These must clearly detail all individual contributions/activities versus those undertaken by other members of the group;
• All interim implemented steps undertaken and any partial or interim artefacts produced. This needs to include a clear justification for any implementation approaches, methodologies and/or strategies adopted; Individual

Invigilated

25% Week 2,
Week 4,
Week 6,
and Week 8 Log-book (total 2000) ULO4 ULO5
Assessment 2: Presentation (Individual) Students prepare and deliver an oral presentation covering the following elements:
• Overview of the problem addressed
• Summary of approach taken to address the problem
• Description of the artefact implemented, justifying all key implementation strategies and approaches adopted
• Review of testing and user acceptance undertaken/planned Individual

Invigilated

15% Week 10 Presentation 15 minutes
maximum; 15 slides maximum (equiv. 1500 words) ULO1 ULO2 ULO3 ULO4 ULO5
Assessment 3: Artefact and User Documentation (Group)
Students submit the artefact, technical specifications, justification on how the artefact addresses the IT problem, and user documentation to accompany the artefact Group

40% Week 11 4000 words
+
Artefact

(total 6000 words equiv.) ULO1 ULO2 ULO3 ULO4 ULO5

Assessment Task Type Weighting Due Length ULO
Assessment 4: Project Reflection (individual)
Reflection on the student’s journey in the unit focused on (a) the skills and knowledge they were able to draw on from earlier parts of the course; (b) the areas where they needed development and how they addressed those; (c) how they would approach a project like this next time. Individual

20% Week 6,
and Week 12 2*750 words ULO1 ULO2 ULO3 ULO4 ULO5
equiv. – equivalent word count based on the Assessment Load Equivalence Guide. It means this assessment is equivalent to the normally expected time requirement for a written submission containing the specified number of words.

Assessment 1: Project Log-book

Due date: Week 2, Week 4, Week 6, and Week 8
Group/individual: Individual
Word count/Time provided: Log-book (total 2000)
Weighting: 25%
Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO4, ULO5

Assessment 1 Detail
This is assessment item designed to assess your team’s Key group meeting discussion points and decisions made, your individual contribution to the overall outcome of the project. This will help you to achieve ULO4 and ULO5. All activities undertaken during the project, and the implemented steps need to be presented. A clear justification for any implementation approaches need to be provided, methodologies and/or strategies adopted; The individual element relates to low-level work item specification and evaluation. The tasks associated with this assessment item are as follows. Students required to submit a progress report comprising of previous agreed objectives from ICT3054, progress on these objectives and a brief plan with milestones to complete the project.For each iteration, and for every fortnightly submission, identify specific work items that will support achieving the iteration objectives. This assessment item is assessed through fortnightly iteration plans and evaluations in conjunction. The report should detail the industry-based project assigned to you by your lecturer, focusing on specific aspects. In addition, it should be linked with the designed models the students completed on Project A.

Assessment 1 Marking Criteria and Rubric
The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 25% of the total unit mark. The marking criteria and rubric are shown on the following page. Assess each activity separately and specifically against the intended outcome stated in the iteration plan. All activities must result in some change to the project’s artefacts – thisis the only possible measurement of progress. Back up claims of successful activity completion by including the generated or updated artefact with the status assessment.

Assessment 1 Marking Criteria and Rubric

Marking Criteria Not Satisfactory
(0-49% of the criterion mark) Satisfactory (50-64% of the
criterion mark) Good
(65-74% of the criterion mark) Very Good (75-84% of the
criterion mark) Excellent (85-100% of the
criterion mark)
Criterion – 1
(6.25 marks) Construction and implementation of the planned tasks: Were the tasks completed to a satisfactory standard? Few possible tasks were completed and links to any other task performed are available in the iteration report. No information regarding the front-end and
back-end connectivity is provided Some possible tasks were completed and links to any other task performed are available in the iteration report. Little information regarding the front-end and
back-end connectivity is provided Several possible tasks were completed and links to any other task performed are available in the iteration report. Some information regarding the front-end and
back-end connectivity is provided Almost possible tasks were completed and links to any other task performed are available in the iteration report. Most of the information regarding the front- end and back-end connectivity is provided All possible tasks were completed and links to any other task performed are available in the iteration report. Adequate and clear information regarding the front- end and back-end
connectivity is provided
Criterion -2
(6.26 marks) Teamwork and good organization and Individual Work: Was a satisfactory level of team corporation clear every week? Was the critical thinking and evaluationof the team- workexperience considered? Team member did not attend most team project meetings. Individual work is not showed clearly. Inadequate consideration to the questions posed. Team member attended and participatedin some project team meetings. Few of the Individual work showed. Identifies some personal assumptions, values, and perspectives Team member attended and participatedin several project team meetings. Individual work showed.
Identifies some personal assumptions, values, and perspectives;recognizes some assumptions, values and perspectives Team member attended and participatedin most project team meetings. Individual work showed almost clearly. Identifies strengths and weaknesses in performancewithin team; recognizes personal assumptions, values, and perspectives Team member attended and participated in all project team meetings.
Individual work
showed clearly. Identifies strengths and weaknesses in performance within team; recognizes personal assumptions, values,
and perspectives

Criterion -3
(6.25 marks)
Testing documentation: Were the tasks evaluated against specific requirements? Few tasks evaluated against specific requirements. The system is not tested, and the Screen shots and explanation of the required task tested, database is completely tested by inserting, updated, and also can be deleted updated, and also can be
deleted. Some tasks evaluated against specific requirements. The system is tested little bit and few of the Screen shots and explanation of the required task tested, database is completely tested by inserting, updated, and also can be deleted Several tasks evaluated against specific requirements. The system is generally tested, and the Screen shots and explanation of the required task tested, database is completely tested by inserting, updated, and also can be deleted Almost tasks evaluated against specific requirements. The system is almost tested, and the Screen shots and explanation of the required task tested, database is completely tested by inserting, updated, and also can be deleted All tasks evaluated against specific requirements. The system is adequately tested, and the Screen shots and explanation of the required task tested, database is completely tested by inserting, updated, and also can be deleted.
Criterion -4
(6.25 marks) Documentation on how to run the system: Was an explanation provided for the completed tasks? No explanation provided for all completed tasks. There is no documentation to support the system’s deployment, use and maintenance. A brief explanation provided for all completed tasks. There is generic documentation to support the system’s deployment, use and maintenance. Supporting information. An explanation provided for all completed tasks. There is basic documentation to support the system’s deployment, use and maintenance. Supporting information. A thorough explanation provided for all completed tasks. There is sufficient documentation to support the system’s deployment, use and maintenance.
Supporting information. A detailed
explanation provided for all completed tasks. There is sufficient and suitable documentation to support the system’s deployment, use and maintenance.
Supporting information.

Assessment 2: Presentation

Due date: Week 10
Group/individual: Individual
Word count/Time provided: Presentation 15 minutes maximum; 15 slides maximum (equiv. 1500 words)
Weighting: 15%
Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO1, ULO2, ULO3, ULO4, ULO5

Assessment 2 Detail
Students prepare and deliver an oral presentation covering that give an overview of the problem addressed, summarise the approach taken to address the problem, describe the artefact implemented, justify all key implementation strategies and approaches adopted, and review of testing and user acceptance undertaken/planned. This will help you to achieve ULO1, ULO2, ULO3, ULO4, and ULO5. The primary task for this assessment is to complete development of your project. The report should detail the industry-based project assigned to you by your lecturer, focusing on specific aspects. In addition, it should be linked with the designed models the students completed on Project A.
Assessments 2 Marking Criteria and Rubric
The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 15% of the total unit mark. The marking criteria and rubric are shown on the following page.

Assessment 2 Marking Criteria and Rubric

Marking Criteria Not Satisfactory (0-49% of the criterion
mark) Satisfactory (50-64% of the criterion
mark) Good
(65-74% of the
criterion mark) Very Good (75-84% of the
criterion mark) Excellent (85-100% of the
criterion mark)
Criterion – 1
(3.75 marks) Achieves functional objectives: Does the implementation point out the ability to deploy
the project? Student has no skills inthe implementation. Student points out accepted skills in the implementation.
Accepted quality code provides by the students with no bags. In addition, almost the functionality of the project implemented. Student points out average skills in the implementation. Good quality code provides by the students with no bags. In addition, almost the functionality of the project implemented. Student points out very good skills in the implementation. Very good quality code provides by the students with no bags. In addition, almost the functionality of the project implemented. Student points out high skills in the implementation. High quality code provides by the students with no bags.In addition, all functionality of the projectimplemented.
Criterion -2
(3.75 marks) Achieves non functional objectives.
Implement the secure methods for data encryption, data security and data breach to maintain the privacy Of end
users Non-functional requirements not tested and validated Few of the Non- functional requirements tested and validated. Few security requirements tested. Some of the Non- functional requirements tested and validated. Some security requirements tested. Non-functional requirements almost alltested and validated. Almost securityrequirements tested. Non-functional requirements Completely tested and validated. All security requirements tested.

Criterion-3 (3.75 mark) The Project implementa tion/ simulation are understanda
bleand maintainable Programs codes are notcommented Project implementation/ simulation provided little explanations of the codesbeing used Project implementation/ simulation provided basic explanations of the codes being used Project implementation/ simulation good explanations of the codesbeing used Project implementation/ simulation are understandable and maintainable
Criterion – 4
(3.75 marks) Does the test model point outthe ability to
evaluate and testthe project? Student has no skills in testing and validation. Student points out the testing process through the accepted test plan. The requested functionality tested, and the project outcomes evaluated. The project is validated against the project goal. Student points out the testing process through the good test plan. The requested functionality tested, and the project outcomes evaluated. The project is validated against the project goal. Student points out the testing process through the very good test plan. The requested functionality tested, and the project outcomes evaluated. The project is validated against the project goal. Student points out the testing process through the efficient test plan. The requested functionality tested, and the project outcomes evaluated. The project is
validated against the project goal.

Assessment 3: Artefact and User Documentation

Due date: Week 11
Group/individual: Group
Word count/Time provided: 4000 words + Artefact (total 6000 words equiv.)
Weighting: 40%
Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO1, ULO2, ULO3, ULO4, ULO5

Assessment 3 Detail

Students submit the artefact, technical specifications, justification on how the artefact addresses the IT problem, and user documentation to accompany the artefact. evidence of network/system working functionality (evidence could include a screencast/video or screenshots. You will not be marked on the communication aspect of this evidence, it is simply proof that your systemworks). This will achieve ULO1, ULO2, ULO3, ULO4, and ULO5. The student required to produce a User Manual that should include installation and configuration instructions if required for testing, and document how to use the attributes implemented in the software. In addition, full copy of system documentation including as built design. This assessment is showing the ability and the skills of the students in writing the under manual. The report should detail the industry-based project assigned to you by your lecturer, focusing on specific aspects. In addition, it should be linked with the designed models the students completed on Project A.
Students are required to bring their final projects (final report) along with their PowerPoint slides to the class in week 11. During that week, there will be a discussion about their final reports in addition to their presentation.

Assessments 3 Marking Criteria and Rubric
The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 40% of the total unit mark. The marking criteria and rubric are shown on the following page.

Assessment 3 Marking Criteria and Rubric

Marking Criteria Not Satisfactory
(0-49% of the criterion
mark) Satisfactory
(50-64% of the criterion
mark) Good
(65-74% of the criterion
mark) Very Good
(75-84% of the criterion
mark) Excellent
(85-100% of the criterion
mark)
Criterion – 1
(10 marks)
Does the student demonstrate technical writing skills in a user manual? Does the student validate the scope? Students didn’t produce a comprehensive user manual and scope validation. Students produce an accepted comprehensive user manual providing some details. The students did accept comprehensive validation to the scope Students produce a good comprehensive user manual providing most of the details. The students did good comprehensive validation to the scope Students produce an effectively comprehensive user manual providing almost all the details. The students did an effective comprehensive validation to the
scope Students produce a high- quality comprehensive user manual providing all the details. The students did high level comprehensive validation to the scope
Criterion – 2
(10 marks)
What manual and are you going to provide for networking/ security projects? Does the students provide evidence of network/system working functionality (e.g. evidence could include a screencast/ video or screenshots. Students didn’t produce comprehensive explanations for the key networking/security projects. Students didn’t provide evidence of network/system working functionality Students produce an accepted comprehensive explanation for some networking/security projects. Students provide accepted evidence of network/system working functionality Students produce a good comprehensive explanation for most of networking/security projects. Students provide some evidence of network/system working functionality Students produce an effectively comprehensive explanations for almost all networking/security projects. Students provide most evidence of network/system working functionality Students produce a high- quality comprehensive explanations for all key networking/security projects. Students provide completed evidence of network/system working functionality

Criterion – 3
(10 marks)
Does the student evaluate the project process and outcomes? Does the student implement standard testing parameters and evaluate system performance?
Does the student provide the built design? The students didn’t produce an evaluation of project progress against the project proposal. Students didn’t implement comprehensive standard testing parameters and evaluate system performance.
Students provide the completed built design. The students produce an accepted evaluation of project progress against the project proposal. Students implement accepted standard testing parameters and evaluate system performance.
Students provide accepted built design. The students produce a good evaluation of project progress against the project proposal. Students implement some
standard testing parameters and evaluate system performance.
Students provide good built design. The students produce an effectively evaluation of project progress against the project proposal. Students implement most standard testing parameters and evaluate system performance.
Students provide effective built design. The students produce a high- quality evaluation of project progress against the project proposal. Students implement comprehensive standard testing parameters and evaluate system performance.
Students provide high level-built design
Criterion – 4
(10 marks)
Does the student define and discuss the project risks and challenges? Does the student demonstrate technical writing skills through development of appropriatetechnical
manuals? Students didn’t define and discuss all the risks and challenges faced in the project progress. Poor technical writing skills through development of appropriatetechnical manuals Students define and discuss some of the risks and challenges faced in the project progress. Accepted technical writing skills through development of appropriate technical manuals Students define and discuss a most of the risks and challenges faced in the project progress. Good technical writing skills through development of appropriate technicalmanuals Students define and discuss almost all the risks and challenges faced in the project progress. Effective technical writing skills
through development of appropriatetechnical manuals Students define and discuss all the risks and challenges faced in the project progress.
High level technical writing skills through development of appropriatetechnical manuals

Assessment 4: Project Reflection

Due date: Week 6, and Week 12
Group/individual: Individual
Word count/Time provided: 2*750 words
Weighting: 20%
Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO1, ULO2, ULO3, ULO4, ULO5

Assessment 4 Detail

Reflection on the student’s journey in the unit focused on (a) the skills and knowledge they were able to draw on from earlier parts of the course; (b) the areas where they needed development and how they addressed those; (c) how they would approach a project like this next time; (d) considerations for ICT3055 Capstone Industry Project B. The final product includes the actual working network/system. The report should detail the industry-based project assigned to you by your lecturer, focusing on specific aspects. In addition, it should be linked with the designed models the students completed on Project A.

Assessments 4 Marking Criteria and Rubric
The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 20% of the total unit mark. The marking criteria and rubric are shown on the following page.

Marking Criteria Not Satisfactory
(0-49% of the criterion
mark) Satisfactory
(50-64% of the criterion
mark) Good
(65-74% of the criterion
mark) Very Good
(75-84% of the criterion
mark) Excellent
(85-100% of the criterion
mark)
Criterion – 1
(4 marks)
Show how Network Engineer documentation link with the designed network in building manual for networking/security projects? Network Engineer documentation wasn’t described and linked with the designed network in building manual for networking/security projects Network Engineer documentation described and linked with some designed network in building manual for networking/security projects Network Engineer documentation described and linked with most of the designed network in building manual for networking/security projects Network Engineer documentation clearly described and linked with almost all the designed network in building manual for networking/security projects Network Engineer documentation clearly and comprehensively described and linked with the designed network in building manual for
networking/security projects.
Criterion – 2
(4 marks)
Show how the explanation presented in the Network Engineer document and how it will help in the maintenance stage? Network Engineer document wasn’t provided accepted explanation to the programmer to become productive in maintainingthe software. Network Engineer document provided accepted explanation to the programmer to become productive in maintainingthe software. Network Engineer document provided an explanation to the programmer to become productive in maintaining the software. Network Engineer document provided clear explanation to the programmer to become productive in maintainingthe software. Network Engineer
document provided clear and
comprehensive explanation to the programmer to become productive in
maintaining the
software.
Criterion – 3
(4 marks)
Show the evaluation of the project process and outcomes, including team management done
in efficient way? No evaluation of the project process and outcomes. Accepted evaluation of the project process and outcomes. General evaluation of the project process and outcomes. Well evaluated of the project process and outcomes. Very well evaluated of the project process and outcomes.
Criterion – 4
(4 marks)
How the status of the progress reported? No status of progressis reported. Accepted status of progressis reported. Overall status of progressis reported. Overall status reporting is well-defined and presents a clear overview of progress. Overall status reporting is well-defined and presents a clear overview of progress.

Criterion -5(4 marks) Sufficient and appropriate information will support the system’s implementation, use and maintenance Help files not and no user documentation created Help files provided for the uses of the system and user documentation created. Help files and user documentation cover few features which provide little help
to user. Help files provided for the uses of the system and user documentation created. Help files and user documentation cover some features which provide help to
user. Help files provided for the uses of the system and user documentation created. Help files and user documentation cover almost all features which provide good help
to user Help files provided for the uses of the system and user documentation created. Help files and user documentation cover all features which provide great help to
user