Home A - Z
Page Index

An Otter Wiki

Blame

5c1696 lisa 2026-08-29 16:39:27
Add sd/C10: hub + guides for the in-class model Seven curated learning pages plus the C10 home hub, generated by the shared port script (new c10 config): the C100-* cluster, the tick sheet, the solutions booklet and the assessment paperwork stay out of the wiki. Each page gains a skill title, a lead naming the rubric band it serves, one earned mermaid visual and a Check Your Understanding fold. The git-log examples are anonymised (prior-cohort names, hostnames and repo URL removed). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01RxqgYbTNNYrPNuko6xfbKs
1 
<!-- Generated from applied-computing-au vic/unit3-4/sat/C10-2026 by port-reference-godot-to-wiki.py — do not hand-edit; re-run the port. -->
2
# Proposing a Future Evaluation Strategy
3
4
*How to write the future evaluation strategy C10-1 asks for. Read it before class write 1.*
5
6
> [!NOTE]
7
> **The band this serves.** C10-1, 9–10: *"Proposes an evaluation strategy to be conducted sometime in the future to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the software solution that includes: the time frame for the evaluation to be conducted, the evaluation criteria to be used, the individuals to conduct the evaluation and their responsibilities."* All four ingredients, or the band does not open.
8
9
```mermaid
10
flowchart LR
11
D["Deployment<br/>day 0"] --> U["Real users, real work<br/>3–6 months"]
12
U --> E["Evaluation window<br/>2–4 weeks"]
13
E --> R["Findings · decisions about improvements"]
14
S["System data<br/>logs · usage frequency · crash reports"] --> E
15
F["User feedback<br/>satisfaction ratings · usability survey"] --> E
16
```
17
18
*The strategy sits on a timeline, which is why "later" never scores: the gap before the window is what gives users time to form a real opinion, and the window itself is what the two data streams feed.*
19
20
A plan for evaluating your software solution **after it's been used for a while** by real users in real situations.
21
22
**Purpose:** Conduct a post-launch review of solution usability and performance to ensure ongoing effectiveness.
23
24
---
25
26
## **🎯 Required Components (C10-1)**
27
28
### **1. Time Frame** - _When will the evaluation happen?_
29
30
- 🔹 **When**: 3-6 months after software deployment
31
- 🔹 **Why**: Users need time to get comfortable with the solution
32
- 🔹 **Duration**: 2-4 weeks for data collection and analysis
33
34
**Example:** _"Evaluation will be conducted 6 months after deployment (March 2026), taking 3 weeks to complete."_
35
36
### **2. Evaluation Criteria** - _What will be measured?_
37
38
- 🔹 **Start with key questions**:
39
- Is usability still strong?
40
- Have bugs/errors increased?
41
- Do all original requirements still work?
42
- Are users satisfied with performance?
43
- 🔹 **Use your existing criteria** from the evaluation matrix
44
- 🔹 **Combine process + outcome measures**:
45
- **System data**: logs, usage frequency, crash reports
46
- **User feedback**: satisfaction ratings, usability surveys
47
48
**Example:** _"Evaluate usability, speed of processing, accuracy, and user satisfaction using original criteria plus system performance logs."_
49
50
> ⚠️ **Use VCAA-named factors only.** "Your existing criteria" means the criteria you built in C4 — but double-check them before reusing them here. Worked examples in the wild — including one in the C4 task sheet — list "resource usage" and "response time" as efficiency factors. Neither is a VCAA-named factor. The real list is exactly **3 efficiency factors** (Speed of Processing, Cost of Data and File Manipulation, Functionality) and **11 effectiveness factors** (Accessibility, Accuracy, Attractiveness, Clarity, Communication of Message, Completeness, Maintainability, Readability, Relevance, Timeliness, Usability) — see [Efficiency vs Effectiveness](/sd/C04/Efficiency%20vs%20Effectiveness) for the full table with descriptions. If your C4 evaluation matrix carried over a non-VCAA factor name, relabel it using the correct factor before you evaluate against it here — a criterion named "resource usage" can usually be reframed as "cost of data and file manipulation" or "speed of processing," depending on what you were actually measuring.
51
52
### **3. Individuals** - _Who will do the evaluation?_
53
54
- 🔹 **End users** (people actually using the software)
55
- 🔹 **Technical evaluator** (developer/IT person)
56
- 🔹 **Stakeholder representative** (manager/decision maker)
57
58
**Example:** _"5 regular users, 1 IT administrator, and 1 department manager will participate."_
59
60
### **4. Responsibilities** - _Who does what?_
61
62
- 🔹 **Users**: Provide feedback, complete surveys, participate in interviews
63
- 🔹 **Technical evaluator**: Measure performance, analyze usage data
64
- 🔹 **Stakeholder**: Review results, make decisions about improvements
65
66
---
67
68
## **📝 Simple Template**
69
70
### **Future Evaluation Strategy for [Your Software Name]**
71
72
**When:** [Time frame - when and how long]
73
74
**What:** [List 3-5 key criteria to evaluate — VCAA-named efficiency/effectiveness factors, see the warning above]
75
76
**Who:** [List roles and number of people]
77
78
**How:** [Brief description of evaluation methods]
79
80
**Responsibilities:**
81
82
- **Users**: [What they need to do]
83
- **Technical**: [What technical person does]
84
- **Manager**: [What stakeholder does]
85
86
---
87
88
## **✨ Pro-tip:**
89
90
Keep it realistic and practical. Think about what would actually happen if someone wanted to check how well your software is working after 6 months of real use.
91
92
## **🚫 Don't Overthink It**
93
94
This is a **proposal**, not a detailed research plan. One page is usually enough!
95
96
---
97
98
## Check Your Understanding
99
100
**1.** A student writes: *"We will evaluate the software later using our criteria."* Which of the four required ingredients are missing?
101
102
>| ### Answer
103
>| Three, arguably all four. *When* — "later" is not a time frame. *Who* — no individuals named. *Responsibilities* — nothing said about who does what. Even *which criteria* is only gestured at; the criteria have to be named.
104
105
**2.** Your C4 matrix has a row called "response time". Can you reuse it here as written?
106
107
>| ### Answer
108
>| No. "Response time" is not a VCAA-named factor. Work out what you were actually measuring and relabel it — usually **speed of processing**. The same goes for "resource usage", which is usually **cost of data and file manipulation**.
109
110
**3.** Why does the strategy ask for system data *and* user feedback rather than one of them?
111
112
>| ### Answer
113
>| They answer different halves of the question. System data (logs, crash reports, usage frequency) evidences efficiency and reliability of operation; user feedback evidences effectiveness — whether the solution is still usable, accessible and relevant to the people using it.