<!-- 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. --> # Proposing a Future Evaluation Strategy *How to write the future evaluation strategy C10-1 asks for. Read it before class write 1.* > [!NOTE] > **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. ```mermaid flowchart LR D["Deployment<br/>day 0"] --> U["Real users, real work<br/>3–6 months"] U --> E["Evaluation window<br/>2–4 weeks"] E --> R["Findings · decisions about improvements"] S["System data<br/>logs · usage frequency · crash reports"] --> E F["User feedback<br/>satisfaction ratings · usability survey"] --> E ``` *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.* A plan for evaluating your software solution **after it's been used for a while** by real users in real situations. **Purpose:** Conduct a post-launch review of solution usability and performance to ensure ongoing effectiveness. --- ## **🎯 Required Components (C10-1)** ### **1. Time Frame** - _When will the evaluation happen?_ - 🔹 **When**: 3-6 months after software deployment - 🔹 **Why**: Users need time to get comfortable with the solution - 🔹 **Duration**: 2-4 weeks for data collection and analysis **Example:** _"Evaluation will be conducted 6 months after deployment (March 2026), taking 3 weeks to complete."_ ### **2. Evaluation Criteria** - _What will be measured?_ - 🔹 **Start with key questions**: - Is usability still strong? - Have bugs/errors increased? - Do all original requirements still work? - Are users satisfied with performance? - 🔹 **Use your existing criteria** from the evaluation matrix - 🔹 **Combine process + outcome measures**: - **System data**: logs, usage frequency, crash reports - **User feedback**: satisfaction ratings, usability surveys **Example:** _"Evaluate usability, speed of processing, accuracy, and user satisfaction using original criteria plus system performance logs."_ > ⚠️ **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. ### **3. Individuals** - _Who will do the evaluation?_ - 🔹 **End users** (people actually using the software) - 🔹 **Technical evaluator** (developer/IT person) - 🔹 **Stakeholder representative** (manager/decision maker) **Example:** _"5 regular users, 1 IT administrator, and 1 department manager will participate."_ ### **4. Responsibilities** - _Who does what?_ - 🔹 **Users**: Provide feedback, complete surveys, participate in interviews - 🔹 **Technical evaluator**: Measure performance, analyze usage data - 🔹 **Stakeholder**: Review results, make decisions about improvements --- ## **📝 Simple Template** ### **Future Evaluation Strategy for [Your Software Name]** **When:** [Time frame - when and how long] **What:** [List 3-5 key criteria to evaluate — VCAA-named efficiency/effectiveness factors, see the warning above] **Who:** [List roles and number of people] **How:** [Brief description of evaluation methods] **Responsibilities:** - **Users**: [What they need to do] - **Technical**: [What technical person does] - **Manager**: [What stakeholder does] --- ## **✨ Pro-tip:** 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. ## **🚫 Don't Overthink It** This is a **proposal**, not a detailed research plan. One page is usually enough! --- ## Check Your Understanding **1.** A student writes: *"We will evaluate the software later using our criteria."* Which of the four required ingredients are missing? >| ### Answer >| 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. **2.** Your C4 matrix has a row called "response time". Can you reuse it here as written? >| ### Answer >| 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**. **3.** Why does the strategy ask for system data *and* user feedback rather than one of them? >| ### Answer >| 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.