Clarification details
Updated December 2021. This clarification has been updated to address issues that have arisen from moderation.
Students must use recognised and appropriate project management tools and techniques to plan the development of their outcome. The standard does not involve planning the outcome itself.
Examples of suitable project management tools and techniques are given in Explanatory Note 3. These provide guidance about the expectations at Level 3, but are not an exhaustive list. Assessors may need to determine other recognised project management tools and techniques and ensure that they are of a similar level to the examples given.
For this standard, students are required to decompose the outcome into components, and trial these components. Different sorts of digital outcomes will have different types of components, e.g. the modules or functions in a program, or the parts of a webpage or database.
Trialling in this context is about gathering information to inform decision making. Evidence should show the trialling of major components to confirm they are fit for purpose.
Testing in this context is about confirming decisions. The components trialled need to be assembled into a functional outcome and tested to ensure functionality.
Students need to show how they have addressed the relevant implications. There is no dedicated clarification document for relevant implications at Level 3. Guidance and definitions are provided in the Level 2 clarification.
For Merit, students should effectively trial multiple components and/or techniques and select the most suitable. Merit does not simply require trialling more components than those needed for Achieved. A student should trial more than one different way to solve the same sub-problem and select the best.
Evidence needs to show how feedback has been used to improve the outcome’s functionality.
Student evidence needs to show how the project management tools were used effectively in the development of the outcome. Evidence may include adjustments to timelines and resources. Explanation of how feedback and collaboration tools were used to develop and improve the outcome is required.
For Excellence, student evidence should include a synthesis of information from planning, testing and trailing components, and a discussion of how this led to the development of a high-quality digital technologies outcome.
Moderation
Assessors will need to ensure the prepared supporting evidence is visible to the moderator, such as online project management, online version control tools or separate testing documents. When files are password-protected the access settings should be changed appropriately to allow the moderation process to occur.