MIS603 Microservices Architecture Assessment 1
Subject Code and Title MIS603 Microservices Architecture Assessment One – Written Assessment Individual/Group Individual Length 2000-word limit Learning Outcomes a-d Laureate International Universities
Context:
In your reading and activities for this subject, you will have built an appreciation already that contemporary information systems cater to a variety of users, for multiple purposes; they must adapt, scale and be fault-tolerant. While you are building your expertise in the early stages of this subject you are required to build up a high-level report that demonstrates you appreciate the history and present situation. You will be demonstrating your attainment of all of the subject learning outcomes in this report. By undertaking this assessment, you will be able to contextualise and explain the high-level concepts of microservices architecture to technical and non-technical people, while highlighting the business benefits and challenges. Instructions:
This report will be used as a briefing document for your employer or consulting client for the introduction or continuing use of microservices. You are required to briefly survey the history of computing and to explain how and why the present contemporary suite of information systems are fundamentally different to the various generations of technology and its use throughout the ages. From this point, you should provide a definition and framework for what a software architecture is and why it is important to the contemporary enterprise. A short summary of the main types of software architecture should precede a conclusion.
To begin the assessment, you should provide a short summary of what your role is in the hypothetical professional context and explain what about your background makes you qualified to give advice on microservices architecture. Once you have established your credentials you should introduce the paper, provide its content and then conclude.
In preparing for the assessment, remember that the activities included in the modules are specifically designed to scaffold your understanding. If you have attended class and participated dutifully in the activities, this assessment will be very easy to write!
It is expected the academic references are included and that you cite them all in the body of the report. Although it is impossible to prescribe a minimum number to use, a good rule of thumb to follow for Masters level courses is to use a new citation every 100 words.
Submission Instructions:
Learning Rubric: Assessment One
|
Assessment Attributes |
Fail (Unacceptable) 0-49% |
Pass (Functional) 50-64% |
Credit (Proficient) 65-74% |
Distinction (Advanced) 75 -84% |
High Distinction (Exceptional) 85-100% |
|
Establishment of Credentials 15% |
Does not include or does not recognise the importance of establishing the credentials of the consultant. May provide a cursory or incomplete representation of credentials. |
Provides a narrative on the credentials of the author that may be cursory or that does not appreciate the importance of undertaking the activity. Treats the task as a chore rather than as an opportunity. |
Provides a narrative of the credentials of the author that imbues a sense of cautionary proceeding through to the rest of the paper. Attempts to engage with the audience but may not show empathy for them. |
Establishes the credentials of the author, inspiring trust and excitement in the reader to read on. Shows empathy for the reader and engages them with confidence. |
Expertly establishes the credentials of the author of the report, inspiring a sense of security and trust in the reader by setting the rest of the business paper up for immediate and sustained acceptance. |
|
Historical Narrative 20% |
Narrative is simplistic and does not capture the richness of the sociotechnological progression over time. |
Provides a narrative that explores the progression of technology and its business uses over time. May need sharpening in delivery or more context. |
Provides a narrative that chronicles the developments of business need and technological development over time, arriving at the present situation. May need sharpening in delivery. |
Confidently and elegantly provides a narrative that captures the main developments, mixing the drivers for innovation in clear business terms over time, including a critical view at the present situation. |
Expertly establishes a compelling narrative on the business and technological conditions that have driven advancement, inspiring a case for ongoing development. The present situation vis-à-vis technological capability is expertly critiqued. |
|
Definition of Software Architectures 20% |
Attempts to set out a definition for software architectures, but there are one or more significant issues with the definition provided. |
Sets out a definition for software architectures, listing key components and describes the main architectural developments up to the present day. |
Sets out a definition for software architectures, listing key components while arguing the business case for developments over time to the present day. |
Lays an original framework for software architectures that includes key components and follows it up with criticism of advantages and disadvantages for each, including of the present day. |
Expertly puts forward a framework of software architectures based on sound original research that accounts for the present day as well as critiquing best practices in a variety of scenarios. |
|
Conclusion 15% |
The presented conclusion is summative in nature, and/or there are other significant problems with its execution; it may not capture the essence of the preceding paper. |
Makes an attempt to roll-up from the analysis provided in the paper. There may be summative elements, but the focus of the conclusion is in providing something for the reader to go away with. |
Provides a concluding set of remarks that set a tone for the reader to do something with the report. It may lay out future directions or recommendations for the reader clearly based on the analysis from the report. |
Elegantly concludes the paper with a compelling case for future direction that argues a case for continuing or exploring microservices architecture in the hypothetical firm. May offer some limited critique of the paper’s preceding analysis but clearly aligns to it. |
Expertly concludes from the analysis presented in the earlier report. Is critical of its own analysis but cuts efficiently to the heart of the subject at hand, providing an inspiring future direction for exploration or continuation of microservices architecture. |
|
Succinctness of Report 10% |
The report is not sufficiently succinct, waffles. |
The report barely achieves its objectives within the word limit as there is inefficient presentation. |
Supplements report prose with exhibits that clearly add value to but do not substitute for the report content. Achieves the objectives of the report well within the word limit. |
Uses prose and exhibits expertly and efficiently to present a compelling case, achieving the report’s objectives within the word limit with clever use of space and words. |
Expertly uses prose and exhibits—punctuated with explanations for those exhibits—to present a compelling case that achieves the report’s objectives well within the word limit with clever use of words and space. |
|
Professional Impact 20% |
A criterion reserved for the marker to gauge overall impact and to reward performance that is particularly worthy of professional accolade. | ||||
