The rows this site already stacks
Three CMGT courses carry their own week by week stacks: CMGT/410 for project planning and implementation, CMGT/433 for cyber security, and CMGT/582 for security and ethics. Custom work covers the rest of the catalog, including codes with no row on this site at all.
- Charters, scope statements, schedules and implementation plans that look like planning documents rather than essays about planning.
- Risk assessments and security briefs written for the audience that would genuinely receive them.
- Policy and governance writing where a position is taken and defended instead of surveyed.
- Diagrams and tables built where a week asks for them, rather than described in a paragraph.
Project rows want a schedule, not a description of one
Planning courses such as CMGT/410 ask for artifacts a project office would recognise: a charter with a scope statement that genuinely bounds something, a work breakdown decomposing to tasks a person could be assigned, and a schedule where dependencies exist rather than dates sitting in a row. A paragraph explaining what a work breakdown structure is scores badly against a table that is one.
Deliverables here are built as the artifact first, then explained wherever the grading table asks for explanation, which is normally a short section rather than the body of the document.
Register is half the mark
A security brief written in undergraduate essay prose reads as a student pretending, and markers in these rows spot it immediately. Work goes to people who produce these documents professionally, so vocabulary, structure and the amount of hedging match the artifact. Where a course supplies a template, the template's headings become the document's headings.
Acronyms are the other tell. A brief expanding every term on first use and then expanding it again reads like a glossary, while one that never expands anything reads like a document copied from somewhere else. Practitioners write the middle path, and that is what gets written here.
Ethics weeks get argued, not surveyed
Courses like CMGT/582 ask for a position on privacy, monitoring or governance and then grade whether it survived contact with the counterargument. The reliable way to lose marks is describing three viewpoints neutrally and stopping. Deliverables here take a position early, deal with the strongest objection to it, and finish where the grading table expects them to.
Labs, certifications and anything timed stay yours
Nothing timed or proctored is sat by anybody here, including whatever a course chooses to run under observation. Hands on lab environments requiring your own account are outside the arrangement as well, because that account is yours. What is quotable is the written deliverable a week produces: the report, the plan, the analysis, the deck.
Ordering around on call weeks
Students in these rows are frequently on call or working rotations, and a five week course starting on a Tuesday leaves no slack when an incident eats a weekend. Send the weeks you already know will go badly. Deliverables are pulled forward rather than delivered on the deadline, so a bad week costs you a submission instead of a course.
What to send for a technical week
- Your course code in its slash spelling with the week attached, CMGT/582 week 3 for instance.
- The instructions and the grading table, photographed where copying is blocked.
- Any supplied scenario: the fictional organisation, its size, its systems and its constraints.
- The template or file format the upload has to arrive in.
- Which of the three grading models the course sits in.
Send it over
Questions students ask first
Can a project plan be produced in the tool my course names?
Where a course supplies a template or a file format, the deliverable is produced in it. Where it names software nobody can operate on your behalf, the artifact is built in a form you can import or reproduce, and you are told which case applies before you accept the figure.
Is code or scripting ever part of an order?
Written work including code samples or configuration examples is quotable when a week asks for them. Anything that has to run inside your own lab account is not, because nobody here signs into it.
Do the CMGT stacks show finished documents or descriptions of them?
Finished documents, week by week, free to read. Open a row from the catalog and the weeks are laid out with the deliverable in real form.
My course is direct assessment rather than weekly. Is that covered?
Yes, and it is common. In a direct assessment course the work aims at the assessment as a whole rather than at a weekly rhythm, which usually means fewer and larger deliverables. Say which model you are in so the plan matches it.
How current does the security content need to be?
Current enough to survive a marker who works in the field. Standards, frameworks and threat examples are chosen for the date your course sits in, and where a syllabus fixes a version, that version is the one used.