DePaul University 1

Technical Writing Annual Assessment Report

Academic Year: 2019-2020

Date of Report Submission: February 17, 2020

Name of Department: DePaul University
Name of Contact Person: Christopher James Navarro
Name of Person(s) completing report or contributing to the project: Still me

Instructions: Please submit reports using this template and not a separate word document. Text
in italics reflects the content you should include within each section (and should be deleted once
the report is finished). Reports should follow this format in a narrative form, with responses
written within each bolded section. Attach all supporting materials as appendices (e.g. charts,
graphs, survey instruments, rubrics). The report should be written as though for an external
audience. Be sure to define key terms common to your area and avoid acronyms. Your annual
assessment project may have assessed multiple program level learning outcomes which roll up
to different department level learning outcomes. It is important that you clearly indicate which
program level learning outcomes are being discussed. The suggested length of the assessment
reports is between 5 and 10 pages (plus appendices in a separate document) (You may produce
a larger report for other constituents, but for the purposes of this report we ask you keep to the
suggested length).

**Please refer to the Office for Teaching, Learning, and Assessment’s “Assessment Report
Checklist” for additional help.**
Part II: Report on This Year’s Assessment Project
I. Abstract
There has been a meltdown at the Iowa Caucuses because of a miscount of votes due
to a smartphone app. The app was developed by a company named Shadow, and it
was designed specifically for the caucus voting. After the incident, both the Iowa
Democratic Party and the Shadow company published statements discussing what
they had to say on the matter and apologizing for the failure of the app.

II. Assessment Question

After reading the response from the Shadow company, they stated that they put it
through tests and it still failed. Why did they go through with the app when they
knew that it was not fully developed and had a chance to fail?

III. Introduction & Context

Project Overview
The app Shadow designed for the elections was a failure due to the fact that it was
not thoroughly tested.
 DePaul University 2

Learning Outcomes Assessed

The outcome is a lesson in making sure projects work and are thoroughly tested in
many scenarios. Compared to the Iowa Democratic Party’s precautions with the
election, it does not seem like the Shadow company took as much precautions to
make sure the app would not fail.

Context for This Report

Though the app was working fine in the tests they ran, the votes were going into
the wrong data warehouse. This is what caused all of the faulty votes and mess up
the count.

IV. Data Collection & Methodology

Population and Sample
Multiple democrats running during the Iowa Caucuses responded to the events
that unfolded. People such as Bernie Sanders, William Brangham, Pete Buttigieg,
and other candidates went out in public to speak on the event.

Key Findings
The candidates all thought that the Iowa caucus chaos was a heavy hit on their
campaigns; Joseph Biden even saying “I’m not going to sugarcoat it. We took a
punch in the gut at Iowa”.

V. Discussion and Interpretation of Findings

Because of the failure of the app made by the Shadow company, the voting must
be recounted and the candidates have to adapt to the environment caused by the
event. The events at the caucuses could have affected an unfair voting advantage
leading up to the main elections; that could have been catastrophic.

VI. Recommendations of Plans for Action

Before using any new form of voting, make sure that it works and can run through
the most extreme cases before using it on a major event. A practice run of the
application should be run before major elections to test its effectiveness and test
for flaws.