Points as at Noon 11/19:

These include Quiz #1, the early submit of the LAN project, and the LAN project.  I'll start grading Quiz #2 later today, will try to have them posted by Wednesday...


Points Now: 45 118 20 5
20
5 3 20 20 10
15
Secret Word Grade Percent Total Points Quiz #1 LAN Dlv #1 Critique LAN Dlv #2 LAN Critique HOL Dlv #1 HOL Dlv #2 Quiz #2 Quiz #3 Tech Brief Brief Critique Web Site to Specs Web Critique
220-ET
99% 44.75 20 5 Drawings are fine, bundled drops are appreciated. A _name_ on your email, not initials, would be more helpful 19.75 Floor plan is missing some jacks, but is very well done, would be easy to correct after a meeting. Could be improved by showing separate drops for the networked devices on the shipping bench, looks like coax the way you've drawn it. The rack is an exceptionally clear schematic as drawn with generic shapes, might be improved to show jumpers between the LAN switch and the patch panels, one for each phone or other networked device. Also, check out VisioCafe and manufacturers sites and do a front/rear view as you practice this and find other stuff to draw. Purchasing docs have problems fitting on pages and amounts in columns, please don't show them to anybody until you make them as good as the drawing.







2830
93% 42 18 5 Lots of different colors detract from a pro look, IMHO 19 Floorplan is mostly accurate, has a stray drop at the rear of the warehouse, maybe for the cart which doesn't need a drop since it's wifi. Bundles aren't consistently drawn, are thinner up front and thicker in the rear, should be thicker bundles with thin drops peeled off them and no telecomm jacks 'sharing' a single drop. Some jumpers need to be pulled across the floor, violates specs. The rack appears accurately jumpered and labelled, but the jumpering is hard to see as printed, would suggest thicker connectors and lines on callouts before putting this in a portfolio, also jumpering between the 24 port switch and patch panel. The purchasing docs are 'purchase orders', not 'invoices', are neatly prepared and summarized as requested.







5759
82% 37 12 5 Got it 20 Reroute the DMZ/LAN jumper to avoid crossed lines, maybe? This photorealistic level of detail in the cabinet is impressive, has me sniping a minutia like Gatway hoping yhou'll proof it before putting it in a portfolio. Our dmarks are extended inside the warehouse, not in the neighboring space as drawn. The purchasing docs and summary docs look good. Thanks for this, is among the best I get to see.







7622
61% 27.5 9.5 5 Good start. Right-click on those 'U Numbers' and turn them off, will give a clear area for your callouts to label ethernet and labels for equipments. 13 Late. The floor plan misses the spec for curved bends on the drops and telecomm outlets symbols where the jacks should be placed, also misses the spec that voip phones be plugged into the LAN and desktop PC plugged into the phones where they're present. The diagram is printed almost too small to be useful. ?The rack diagram attempts front/read views but doesn't carry it off, check the best looking of the samples provided and try again, pulling the jumpers across the spqace between the views. The front view is a clear schematic by itself, so the back view is not needed and this one is a liability for a portfolio. The rack misses the spec for curved bends in the jump[ers. If you're using any VisioCafe or manufacurers' shapes use them for all equipment, doesn't look good mixing generic Visio shapes with VisioCafe. Patch panels are substituted for the rears of severs on the back view, detract from a pro look. The purchase orders and summaries don't fit on their pages, makes this a liability if included in a portfolio.







999H
17% 7.5 2.5 5 The warehouse outline is fine and the scale on the rack is too, but the rack's a sloppy mess of crossed lines, won't impress a technical hiring manager 0 Only good-looking purchasing docs, may have been skunked by lab breakdown, will see later







Aeri
93% 42 20 5 Got Saturday am resubmit, see email for feedback. 17 Purchasing docs and summaries are neatly done, any errors would be easy to find and fix in a meeting. The floorplan is a bit small and the telecomm jacks are oriented sideways, please check the best of the samples and make yours more like them before using this is a portfolio. Some drops are pulled outside our premises, and the dmarc extensions are missing. Bundels should be thicker than the individual drops peel off them, and there should be a drop for every telecomm jack, also rounded corners are spec'd on drops and these are square, some require pulling jumpers across the floor and those on benches are on the fronts of the benches and not on the walls. The rack appears to be accurately jumpered and labelled but the free-form shapes for the jumpers detract from a more pro look, the rack's rails are way distorted, and there are extra and misplaced ethernet .switches







Alfalfa
100% 45 20 5
20 This is very nicely detailed, has some flaws. The floorplan is missing lots of telecomm jacks. The shippiong bench should have five or six telecomm jacks but you're showing one shared by four computers and a mailing machine. You've taken considerable effort to show the jumpering on the desks, but miss the spec where the voip phone plugs into the LAN and the desktop PCs plug into the phones. In the front office, the turquise bundle kind of disappears with no drops peeling off it? This might be clear on the screen but no in the printed copy. The rack is exceptionally detailed and appears accurate. I'd only suggest 'softening' the callouts that label the equipmnet to get rid of the light blocks, and making sure the ip assignments are easy to see on the _rear_ view of the rack not floating off ambiguously to the left of the front view.







Alpha
11% 5
5 Watch for crossed jumpers on rack, rounded curves are not optional 0 Not acceptble. No connecgtors on diagrams. Summary of purchase costs is not a required, I'd need to use a calculator to see how much to pay each vendor, please look at the good-lloing samples and make yours comply







Anbessa
100% 45 20 5 Lots of different colors detract from a pro look, IMHO. Watch for crossed wires! 20 Columns of amounts are customarily right-justified, might appear even better, good-looking presentation of summary of purchases. The annual operations mixes monthly and annual costs so is misleading, should all be 'annualized', or show both columns. The floor plan is a good-looking schematic but is missing lots of telecomm jacks and has squared corners on drops where curved are in the specs. You might want to cut the bundle of cat6 at the last drop that peels off it rather than running it out the front of the building., and extend the dmarc in our premises, not the neighbor's. The rack is a clear schematic, is printed almost too small to be legible, try to fill the page when ypu put it in your portfolio. Try VisioCafe, front/rear view like the best of the samples posted next time...







And Hammer
81% 36.5 17.5 5 No need to scrunch the rack down, 42 units is standard. You've got huge servers that have the keyboard up at shoulder height, should be close to waist high. 14 The purchase orders and summaries look good at a quick glance, any errors could be easily patched in a meeting. The floorplan isn't quite accurate, has the shipping desk in the dmarc shed and receiving on the dock where the a/c and generator should be and has reversed the break and network rooms. Using the wall shape for everything including the shelves is not a good look. Bundles of cat6 would be better if all the same color, and more consistent with thicker bundles and thinner drops peeling off it. It misses specs for positioninjg telecomm jacks so no jumpers are pulled across office floors. The rack is attempting front/back view, but is missing the 'secure switch' behind the dmz for the stack of servers, shows them plugged into the LAN switch up, also shows confusion with the front of the LAN switch showing in both views, and although the servers' ethernet ports are shown in the VisioCafe shapes, the ethernet jumpers are not attached to them. The servers are not appropriate for this installation which only needs a terabyte of raided disk or ssd but are showing a dozen drives in the server. Mixing generic shapes from Visio with the highly detailed VisioCafe shapes detracts from a more pro look. It misses the spec for labelling ethernet ports directly with their IP and most ip assignments are ambiguous. I'd like to assign more points, appreciate the effort put into it and suggest reworking it with critique in mind for a more valuable piece for your portfolio, this isn't worth much as drawn.







Apple
90% 40.5 17.5 5 The servers should be identical. Yours are a couple different sizes and don't fiot the screw-holes on the rack the same... 18 Floorplan is neatly drawn, misses spec that telecomm jacks should be placed so jumpers aren't pulled across the floor. Extended dmarc for T3s probably shouldn't be in the bundle with network drops. Network cabinet is clearly drawn and labelled, appears accurate. I'd avoid red jumpers, and spread the jumpers on the DMZ/Proxy out so they're easier to see. The purchasing docs are neatly prepared and summarized as requested. Annual costs appear to include 'set-aside' for some components like CDW and Amazon where no payments would be made to them? Data mining notes are attached at the rear, if you're wondering where they are.







Apple Juice
63% 28.5 4.5 5 Lots of colors detract from a pro look, IMHO 19 The purchasing docs are well-prepared and appear accurate at a glance. Any problems would be easy to fix in a meeting. The summaries and all the purchase orders are slightly askew in the sheap you submitted, would detract from a pro look in a portfolio. Columns of costs are customarily aligned on the decimal point, yours aren't and appear sloppy. The floor plan is nicetly detailed. Some buindles of cat6 don't connect to the network room. Office telecomm jacks are placed where jumpers will need to be pulled across the floor in spite of spec that asks for none of this. The cart is shown hard-wired where it's wifi. Bundles of cat6 should be shown thicker with individual drops peeled off them, and no telecomm connectors should be sharing a drop as you've drawn it. Extend the dmarcs in our premises, not the neighbor's.The network rack has an excess ethernet switch under the stack of servers where an ATS might be. It appears to be accurately jumpered and labelled, is using buttons on the servers' led panel to stand in for ethernet ports, is a little hard to see with jumpers pulled over the busy fronts of the servers.







ARM
69% 31 10 5 Take care that the drawings in the final submit fill their pages. It looks like these might have gotten shrunk when you were putting them into the pdf. Don't use screenshots, export the drawings if you can't copy/paste directly. 16 Late submit is overall fine, diagrams are very fine. It's missing the separate purchase order per supplier requirement, is neatly put together so docked two points for that.







Awesome
77% 34.5 11.5 4 Nothing there 19 Good looking purchasing docs an summaries. Floorplan leaves several telecomm jacks where jumpers would need to be pulled across the floor, would look better if bundles were larger and individual drops peeled off them. Dmarc should be extended in our premises, not the neighbor's. Rack is neatly drtawn and highlights the dmz. Attempts front/rear but it's not complete and some generic shapes detract from a more pro look. The servers don't look like those appropriate for the project and don't make a clear schematic. Please have at the rack dsiagram again, check out the best looking of the samples provided, and improve yours before putting it in a portfolio.







Aye
69% 31 9 4 A single pdf is required, no visio docs 18 The summary of annual expenses shows some monthly and some annual costs in the same column so the annual amount is way misleading. The package is neatly prepared, would be easy to patch any errors/omissions in a meeting. The floor plan is well done, could use bigger curves on the bends in the cat6 and showing a separate drop for each telecomm jack, where you have some three jacks sharing a drop. Extra bends will cost extra wire, would be good to revisit the diagram with a ladder and six or eight boxes of cable in mind. It looks like the extended dmarcs for the t3s are the same as the cat6, is not accurate. The rack is appears mostly accurate, but it reverses the voip and ip ports on the voip controller and exposes the LAN directly to the internet, and it misses the spec to label the ethernet ports directly with ip assignments so yours are ambiguous.







Barrel_Maker
99% 44.75 20 5 Good start, look at height for the keyboard/monitor on the rack, may be a little too low. 19.75 The floorplan misses telecomm jacks in Ad office and secretary's desk, could be improved by showing bundle thicker and peeling drops off it, extending dmark in our premises. This is a clear schematic, useful as drawn.. Using wall shapes shelving units slows down understanding of that corner. The rack has two ethernet switches at the top where there should be a patch panel and LAN switch. It would be a better impression of the jumpers were plugged into the ports on your switch and not the bare metal or thin air. It appears accurately jumpered and labelled, but the callouts for ip are jumbled up with the jumpers, Try VisioCafe shapes, would compare better with the best I see.







belvn123
58% 26 9 5 Fine start 12 Late. On the summaries, it's customary to right-align columns of figures on the decimal point. The recurring cost summary is titled 'initial costs' and is missing charges for t3s, and a misplaced comma in the total makes it suspect. The floorplan is overall good lookiung, but misses the spec for using the telecomm outlet symbol and places some where the jumpers would be pulled across the office floor. Drops and extended dmarcs don't need to go through doors, should be the shortest route.The rack misses the spec for labelling the ethernet ports directly with callouts with the ip assignments, has the callouts pointing to the edge o0f the rack, and also has the LAN switch plugged directly into the secure switch, bypassing the DMZ and making the secure switch vulnerable. The wispy red lines that represent the jumpers don't look as others I see, and don't resemble any of the good-looking samples posted with the assignment. IP assignments are ambiguous.







Blue
99% 44.5 19.5 5 A single pdf is required. This is INFO300 20 Very clear floorplan, is usable as drawn, but the wiring guy might mark it up. It shows jumpering on desks inaccurately, where the specs call for the voip phone to be plugged into the telecomm jack and the desktop pc plugged into the phone. Run bundles along the wall, inisde the premises, not on top of the walls. Thicker bundles and thinner drops show up better, IMHO. The rack is a very clear schematic,







Boris
41% 18.5 6.5 0 Nothing submitted? 12 No need to put columns in a cost summary for separate POs, and I'm not sure why there would be three to NewEgg? The purchasing docs are good looiking, would be easy to fix in a meeting. The warehouse is accurately traced but is way incomplete, and has all the premises wiring running outside our premises. Using the wall shapes to draw benches is not a good idea. The rack is a jumble of crossed connectors where none are required, is not acceptable. It misses the spec for rounded corners on drops a dozen times, is impossible to interpret as printed. On re-examination, I see that your bundles are run on top of the walls. Please move them inside the walls where they'll be visible, clean up and resubmit for full credit.







Bosnia
6% 2.5 2.5
Nothing submitted?









Bravo
11% 5
5 Watch for crossed jumpers on the rack where none are needed, also make all the bends curved, some are square. 0 Not acceptable. Doesn't have required summaries of up-front purchases and recurring costs, nor separate purchase orders per vendor, doesn't identify vendors at all. Floorplan has no telecomm outlets or drops drawn. The rack is not completely jumpered.







Buff
86% 38.5 13.5 5
20 The floorplan is exquisitely detailed, got all stated specs, could be improved by redrawing with bundles thicker and individual drops peeled off them, also re-reouted with length of cables, a ladder, and six or eight boxes of wire in mind. You've got a U turn in the midst of the warehouse that adds something like 600 extra feet of wire. Run bundles inside the premesis, not on top of the walls where they disappear for all but the sharpest sighted. The specs clearly say we're using voip phones and to plug phones into the telecomm jack and desktop PCs into the phone, so you've got more jumpers than needed, and represented them in the drawing, The rack is printed too small, detracts from an otherwise very clear schematic. The purchasing docs look thoroughly pro and are summarized as requested.







cactus
34% 15.5 15.5
Nothing submitted?









CASTLE
84% 38 20 5 Resubmit is OK 13 Late. Sorry to see a sloppy floor plan with hand-drawn lines for drops and lots of telecomm jacks missing. The rack may be accurately drawn and labelled, but is a mess and would be aliability in a portfolio. The separate purchase orders per supplier requirement was blown off, but there are at least subtotals for each supplier on a spreadsheet.







CCNA
79% 35.5 11 5
19.5 The purchasing docs and summaries appear reasonable at a quick glance, any problems found by closer look would be easy to patch in a meeting. The type is way big on these pages, makes the summaries take two pages each, and purchase orders that usually fit on a page take three or four in your package, detracts from a more pro look, would be worth making them smaller. The rack is a clearly drawn and labelled schematic, would benefit by tugging the callouts for the DMZ IP assignments so the lines don't cross, also repositioning so the labels on the equipment are all on the same side. The floorplan is nicely detailed, but misses the spec for not pulling jumpers across the office floor. It would be improved by making bundles thicker and peeling individual drops off it.







Charlie
0% 0

Nothing there?









Cho20
88% 39.5 14.5 5
20 This got all its points for accuracy, but to be more valuable in a portfolio, redo it with some style. It's clear you were extremely careful placing the details on the drawings but it's kind of hard to discern with wispy lines where we're used to seeing bolder, more clear marks. There's no need for the front/rear rack if it's not jumpered accurately, dietracts from the presentation...







Coal Fox
93% 41.75 17 5
19.75 Floorplan in nicely detailed, would be improved by keeping drops and dmarc extgensions inside the warehouse walls and off the dock. Telecom jack in break room is missing. It goes the extra step of showing jumpers to the phones on the desk, could be improved by showing bundles thicker than the individual drops. The rack is a clearly drawn schematic, has jumpers between LAN switch and patch panel for the networked equipment. The purchasing docs are neatly assembled and summarized as requested.







Cobra
79% 35.5 14.5 5 Lots of colors look sloppy and not pro, IMHO. The rack should have 4 identical servers on it. You've made up names for equipment not in the boss' sketch or memo, misspelled KVM 16 The purchasing docs and summaries are kind of wild looking with red/green headers and huge type that detract from a more pro look, IMHO, but they'd be easy to patch in a meeting and appear accurate. The floorplan misses the spec for telecomm jack shapes in the walls and uses free-form lines all the same thickness to represent bundles and drops where connectors with curved corners were demo'd and in the good-looking samples provided, results in a messy looking diagram, is missing some drops..The rack has mopstly appropriate equipment on it, has an extra patch panel, and appears accurately jumpered and labelled, but is stretched way too tall, and free-form jumpers inconsistenly shaped detract from a pro look, would not be good in a portfolio.







Common
97% 43.5 19 5 Good start. Drops run in bundles, not 2' apart like you're showing them... 19.5 Columns of amounts are usually right-justified. In the recurring costs, it might be more clear to identify which costs are 'set aside' vs. paid to a utility or service provider. The purchasing docs are neatly assembled, would be easy to patch in a meeting. The floorplan is useful as drawn, might be improved by showing bundles thickerer than the drops that peel off them, also some jumpers will be pulled across the floor the way you've drawn them. The rack is a very clear schematic.







Coolio
100% 45 20 5 Lots of different colors detract from a pro look, IMHO 20 Those are some expensive batteries for the UPS, mikght want to check that... The floorplan is a very clear and useful schematic, can only be sniped for pulling jumpers across the floor in the offices and reception, and showing thicker bundles of cat6 with separate drops peeling off them would make it look sharper. The rack diagram is a very clear shchematic, but has an ethernet switch where the ATS should be, and a patch panel where there should be an ethernet switch.







dance
87% 39 16 5 Resubmit's OK 18 The summary of recurring costs is missing t3s and dsl. Thanks for the detail put into the floorplan. It's docked for pulling jumpers across the office floors in spite of advice not to. Also, the specs ask for desktop computers to be plugged into the voip phones, so you've drawn too many drops. Don't use different colors for cat6 wires, blue, purple, and some other color delay recognition of the premises wiring. You've got like 600 feet too many wires making a deep U in the middle of the warehouse, redraw with ladder, eight boxes of wire, and length of the run in mind. . Don't pull bundles on top of the walls, keep them inside the premises. The floorplan is missing the required symbol for telecomm adapters in the walls, shows drops connected directly. The rack is a clearly labelled schematic. The purchase orders are neatly prepared, but all bear the offensive phrase 'Invoice subtotal', where these are purchase orders. Your choice of colors is going to deplete the blue cartridge way ahead of the others.







death star
64% 29 14 3 Late. It looks like you've dropped the rack onto a page scaled for a floorplan? Both drawings should fill their pages. When you start a new drawing in Visio you should pick the template appropriate for it, will also give you most of the shapes needed for that drawing. 12 Purchasing docs are neatly assembled and summarized as requested. Floorplan is accurately traced but incomplete, has no telecomm jacks or drops. The rack misses the spec for rounded corners on jumpers and is difficult to read as printed, ip assignments are incomplete/ambiguous, has two switches at the top and no switch for the stack of servers. Please finish it up and resubmit.







Delta
0% 0
0 Nothing there 0 This really shows talent for details of the trade and technical drawing but is Unacceptable as submitted, needs summaries of up-front and recurring costs as required. Check out the best looking samples provided and summarize yours by vendor, too. Don't mix monthly and annual costs in the total shown. The drawings are exceptional in their clarity, will be critiqued when summaries are received, is really fine stuff...







Dodge
89% 40 17 5
18 The printed docs have a font too small for most people to read. Don't add sales tax to a summary, the purchasing docsbeing summarized already include the sales tax. Your recurring costs summary includes both monthly and annualized costs in the same column so is kinda useless and misleading. The floorplan show bundles the same size as the separate drops so is very hard to interpret compared to the best I see. All of your office telecomm jacks will require pulling a jumper across the floor in spite of advice to avoid this. The rack appears accurately jumpered and labelled. Jumpers between the Lan switch and patch panel for the networked equipment would be good to see.







dodge
43% 19.5 14.5 5 Resubmit still has problems beyond these five points, see email 0 Late, not acceptable because of improperly formatted purchase orders. 'UP FROTN COST SUMMARY' is way light, missing several items in the memo.The annjual cost summary is way overstated, includes the entire purchase cost for WebNPO software. The purchase orders are all labelled INVOICE, and there is no column for Quantity so instead of one line for Monitors from HP there are five or six. There is no big color laser with tabloid bins. Charges for VOCAD and Cavalier are included on a purchase order for Verizon. The floorplan is good looking is one of the best for thicker bundles and drops peeling off them, but it could be more consistently applied, breaks down on the shipping bench. The dmarc extensions should be in our premises, not the neighbors. The rack may be accurately drawn, but the combination of square curves on jumpers, where rounded are specified, placed over the busy fronts of the servers makes it very hard to read. Some IP assignments are placed on the jumpers making them ambiguous. Try for consistent callout shapes for the IP assignments, which are them main use of this drawing. Please resubmit an acceptable package.







dog
63% 28.5 9.5 5 Resbmit shows a good start 14 Floorplan is a neat line drawing, misses some walls and telecomm adapters, and misses spec for curved corners on drops, doesn't terminate them in/on the wall as spec'd and demo'd. Rack is neatly drawn but jumpers and ip assignments are ambiguous, none in the DMZ attach to the secure switch. Purchase orders and summaries are well done, any errors would be easy to patch in a meeting.







Dog
54% 24.5 7.5 4 These don't fit the page, are too small to be useful. The warehouse asks for the warehouse and office walls. 13 The floor plan is mostly accurately traced, but is missing a few features from the drawing, it is a useful diagram that could be improved by elimnating crossed lines and running the dmarc extensions and cat6 inside our premises as spec'd. Telecomm jacks are shown as requested, but several of them would result in pulling jumpers across the floor. The rack diagram is incomplete, has missing or ambiguous IP assignemnts. Mixing VisioCafe shapes with Visio's generic templates is not a good idea. You've obviously put some effort into it for some components and that's appreciated. The cost summary has monthly fee for some services in the Amount column so the total is misleading, the entry for United Security Vaults is oddly indented, monthly fees are shown for both T3s. Please clean this up, complete the rack, and resubmit for more points and something to put in your portfolio.







Donkey Kong
76% 34.25 9.5 5 Exquiste stuff is on the way 19.75 It's easy to post nearly all the points for this, which is missing a few drops for printers and has more telecomm jacks than are needed. The only critique I offer is CDW Maintenance Fee seems way too high, and get rid of the few extra kinks in the wiring and to print the rack larger so it fills more of the page, is almost too small to be useful as printed.







Echo
29% 13 8 5 Lots of different colors detract from a pro look, IMHO. Don't squash the rack, 42 units is standard and the keyboard needs to be at a convenient height while standing, not kneeling. Is this honorable?
Not in a single pdf







egg
91% 41 20 5 Got advice on distorted rack after class. 16 Late two classes. The floorplan is a bold diagram, could be improved by rethinking the drops with a ladder and six or eight boxes of cable in mind. The thicker bundles with drops peeling off them is appreciated, drops could be thinner to emphasize that. Drops placed on top of walls disappear for all except the sharpest eyes, would suggest putting the drops to the front offices inside the walls. The rack is a clearly drawn schematic but misses the spec for using callouts pointing directly to the ethernet ports for ip assignments. Using a color-coded legend delays recognition of the dmz jumpering and results in ambiguous IP assignments. The connection between the voip port and the switch and the t3 extensions aren't style like the others, detract from a more pro look. Color-coding circuits isn't a good idea, IMHO, at this point I can't distinguish easily among blue, green, and purple.







Explore08
84% 38 13 5 Resbmit got it, prior pdf manager resulted in Whoops on 2nd page. 20 The floorplan attempts more detail than most and carries it off well, is impressive. When printed, the individual drops peeling off the thicker bundles are a little hard to see, but the effort is appreciated, might be better to tweak the bundles and drops to be alittle thicker and avoid red. Also, the dmarc extended on top of the wall gets lost, would be better place alongside the warehouse wall inside our premises. A couple or few telecomm jacks are missing at the back of the warehouse. The rack is a clearly drawn schematic. I'd suggest pushing the IP callouts down a bit so the lines slant between the server labels, would make them consistent with the other two which are slanted. I'd also suggest taking time to get VisioCafe shapes and do a front/back view that is as detailed as the floor plan, and don't use an ethernet switch where an ATS should be, cries out noobish where you need to be pro. The purchasing docs are neatly prepared, any errors found by closer look could be easily patched in a meeting.







Fall2018
9% 4 4
Nothing there? 0 Late. Printing on 24+ pound, extra white paper is commendable, but this is not acceptable. There are hand-drawn jumpers on the rack diagram and not nearly enough of them. A front/back view is attempted but they're both the same. Check out the best looking of the samples provided with the assignment if you want to do front/back views. The floor plan in no way resembles the warehouse in the assignment, where an accurate tracing of the boss' sloppy sketch is required and was demonstrated. The purchase orders have no columns for 'each' or 'extended' and place a $ total under a column of quantities.







Fall2018INFO
33% 15 10 5 Got it on the resubmit, is fine. You could improve it by using same shapes and colors for the shelving units. 0 Not acceptable. Docs are neatly prepared and summarized as requested. Drawing outlines are good looking but there are no connections made or ports labelled







FIREEE
78% 35 12 5 Good start on resubmit. It looks like you're doing the right things with the rack, boss' drawing for the rack isn't to good scale. 18 The floorplan is useful as printed, would be better with thicker bundles and individual drops peeled off them, doesn't resemble cat6 as drawn. There are telecomm jacks placed where jumpers would need to be pulled across the floor where the request was for none of this. The rack has inappropriate shapes in place of the servers, but they appear to be jumpered accurately. Some IP assignments are ambiguous, and the cables are labelled, not the ethernet ports as asked for in the specs. Jumpers between the LAN switch and patch panel would be good to see, the cat6 to whse would more properly be behind the patch panel, not attached to the ports on the front as drawn. The ATS is represented by the same ethernet switch used for the secure switch. Please keep at this, try for a more pro look, and maybe not mix generic shapes and VisioCafe on the same drawing, a front/rear view as in the best of the samples provided would look good in your portfolio. The purchasing docs are neatly assemble and summarized as requested, have me looking for ZOHO Inventory.







Fishmans
86% 38.5 15 5 Your rack doesn't use a rack shape, looks like a box that's too small on the page, also I'd asked for the warehouse walls and partitions. I don't think you're using Visio so will have a tougher time making pro-looking diagrams but it can be done 18.5 The purchase orders and summaries appear reasonable at a glance, are good-looking docs. The floor plan is useful as drawn and accurately traced. It could be improved by being consistent throughout with the thickewr bundle and thinner drops everywhere instead of only a few, also removing extra kinks in the wire and not 'sharing' a drop with three jacks. Some telecomm jacks are placed so jumpers will be pulled across the floor instead of behind/aside desks as spec'd. The rack appears acciurately drawn, with the keyboard a little high for comfort. The ip assignments are ambiguous and are attached to the bare metal or bolts on the rack and not to the ethernet ports. The KVM is represented with a patch panel, and the ATS has an ethernet switch. These all make the rack look sorta noobish, would be more valuable in a portfolio if it was drawn accurately.







Foxtrot
11% 5 5 0 The warehouse is way distorted, should be an accurate tracing of the sketch provided









Garandi
91% 41 20 4 Nothing submitted? 17 The floorplan is accurately traced, would benefit from thicker bundles with drops peeled off them, doesn't look like cat6 as drawn. Dmarc should be extended in our premises, not the neighbor's. The rack appears accurately jumpered, but some ip assignments are ambiguous where the jumper is labelled and not the ethernet ports as requested in the specs, also would be better to be consistent with the callout/labelling style, and pulling jumpers across the faces of the servers makes it harder to interpret, is not a polished result for a portfolio.







Geebee
74% 33.5 8.5 5 Resubmit's fine 20 Floorplan is exquisitely detailed, has a few telecomm jacks where jumpers cross the floor in spite of advice to avoid it. Only improvement I can suggest is make all the cat6 wiriong the same color, bundles bolder than drops, and redraw it with a ladder and seven or eight boxes of wire in mind, no need to go through doors, these drops all run overhead. The rack is a very clear schematic, could be improved by jumpering into ethernet cables and not on bare metal, and it could use jumpers between LAN switch and patch panel. For max value in a portfolio of technical drawing skills, I'd suggest getting VisioCafe or manufacturers' visio shapes and redrawing the rack with front/rear view jumpered like the best of the examples posted. The purchasing docs very clear and summarized as required. Any changes discovered in a meeting would be easy to do.







giraffe
23% 10.5 7.5 3 Curved corners on drops and zero crossed wires are requirements for this. Your bundles are the same size as the drops that peel off it, not a good look. Was late 0 Not acceptable, is missing required summaries of up-ftont and recurring costs. Floorplan is not accurate and includes boss' sloppy drawing, is not the clear drawing expected. The rack may be accurately drawn but is illegible as printed, not useful.







Glen Allen
7% 3 3
Nothing submitted? 0 Not acceptable as printed, docs don't fit on pages, no drawings







Go Ramz
2% 1 1 0 A single pdf is required









GOAT
96% 43 20 5 Rack fits, but is way distorted, looks 12 feet tall 18 The purchasing docs are Purchase Orders, not Sales Receipts, otherwise are neatly assembled and summarized as requested. It would be good to show on the summary of recurring costs which are 'set aside for maintenance' and which need checks cut to pay for services. There are unreasonable lines for battery backup that have me puzzled. The floorplan is accurately traced. Some telecomm jacks are placed where jumpers need to be pulled across the floor in spite of specs and advice to put the behind or beside desks. The bundles would be better drawn thicker with individual drops pulled off them and the telecomm jacks should not share drops as drawn. The spec for curved corners on bundles and drops was not consistently followed. The rack appears accurately drawn and ip assignments are clearly labelled. The keyboard is mounted way high on the rack, might be good to put the servers closer together so the keyboard is at waist level and not shoulder. Jumpers between the LAN switch and patch panel would be good to see.







Goldendoodle
86% 38.5 15.5 5 I'd put the ATS way down there with the power supplies 18 The floorplan is accurately traced except for missing/misplaced doors to the dock and missing walls between the front of the warehouse and the office. The network drops have squared bends where curved are spec'd. Some effort was made for thicker bundles with separate drops peeled off them, but it would be better if each telecomm jack had a separate drop instead of sharing them as drawn. The extensions from the dmarc would be better in their own bundle, and red is not the best color for drops, is usually reserved to highlight things that are wrong, IMHO. The rack appears accurately drawn and jumpered. The IP assgnments are printed too small to use. It would be better to use the same shape for all the jumpers, not the mix of free-form and square-cornered shapes as drawn. Curved bends were required for jumpers, square were drawn







Golf
38% 17
5
12 Summaries have no totals, are not useful. Purchasing docs are neatly put together, have errors like 4 cheap Netgear switches instead of rack-mounted managed switches as spec'd in the memo, includes phones although the memo says they're purchased on the office budget, has no big color laser with tabloid bins. The rack misses spec for curved bends in jumpers, and jumpering for the server stack on the printed copy is not legible. There is no floorplan.







GUSTAVO
80% 36 12.5 4 A single pdf is required. Use Visio, no hand sketches are acceptable. The warehouse should be an accurate tracing of the sketch provided 19.5 Overall the package is well-prepared, has a few details that detract from value in a portfolio. A couple of 'invoices' spill across pages, and these are purchase orders, not invoices. The floor plan has telecomm jacks placed where jumpers would be pulled across the floor where the spec asks for them to be behind/aside desks to avoid that. The rack diagram appears accurately drawn and the stack has been flipped with dmz at the top, got the points for no crossed lines. The jumpers in the dmz get a little lost in the busy fronts of the servers, as do the dottend lines in the callouts for IP assignment,. Making these features bolder and easier to see would make it easier for the tech manager to read. I've found MS Word, Open/Libre Office, and Google docs will render a pdf without errors like you showed me, am seeing more and more errors by the on-line pdf tools...







Hambre!
76% 34 10 5 The rack is distorted, 42 units is standard. Turn the drawing off, would be better than making red lines! 19 Front/rear view on rack is appreciated and it appears to be jumpered and labelled accurately. Consider replacing the wispy, swoopy curves for the jumpers with bolder connectors with curves as in the best-looking of the samples provided before you put this in your portfolio. The floorplan is usable as drawn, would be better if bundles were drawn thicker than the drops that peel off them, maybe re-thought with a ladder and boxes of cable in mind, some telecomm outlets are placed so jumpers would need to be pulled across the office floor, several are missing in the back of the warehouse, where monitors appear to have their faces turned to the wall. It would be better to show the DSL and T-3 extended dmarcs as separate from the cat6 bundles. The purchasing docs and summaries are neatly assembled, would be easy to patch any inappropriate choices in a meeting.







Harry Potter
41% 18.5 13.5 5 Watch for crossing jumpers on the rack where none ore needed. Drops run in bundles, so keep them close until they peel off the bundle, not a couple feet apart for the whole run. 0 Please replace hand-drawn drops and jumpers with connectors, as demo'd in class and on all the samples posted with the assignment. The purchasing docs are polished, font's a little small as printed, and the required summaries are there. It is shocking to see hand-drawn wiring scrawled across an otherwise faithful warehouse layout, it really looks sloppy compared the the last couple dozen of these diagrams in this heap. The rack also has hand drawn jumpers andip assignment is ambiguous, with the ipv4 addresses not pointing to the ethernet ports as spec'd. Both diagrams appear accurate but are not acceptable with hand drawn drops and jumpers.







Hendrix
70% 31.5 8.5 5 Resubmit is OK 18 The purchasing docs are neatly assembled and summarized as requested, any problems that show up under close scrutiny would be easy to fix in a meeting. The floorplan is accurately traced and care has been taken to place telecomm jacks appropriately. Drops drawn on tops of walls tend to disappear, slows recognition of the wiring layout, as do the square corners where rounded corners were spec'd. The dmarc extensions should be in our premises, not next door. A couple of printers are missing, but it's a clear doc and they could easily be added.The rack appears accurately jumperd and ip assignments are clear, uses different colors for jumpers and their ip assignments which may not be helpful. The jumpers have square corners where rounded were spec'd. Jumpers between the Lan switch and patch panel would be good to see.







Hotel
24% 11 6 5 Resubmit is fine, feedback in email









Hotel
56% 25
5
20 This will be among the best looking an interviewer or hiring manager sees. I suggest redrawing the premises wiring with a ladder, shorter cable runs, and 7 or 8 boxes of cat6 cabling in mind. You've added hundreds of feet of wire by routing shipping & receiving bench's cables through the front of the building. The rack is an excellent front/back view that very clearly demo's the dmz. Only feature I note missing is the jumpers between the ports on the LAN switch and the patch panel.







i Hate Apple
76% 34 18 5 Rack isn't scaled for a useful diagram 11 Floorplan is not useful as printed, no telecomm outlets are visible, missing several for printers in back and in network area. Rack is a mess of swoopy and crossed lines, is illegibe on dmz where it should be clear. If you want to improve it, look at the good examples posted and make yours like them. Purchae order have errors like $24 tapes detailed for 24 cents, two 48-port seitches for a warehouse with no where near 96 networked devices, and a phone system where the memo says it's purchased from the office budget, not the network. Purchasing docs are neatly assembled, would be easy to patch in a meeting.







Indigo
53% 24
5 Watch scales. Rack is 2X too high and walls appear 2 feet thick 19 Purchasing docs and summaries appear reasonable at a glance. The floorplan emphasizes the placement of each telecomm jack, could do a better job if bundles were drawn thicker with separate drops peeled off them. The DSL, which was spec'd to be connected directly to the dmarc appears to be connected to the LAN. Some jumpers will need to be pulled across doorways or the office floor. The rack appears accurately drawn, would benefit from spreading out the jumpers on the DMZ/Proxy so it's easier to see which jumpers plug into which ethernet ports.







INFO
78% 35 10 5 These are required to be in a single pdf, not Visio docs, not two pdfs 20 Purchasing docs are neatly assembled and summarized as requested, errors would be easy to find and fix in a meeting. Rack appears accurately drawn, would suggest using straight dashed lines on the callouts for ip assignments,and drawing connectors like the best looking of the examples posted, not free-form curves, for a more pro look. The floorplan is accurately traced, would suggest practice to make a more pro-looking diagram, thicker lines for bundled cat6 with thinner lines for each drop peeled of the bundle, run all the wires inside our premises No points docked, but practice before putting this in your portfolio







IT InFrastructure
77% 34.5 10.5 5 Your drops are sloppy looking, don't resemble the wiring topology. If you're going to show a bundle with drops spitting off it, make the bundle thicker. Look at the best of the examples and make your drops and jumpers look more like them if you want a valuable document in your portfolio 19 The floor plan is accurately traced and nicely detailed. I'd suggest being more consistent with the thicker bundle of cat6 and the separate drops peeling off it, and _not_ running bundles on top of the walls where they disappear, keep them inside the premises, and avoid the little extra jags and bends. The rack is docket for ambiguous ip assignments, where the specs ask for the ethernet ports to be directly labelled. Your jumpers are plugged into bare metal and not into the ports on the switches, detracts from a more pro look. The purchasing docs and summaries are good looking, would be easy to patch any problems that show up in a meeting.







JAB
23% 10.5 10.5
Nothing there? 0 Not acceptable. The floor plan is a 3 inch tall reproduction of the boxx' sloppy sketch, may have walls accurately traced but it's too small to see. The rack is similar, juxtaposes a distorted, tiny rack next to the boss' sloppy sketch, has no jumpers or IP assignments. There are no purchase orders, only a one-page list of details with no subtotals.







Jamav
92% 41.5 18.5 5 Resubmit's fine, might be using wall segments to draw everything, detracts from a more pro look. 18 The floorplan's office furnishings and desktops are drawn with exceptional detail and clarity, but the premises wiring is botched and incomplete, has jumpers pulled across officxes, shorts the shipping bench by about five drops, and has extra bends and pitchforks where specs ask for showing separate drops. The rack appears accurately drawn, but has some squared corners where rounded are spec'd. It's hard to see the dmz jumpering against the fronts of the servers, is not as clear as the best of these diagrams I see. It has jumpers stuck to bare metal where they should be in ethernet ports, has 7.254 stuck onto a bolt on the rack. The purchasing docs are neatly done. The ED at this site would know exactly what mike you've got in the logo...







Jazz
69% 31 12 5 Resubmit is particularly fine 14 Floorplan is not accurately drawn, dashed line over the loading dock is puzzling, bundled cat6 has kinks and knots, telecomm jacks are not terminated in/on the walls as specd and will result in jumpers pulled across the floor. Screen walls around the work area are thin lines where walls should be, network room and printer area are not traced accurately,. Rack has components out of place and uses wrong shapes, may be accurately jumpered and labelled.







jericho
81% 36.5 19.5 5 Remember drops and jumpers are required to have rounded corners, also, put ethernet ports on your servers and don't jumper to bare metal at the edge 12 Warehouse doesn't use the telecomm connector required, terminates drops on the desks and not in the walls, drops at shipping and receiving benches are drawn outside the warehouse on the loading dock, would involve extra drilling through concrete walls, otherwise is good looking, would be easy to fix. The rack is not accurately drawn. If you want front/back view look at the best of the examples posted with the project and make yours like them. The purchase orders are all formatted differently, should all be the same, they are our POs not invoices from the suppliers. Amazon PO fudges Complete Network Rack + servers way too expensive.







Jerset
99% 44.5 20 5 First I've seen of the new Visio. Use the Rack Layout template for the rack, don't just draw a rack-shaped rectangle. Make sure the final drawings fill the pages, they're bordering on too small to be useful. 19.5 These are fine looking purchasing docs, summarized as requested. The rack has crossed lines where none are needed, would benefit from tweaking to make the curves all the same and no crossed lines. Also, it's not clear why some jumpers are red and others blue, and it would look more complete with jumpers between the LAN swtich and patch panel for networked equipment. The floorplan is very fine, might be improved by running the dmarc extensions along the warehouse wall and moving the telecomm jack for the receiving printer to the back wall, thus elminating the crossed lines. Some jacks are missing, would be easy to patch in a meeting.







Jmoneyy19
73% 33 8 5 Resubmit's OK 20 Floorplan is nearly drawn, is missing telecomm jacks on the shipping and receiving benches, has misplaced the scale and label printers, some jumpers need to be pulled across the floor in offices. Consider making bundles thicker and individual drops peeling off it thinner. Rack attempts front/rear view but doesn't carry it through, check the best of the samples posted and try again, front view appears accurately jumpered and labelled. Purchasing docs and summaries are useful as printed, would be easy to fix problems after a meeting.







Juliete1584
92% 41.5 17.5 5 Resubmit's OK 19 The floor plan misses the spec for the standard telecomm jacks and shows drops directly connected to desktop equipment, not in the walls. Bundles should be represented thicker than drops. Rethink the bundles with ladder, eight boxes of wire, and cost per foot of wire in mind, youj've wasted something like 600 fett of wire. The attention to details is appreciated, but there are lots of extra bends that could be straightened out. The rack is a clearly drawn schematic. The purchasing docs and summaries are good looking overall, any errors in details could be fixed in a meeting.







Kanye
40% 18 13 5 A single pdf is required, not two emails with a doc in each









Kirkland
89% 40 17 5
18 Didn't use rounded curves on drops as required, as drawn the bundle in the center of the warehouse looks like a wall, and some of the run on top of the walls so they disappear in the drawing. The rack appears accurately drawn but the dashed lines representing the jumpers get lost on the fronts of the servers, is not easy to use. Purchasing docs and summaries are good looking, any errors would be easy to patch in a meeting.







Lima
0% 0
0 Nothing there









Lima
11% 5
5 Rack is way distorted, 42 units is standard









Linux
27% 12 12











Lobo
70% 31.5 6.5 5 Your keyboard drawer is way up at shoulder level, might want to use servers 2 or 3 U tall, not 5 or 6 as you've got 20 Fine, inspired stuff, fine diagrams on close inspection, as discussed, hone these skills by mastering layers and connectors, the floor plan appears sloppy at first glance, unless the user is drawn to look at the level of detail in these drawings, where drops peel off bundles and telcom jack drawn to scale. Might be improved by making the telecomm jacks more prominent. The purchasing docs and summaries look ready to cut checks, attention to details is appreciated.







mac
57% 25.5 3.5 5 Submit on the 2nd is greatly improved, feedback in email 17 Lots of questionable details in purchaing docs, but package is neatly put together, would be easy to patch after a meeting about it. Floorplan is accurately traced and clearly drawn, is a useful doc. Would suggest making bundles thicker and peeling separate drops off the bundles and redraw considering ladders and boxes of wire and avoiding pulling jumpers across the floor to desks, several telecomm jacks are missing on printers on shipping and receiving desks, outside the network room. The rack has some inappropriate equipment shapes, like an ethernet switch where an ATS should be and shows jumpers attached to bare metal instead of the ports drawn on the equipment. It does appear accurately jumpered and labelled.







Maro
40% 18 13 5 Watch the size of the telecomm connectors. You've got one the size of a door at the end of the shipping bench.









McDonald's
87% 39 20 5 I'd suggest don't do front/back view unless using shapes with fronts and backs 14 The specs for the summaries and all the good-looking samples show inital expenses summarized by vendor where yours are summarized by software, services, and hardware. Annual expenses are missing the fees for t3s, dsl, and other items. The floorplan is not quite accurately traced and looks sloppy compated to others I see. It attempts a thicker bundle with separate drops peeled off it, but it leaves out several telecom jacks and places those in the offices so jumpers will be pulled across the floor The goal of the floorplan is to show where the jacks are placed, but the shipping bench is shown with one jack and five devices sharing it. The rack is very sloppy, would be a negative value in a portfolio. It shows four ethernet switches where there should only be two, places the keyboard above shoulder height, and misses the spec for labelling ethernet ports directly with their IP assignments so most ip assignments are ambiguous. The jumpering is sloppy, doesn't resemble any of the good-looking samples posted with the project.







Mike
0% 0
0 Nothing there









mom2514
100% 45 20 5 Bold, curved connectors, rather than wispy free-form connectors are better for jumpers 20 Floorplan is accurately traced and usaable as printed, would benefit from bundles drawn thicker and drops peeled off them, doesn't look like cat6 drops as drawn, I'd also loose the arrows at the ends of drops where the telecomm jack is all that's needed. A couple of printers are missing. The rack appears accurately jumpered and ip assignments are usable. Free-form connectors look sloppy compared to others I see, and they're hard to see where they're run across the faces of the servers, might be better pulled to the side of the rack so the schematic would emphasize the dmz jumpering. Thje KVM switch appears to be an ethernet switch with lots of fiber and uplink ports, may not be a KVM, or if it is is way out of scale for this small network. It would be good to see jumpers between the LAN switch and the patch panel to support the networked equipment. The purchasing docs are put together well, have useful comments about maintenance, and have the requested summaries.







Movie Toy
21% 9.5 9.5 0 A single pdf is required 0 The purchasing docs are neatly prepared, but the annual cost summary is way short, misses the charges for the t3s and dsl. The rack diagram is plain ugly, is a sloppy mess that does not resemble any of the good-looking samples provided. It is not acceptable, neither is thefloor plan accep[table.







November
0% 0

Nothing there?









Oreo
48% 21.5 9.5
Nothing submitted? 12 The floorplan is not traced accurately, doesn't represent the network drops accurately, has handwritten marks, appears to run the t3s into the break room. The rack attempts a fron/rear view, but has the switches and patch panel in backwards on the rear view and doesn't use the front, it would be improved by consistently using VisioCafe shapes for both views. The jumpering appears accurate but ip assignment is ambiguous, missed spec for labelling the ethernet ports and not the jumpers. Incomplete purchasing docs are not summarized as required.







Patek
82% 37 18 5 Lots of different colors detract from a pro look, IMHO. Don't squash the rack, 42 units is standard and the keyboard needs to be at a convenient height while standing, not kneeling... 14 On the recurring costs summary, the 'set-aside' for maintenace of components without a stated fee should probably be separated from those where we've got to write checks. The package of purchase orders is neatly put together and would be easy to fix in a meeting. The floorplan is accurately traced, but has telecomm jacks where jumpers need to be pulled across the floor where specs say to put them behind or at the end of desks. No drops are shown, but they were demo'd and in all the samples posted. The rack appears accurately modeled, jumpered, and ip assignments labelled, is hard to read as printed with jumpers pulled across the busy faces of servers, would benefit from pulling those outsite the rack to make a more clear schematic, also jumpers between the LAN switch and patch panel for the networked equipment would be desirable.







pianoman1
59% 26.5 10.5 5 Your drops and jumpers are really sloppy looking. I'd suggest using connectors and not free-form lines. Don't cross lines, either, there's no reason to do that except sloppiness. 11 Bill of details is missing parts like the big color laser, POs are nicely formatted and summarized, would be easy to fix in a meeting. The floorplan is incomplete and swoopy drops are sloppy in appearance, some don't have telecomm jacks. Wall shapes are used to draw shelves. The rack appears accurately jumpered and mostly labelled correctly, has an extra LAN switch and class the secure switch a KVM.







Polkadot
52% 23.5 6.5 5
12 Resubmit under office door is not improved. Purchasing docs are jumbled, have electical services on NPONet purchase order along with software and mix recurring costs with up-front purchases, no big laser with tabloid bins. The floorplan is neatly drawn, misses spec for curved corners on drops and jumpers, has telecomm jacks placed where jumpers would be pulled across the floor, has bundles the same thickness as individual drops. The rack has inappropriate shapes for servers, no ip assignments, starts front/rear views to no avail.







Potato
44% 20 15 5 Second submit is OK. Specs ask for the ethernet ports to be labelled with callouts, labelling the jumpers results in ambiguous IP assignments. 0 Not acceptab le. Docs are neatly prepared. Summary of initial purchases is not 'by vendor' as required, is a restatement of all the details and not useful. There are no drops or connectors on the drawings, no ports labelled.







Pyro
89% 40.25 15.5 5
19.75 The floor plan is usable as printed, might be improved by showing thicker bundle of cat6 with drops peeling off. The offices and secretary need to pull jumpers across the floor where specs ask for none of that. Rethink it with a 10' ladder and boxes of cable in mind, avoid extra bends and scallops. The rack diagram is a very clear schematic, but is flawed. It could be improved by plugging the jumpers into the ethernet ports on the switch instead of into bare metal. There are two switch shapes where a single secure switch should be. The bolt holes on the generic shapes are used as ethernet ports, hmmm... The DMZ/Proxy server has 3 ethernet ports but yours shows one, and there's a ATS drawn looking and inappropriately cabled like a server. Docked a fraction for inaccuracy.







RICA
92% 41.5 17.5 4 A single pdf is required 20 Fine job, easy to use docs ring true quickly, any errors would be easy to fix in a meeting.







ROStOVS
66% 29.5 11.5 5 Got the resubmit. Watch out for extra kinks in the drops, zoom way in a straighten them out... 13 The summary of annual costs is missing fees for t3s and dsl and others, and it's loppily presented with the $ marks above the amounts. The purchase orders are neatly done. The rack appears accurately jumpered and ip assignments are clear, but it's hard to see the jumpers pulled across the busy fronts of the servers, would be better if they were pulled out to the side. The jagged jumper between the IP port on the VOIP controller and the dmz detracts from a pro look, makes this a negative value in a portfolio. Jumpers are terminated on bare metal instead of the ethernet ports on the LAN switch, and jumpers between the LAN switch and patch panel are not drawn. The floor plan has lots of crossed lines where none are needed, and the scheme for thicker bundles with thinner drops peeled off them isn't consistently applied, makes it look like telecomm jacks are sharing drops. Wires are running outside our premises on the neighbors' side of the walls. Desks, files, and shelves are drawn through the walls in several places, really makes a negative statement. The inventory cart is shown hard-wired where it's spec'd to be wifi.







Salmon
59% 26.5 6.5 5 You've done way more than required for this Dlv #1 and the drops and jumpers are right sloppy, which I hope you'll fix for Dlv #2. 15 Floorplan isn't accurately drawn, only has one telecomm jack on the shipping bench where several are needed, drops don't have rounded corners are required, and some run outside of the premises. Conisider making bundles thicker than the individual drops that peel off it. Monitors appear to be facing the back wall. The rack appears to be accurately drawn, but the free-form lines representing jumpers detract from a pro look The 'secure switch' is not a switch shape, and the PCU/ATS is shaped like a LAN switch. Summaries jumble up-front and recurring costs, page labelled 'annual cost' has purchased items. Purchase orders are printed almost too small to be useful.







Security
92% 41.5 16.5 5
20 Floorplan is overall neatly drawn. Bundles make a lot of extra turns, would be improved by re-thinking their runs with ladders and boxes of wire in mind. Telecomm connectors aren't drawn as spec'd, should bin or on the walls, not floating a few feet from them. Wispy, swoopy jumpers on rack detract from a pro look, IP assignments are ambiguous, jumpers attach to the rack or bare metal. Purchasing docs are neatly assembled and summarized as requested, would be easy to review and patch up in a meeting.







Seeker
99% 44.5 19.5 5
20 Dead on, could be improved: Find SureStor or other shapes for the tape drives, generic shapes from Visio stick out like that sore thumb among VisioCafe or manufacturer's shapes as you've used well for the rest of the diagram. Redraw jumpers on the front/back view to remove crossed lines. If you consider that the back views right-most rail is the left rail on the front view, that gets rid of the crossed lines, may be the way the cabinet is wired. Floorplans with thicker bundles and drops peeled off are better looking. The dmarc extensions are on top of or too close to the wall so they disappear when somebody with retinitis tries to see them.







Silver
20% 9 4 5 Excuse accepted, see email for feedback 0 Only a few pages, may have been skunked by lab breakdown.







Spurs
72% 32.5 18.5 5 Warehouse is way distorted, won't be acceptable. Watch out for crossed drops and jumpers with square corners, will result in docked points 9 Up-front costs summary is way light, misses , servers, swtches and other parts. Warehouse is way distorted and show no drops, is not accurately traced. Rack has crossing lines where none are required and is missing ip assignments, has square bends in jumpers where rounded are clearly spec'd. Numerous errors on purchase orders.







Sterling
78% 35 13 5 Don't do a front/rear view unless you're using shapes with front and rear views. Your two views don't agree with each other... 17 Late submit. Cost summary is missing fees for t3s and dsl. The rack diagram attempts front/back view but doesn't carry it off -- check the best-looking of the samples provided with the assignment if you want to do that, also if you're using VisioCafe shapes for some of the equipment it would look better for all. The front view is an accurately drawn schematic, but it doesn't label the IP assignments. Jumpers between the LAN switch and the patch panel would be an improvement, as would printing the rack larger, is almost too small to be useful. The floor plan is accurately traced. It misses the spec for rounded corners on drops and is missing several telecomm jacks for printers, the break room. The monitors on the shipping bench appear to be facing the wall. Run bundles of cat6 and the dmarc extensions inside our premises, not in the neighbors. Rethink the drops with a ladder, six or eight boxes of cable, and shorter runs in miind -- you've got several hundred feet ofcable wasted, running around the perimeter to get to the front offices which are adjacent to the network room. The cost summary is missing the t3s. The purchase orders are neatly prepared.







stripes
13% 6 1 5 We don't need patch panels with 128 drops for a warehouse with a half dozen employeees...
Nothing submitted







stussy
74% 33.5 8.5 5
20 Floorplan is useful as drawn, has an extra connector labelled DSL going to the cart which isn't needed as the cart's notebook is wifi.Rack is clearly drawn and labelled. Purchasing docs and summaries are as requrested. You mikght want to rethink the wiring, show bundles thicker than the drops that peel off it, no need to go through the network closet's door with extended dmark, would run down the side wall and into the closet.







Superstar2L1
99% 44.5 19.5 5 Resubmit's fine 20 This is overall very fine, but here are some suggestions to make it more valuable in your portfolio: All the good-looking samples for the recurring expense summary show annual costs and that's what the assignment asks for. Your summary separates monthly and annual and isn't very useful for comparison. I'd suggest making columns for monthly and annual costs, multiplying the monthly by 12 for the annual column, and totalling only the annual column. These are _not_ invoices, they are summaries. Other than that the purchasing docs are well prepared and look thoroughly pro, any problems discovered in a meeting could be patched easilty. The floorplan is nicely detailed except pulling the dmarc extensions and drops on top of the wall makes them disappear -- they should be inside the warehouse, and the bundles should be thicker than the individual drops to look more like cat6 wiring, and I think they should all be the same color. I'm not sure what the texture is in the shelving units, but it doesn't look like shelves to me, plain lines would be better, all the shelves in the warehouse are two-sided. The rack is a clear schematic, could be touched up to make the callouts even more clear for the ip assignments on the DMZ/Proxy.







Tiger
85% 38.25 13.5 5
19.75 Excellent job, highly detailed drawings are very fine. Connectors are a bit sloppy on the rack and have crossing lines where none are required -- in reality the right rail on the rear view is the left on the front so that can be used to advantage. Also, the generic tape drive shapes flash out harshly against the VisioCafe shapes for rack and other components. The floorplan could be imporved with thicker bundles, separate drops peeliong off them, fraction docked for pulling numerous jumpers across the office floors. This will be valuable in a portfolio of skills.







Trad
80% 36 20 5 There should be zero crossed wires, you've already got several over the shipping bench. 11 Don't use apostrophes in purchasing docs where commas are the customary 'thousands separator'. The floor plan is not usable as drawn, the boss' sloppy drawing overpowers the drawing and makes it illegible. The wall shape is used for everything, even to draw desks and shelves, so it's not clear where the walls are. Make bundles thicker than the drops that peel off the bundles, and rethink the wiring with ladders and boxes of cable in mind. The user of the floorplan can't tell what's a T3, DSL, or network drop since they're all merged together. The rack is illegible as printed, not useful.







Troy
4% 2 2











Ture Squad
79% 35.5 19.5 5 You've got patch panels where servers should be! 11 The floor plan is accurately traced. It misinterprets the 'T 3s coming from opposite sides of the building. They come to the dmarc from opposite sides of the building and should be extended inside our premises, not in the neighbors, and don't need to wind around inside the building. The cat6 bundles and drops have square corners where rounded are clearly spec'd, and could be more consistent with thicker bundles and drops peeling off them. Some telecomm jacks are placed where jumpers would be pulled across the floor, and several are missing. The patch panel is not consistent with the shapes used for jumpers and is not legible as printed, and patch panel shapes are used where servers should be. IP assignments are ambiguous and inconsistently labelled. Purchasing docs are neatly done but are missing stuff, like nothing for the t3 lines, and grossly overstated cost for renewing RHE licenses. There is no big color laser with 11x17 bins.







Type Jaunt
78% 35 10 5 Got it on the resubmit 20 The purchasing docs are stylish and very clear. Revisit the Recurring Cost summary and show the annual amount for services billed monthly in the right column, with the total at the bottom. Yours isn't what we're used to seeing. The floorplan is useful as printed, would be more valuable in your portfolio if bundles were thicker with thinner drops, an no telecomm jacks 'sharing' a cat6 cable. The monitors are shwon facing the rear wall on the shipping bench. The dmarc extensions should be kept separate from the lan wiring. Avoid red and yellow for drops. Care has been taken to show the jumpering on the desktops, but the specs ask for the phone to be plugged into the jack and the desktop pc plugged into the phone. The rack is a very clear schematic, could be improved bo spacing out the connections to the dmz, where it's difficult to see yours as drawn.







Vikings
96% 43.25 18.5 5
19.75 The floor plan is nearly a useful document, has a purple circuit drawn that confuses me. The DSL is spec'd to have its internet connection directly to the dmarc, and it connects to the cart via wifi, not a cable as you've drawn. There are places where telecomm outlets are placed so jumpers would be pulled across the room where specs ask for behind or beside desks. The rack diagram is a plain schematic that clearly shows the IP assignments, might be improved by plugging the jumpers into the switch's ethernet ports and not into its flashy lights. Also, adding the jumpers between LAN switch and patch panel would add value to your portfolio. The purchase orders and summaries are well put together, thanks.







viper
90% 40.5 15.5 5 All those colors detract from a pro look, IMHO, the drawings are about the wiring. 20 I wouldn't apply a sales tax to a list of amounts on an upfront cost sumnmary, that's on some of the purchase orders, included in the amount brought to the summary. The purchasing docs are nicely style and appear reasonable at a quick glance, any problems could be easily solved in a meeting. The floor plan is trying to be a very clear doc, could be improved by making the telecomm jack symbol bigger, getting rid of the cat6 bundle that shoots through the warehouse wall, and extending the dmarcs inside our warehouse, not in the neighbors' premises. It's commendable that you'd detail the jumpering on the desktops, but the specs ask for the voip phone to be connected to the LAN and the desktop PCs plugged into the phone. It is so refreshing to see telecomm jacks positioned correctly.







watermelon
77% 34.5 9.5 5 There is no Air Conditioning Unit on the rack! That's Power conditionin, probably in the ATS and not separate. 2nd submit is fine 20 In the recurring costs it might be better to call the 'maintenance fee' something like set aside for maintenance, so they're not mixed in with the charges we've got to write checks for. In the floorplan, it would be clearer if the bundles where thicker and the separte drops that peel off it are thinner. Also, you're bundling DSL and T-3 circuits in with the drops and that's not clear. Drops are missing for printers, some of the shipping stations and shipping server and printers. In the offices, you're showing jumpers pulled across the floor which was specifically asked to avoid. The front/rear views of the rack are appreciated, but IMHO the wispy free curves don't show up as well as the bolder jumpers drawn in the best looking of the samples provided. Since you're going for the gold on this, you might consider showing jumpers between the LAN switch and the patch panel for each networked device in the offices and warehourse. The purchaing docs and summaries are neetly assembled, any errors would be easy to fix in a meeting.







Williamsburg
94% 42.5 17.5 5 The man is optional, does show correct scale 20 The floorplan is very fine, would benefit from a pass to apply the thicker bundle with separate drops pulled off it where the attach to the telecomm connectors. Thanks for putting most of them where jumpers won't be pulled across the floor. The dmarc extensions would be better placed inside the wall, are kinda hard to see as drawn on top of the wall. The rack is accurately jumpered and IP assignments are clear. You've got most of the shapes from VisioCafe or suppliers and I'd suggest that a well-drawn front/back view as in the best of the samples posted would be more valuable for your portfolio. The purchasing docs are well prepared and summarized as requested.