This document is for SHAPE / Coventry University students for their own use in completing their assessed work for this
module and should not be passed to third parties or posted on any website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported
to [email protected] / [email protected]
Faculty of Engineering, Environment and Computing
6003CEM Web API Development
Assignment Brief - Coursework 1 of 2
Module Title Individual / Group Cohort Module Code
6003CEM Web API Individual AY2024/ VT6003CEM
Development 2025
Coursework Title Hand out date
Software Development Feasibility Study 2025.02.19(FT)
2025.02.01(PT)
Due date and time
Lecturer Date:
CY CHENG (Full Time) 2025.04.21 (FT)
HC WONG, JANET TSANG (Part Time) Online: 23:59:59
2025.03.31 (PT)
Online: 23:59:59
Estimated Time (hrs) % of Module Mark /
25hrs including research and writing Coursework type: Credit value assessed:
Word Limit* Written Report 25% / 5 CATS credits
1000 words
Submission arrangement: online via Moodle
File types and method of recording: PDF upload to Moodle (with Turnitin supported)
Mark and Feedback date: 2025.04.30 (FT); 2025.04.30(PT)
Mark and Feedback method: Moodle
Module Learning Outcomes (LOs)
Assessed:
Learning Outcome Assessed?
1 Demonstrate systematic knowledge of the current state of Yes
the art in web technologies being deployed by mainstream
businesses to create Web APIs.
2 Demonstrate comprehensive, critical awareness of the Yes
research basis of those technologies.
3 Scope, design and implement a simple Web API to solve a No
given problem.
4 Describe how and why Web APIs are more important to No
business than building web applications from first principles
each time one is required.
5 Understand and implement Web API security and No
authentication.
This document is for SHAPE / Coventry University students for their own use in completing their assessed work for this
module and should not be passed to third parties or posted on any website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported
to [email protected] / [email protected]
Purpose
This assessment is designed to demonstrate your knowledge and critical awareness of the
various HTTP-based API technologies available for web application development. A scenario is
provided through which you can explain your understanding using examples and evaluations
of competing API technologies and architectures. You will demonstrate your understanding of
the topic by exploring:
• the benefits and risks of adopting API technologies for application development,
• how the full-stack (API and client) ecosystem is developing at its cutting edge,
• and emerging commercial best practices that API developers should be aware of.
Regarding code implementation, the 6003CEM module focuses on full-stack infrastructure
using a RESTful API. However, more comprehensive research, understanding and evaluation
of how this and other HTTP-based APIs (such as XML-RPC, JSON-RPC, SOAP, and
others*) are used in commercial practice will gain you marks for this assignment.
For an explanation of how the marks are awarded, see the grading rubric at the end of this
document.
* RPC = Remote Procedure Call, SOAP = Simple Object Access Protocol
Scenario
You are tasked with helping a mid-sized software company, TechFusion Solutions, modernize
its existing infrastructure. The company operates a legacy client-server system that relies on
monolithic architecture and SOAP-based APIs, serving desktop clients with limited scalability
and outdated user experiences.
The company aims to transition to a full-stack web application solution to improve
scalability, integration capabilities, and user experience. Your article should provide a
comprehensive feasibility study, highlighting the benefits of full-stack architecture while
addressing the challenges of modernisation.
The existing system is designed with a centralised system for its stores based on a Windows-
based desktop application (C#) and a MySQL database that stores all information and details.
The IT department at the company currently develops and manages the software and the
database in a small, dedicated internal team.
The solution is going to transition to a full-stack web application architecture with the following
characteristics:
1. Replace the monolithic backend with a microservices architecture, leveraging frameworks.
2. Enabling more flexible and efficient data exchange.
3. Backend services for scalability and reliability.
4. Employ a database system to handle modern data requirements.
5. Migrate the desktop client to a responsive web-based frontend (Current stage) and mobile
app (Next stage). Therefore, the client application should ensure compatibility across
devices (desktop, mobile, and tablet) with modern UI/UX design principles.
6. Support integration with third-party services like payment gateways, CRM tools, or data
analytics platforms using REST, GraphQL, or Webhooks.
This document is for SHAPE / Coventry University students for their own use in completing their assessed work for this
module and should not be passed to third parties or posted on any website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported
to [email protected] / [email protected]
Assessment Task
Your manager has tasked you with producing a software development feasibility study for
the client, outlining the pain points for the existing system, proposing a solution with a brief
evaluation supported by published academic articles available and making a clear justification
for the design. Your manager has emphasised that you should make clear the costs/risks and
the benefits of any software development recommendations you make in the report.
The submitted report should be 1000 words, excluding
references/appendices/tables, and must be uploaded in PDF format. The report should
contain:
1. Brief introduction/abstract. (around 100 - 150 words)
2. Analysis of current system (around 150 – 200 words)
3. A solution recommendation for the client, tech stack and architecture design with a clear justification
and supported by diagrams. (around 600-750 words)
4. Challenges and Risk Mitigation (around 100 – 150 words)
5. A brief conclusion, including quantifying your confidence level in the proposed
recommendation based on your analysis. (around 50 - 100 words)
6. References in correct APA citation style, not less than 5 credible sources, including but not
limited to academic journals or research papers, official documentation of technologies and/or
industry white papers or case studies.
Guidance
Feasibility studies can be of many types: technical, operational, economic, legal, or
schedule/timeline. The report you write for this assessment task should be primarily a technical
feasibility study: this considers current resources in terms of hardware and software and
their maintenance, the technical skills of the existing team, and the technologies being
evaluated for a proposed implementation.
Resources
You must conduct your independent research to write this report and base it on appropriately
cited resources that you find online and through the library. A good starting point for the current
state-of-the-art in the HTTP-based API development world is the following industry newsletter,
which contains relevant curated links to technical articles and business analysis:
• API Developer Weekly - https://apideveloperweekly.com/
It is recommended that you subscribe to this newsletter and also look through its archive of
previous issues to help you understand the types of API technologies and architectures being
used and developed, and how these are being integrated into various products and businesses
by development teams today.
This document is for SHAPE / Coventry University students for their own use in completing their assessed work for this
module and should not be passed to third parties or posted on any website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported
to [email protected] / [email protected]
Submission Process
Please save your final report as a PDF file and upload it to Moodle before the deadline above.
Notes:
1. You are expected to use the Coventry University APA style for referencing.
2. Please notify your registry course support team and module leader for disability support.
3. Any student requiring an extension or deferral should follow the university process as
outlined here.
4. The University cannot take responsibility for any coursework lost or corrupted on disks,
laptops or personal computers. Students should, therefore, regularly back-up any work
and are advised to save it on the University system.
5. Assignments that are more than 10% over the word limit will result in a deduction of
10% of the mark i.e. a mark of 60% will lead to a reduction of 6% to 54%. The word
limit includes quotations but excludes the bibliography, reference list and tables.
6. You are encouraged to check the originality of your work by using the draft Turnitin links
on Moodle.
7. Collusion between students (where sections of your work are like those submitted by other
students in this or previous module cohorts) is taken extremely seriously. It will be
reported to the academic conduct panel. This applies to both coursework and exam
answers.
8. A marked difference between your writing style, knowledge and skill level demonstrated
in class discussion and test conditions and that demonstrated in a coursework
assignment may result in you having to undertake a Viva Voce to prove the coursework
assignment is entirely by yourself.
9. If you make use of the services of a proofreader in your work, you must keep your
original version and make it available as a demonstration of your written efforts. Also,
please read the university Proof Reading Policy.
10. You must not submit work for assessment that you have already submitted (partially or in
whole), either for your current course or another university qualification, except resits, where
for the coursework, you may be asked to rework and improve a previous attempt. This
requirement will be detailed explicitly in your assignment brief or specific course or
module information. Where earlier work by you is citable, i.e. it has already been
published/submitted, you must reference it. Identical pieces of work submitted
concurrently may also be considered to be self-plagiarism.
This document is for SHAPE / Coventry University students for their own use in completing their assessed work for this
module and should not be passed to third parties or posted on any website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported
to [email protected] / [email protected]
Mark allocation guidelines for: software development feasibility study report.
Topic Description / Breakdown Marks
Report structure, grammar, spelling, formatting, references, and reader 5
signposting.
e • Content separated into sensible sections, one topic per section
r
u
tc • Figures well laid out, good captions, properly located
u
r • Good use of appendices if used
tS
tr
• Good standard of language, grammar and definition of technical terms, abbreviations etc.
o • Proper use of citations and references in CU APA style
p
e R • Clear introduction / abstract at beginning
• Succinct summary / conclusion at end
Evaluation with supporting materials 5
• Relevance and credibility of sources used
d
n
as
• rates strengths and weaknesses of each suggested variation with reference supports
he
c
• Evidence-based arguments and integration of references into the article.
cn
r ae
er
e
s efe
RR
Overall solution recommendation and justification 5
n
o • Provides a clear recommendation considering the client's needs
ita
• Justification is clearly based on the earlier comparative evaluation.
d
n
e • Clearly relates the evaluation of strengths and weaknesses to the current and future
m
commercial needs of the client
m
o
c • Further details and sensible recommendations for next steps in implementing the
e
R solution are given.
n
o • Correctly takes in to account current industry trends, state-of-the-art developments, and
itu
lo emerging commercial best practices around API development.
S
• Shows awareness of genuine risks and costs associated with the recommended solution.
e
Suggested tech stack system architecture 10
r
u • A clear system diagram for the architecture of the proposed solution is provided.
tc
e • Design choices consider the continued need for the client's operations, as well as the
tih
c new functionality, and show the relations between these.
r
A
d
• It is clear which technologies are used in each stack component, including the API
e
ts itself, the database, and other necessary components.
e
g • Data representations and the movement of data into, out of, and within the proposed
g
u
S system are clearly illustrated and/or described.
• Clear visualisations and illustrations of the components and relations presented with
appropriate descriptive text.
TOTAL 25
This document is for Coventry University students for their own use in completing their assessed work for this module and should not be passed to third
parties or posted on any website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported to [email protected].
General guidance on marking bands
Mark band Outcome Guidelines
1st - Exceptional work with very high degree of understanding, creativity and critical/analytic skills. Evidence of
exceptional research well beyond minimum recommended using a range of methodologies. Exceptional
90-100%
understanding of knowledge and subject-specific theories. Demonstrates creative flair, a high degree of originality
and autonomy. Exceptional ability to apply learning resources. Demonstrates well-developed problem-solving skills.
1st
Work completed with very high degree of accuracy and proficiency and autonomy. Exceptional communication and
expression, significant evidence of professional skill set. Student evidences deployment of a full range of
exceptional technical and/or artistic skills.
1st - Outstanding work with high degree of understanding, creativity and critical/analytical skills. Outstanding
understanding of knowledge and subject-specific theories. Evidence of outstanding research well beyond minimum
80-89%
recommended using a range of methodologies. Demonstrates creative flair, originality and autonomy. Outstanding ability
to apply learning resources. Demonstrates clear problem-solving skills. Assessment completed with high degree of
1st
accuracy and proficiency and high-level of autonomy. Outstanding communication and expression, evidence of
professional skill set. Student evidences deployment of a full range of technical and/or artistic skills.
1st - Excellent work with clear evidence of understanding, creativity and critical/analytical skills. Thorough research
Meets learning well beyond the minimum recommended using methodologies beyond the usual range. Excellent understanding of
70-79% outcomes knowledge and subject- specific theories with evidence of considerable originality and autonomy. Excellent ability to apply
learning resources. Demonstrates consistent, coherent substantiated argument and interpretation. Demonstrates
1st considerable creativity and clear problem-solving skills. Assessment completed with accuracy, proficiency, and
considerable autonomy. Excellent communication and expression, some evidence of professional skill set. Student
evidences deployment of a highly developed range of technical and/or artistic skills.
2:1 - Very good work demonstrating strong understanding of theories, concepts and issues with clear critical analysis.
Thorough research, using established methodologies accurately, beyond the recommended minimum with little, if
any, irrelevant material present. Very good understanding, evidencing breadth and depth, of knowledge and subject-
60-69%
specific theories with some originality and autonomy. Very good ability to apply learning resources. Demonstrates
coherent substantiated argument and interpretation. Demonstrates some originality, creativity and problem-solving
2:1
skills. Work completed with accuracy, proficiency, and autonomy. Very good communication and expression with
evidence of professional skill set. Student has a thorough command of a good range of technical and/or artistic skills.
50-59% 2:2 - Good understanding of relevant theories, concepts and issues with some critical analysis. Research undertaken
accurately using established methodologies, enquiry beyond that recommended may be present. Some errors may
2:2 be present and some inclusion of irrelevant material. Good understanding, with evidence of breadth and depth, of
knowledge and subject-specific theories with indications of originality and autonomy. Good ability to apply learning
resources. Demonstrates logical argument and interpretation with supporting evidence. Demonstrates some
originality, creativity and problem-solving skills but with inconsistencies. Expression and presentation mostly
accurate, proficient, and conducted with some autonomy. Good communication and expression with appropriate
professional skill set. Student consistently demonstrates a well-developed range of technical and/or artistic skills.
This document is for Coventry University students for their own use in completing their assessed work for this module and should not be passed to third
parties or posted on any website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported to [email protected].
3rd - Meet the learning outcomes with a basic understanding of relevant theories, concepts and issues. Demonstrates
40-49% an understanding of knowledge and subject-specific theories sufficient to deal with concepts. Assessment may be
incomplete and with some errors. Research scope sufficient to evidence use of some established methodologies.
3rd Class Some irrelevant material likely to be present. Basic ability to apply learning resources. Demonstrates ability to devise
and sustain an argument. Demonstrates some originality, creativity and problem-solving skills but with inconsistencies.
Expression and presentation sufficient for accuracy and proficiency. Sufficient communication and expression with
basic professional skill set. Student demonstrates technical and/or artistic skills.
Fail – Very limited understanding of relevant theories, concepts and issues. Little evidence of research and use of
established methodologies. Some relevant material will be present. Deficiencies evident in analysis. Fundamental
30-39% errors and some misunderstanding likely to be present. Limited ability to apply learning resources. Student’s
arguments are weak and poorly constructed. Very limited originality, creativity, and struggles with problem-solving
Fail skills. Expression and presentation insufficient for accuracy and proficiency. Insufficient communication and
expression and with deficiencies in professional skill set. Student demonstrates some deficiencies in technical and/or
artistic skills.
Fail - Clear failure demonstrating little understanding of relevant theories, concepts and issues. Minimal evidence of
research and use of established methodologies and incomplete knowledge of the area. Serious and fundamental errors
20-29%
Fails to achieve and aspects missing Little evidence of ability to apply learning resources. Students arguments are very weak and with
learning outcomes no evidence of alternative views. Little evidence of originality, creativity, and problem-solving skills. Expression and
Fail
presentation deficient for accuracy and proficiency. Insufficient communication and expression and with deficiencies in
professional skill set. Student demonstrates a lack of technical and/or artistic skills.
Fail - Inadequate understanding of relevant theories, concepts and issues. Complete failure, virtually no understanding
of requirements of the assignment. Material may be entirely irrelevant. Assessment may be fundamentally wrong, or with
0-19% major elements missing. Not a serious attempt. No evidence of research. Inadequate evidence of ability to apply learning
resources. Very weak or no evidence of originality, creativity, and problem- solving skills. Students presents no
Fail evidence of logical argument and no evidence of alternative views. Expression and presentation extremely weak for
accuracy and proficiency. Communication and expression very weak and with significant deficiencies in professional
skill set. Student evidences few or no technical and/or artistic skills
