Include Proficiency in KSAT tracking and satisfaction checking
Description
Right now we map training and evaluations to KSATs but our tests don't look to ensure that the proficiency codes aren't considered. Mismatched proficiencies between the requirement and training and eval have different consequences. The tables below are meant to try and capture these impacts and use them to come up with a visualization methodology.
@philipcammarata Brought up a great input regarding color blindness and accessibility so we should potentially include a +- indicator as well as color coding.
CFETP's use the below indicator to indicate then they are "under(not) teaching" a requirement. (3n0 CFETP Page 25)
"X" This mark is used alone in course columns to show that training required but not given due to limitations in resources.
| Training | Impact | Visualization |
|---|---|---|
| Match | None | Green |
| Higher by 1 | Wasting resources | Blue (+1) |
| Higher by 2 | Wasting resources | Purple (+2) |
| Lower by 1 | Not meeting msn requirements | yellow (-1) |
| Lower by 2 | Not meeting msn requirements | orange (-2) |
| Missing | No Instruction | <null/blank> |
| Will not do | No Instruction | Red |
"Will not do" indicates a deliberate decision similar to the "X" example from above vs "missing" which means that the works is just not done yet.
| Eval | Impact |
|---|---|
| Match | None |
| Higher by 1 | Testing above requirement |
| Higher by 2 | Testing above requirement |
| Lower by 1 | Not meeting msn requirements |
| Lower by 2 | Not meeting msn requirements |
| Missing | No Instruction |
| Will not do | No Instruction |
Need to check for eval vs training as well
| Eval | Impact |
|---|---|
| Match | None |
| Higher by 1 | Testing something not taught |
| Higher by 2 | Testing something not taught |
| Lower by 1 | Not meeting msn requirements |
| Lower by 2 | Not meeting msn requirements |
Acceptance Criteria
-
AC 1 - The MTTL displays proficiency information to help understand if it's sufficient to the requirement. -
AC 2