Two audiences may want different outputs
Imagine a fictional partner wants a brief operational recommendation while the program requires a substantial methods-based report. Those outputs can be compatible, but they are not identical. The student needs clarity about what will be assessed and what the partner expects to receive.
CDC's evaluation framework connects questions and methods to intended use. For a capstone, that connection helps prevent a broad request such as “show our program works” from becoming an unsupported promise.
Ask about access before promising analysis
Does the dataset exist? Who controls it? Are approvals needed? Can it be supplied in time and in a usable form? A project based on data expected “soon” carries a different risk from one with confirmed access.
The university's requirements and ethics procedures still apply even when the partner is enthusiastic.
A workable agreement covers
- The central question and a feasible deliverable.
- The person authorized to provide data and feedback.
- Academic supervision and assessment criteria.
- A fallback if access, staffing, or the question changes.
This is a planning outline rather than a contract template. Any confidentiality, ownership, or legal terms need the appropriate institutional process.
Plan for a useful smaller result
If the original aim is too broad, a narrower output might still be valuable: a data-quality assessment, a process map, or a documented evaluation plan. Whether it meets the degree requirement must be confirmed with the program.
An applied project is strongest when its practical usefulness and academic scope are explicit. That makes it easier to preserve both when circumstances change, instead of leaving the student to reconcile two sets of expectations near the deadline.
