The Developmentship Model
Fall 2026. This page is being revised for the fall round. In fall, colleague and client feedback is worth 140 of 500 points, and the round runs November 20 to December 14. The fall version of this page, with the conversion table set to 140 points, is published before November 20. See Grading.
Developmentship is the individual instrument in this course and the largest single component of your grade, worth 180 of 500 points. This page is the whole model: what it measures, who rates you, how several reviewers become one number, and how that number becomes points.
It scores the four Consultant axes: Judgment, Ownership, Communication, and Collaboration. These are what changes when the work belongs to someone else. See The Builder and the Consultant for how the Consultant diamond sits alongside the Builder hexagon.
| Axis | Imperative behind it (STRAT 325) | Judged on |
|---|---|---|
| Judgment | Think Clearly, and Get to the Right Answer | Whether you solve the right problem and say what the facts support |
| Ownership | Move Work Forward | Whether you drive the work |
| Communication | Create Impact with People: do people understand it | The artifacts: what you produce for a reader (updates, decks, memos) |
| Collaboration | Create Impact with People: do people trust you | How your team and your client experience working with you, and whether they want you on the next one |
Two axes are about the work: Judgment asks whether it is the right work, and Ownership asks whether it moves. Two are about people, and they follow the guiding question for Create Impact with People, “Do people understand, trust, and act on this work?” Communication is the understand half, judged on what you write. Collaboration is the trust half, judged on the relationship with everyone you work with, teammates and the client alike.
The anchors
The same 1 to 5 scale applies on every axis. There are no adjectives like “strong” or “excellent.” Every level is something a reviewer could point at in a week of work, which is what makes two different reviewers land in the same place.
Judgment
| 1 | Solves the problem as handed over, even when it is the wrong one. Conclusions run ahead of the evidence. |
| 2 | Sound on the task in front of them, but does not ask whether it is the right task. Reports what the data says, not what it means. |
| 3 | Checks that the question is the right one before starting. Conclusions follow from the evidence, and they say where it is thin. |
| 4 | Reframes the problem when the facts call for it. Separates what is known from what is assumed; recommendations hold up when tested. |
| 5 | The team or client changes direction because of how they framed it. Says what the facts support when it is not what anyone hoped. |
Ownership
| 1 | Waits to be told. Work stops when the next step is unclear. Blockers surface at the deadline rather than before it. |
| 2 | Does assigned tasks well but does not extend past them. Asks what to do next rather than proposing it. |
| 3 | Owns a defined piece and finishes it. Raises blockers early. Still needs the plan handed to them. |
| 4 | Owns a workstream end to end. Makes the plan, unblocks themselves, and reports what they decided rather than asking what to do. |
| 5 | Owns a workstream and pulls others along. Reprioritizes when the client changes direction, and what comes back is better than what was asked for. |
Communication
| 1 | Updates are late or absent. The reader has to ask what happened. |
| 2 | Reports activity in the order it happened. The reader has to extract the point themselves. |
| 3 | Answer first, support underneath. Someone who reads only the first line knows the state of the work. |
| 4 | Writes for the specific reader. Names the decision being asked for, and the memo or deck holds up without anyone narrating it. |
| 5 | Produces the artifact the team reuses. A senior stakeholder can act on it without a meeting. |
Collaboration
How your teammates and your client experience working with you, over the whole engagement. A student can be quiet in a client meeting and still rate a 4 if the client relies on them between meetings.
| 1 | Works alone; the team and the client find out late. Takes feedback as criticism, or agrees and changes nothing. |
| 2 | Does their own part and reacts when asked. Leaves teammates’ work and the client relationship to others; applies feedback only where told. |
| 3 | Reliable to work with. Keeps commitments to teammates and the client, shares context without being chased, and acts on feedback the next time. |
| 4 | Makes the people around them better. Asks for feedback before it is offered, says early what will not fit, and teammates and the client come to them directly. |
| 5 | People ask to work with them again, by name. Handles disagreement without it becoming personal, changes position when someone else is right, and surfaces a risk before anyone else finds it. |
How input is gathered
Three surveys, one question set. You are rated from three directions, and every form is built from the same underlying questions asked from the vantage that rater actually has.
| Survey | Who fills it | Rates | When |
|---|---|---|---|
| Self-Assessment | You | All four axes. Not in your composite | Closes first, before you see anything |
| Peer Evaluation | Every Foundry member who saw your work | All four axes | Opens after self closes |
| Client Evaluation | Every client contact you worked with | All four axes, through plain-language questions | In parallel, sees neither |
The ordering is deliberate. A self-rating collected after you have read your reviews measures nothing.
Faculty may also rate any of the four axes, from observed behavior across studio, milestone reviews, and client calls. It is optional, and your score never depends on it.
You do not choose your reviewers. Two weeks before the end of each semester you submit an exposure list naming everyone who saw your work, and faculty adds anyone the staffing records show you worked with.
How several reviewers become one number
Ratings are not thrown into a single average, because six teammates and one client would let your pod outvote the person paying for the work. Three passes.
First, ratings are averaged within each source, weighted by how much of your work that person saw.
| Exposure | Weight |
|---|---|
| Deep. Same engagement, most weeks, most of the semester | 3 |
| Moderate. Part of the term, or regular contact on another engagement | 2 |
| Light. A handful of interactions | 1 |
Second, the peer, client, and faculty scores are combined per axis, weighted by what that source can actually see.
| Axis | Peers | Client | Faculty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judgment | 40% | 30% | 30% |
| Ownership | 50% | 20% | 30% |
| Communication | 40% | 35% | 25% |
| Collaboration | 40% | 35% | 25% |
If a source is missing, the remaining weights scale up. You are never penalized for a rater who did not exist, which is what makes a discovery-only engagement gradeable. On a team of one there is no peer on the engagement, so the client carries every axis for it, with faculty if Scott rated.
Third, the four axis scores are averaged equally into your composite.
Extreme ratings require evidence. A 5, a 1, or a 2 submitted without a specific instance behind it is dropped rather than averaged in. This applies in both directions.
Your self-assessment is never in your composite. It is compared against it and reported to you as a calibration gap. The gap does not move your grade. What it does is set up your video reflection, which is where self-awareness is actually graded.
The principles are not a fifth axis
There is no values score. Every reviewer is asked one optional question instead: which principle from the Constitution did they see you live, and what did you do? It is positive only. No form in this course asks anyone which principle you failed, because a principle is not something you rate on a scale, and rating each other’s adherence to values is not an instrument we are going to build.
The citations are not scored. They come back to you in your development summary, in your reviewers’ own words, and they tell the Foundry which of its principles are actually visible in the work.
Failures of principle do not travel through a survey. They are raised directly, and the serious ones are conduct matters that leave this model entirely.
How the composite becomes points
| Composite | Points | Equivalent |
|---|---|---|
| 4.75 to 5.00 | 180 | 100% |
| 4.50 to 4.74 | 173 | 96% |
| 4.25 to 4.49 | 168 | 93% |
| 4.00 to 4.24 | 162 | 90% |
| 3.75 to 3.99 | 156 | 87% |
| 3.50 to 3.74 | 150 | 83% |
| 3.25 to 3.49 | 144 | 80% |
| 3.00 to 3.24 | 138 | 77% |
| 2.75 to 2.99 | 131 | 73% |
| 2.50 to 2.74 | 126 | 70% |
| 2.00 to 2.49 | 113 | 63% |
| Below 2.00 | Reviewed individually |
Read this against the anchors and the standard is plain. A 3 is a reliable teammate who does what is asked, and in a graduate course that converts at 77%. A 4 is someone who reframes the problem when the facts call for it, owns a workstream, writes something a stakeholder can act on, and makes the team and the client around them better. That is the expectation, and it converts at 90%. Above 4.5 is rare on purpose.
There is no curve. This table is published in week 1 and does not move. If everyone in the section earns a 4.5, everyone gets an A. Excellence over everything is the first principle in our constitution, and grading you against your classmates would contradict it. It would also make helping the person next to you cost you something, which is the one thing Collaboration cannot survive.
Two rules override the point total.
- A composite below 3.00 caps the course grade at B, whatever the team components say.
- A rating of 1 on any axis from two or more independent reviewers caps the course grade at B-. The axes are not tradeable at the bottom.
A composite below 2.00 is reviewed individually and a failing grade is available. A confidentiality breach or anything failing the red face test leaves this model entirely and becomes a conduct matter.
Timeline
| When | What |
|---|---|
| Week 1 | The model, the four axes, the anchors, and the conversion table are explained to the full team |
| Midterm | Practice round. Draft exposure list, all three surveys run light, snapshot returned. No points |
| Two weeks before the end of the semester | Final exposure list due. Faculty confirms it against staffing records |
| The following week, in order | Self-Assessment closes. Then peer forms open. Client forms run in parallel |
| Finals period | Client calls, escalation interviews, composites computed, development summaries delivered |
| One week after summaries | Video reflections due |
The midterm round is what makes this developmental rather than judgmental. A rating delivered only at the end is a verdict. A rating delivered at the midpoint is a chance.
The ordering inside the final round is not a convenience. Self must close before peer opens, or the calibration gap measures nothing, and the video reflection has nothing to be about.
What you receive
A development summary, not just a number: your four axis scores, the themes across everyone who reviewed you, where sources disagreed, and the two things to work on next. Individual comments are never attributed.
In winter, your video reflection is graded on what you do with it. Its rubric is published with the winter grade.