FAST-04 Projects: AI Productivity with Microsoft Copilot and Google Gemini
Provider: 7formations | Course: FAST-04 | Instructor: Wadood Chaudhary | One capstone and two mini projects
Projects turn the four suite workflows (inbox, meetings, documents and slides, spreadsheets) into habits with measured results. Scoring uses Not yet / Meets / Strong. Completion requires Meets on every capstone criterion; mini projects are formative unless the employer asks for scoring. One resubmission allowed. Sandbox or sanitized material only; never real customer, patient, or employee data (G.L. c. 93H, 201 CMR 17.00). Follow employer policy on recording and transcription.
Capstone: My 30-Day Productivity Playbook
Brief. Extend your W5 playbook into a 30-day trial. Document five recurring tasks across at least three of the four areas (mail, meetings, documents/slides, spreadsheets), run each at least three times, log time including checking and errors caught, run a personal permissions check, and present results and decisions to your manager.
Deliverables
- Playbook (five tasks): steps, prompt, check, data rules, owner.
- Run log: 15+ runs (3 per task) with time by hand (baseline), time with AI, checking time, errors caught, errors found later.
- Permissions self-check: list of files or folders you own that are shared org-wide or by link, and what you changed (no file contents).
- Recording/transcription note: which of your meetings may be transcribed under policy and which may not.
- Results page (one page): time saved per task after checking, error patterns, keep / adjust / stop decisions.
- Two live demos (session 4) and a 5-minute share-back to your manager or team.
Step plan
| Step | When | What you do |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Session 1-3 | Pick tasks; record baselines by hand |
| 2 | Session 4 | Finalize playbook; demo two tasks |
| 3 | Days 1-14 | Run each task at least twice; log |
| 4 | Days 15-25 | Adjust prompts and checks; third run; permissions self-check |
| 5 | By day 30 | Results page; share-back; submit |
Rubric
| Criterion | Not yet | Meets | Strong |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy checking | Checks missing from runs | Every run logged with its check and errors | Error trends drive prompt or process changes |
| Permissions awareness | No self-check | Self-check done; over-shared items fixed or reported | Team habit proposed (e.g., quarterly sharing review) |
| Applied playbook | Fewer than five tasks or areas | Five tasks across three areas, complete fields | Tasks reusable by a coworker without help |
| Measured value | No baseline or checking time omitted | Baseline and checking time for every run | Includes at least one honest "stop" or redesign |
| Communication | No share-back | Clear one-page results and share-back | Manager decision recorded (adopt, expand, stop) |
Strong vs weak example (one task)
| Weak | Strong | |
|---|---|---|
| Task | "Meetings" | "Weekly ops stand-up recap (internal, transcribed with notice per policy)" |
| Prompt | "Summarize" | Decisions / actions (owner, date, or 'not stated') / open questions; 12 lines max |
| Check | none | Line-by-line vs transcript; owners confirmed; relative dates converted |
| Time | "Saves an hour" | Baseline 35 min; AI 2 min + check 12 min = 14 min; saved 21 min; 2 owner errors caught in 3 runs |
| Decision | none | Keep; added "owner not stated" rule after run 2 |
Mini project 1: Recap Error Catalogue
Brief. Using sandbox or policy-approved internal meetings only, collect three AI recaps and mark every error by type. Build a short catalogue of error types and the prompt or check changes that reduce them.
Deliverables. Three marked recaps (sanitized; no names beyond roles), error counts by type, two prompt changes tested, a one-paragraph team guideline.
Step plan. (1) Confirm policy and consent; (2) generate recaps; (3) mark errors; (4) change prompts; (5) retest; (6) write guideline.
Rubric
| Criterion | Not yet | Meets | Strong |
|---|---|---|---|
| Error marking | Errors missed | Every error marked by type | Errors linked to transcript lines |
| Improvement | No changes tested | Two prompt changes tested | Error count reduction shown |
| Policy | Consent not addressed | Consent and policy confirmed for each meeting | Guideline names meetings never to transcribe |
Strong vs weak example. Weak: "The AI got some owners wrong." Strong: "Across three recaps, 4 of 9 errors were owners assigned to the person who raised an item rather than the one who took it. Adding 'owner = person who agreed to do it; if unclear, write owner not stated' cut owner errors to 1."
Mini project 2: Spreadsheet Answer Audit
Brief. Take a non-sensitive work spreadsheet (or the sandbox workbook) and ask the assistant five plain-language questions. Verify every answer manually and document where and why they differ.
Deliverables. Five questions; assistant answers with formula or pivot shown; manual results; difference analysis; a "how to prepare a sheet for AI questions" checklist (clean table, one header row, no merged cells, no totals in data).
Step plan. (1) Clean a copy of the sheet; (2) ask; (3) verify each by formula or pivot; (4) explain differences; (5) write the checklist.
Rubric
| Criterion | Not yet | Meets | Strong |
|---|---|---|---|
| Verification | Answers not checked | All five checked manually | Checks reproducible by a coworker |
| Diagnosis | Differences unexplained | Each difference explained (filter, blanks, duplicates, method) | Data fixed and questions re-asked |
| Data handling | Sensitive data used or original altered | Non-sensitive copy; original untouched | Preparation checklist adopted by the team |
Strong vs weak example. Weak: "AI said North Shore, I said Metro West, so AI is wrong." Strong: "The AI respected the leftover LTL filter (North Shore −$6,300). With filters cleared, Metro West dropped most (−$6,500, −11.6%), driven by FTL. The tool was right for the data it saw; the sheet was wrong. Added 'clear filters' to the checklist."