Concordia University Wisconsin  ·  School of Arts and Sciences  ·  M.S. Artificial Intelligence Curriculum proposal draft
Artificial Intelligence Curriculum Evolution
CSC 6230 3 Credits 6000 level Core AI course MSAI core

Industrial AI Application and Practice

Industrial AI deployment in 2026 is no longer only a matter of shipping a trained model: enterprises increasingly ship tool-calling agents that read live systems, act on them, and are themselves built with AI coding agents, so the professional work shifts to specification, guardrails, evaluation harnesses, observability, and accountability for machine-produced output. The course therefore keeps its MLOps and enterprise-deployment spine and extends it to agentic architecture, retrieval over enterprise data, cost and latency budgets, human-in-the-loop escalation, and post-deployment drift monitoring.

The revision

Current description → proposed description

Current — CUW catalogverbatim

This course bridges the gap between AI theory and real-world deployment by immersing students in the practical application of Artificial Intelligence across industrial sectors such as manufacturing, healthcare, logistics, finance, and agriculture. Students will analyze case studies, evaluate deployment architectures, and work with real or simulated datasets to implement AI solutions that meet performance, security, and compliance requirements in enterprise environments. Topics include production-grade model development, MLOps workflows, edge-AI integration, ethical and regulatory considerations, model monitoring and retraining, and the use of APIs and cloud platforms for scalable deployment. Emphasis is placed on building AI systems that are robust, explainable, and aligned with organizational goals. By the end of the course, students will have delivered an AI project proposal and prototype aligned with an industry-specific use case, preparing them for roles in AI consulting, system integration, and applied research.

Proposed — revised for the AI eradraft

This course bridges the gap between AI theory and real-world deployment by immersing students in the practical application of Artificial Intelligence across industrial sectors such as manufacturing, healthcare, logistics, finance, and agriculture. Students will analyze case studies, evaluate deployment architectures, and work with real or simulated datasets to implement AI solutions that meet performance, security, and compliance requirements in enterprise environments. Topics include production-grade model development, MLOps workflows, edge-AI integration, ethical and regulatory considerations, model monitoring and retraining, and the use of APIs and cloud platforms for scalable deployment. The course extends these practices to the agentic systems now entering industrial production: retrieval-augmented generation over enterprise data, tool and function calling through interfaces such as the Model Context Protocol, agent evaluation harnesses and LLM-as-judge review, guardrails against prompt injection and tool supply-chain compromise, agent observability, cost and latency budgeting, and human-in-the-loop escalation. Students also take professional accountability for work produced by AI coding agents, documenting model and data provenance and monitoring for post-deployment drift. Emphasis is placed on building AI systems that are robust, explainable, and aligned with organizational goals. By the end of the course, students will have delivered an AI project proposal and prototype aligned with an industry-specific use case, preparing them for roles in AI consulting, system integration, and applied research.

Note. Three points worth surfacing. (1) The workbook duplicates one outcome: PLO 1.1 (under ULO1 Christian Faith) and PLO 3.2 (under ULO3 Integrated Disciplinary Knowledge) are word-for-word identical and carry identical D,AE rows for this course; CLO 5 is therefore mapped to both, with a single rationale, rather than inventing a distinction. (2) grad_assessment_map.json assigns CSC 6230 all twelve PLOs, nine of them at D,AE, making this the heaviest assessment load of any course in the proposal; the six CLOs above collectively cover all twelve, but the department may want to confirm that a single 3-credit course is the right exit-assessment point for nine outcomes. (3) The current catalog description for CSC 6230 is already word-for-word the department's own proposed text, so desc_source is "generated" only in the technical sense: the proposed description is the catalog text verbatim with two sentences inserted before "Emphasis is placed on...", one on agentic systems and one on accountability for agent-produced work. A word-level diff of the catalog text against the proposed description shows insertions only — no deletions and no substitutions. No prerequisite is listed in the catalog for this course.

What changes

  • Agentic orchestration: tool/function calling and Model Context Protocol servers added to the deployment stack
  • Retrieval-augmented generation and vector indexing over enterprise data
  • Agent evaluation harnesses, LLM-as-judge review, and post-deployment drift monitoring
  • Guardrails for prompt injection and tool supply-chain compromise, with human-in-the-loop escalation
  • Explicit cost, latency, and provenance accountability for work produced by AI coding agents
Course learning outcomes

6 proposed outcomes, mapped to 12 program outcomes

Each outcome below is written to be observable and assessable, and each is mapped to the program learning outcomes for which it produces evidence.

1

Students will be able to differentiate defensible artificial intelligence capability claims from popular, historical, and vendor framings of AI when appraising candidate industrial use cases in sectors such as manufacturing, healthcare, logistics, finance, and agriculture, grounding the choice of technique class (probabilistic, search-based, learned, or agentic) in the data, latency, and accuracy the problem can actually supply.

Maps to

Separating marketing and popular usage of "AI" from what a system semantically and historically is, before a use case is committed to, is exactly PLO 5.2's defining-and-evaluating work, while selecting among probabilistic models, search, neural approaches, and agentic designs requires the foundational AI theory and mathematics named in PLO 3.1.

2

Students will be able to construct an enterprise data acquisition and management pipeline that collects, cleans, stores, and indexes data from production APIs, operational databases, and edge or sensor streams, including the embedding and vector-index layer on which retrieval-augmented industrial applications depend, with documented provenance, lineage, retention, and data-quality gates, demonstrating the pipeline's fitness for purpose by analyzing the acquired data with appropriate statistical and machine-learning methods against the targeted industrial use case.

Maps to

PLO 2.1 asks for collecting, cleaning, storing, and analyzing data from multiple sources using APIs, databases, and machine learning algorithms to solve a real-world problem, and this CLO carries both halves — the multi-source acquisition and storage pipeline and the statistical and machine-learning analysis that proves the data can support the industrial use case — while the embedding plus API-served retrieval layer it also requires is the industrial LLM deployment substrate specified in PLO 6.1.

3

Students will be able to design a domain-specific, tool-calling AI agent that executes real tasks against enterprise systems through function calling and Model Context Protocol servers, specifying and refining its instructions and prompt contracts against measured alignment, output-format conformance, and adaptability across varied enterprise inputs, and setting least-privilege tool scopes, guardrails against prompt injection and tool supply-chain compromise, observability, and thresholds for human-in-the-loop escalation.

Maps to

Designing and integrating an agent for secure, flexible task execution with real-time knowledge integration is PLO 2.2 stated directly, and the required before-and-after refinement of the agent's instructions and prompt contracts against measured alignment, output-format conformance, and adaptability across varied enterprise inputs is precisely the "better alignment, formatting, and adaptability" evidence PLO 4.2 demands.

4

Students will be able to implement a production-grade industrial AI prototype that combines learned models built with supervised, unsupervised, or reinforcement learning with agentic orchestration, deploying it through an MLOps workflow across cloud and edge targets under explicit cost, latency, and security budgets, and refining it from evaluation-harness, LLM-as-judge, and drift diagnostics.

Maps to

Building the system from supervised, unsupervised, or reinforcement learning together with intelligent agents is PLO 4.1; the structured cloud, enterprise, and edge deployment through APIs under operating budgets is PLO 6.1; and refining the prototype in response to evaluation-harness, judge, and drift diagnostics is the diagnostic-driven iteration required by PLO 6.2.

5

Students will be able to critique a proposed industrial deployment for bias, fairness, transparency, privacy, accountability, regulatory exposure, and economic access, and for the harm borne by the workers, patients, or customers it touches, justifying the safeguards, disclosures, and lines of human accountability it adopts as an expression of a Christian vocational commitment to serving the neighbor.

Maps to

The bias, fairness, transparency, privacy, accountability, economic access, and harm analysis in this CLO is the ethical and legal integrity outcome that the workbook states twice in identical words and with identical I/D/AE rows, once under Christian Faith as PLO 1.1 and once under Integrated Disciplinary Knowledge as PLO 3.2, so the CLO is mapped to both; the requirement to justify safeguards as service to the neighbor, with professional humility about who bears the risk, additionally carries the vocational articulation of PLO 1.2.

6

Students will be able to communicate an industry-specific AI project proposal and prototype, including its architecture, evaluation evidence, known failure modes, residual risk, and post-deployment monitoring commitments, to both technical reviewers and non-technical organizational stakeholders.

Maps to

Presenting architecture, results, and ethical and risk considerations to technical and non-technical audiences with clarity and responsibility is PLO 5.1 verbatim, and the requirement to report evaluation metrics alongside known failure modes and residual error is the performance-and-limitations assessment half of PLO 6.2.

Coverage

Program outcomes this course reaches

Filled cells are program learning outcomes with at least one supporting course learning outcome in this course. Sparse coverage is expected — no single course carries all twelve.

ULO1
1.11.2
ULO2
2.12.2
ULO3
3.13.2
ULO4
4.14.2
ULO5
5.15.2
ULO6
6.16.2

The workbook maps this course too

The proposal workbook's assessment map already assigns program learning outcomes to this course. The outcomes above were written to cover it.

Program outcomeWorkbook levelIn this draft
PLO 1.1 Ethical and Legal Integrity in AID,AEcovered
PLO 1.2 Vocation and Christian WorldviewIcovered
PLO 2.1 Data Acquisition for Real ProblemsD,AEcovered
PLO 2.2 Domain-Specific AI AgentsD,AEcovered
PLO 3.1 AI Theory and MathematicsIcovered
PLO 3.2 Ethical and Legal Integrity in AID,AEcovered
PLO 4.1 Learning-Based Systems and AgentsD,AEcovered
PLO 4.2 Prompt Engineering for LLMsD,AEcovered
PLO 5.1 Communicating AI to Any AudienceD,AEcovered
PLO 5.2 Defining and Evaluating AIIcovered
PLO 6.1 LLMs in Industrial SettingsD,AEcovered
PLO 6.2 Model Evaluation and RefinementD,AEcovered

I = Introduced · D = Developed · AE = Assessed at Exit