The individual project is a core, essential part of a Computing degree in the UK, at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels. It remains the main indicator of competency attained by a learner, providing evidence that they can successfully integrate knowledge from the different areas of their programme, master complexity and demonstrate metacognitive skills in reflecting on their own learning. With challenges emerging in the form of large class sizes, the erosion of project management skills and the impact of Generative AI on software development and dissertation writing, is the traditional individual project still relevant, and is a dissertation the appropriate way to assess it?

We report on a collaborative network of computing educators across UK higher education institutions, brought together to make their practice in individual project modules explicit, visible, and open to peer critique, drawing on the Disciplinary Commons approach. Participants brought a wide range of approaches to credit weighting, assessment design, supervision, and moderation, and through peer discussion identified shared challenges around assessment consistency, academic integrity, ethics approval, and workload. The network collectively surfaced several practices considered worth sharing more widely, including tools to support fair project allocation. We reflect on the outcomes of the structured peer sharing process, and identify directions for expanding the network and its outputs.