QSO 640 Milestone One Guidelines and Rubric

Overview: In the final project, you will develop a complete project plan for a hypothetical organization. Each milestone assignment will help you complete portions of the final project. In this milestone, you will analyze the Fabricant Manufacturing Project (case study available in MindEdge) and begin tasks related to initiation. You will first define the project in the project charter during the project initiation phase. Prompt: The goal of this milestone is to apply project management skills acquired in the first three modules to a real-world project or situation. The analysis of the Fabricant Manufacturing Project should include an evaluation of the selection criteria, alignment with the organization strategic goals, project charter elements, project initiation approval, and stakeholder analysis (Template). Specifically the following critical elements must be addressed:

I. Project Initiation A. Identify the economic, technical, and organizational feasibility of the project. For instance, how is the project a viable fit within the organization? B. Explain how the project aligns to the organization’s strategic goals. C. Develop a project charter that includes a high-level scope of what is to be accomplished. D. Create a high-level timeline and cost estimate to complete the project. E. Identify the concerns of the internal and external key project stakeholders. F. Compare the level of support from all key project stakeholders to inform the course of action resulting in success of the project. G. Complete the stakeholder analysis template.

Guidelines for Submission: Your draft of the Project Initiation portion of your final project should adhere to the following formatting requirements: 3–4 pages, double-spaced, using 12-point Times New Roman font and one-inch margins. Utilize table(s) within your document as you create the high-level timeline and cost estimate. You should use current APA-style guidelines for your citations and a reference list with a minimum of two sources. Instructor Feedback: This activity uses an integrated rubric in Blackboard. Students can view instructor feedback in the Grade Center. For more information, review these instructions.

Critical Elements Proficient (100%) Needs Improvement (75%) Not Evident (0%) Value Project Initiation:

Feasibility Identifies the economic, technical, and organizational feasibility of the project and how the project is a viable fit within the organization

Identifies the economic, technical, and organizational feasibility of the project, but does not discuss how the project is a viable fit within the organization or is inaccurate or cursory

Does not identify the economic, technical, and organizational feasibility of the project

10

Project Initiation: Strategic Goals

Explains how the project aligns to the organization’s strategic goals

Explains how the project aligns to the organization’s strategic goals, but explanation is inaccurate or cursory

Does not describe how the project aligns to the organization’s strategic goals

15

Project Initiation: Project Charter

Develops a project charter that includes a high-level scope of what is to be accomplished and is detailed appropriately

Develops a project charter, but does not include a high-level scope of what is to be accomplished

Does not develop a project charter 15

Project Initiation: High-Level Timeline

Creates a high-level timeline and estimate of cost to complete the project

Creates a high-level timeline and estimate of cost to complete the project, but response contains inaccuracies

Does not create a high-level timeline or estimate of cost to complete the project

15

Project Initiation: Key Project Stakeholders

Identifies the concerns of key project internal and external stakeholders

Identifies the concerns of key project internal and external stakeholders, but response either contains inaccuracies or is overgeneralized

Does not identify the concerns of key project stakeholders

10

Project Initiation: Support

Compares the level of support from all key stakeholders to inform the course of action of the project

Compares the level of support from all key stakeholders, but discussion contains gaps or inaccuracies

Does not compare the level of support from all key stakeholders

15

Project Initiation: Stakeholder Analysis

Template

Completes the stakeholder analysis template

Completes the stakeholder analysis template, but template contains inaccuracies

Does not complete the stakeholder analysis template

10

Articulation of Response

Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization

Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas

Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas

10

Total 100%

Grading Rubric for Cognitive Journal Entries

Dimension

Sophisticated Competent Needs Work

Content Entry topic (behavior) is

clearly stated, and completely

and clearly outlined. Topic

(behavior) selected is highly

relevant to chapter’s content

and connection between the

two is clear. Relationship

between topic (behavior) and

chapter theory is clearly

articulated and accurate.

Author's underlying logic is

explicit, and his or her

observation(s) help the reader

see things in a new light. 10-8

pts

Entry topic (behavior) is clearly stated,

and relevant to chapter’s content.

Connection between the two is mostly

clear and complete – there are some

unclear components or some minor

errors in the linkage.

Author's observations are mostly clear,

yet some aspects may not be connected

or minor errors in logic are present.

Author's presentation exposes the

reader to an interesting perspective.

7-5 pts

Entry topic (behavior) is vague, and/or

inconsistently (or only superficially) related to, or

not relevant to chapter’s theories; relational

components are missing or are inaccurate or

unclear. Topic (behavior) is not clearly

articulated and/or has incorrect or incomplete

components with regards to a relationship with

chapter’s theories. Author's observation(s) may

not be clear and the connection with chapter

theory may be incorrect or unclear or just a

repetition of chapter content without explanation

and/or linkage. Underlying logic is flawed. 4-0

pts

Comprehensibility Entry is completely under-

standable, and intellectually

communicated. 5-4 pts

Entry is understandable for the most

part and effectively communicated.

3-2 pts

Entry is difficult to grasp, somewhat beyond

understanding, and ineffectively communicated.

1-0 pts

Effort Entry exceeds assignment

requirements and significant

scholarly effort has been

employed. 5-4 pts

Entry meets assignment requirements

per syllabus and instructor guidance,

and acceptable scholarly effort has been

employed. 3-2 pts

Entry partially fulfills, or does not meet

assignment requirements and scholarly effort is

lacking. 1-0 pts

Writing

(organization,

grammar,

mechanics,

spelling, etc.)

Entry is coherently organized

and the logic is easy to follow.

No spelling or grammatical

errors and terminology is

clearly defined. Writing is

clear, concise and persuasive.

5-4 pts

Entry is generally well organized and

for the most part, easy to follow. There

are few spelling and/or grammatical

errors, or undefined terms. Writing is

mostly clear, but may lack conciseness.

3-2 pts

Entry is poorly organized and difficult to read –

does not flow logically from one part to another.

There are several spelling and/or grammatical

errors; technical terms may not be defined, or are

poorly defined. Writing lacks clarity and

conciseness. 1-0 pts

Maximum points: 25