QSO 680 Module Six Case Study Guidelines and Rubric
Overview: Many project managers employ an earned value system to monitor their projects. In Project Management: The Managerial Process, Larson and Gray
(2017) define the earned value of a project as “the percent complete times its original budget. Stated differently, EV is the percent of the original budget that has
been earned by actual work completed” Earned value analysis determines if you are getting value for the work completed and the money spent during a specific
time frame.
Prompt: Analyze the case study Ariba Implementation at Med-X: Managing Earned Value (this case study can be located in your custom Textbook/Case Study
bundle). Using earned value analysis, you will determine why the company’s e-procurement implementation project is not going according to plan. Once a cause
has been discovered, you will make a recommendation to fix the problem.
Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed:
Cost: Give an estimate of the cost of the project.
Time: Give an estimate regarding how long the project will take.
Cause: Based on your analysis, give an explanation as to why the company’s project is not going according to plan. What is wrong with the project?
Support your explanation with evidence from your analysis.
Recommendations: What action(s) do you recommend to address the cause of the problem? Support your recommendations with evidence from your
analysis.
Application: How do you foresee using earned value metrics on your own projects currently or in the future?
Guidelines for Submission: Your case study analysis must be submitted as a 1- to 2-page Microsoft Word document with double-spacing, 12-point Times New
Roman font, one-inch margins, and sources cited in APA format.
Critical Elements Exemplary Proficient Needs Improvement Not Evident Value
Cost Provides a logical estimate of cost
(100%)
Provides an estimate of cost but
estimate does not align with case
study details
(75%)
Does not provide an estimate
of cost
(0%)
15
Time Provides a logical estimate of
how much time the project will
take
(100%)
Provides an estimate of time but
estimate does not align with case
study details
(75%)
Does not provide an estimate
of time
(0%)
15
Cause Meets “Proficient” and
explanation of cause uses rich
detail and exhibits keen
insight
(100%)
Identifies cause of project
problems supported by analysis
(90%)
Identifies cause of project
problems but analysis contains
gaps or lacks detail
(70%)
Does not identify cause of
project problems
(0%)
20
Recommendations Meets “Proficient” and
recommendations exhibit
keen insight and are wellsupported
(100%)
Makes logical and relevant
recommendations to address
problem supported by analysis
(90%)
Makes recommendations to
address problem but
recommendations do not align
with analysis
(70%)
Does not make
recommendations to address
problem
(0%)
20
Application Meets “Proficient” and
application to personal career
is detailed and well-supported
with examples
(100%)
Applies earned value metrics to
personal career
(90%)
Applies earned value metrics to
personal career but application is
illogical and/or lacks detail
(70%)
Does not apply earned value
metrics to personal career
(0%)
20
Articulation of
Response
Submission is free of errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, and
organization and is presented
in a professional and easy-toread format (100%)
Submission has no major errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
(90%)
Submission has major errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
that negatively impact readability
and articulation of main ideas
(70%)
Submission has critical errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
that prevent understanding of
ideas
(0%)
10
Total 100%
