|
All documents from Part 1 are included in the Part 2 submission.
|
|
150 to >134.0 pts
Excellent
All documents and tracking tools submitted from Part 1 have been revised and accurately updated in detail to sufficiently support the proposed small nursing informatics project.
|
134 to >119.0 pts
Good
All documents and tracking tools submitted from Part 1 have been revised and updated to support the proposed small nursing informatics project.
|
119 to >104.0 pts
Fair
All documents and tracking tools submitted from Part 1 have been inaccurately or vaguely revised and may support the proposed small nursing informatics project.
|
104 to >0 pts
Poor
All documents and tracking tools from Part 1 have been inaccurately and vaguely revised, and do not lend support to the proposed small nursing informatics project, or it is missing.
|
|
150 pts |
|
Is the project staying within scope?
|
|
40 to >35.0 pts
Excellent
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail whether the project is staying within scope…. The response accurately and clearly adheres to the project scope provided in the final submission.
|
35 to >31.0 pts
Good
The response accurately explains whether the project is staying within scope. … The response accurately adheres to the project scope provided in the final submission.
|
31 to >27.0 pts
Fair
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains whether the project is staying within scope. … The response inaccurately or vaguely adheres to the project scope provided in the final submission.
|
27 to >0 pts
Poor
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains whether the project is staying within scope, or it is missing. … The response inaccurately and vaguely adheres to the project scope provided in the final submission, or it is missing.
|
|
40 pts |
|
Were all of the gaps identified?
|
|
20 to >17.0 pts
Excellent
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail whether all the gaps were identified for the proposed small nursing informatics project. … The response accurately and clearly adheres to the Gap Analysis provided in the final submission.
|
17 to >15.0 pts
Good
The response accurately explains whether all the gaps were identified for the proposed small nursing informatics project…. The response accurately adheres to the Gap Analysis provided in the final submission.
|
15 to >13.0 pts
Fair
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains whether all the gaps were identified for the proposed small nursing informatics project. … The response inaccurately or vaguely adheres to the Gap Analysis provided in the final submission.
|
13 to >0 pts
Poor
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains whether all the gaps were identified for the proposed small nursing informatics project, or it is missing. … The response inaccurately and vaguely adheres to the Gap Analysis provided in the final submission, or it is missing.
|
|
20 pts |
|
Is the project following the timeline?
|
|
40 to >35.0 pts
Excellent
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail whether the project is following the timeline. … The response accurately and clearly adheres to the project timeline provided in the final submission.
|
35 to >31.0 pts
Good
The response accurately explains whether the project is following the timeline. … The response accurately adheres to the project timeline provided in the final submission.
|
31 to >27.0 pts
Fair
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains whether the project is following the timeline. … The response inaccurately or vaguely adheres to the project timeline provided in the final submission.
|
27 to >0 pts
Poor
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains whether the project is following the timeline, or it is missing. … The response inaccurately and vaguely adheres to the project timeline provided in the final submission, or it is missing.
|
|
40 pts |
|
If you had a budget, is it on track?
|
|
40 to >35.0 pts
Excellent
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail whether the project is adhering to the proposed budget.
|
35 to >31.0 pts
Good
The response accurately explains whether the project is adhering to the proposed budget.
|
31 to >27.0 pts
Fair
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains whether the project is adhering to the proposed budget.
|
27 to >0 pts
Poor
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains whether the project is adhering to the proposed budget, or it is missing.
|
|
40 pts |
|
Were all of the work activities correctly assigned?
|
|
20 to >17.0 pts
Excellent
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail whether all the work activities were correctly assigned. … The response accurately and clearly adheres to the Work Breakdown Structure provided in the final submission.
|
17 to >15.0 pts
Good
The response accurately explains whether all the work activities were correctly assigned. … The response accurately adheres to the Work Breakdown Structure provided in the final submission.
|
15 to >13.0 pts
Fair
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains whether all the work activities were correctly assigned. … The response inaccurately or vaguely adheres to the Work Breakdown Structure provided in the final submission.
|
13 to >0 pts
Poor
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains whether all the work activities were correctly assigned, or it is missing. … The response inaccurately or vaguely adheres to the Work Breakdown Structure provided in the final submission, or it is missing.
|
|
20 pts |
|
Are team members responsible?
|
|
20 to >17.0 pts
Excellent
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail whether all team members were responsible for the proposed small nursing informatics project. … The response accurately and clearly adheres to the responsibility chart provided in the final submission.
|
17 to >15.0 pts
Good
The response accurately explains whether all team members were responsible for the proposed small nursing informatics project. … The response accurately adheres to the responsibility chart provided in the final submission.
|
15 to >13.0 pts
Fair
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains whether all team members were responsible for the proposed small nursing informatics project. … The response inaccurately or vaguely adheres to the responsibility chart provided in the final submission.
|
13 to >0 pts
Poor
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains whether all team members were responsible for the proposed small nursing informatics project, or it is missing. … The response inaccurately and vaguely adheres to the responsibility chart provided in the final submission, or it is missing.
|
|
20 pts |
|
Did the project start on time, inline to meet due dates?
|
|
40 to >35.0 pts
Excellent
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail whether the small nursing informatics project started on time and is inline to meet due dates. … The response accurately and clearly adheres to the Gantt chart provided in the final submission.
|
35 to >31.0 pts
Good
The response accurately explains whether the small nursing informatics project started on time and is inline to meet due dates. … The response accurately adheres to the Gantt chart provided in the final submission.
|
31 to >27.0 pts
Fair
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains whether the small nursing informatics project started on time and is inline to meet due dates. … The response inaccurately or vaguely adheres to the Gantt chart provided in the final submission.
|
27 to >0 pts
Poor
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains whether the small nursing informatics project started on time and is inline to meet due dates, or it is missing. … The response inaccurately and vaguely adheres to the Gantt chart provided in the final submission, or it is missing.
|
|
40 pts |
|
Are you holding weekly status meetings and documented all activities? Are all team members in attendance and communicated with?
|
|
20 to >17.0 pts
Excellent
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail whether weekly status meetings and documentation of all activities for the project has occurred. … The response accurately and clearly explains in detail whether all team members have participated, attended, and been in active communication for the project. … The response accurately and clearly adheres to the communication plan provided in the final submission.
|
17 to >15.0 pts
Good
The response accurately explains whether weekly status meetings and documentation of all activities for the project has occurred. … The response accurately explains whether all team members have participated, attended, and been in active communication for the project. … The response accurately adheres to the communication plan provided in the final submission.
|
15 to >13.0 pts
Fair
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains whether weekly status meetings and documentation of all activities for the project has occurred. … The response inaccurately or vaguely explains whether all team members have participated, attended, and been in active communication for the project. … The response inaccurately or vaguely adheres to the communication plan provided in the final submission.
|
13 to >0 pts
Poor
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains whether weekly status meetings and documentation of all activities for the project has occurred, or it is missing. … The response inaccurately and vaguely explains whether all team members have participated, attended, and been in active communication for the project, or it is missing. … The response inaccurately and vaguely adheres to the communication plan provided in the final submission, or it is missing.
|
|
20 pts |
|
Are all changes approved and documented?
|
|
20 to >17.0 pts
Excellent
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail whether all changes for the small nursing informatics project were approved and documented. … The response accurately and clearly adheres to the change management plan provided in the final submission.
|
17 to >15.0 pts
Good
The response accurately explains whether all changes for the small nursing informatics project were approved and documented. … The response accurately adheres to the change management plan provided in the final submission.
|
15 to >13.0 pts
Fair
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains whether all changes for the small nursing informatics project were approved and documented. … The response inaccurately or vaguely adheres to the change management plan provided in the final submission.
|
13 to >0 pts
Poor
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains whether all changes for the small nursing informatics project were approved and documented, or it is missing. … The response inaccurately and vaguely adheres to the change management plan provided in the final submission, or it is missing.
|
|
20 pts |
|
Are all risks identified, prioritized, assigned an owner, and mitigation plan developed?
|
|
20 to >17.0 pts
Excellent
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail whether all risks were identified, prioritized, assigned an owner, and whether mitigation plans were developed. … The response accurately and clearly adheres to the risk management plan provided in the final submission.
|
17 to >15.0 pts
Good
The response accurately explains whether all risks were identified, prioritized, assigned an owner, and whether mitigation plans were developed. … The response accurately adheres to the risk management plan provided in the final submission.
|
15 to >13.0 pts
Fair
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains whether all risks were identified, prioritized, assigned an owner, and whether mitigation plans were developed. … The response inaccurately or vaguely adheres to the risk management plan provided in the final submission.
|
13 to >0 pts
Poor
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains whether all risks were identified, prioritized, assigned and owner, and whether mitigation plans were developed, or it is missing. … The response inaccurately and vaguely adheres to the risk management plan provided in the final submission, or it is missing.
|
|
20 pts |
|
A final summary that includes complete evaluation of the full project and lessons learned: what went well and what needs updated and revised.
|
|
55 to >48.0 pts
Excellent
The response accurately and clearly summarizes in detail a complete and comprehensive evaluation of the proposed small nursing informatics project. … The response accurately and clearly explains in detail lessons learned from the proposed small nursing informatics project.
|
48 to >43.0 pts
Good
The response accurately summarizes a complete evaluation of the proposed small nursing informatics project. … The response accurately explains lessons learned from the proposed small nursing informatics project.
|
43 to >37.0 pts
Fair
The response inaccurately or vaguely summarizes a complete evaluation of the proposed small nursing informatics project. … The response inaccurately or vaguely explains lessons learned from the proposed small nursing informatics project.
|
37 to >0 pts
Poor
The response inaccurately and vaguely summarizes a complete evaluation of the proposed small nursing informatics project, or it is missing. … The response inaccurately and vaguely explains lessons learned from the proposed small nursing informatics project, or it is missing.
|
|
55 pts |
| Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria. |
|
5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. … A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria.
|
4 to >3.5 pts
Good
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. … Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated, yet is brief and not descriptive.
|
3.5 to >3.0 pts
Fair
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time. … Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.
|
3 to >0 pts
Poor
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time. … No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided.
|
|
5 pts |
| Written Expression and Formatting – English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation |
|
5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.
|
4 to >3.5 pts
Good
Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
|
3.5 to >3.0 pts
Fair
Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
|
3 to >0 pts
Poor
Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.
|
|
5 pts |
|
Written Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list.
|
|
5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Uses correct APA format with no errors.
|
4 to >3.5 pts
Good
Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors.
|
3.5 to >3.0 pts
Fair
Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors.
|
3 to >0 pts
Poor
Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.
|
|
5 pts |
| Total Points: 500 |
