|
NURS_8210_Week9_Assignment_Rubric
|
|
Criteria
|
Ratings
|
Pts
|
|
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
Get a plagiarism-free answer to this questionSend us your instructions and we’ll match you with the best writer in your subject. - 100% human-written, zero AI
- Turnitin report included
- Confidential — we never share your data
- Free revisions & refunds
Your pal for every paper is one click awayJoin 12,000+ students getting original, on-time papers with free Turnitin reports. All Rights Reserved Terms and Conditions
College pals.com Privacy Policy 2010-2018
| |