Assignment: Developing a Small Informatics Project for Your Organization
Assignment: Developing a Small Informatics Project for Your Organization, Part 2: Implementation
The final summary will include the complete evaluation of the full project and lessons learned—what went well and what needs update and revisions.
This will be a professional scholarly paper using APA 7. Be sure to include a one-half to one-page executive summary.
The scholarly paper will include a minimum of 10 current citations from peer-reviewed journals. Every statement made in a scholarly report must be supported by a reference. Please note that only primary sources are to be used. Peer-reviewed journal articles should make up the bulk of your references specific page numbers when necessary. Note that an article referred in a book is a secondary source. . Please review the APA Publication Manual (APA; 7th ed.) and in the Walden Writing Center. See also “Policies on Academic Integrity.”
Rubric
elect Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Name: NURS_8210_Week9_Assignment_Rubric
• Grid View
• List View
Excellent Good Fair Poor
All documents from Part 1 are included in the Part 2 submission. 135 (27%) – 150 (30%)
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. 120 (24%) – 134 (26.8%)
All documents and tracking tools submitted from Part 1 have been revised and updated to support the proposed small nursing informatics project. 105 (21%) – 119 (23.8%)
All documents and tracking tools submitted from Part 1 have been inaccurately or vaguely revised and may support the proposed small nursing informatics project. 0 (0%) – 104 (20.8%)
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.
Is the project staying within scope? 36 (7.2%) – 40 (8%)
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. 32 (6.4%) – 35 (7%)
The response accurately explains whether the project is staying within scope.
The response accurately adheres to the project scope provided in the final submission. 28 (5.6%) – 31 (6.2%)
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. 0 (0%) – 27 (5.4%)
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.
Were all of the gaps identified? 18 (3.6%) – 20 (4%)
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. 16 (3.2%) – 17 (3.4%)
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. 14 (2.8%) – 15 (3%)
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. 0 (0%) – 13 (2.6%)
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.
Is the project following the timeline? 36 (7.2%) – 40 (8%)
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. 32 (6.4%) – 35 (7%)
The response accurately explains whether the project is following the timeline.
The response accurately adheres to the project timeline provided in the final submission. 28 (5.6%) – 31 (6.2%)
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. 0 (0%) – 27 (5.4%)
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.
If you had a budget, is it on track? 36 (7.2%) – 40 (8%)
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail whether the project is adhering to the proposed budget. 32 (6.4%) – 35 (7%)
The response accurately explains whether the project is adhering to the proposed budget. 28 (5.6%) – 31 (6.2%)
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains whether the project is adhering to the proposed budget. 0 (0%) – 27 (5.4%)
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains whether the project is adhering to the proposed budget, or it is missing.
Were all of the work activities correctly assigned? 18 (3.6%) – 20 (4%)
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. 16 (3.2%) – 17 (3.4%)
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. 14 (2.8%) – 15 (3%)
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. 0 (0%) – 13 (2.6%)
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.
Are team members responsible? 18 (3.6%) – 20 (4%)
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. 16 (3.2%) – 17 (3.4%)
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. 14 (2.8%) – 15 (3%)
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. 0 (0%) – 13 (2.6%)
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.
Did the project start on time, inline to meet due dates? 36 (7.2%) – 40 (8%)
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. 32 (6.4%) – 35 (7%)
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. 28 (5.6%) – 31 (6.2%)
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. 0 (0%) – 27 (5.4%)
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.
Are you holding weekly status meetings and documented all activities? Are all team members in attendance and communicated with? 18 (3.6%) – 20 (4%)
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. 16 (3.2%) – 17 (3.4%)
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. 14 (2.8%) – 15 (3%)
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. 0 (0%) – 13 (2.6%)
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.
Are all changes approved and documented? 18 (3.6%) – 20 (4%)
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. 16 (3.2%) – 17 (3.4%)
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. 14 (2.8%) – 15 (3%)
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. 0 (0%) – 13 (2.6%)
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.
Are all risks identified, prioritized, assigned an owner, and mitigation plan developed? 18 (3.6%) – 20 (4%)
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. 16 (3.2%) – 17 (3.4%)
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. 14 (2.8%) – 15 (3%)
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. 0 (0%) – 13 (2.6%)
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.
A final summary that includes complete evaluation of the full project and lessons learned: what went well and what needs updated and revised. 49 (9.8%) – 55 (11%)
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. 44 (8.8%) – 48 (9.6%)
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. 38 (7.6%) – 43 (8.6%)
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. 0 (0%) – 37 (7.4%)
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.
Written 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 (1%) – 5 (1%)
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 (.8%) – 4 (.8%)
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 (.7%) – 3.5 (.7%)
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. 0 (0%) – 3 (.6%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time.
No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided.
Written Expression and Formatting – English writing standards:
Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation 5 (1%) – 5 (1%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. 4 (.8%) – 4 (.8%)
Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 3.5 (.7%) – 3.5 (.7%)
Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 0 (0%) – 3 (.6%)
Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.
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 (1%) – 5 (1%)
Uses correct APA format with no errors. 4 (.8%) – 4 (.8%)
Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors. 3.5 (.7%) – 3.5 (.7%)
Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors. 0 (0%) – 3 (.6%)
Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.
Total Points: 500
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
