NURS 8210 Week 9 Assignment: DEVELOPING A SMALL INFORMATICS PROJECT FOR YOUR ORGANIZATION, PART 2: IMPLEMENTATION
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 IntegrityLinks to an external site.."
The final paper should be 17 – 20 pages, including part one of the project but not including references. Part one is attached to these
intructions. Part one has 12 pages. Please add 5 to 7 pages.
Reminder: The College of Nursing requires that all papers submitted include a title page, introduction, summary, and references. The
Sample Paper provided at the Walden Writing Center provides an example of those required elements (available
at https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/templates/general#s-lg-box-20293632Links to an external site.). All papers
submitted must use this formatting.
Continue to implement, or propose how you might implement, your small nursing informatics project by applying the 10 tracking
documents (Part 1) developed in Weeks 1-6. Track your project to make sure the implementation is going as planned or consider how
your proposed implementation might go. Remember, this process is like what you will experience in completing your DNP Project or
dissertation.
Activities to track with application of tools:
Is the project staying within scope? (Scope)
Were all of the gaps identified? (Gap Analysis)
Is the project following the timeline? (Project timeline)
If you had a budget, is it on track?
Were all of the work activities correctly assigned? (WBS)
Are team members responsible? (RACI)
Did the project start on time, inline to meet due date? (Gantt)
Are you holding weekly status meetings and documented all activities? Are all team members in attendance and
communicated with? (Communication Plan)
Are all changes approved and documented? (Change Management Plan)
Are all risks identified, prioritized, assigned an owner and mitigation plan developed? (Risk Management Plan)
Using these activities above for guidance, continue to develop and compile the final paper, discussing the plan for implementation and
tracking project progress with your manager who will provide oversight for the project. If you do not have time to fully implement the
project due to constraints discussed with your manager and instructor, continue to write it up and submit it as if you were
implementing. Be sure to document and justify why you could not actually implement and discuss the constraints.
The 10 documents from Part 1 will be added to the final paper as appendices. (The 10 documents are the scope, Gap analysis, project
timeline, budget, WBS, RACI, Gantt, Communication plan, Change mgt plan, and Risk mgt plan). The paper, 17-20 pages not
including references, will include a comprehensive description of the process and evaluation of the status of each activity and lessons
learned: what went well and what needs updated and revised.
Remember that Part 1 and the previous 10 documents will be added to your final paper submission.
In addition to the scholarly paper, you will also construct a 10 slide, narrated presentation for the stakeholders in your project. You
will have the opportunity to share your presentation with your colleagues, prior to the final submission, for critique and feedback.
Please do the slides separately.
Continue to work on Part 2, the Project Final paper and Presentation.
Submit the Assignment by Day 3 of Week 9.
Please follow the rubric. The first part of this work was not very good and the grade was a failed grade.
Rubric
NURS_8210_Week9_Assignment_Rubric
NURS_8210_Week9_Assignment_Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is
linked to a Learning
Outcome 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
This criterion is
linked to a Learning
Outcome. 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
35 to >31.0 pts
Good
The response
accurately
explains whether
the project is
staying within
scope. … The
31 to >27.0 pts
Fair
The response
inaccurately or
vaguely explains
whether the project
is staying within
scope. … The
27 to >0 pts
Poor
The response
inaccurately and
vaguely explains
whether the project is
staying within scope,
or it is missing. …
40 pts
response accurately
and clearly adheres
to the project scope
provided in the final
submission.
response
accurately adheres
to the project
scope provided in
the final
submission.
response
inaccurately or
vaguely adheres to
the project scope
provided in the final
submission.
The response
inaccurately and
vaguely adheres to
the project scope
provided in the final
submission, or it is
missing.
This criterion is
linked to a Learning
Outcome 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
This criterion is
linked to a Learning
OutcomeIs 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
This criterion is
linked to a Learning
OutcomeIf 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
This criterion is
linked to a Learning
20 to >17.0 pts
Excellent
17 to >15.0 pts
Good
15 to >13.0 pts
Fair
13 to >0 pts
Poor
20 pts
OutcomeWere all of
the work activities
correctly assigned?
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.
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.
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.
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.
This criterion is
linked to a Learning
OutcomeAre 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
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
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
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
20 pts
chart provided in the
final submission.
final submission. the responsibility
chart provided in
the final
submission.
to the responsibility
chart provided in the
final submission, or
it is missing.
This criterion is
linked to a Learning
OutcomeDid 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
This criterion is
linked to a Learning
OutcomeAre you
20 to >17.0 pts
Excellent
The response
17 to >15.0 pts
Good
The response
15 to >13.0 pts
Fair
The response
13 to >0 pts
Poor
The response
20 pts
holding weekly
status meetings and
documented all
activities? Are all
team members in
attendance and
communicated with?
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.
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.
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.
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.
This criterion is
linked to a Learning
OutcomeAre all
changes approved
and documented?
20 to >17.0 pts
Excellent
The response
accurately and
clearly explains in
17 to >15.0 pts
Good
The response
accurately explains
whether all
15 to >13.0 pts
Fair
The response
inaccurately or
vaguely explains
13 to >0 pts
Poor
The response
inaccurately and
vaguely explains
20 pts
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.
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.
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.
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.
This criterion is
linked to a Learning
OutcomeAre 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
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
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
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
20 pts
management plan
provided in the final
submission.
final submission. management plan
provided in the final
submission.
management plan
provided in the final
submission, or it is
missing.
This criterion is
linked to a Learning
OutcomeA 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
This criterion is
linked to a Learning
OutcomeWritten
5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Paragraphs and
4 to >3.5 pts
Good
Paragraphs and
3.5 to >3.0 pts
Fair
Paragraphs and
3 to >0 pts
Poor
Paragraphs and
5 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.
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.
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.
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.
sentences follow
writing standards
for flow,
continuity, and
clarity < 60% of
the time. … No
purpose statement,
introduction, or
conclusion was
provided.
This criterion is
linked to a Learning
OutcomeWritten
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
This criterion is
linked to a Learning
OutcomeWritten
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
PreviousNext
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.
