5.06: Submission Checklist and Final Assembly

Instructor Notes and Evaluation Criteria

This section provides guidance for instructors reviewing student submissions for Chapter 3: Estimating Costs and Building the Budget. This milestone assesses the student team’s ability to convert a structured plan into time-based and financially viable execution pathways. The key dimensions to look for are clarity, logic, practicality, and professionalism.

Evaluation Scope

Submissions to be evaluated typically include:

• Project Schedule: timeline, milestones, task sequencing, durations, dependencies, and resource assignments
• Cost Estimation Workbook: detailed breakdown of all relevant costs, categorized and subtotaled, with documented assumptions
• Budget Narrative: written explanation of cost drivers, justification of scaling model, and framing of trade-offs
• Optional Executive Slide Deck: 3–5 slide summary of cost logic, scaling strategy, and financial priorities
• Reflection and Debrief: individual or team-based reflection to capture learning, uncertainty, and group process insights

Core Evaluation Criteria (Suggested)

• Clarity and Structure (20%)
  • Are spreadsheets and documents clearly labeled and easy to follow?
  • Are assumptions and sources stated transparently?
  • Are naming conventions followed?
• Scheduling Realism (20%)
  • Does the project schedule reflect logical task flows, phases, and resource assignments?
  • Are durations and dependencies realistic?
  • Is a WBS Dictionary included and clearly tied to the schedule?
• Financial Accuracy and Insight (25%)
  • Are major cost drivers realistic and well-researched?
  • Are one-time, recurring, and per-unit costs correctly distinguished?
  • Are multiple rollout scenarios modeled (pilot, mid-scale, full-scale)?
  • Do totals and subtotals calculate correctly?
• Strategic Thinking and Trade-Offs (20%)
  • Do students explain why the budget works—not just what it costs?
  • Are trade-offs between cost, speed, and quality thoughtfully addressed?
  • Are assumptions tested or acknowledged as risks?
• Reflection and Learning (15%)
  • Do student reflections demonstrate insight into what they learned?
  • Is there evidence of self-awareness or growth in understanding cost modeling and resource planning?

Instructor Notes

Strong submissions will reflect mature project thinking—not just spreadsheet literacy. Look for teams that:

• Link scheduling and cost logic with their proposed architecture
• Justify their scaling model, not just replicate numbers
• Reflect on what surprised them or where they struggled
• Offer realistic trade-offs or improvements that show ownership of the plan

Encourage students to move beyond “filling out forms” and toward telling a clear, defendable story of how this budget could actually work in a real organization like C-Bay.