7.6: Instructor Notes / Evaluation Criteria
- Page ID
- 52132
\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)
\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)
\( \newcommand{\dsum}{\displaystyle\sum\limits} \)
\( \newcommand{\dint}{\displaystyle\int\limits} \)
\( \newcommand{\dlim}{\displaystyle\lim\limits} \)
\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)
( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)
\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)
\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)
\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)
\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)
\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)
\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)
\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)
\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)
\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)
\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)
\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)
\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)
\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)
\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)
\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}} % arrow\)
\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}} % arrow\)
\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)
\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)
\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)
\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)
\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)
\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)
\(\newcommand{\longvect}{\overrightarrow}\)
\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)
\(\newcommand{\avec}{\mathbf a}\) \(\newcommand{\bvec}{\mathbf b}\) \(\newcommand{\cvec}{\mathbf c}\) \(\newcommand{\dvec}{\mathbf d}\) \(\newcommand{\dtil}{\widetilde{\mathbf d}}\) \(\newcommand{\evec}{\mathbf e}\) \(\newcommand{\fvec}{\mathbf f}\) \(\newcommand{\nvec}{\mathbf n}\) \(\newcommand{\pvec}{\mathbf p}\) \(\newcommand{\qvec}{\mathbf q}\) \(\newcommand{\svec}{\mathbf s}\) \(\newcommand{\tvec}{\mathbf t}\) \(\newcommand{\uvec}{\mathbf u}\) \(\newcommand{\vvec}{\mathbf v}\) \(\newcommand{\wvec}{\mathbf w}\) \(\newcommand{\xvec}{\mathbf x}\) \(\newcommand{\yvec}{\mathbf y}\) \(\newcommand{\zvec}{\mathbf z}\) \(\newcommand{\rvec}{\mathbf r}\) \(\newcommand{\mvec}{\mathbf m}\) \(\newcommand{\zerovec}{\mathbf 0}\) \(\newcommand{\onevec}{\mathbf 1}\) \(\newcommand{\real}{\mathbb R}\) \(\newcommand{\twovec}[2]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\ctwovec}[2]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\threevec}[3]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\cthreevec}[3]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\fourvec}[4]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\cfourvec}[4]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\fivevec}[5]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \\ #5 \\ \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\cfivevec}[5]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \\ #5 \\ \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\mattwo}[4]{\left[\begin{array}{rr}#1 \amp #2 \\ #3 \amp #4 \\ \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\laspan}[1]{\text{Span}\{#1\}}\) \(\newcommand{\bcal}{\cal B}\) \(\newcommand{\ccal}{\cal C}\) \(\newcommand{\scal}{\cal S}\) \(\newcommand{\wcal}{\cal W}\) \(\newcommand{\ecal}{\cal E}\) \(\newcommand{\coords}[2]{\left\{#1\right\}_{#2}}\) \(\newcommand{\gray}[1]{\color{gray}{#1}}\) \(\newcommand{\lgray}[1]{\color{lightgray}{#1}}\) \(\newcommand{\rank}{\operatorname{rank}}\) \(\newcommand{\row}{\text{Row}}\) \(\newcommand{\col}{\text{Col}}\) \(\renewcommand{\row}{\text{Row}}\) \(\newcommand{\nul}{\text{Nul}}\) \(\newcommand{\var}{\text{Var}}\) \(\newcommand{\corr}{\text{corr}}\) \(\newcommand{\len}[1]{\left|#1\right|}\) \(\newcommand{\bbar}{\overline{\bvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\bhat}{\widehat{\bvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\bperp}{\bvec^\perp}\) \(\newcommand{\xhat}{\widehat{\xvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\vhat}{\widehat{\vvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\uhat}{\widehat{\uvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\what}{\widehat{\wvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\Sighat}{\widehat{\Sigma}}\) \(\newcommand{\lt}{<}\) \(\newcommand{\gt}{>}\) \(\newcommand{\amp}{&}\) \(\definecolor{fillinmathshade}{gray}{0.9}\)Instructor Notes / Evaluation Criteria
How to Evaluate Student Responses in the Execution Phase
The NovaMed execution simulation is intentionally complex. Students are expected to interpret incomplete information, reference multiple documents, apply project controls, and demonstrate professional-level communication.
This assessment measures not just knowledge, but judgment, clarity, and leadership behavior under pressure.
1. Overview for Instructors
Students receive eight execution memos, each containing:
-
A real-world project issue
-
A disguised or incomplete problem
-
Risks that must be inferred
-
Conflicts between SOW/Contract/Reporting Guidelines
-
Missing or inconsistent reporting data
-
Technical clues tied to SRS/HLDD
Students must produce:
-
Eight Worksheet Responses
-
Part A: Internal Action Plan
-
Part B: Professional Communication
-
-
Final Execution Reflection
-
(Optional) EVM Sheet or Progress Log
You will evaluate both the accuracy of their analysis and the professionalism of their communication.
2. Core Evaluation Criteria (Suggested-Weighted Rubric)
Use this rubric for each memo worksheet:
A. Issue Identification & Analysis (25%)
Did the student:
-
Correctly identify the core issue(s)?
-
Distinguish between symptoms and root causes?
-
Recognize which control pillars were affected?
-
Schedule
-
Budget
-
Scope
-
Quality
-
Team
-
Vendor compliance
-
Reporting
-
-
Interpret Earned Value metrics accurately when relevant (SPI, CPI, SV, CV)?
High Score Characteristics:
-
Student catches subtle inconsistencies or hidden risks
-
Student references SOW/Contract timelines
-
Student mentions downstream impact on milestones
B. Use of Project Artifacts (25%)
Evaluate whether the student properly cited and used:
-
SOW for milestone deadlines and acceptance criteria
-
Contract for reporting obligations, scope control, and staffing rules
-
Reporting Guidelines for weekly expectations
-
SRS/HLDD to identify technical or architectural impacts
-
Weekly Status Template to contextualize missing data
High Score Characteristics:
-
Student makes explicit, correct references (“Per Contract §7.1…”)
-
Student applies PM controls tied to each document
-
Student uses artifacts to justify their decisions
C. Recommended Next Actions (20%)
Does the student recommend appropriate, actionable steps such as:
-
Requesting corrected reports
-
Setting deadlines
-
Scheduling escalation or technical review
-
Requesting mitigation or replacement resources
-
Blocking downstream testing if required
-
Triggering Contract / SOW / CR processes
-
Requesting revised timeline or root cause analysis
High Score Characteristics:
-
Recommendations are realistic
-
Actions align with professional PMO behavior
-
Deadlines are clear, reasonable, and time-bound
D. Professional Communication Quality (20%)
Evaluate the student’s emailed/memo response:
-
Tone is professional, concise, and firm
-
Message is clear and structured
-
Correct recipient(s) based on WinSoft Team List
-
Subject line is action-oriented
-
References data instead of emotion
-
Communicates expectations, deadlines, and consequences
High Score Characteristics:
-
Communication is polished and stakeholder-ready
-
Uses structured PMO style:
-
context → issue → action → deadline → follow-up
-
-
No informal language
E. Completeness & Presentation (10%)
-
Worksheet fully filled out
-
Submitted in required naming format
-
No missing fields
-
Formatting is clean and readable
3. Detailed Instructor Guidance Per Memo
Below is a summary of what should be detected in each memo.
Memo #1 – Reporting Failure
Look for:
-
Missing Bulls-Eye chart flagged
-
Missing EV values flagged
-
Contract reporting clause referenced
-
Request for corrected report within 24 hours
Memo #2 – HLDD Delay
Look for:
-
Design delay flagged as schedule-impacting
-
Student identifies dependency: dev cannot begin without HLDD
-
Requests revised timeline + impact analysis
Memo #3 – CPI Drop
Look for:
-
Student uses EV_Data (AC > EV)
-
CPI < 1.0 correctly interpreted
-
Student requests root cause + corrective plan
Memo #4 – 27 Defects
Look for:
-
Quality risk identified
-
SRS sections referenced
-
Request for triage, impact assessment, stabilization sprint
Memo #5 – Unauthorized Scope Change
Look for:
-
Recognition of scope creep
-
Contract’s Change Request clause cited
-
Student denies change politely
Memo #6 – Developer Resignation
Look for:
-
Identification of Contract violation (5-day replacement rule)
-
Request for resume and transition plan
Memo #7 – Integration Failures
Look for:
-
Students reference HLDD (API designs, DB design)
-
Request for emergency technical review
-
Identification of cascading risks
Memo #8 – Multi-Front Crisis
Look for:
-
Full Earned Value interpretation (SPI & CPI < 0.70)
-
A structured 4–5 step stabilization plan
-
Possible escalation to Steering Committee
4. Evaluating the Final Reflection
The final reflection should demonstrate:
-
Growth: “What changed in your understanding of execution?”
-
Awareness of ambiguity and incomplete information
-
Analytical thinking under pressure
-
Recognition of communication habits
-
Identification of patterns across memos
-
Mature understanding of vendor management
Strong reflections include:
-
Specific details from memos
-
Discussion of mistakes corrected
-
Insights about EVM and controls
-
Honest assessment of decisions
5. Instructor Red Flags (Common Student Errors)
✓ Emotional tone (“You guys messed this up.”)
✓ Vague actions (“You need to fix this.”)
✓ Not referencing SOW/Contract
✓ Not detecting hidden issues
✓ Over-relying on one control pillar
✓ Responding to the wrong WinSoft team member
✓ Misinterpreting SPI/CPI
Use this to coach students early or provide corrective feedback.
6. Recommended Grading Scale
| Component | Weight |
|---|---|
| Issue Identification & Analysis | 25% |
| Use of Project Artifacts | 25% |
| Recommended Actions | 20% |
| Professional Communication | 20% |
| Completeness/Presentation | 10% |
7. Instructor Notes (Pedagogical)
-
Students typically struggle most with Memo #3 (CPI Drop) and Memo #8 (Multi-Crisis).
-
Encourage students to read slowly and not assume the email is telling the whole truth.
-
Prompt them to “treat memos like forensic documents.”
-
The goal is not to “catch WinSoft,” but to lead with structure and clarity.
-
Reinforce that project execution is (and always will be) messy — the point is to manage the mess well.