8.6: Instructor Notes / Evaluation Criteria
- Page ID
- 52164
\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)
\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)
\( \newcommand{\dsum}{\displaystyle\sum\limits} \)
\( \newcommand{\dint}{\displaystyle\int\limits} \)
\( \newcommand{\dlim}{\displaystyle\lim\limits} \)
\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)
( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)
\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)
\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)
\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)
\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)
\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)
\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)
\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)
\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)
\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)
\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)
\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)
\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)
\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)
\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)
\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}} % arrow\)
\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}} % arrow\)
\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)
\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)
\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)
\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)
\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)
\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)
\(\newcommand{\longvect}{\overrightarrow}\)
\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)
\(\newcommand{\avec}{\mathbf a}\) \(\newcommand{\bvec}{\mathbf b}\) \(\newcommand{\cvec}{\mathbf c}\) \(\newcommand{\dvec}{\mathbf d}\) \(\newcommand{\dtil}{\widetilde{\mathbf d}}\) \(\newcommand{\evec}{\mathbf e}\) \(\newcommand{\fvec}{\mathbf f}\) \(\newcommand{\nvec}{\mathbf n}\) \(\newcommand{\pvec}{\mathbf p}\) \(\newcommand{\qvec}{\mathbf q}\) \(\newcommand{\svec}{\mathbf s}\) \(\newcommand{\tvec}{\mathbf t}\) \(\newcommand{\uvec}{\mathbf u}\) \(\newcommand{\vvec}{\mathbf v}\) \(\newcommand{\wvec}{\mathbf w}\) \(\newcommand{\xvec}{\mathbf x}\) \(\newcommand{\yvec}{\mathbf y}\) \(\newcommand{\zvec}{\mathbf z}\) \(\newcommand{\rvec}{\mathbf r}\) \(\newcommand{\mvec}{\mathbf m}\) \(\newcommand{\zerovec}{\mathbf 0}\) \(\newcommand{\onevec}{\mathbf 1}\) \(\newcommand{\real}{\mathbb R}\) \(\newcommand{\twovec}[2]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\ctwovec}[2]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\threevec}[3]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\cthreevec}[3]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\fourvec}[4]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\cfourvec}[4]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\fivevec}[5]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \\ #5 \\ \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\cfivevec}[5]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \\ #5 \\ \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\mattwo}[4]{\left[\begin{array}{rr}#1 \amp #2 \\ #3 \amp #4 \\ \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\laspan}[1]{\text{Span}\{#1\}}\) \(\newcommand{\bcal}{\cal B}\) \(\newcommand{\ccal}{\cal C}\) \(\newcommand{\scal}{\cal S}\) \(\newcommand{\wcal}{\cal W}\) \(\newcommand{\ecal}{\cal E}\) \(\newcommand{\coords}[2]{\left\{#1\right\}_{#2}}\) \(\newcommand{\gray}[1]{\color{gray}{#1}}\) \(\newcommand{\lgray}[1]{\color{lightgray}{#1}}\) \(\newcommand{\rank}{\operatorname{rank}}\) \(\newcommand{\row}{\text{Row}}\) \(\newcommand{\col}{\text{Col}}\) \(\renewcommand{\row}{\text{Row}}\) \(\newcommand{\nul}{\text{Nul}}\) \(\newcommand{\var}{\text{Var}}\) \(\newcommand{\corr}{\text{corr}}\) \(\newcommand{\len}[1]{\left|#1\right|}\) \(\newcommand{\bbar}{\overline{\bvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\bhat}{\widehat{\bvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\bperp}{\bvec^\perp}\) \(\newcommand{\xhat}{\widehat{\xvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\vhat}{\widehat{\vvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\uhat}{\widehat{\uvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\what}{\widehat{\wvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\Sighat}{\widehat{\Sigma}}\) \(\newcommand{\lt}{<}\) \(\newcommand{\gt}{>}\) \(\newcommand{\amp}{&}\) \(\definecolor{fillinmathshade}{gray}{0.9}\)How to Evaluate Student Closeout Deliverables (Weeks 1–6 Only)
Closing the NovaMed project at Week 6 provides a realistic simulation of early project termination—one of the most complex scenarios a project manager may face. Students must demonstrate the ability to:
- Analyze partial, inconsistent, incomplete deliverables
- Interpret Earned Value trends
- Apply contractual requirements
- Make defensible acceptance decisions
- Evaluate vendor performance objectively
- Communicate decisions with clarity and authority
- Document the project clearly and professionally
The following criteria will help instructors evaluate the Chapter 6 submissions consistently and fairly.
Overview for Instructors
- Students submit the following key artifacts:
- Acceptance Matrix (Partial)
- Documentation Verification Checklist
- Earned Value Final Summary
- Defect/Issue Disposition Log
- Vendor Performance Evaluation
- Final Acceptance Memo
- Closeout Summary Report
- Final Reflection
- These must be evaluated not just for content accuracy, but also for:
- Correct interpretation of project documents
- Professional communication standards
- Logical reasoning and defensible decisions
- Alignment with PM best practices
- These must be evaluated not just for content accuracy, but also for:
Evaluation Categories (Weighted Rubric) - Suggested
This rubric is recommended for standardizing evaluation across instructors.
Acceptance Matrix Quality (20%)
Evaluate whether the student:
- Correctly interpreted SOW milestones
- Identified which deliverables were incomplete (all)
- Documented partial work accurately
- Classified acceptance status correctly:
- Accept
- Conditional Accept
- Reject
- Cannot Evaluate
- Provided evidence for decisions based on Weeks 1–
High Score Characteristics:
- Student references specific criteria from SOW/SRS/HLDD
- Clear, justified acceptance decisions
- Matrix is organized, readable, and internally consistent
Documentation Verification Checklist (10%)
Evaluate whether the student:
- Correctly classified documentation as Partial / Missing / Not Delivered
- Identified specific gaps (e.g., no integration test results, no manuals)
- Noted inconsistencies between documentation and progress
- Included brief but accurate reasoning
High Score Characteristics:
- Well-structured checklist
- Shows awareness of missing artifacts
- Connects documentation gaps to quality or acceptance risks
Earned Value Analysis (15%)
Students should:
- Calculate accurate SPI/CPI for Weeks 1–6
- Note declining performance trends
- Identify that the project was behind schedule and over cost
- Provide a final interpretation:
- CPI < 1.0
- SPI < 1.0
- Negative trajectory
High Score Characteristics:
- EVM table is correct
- Trend commentary is insightful
- Student uses EAC/VAC appropriately (even though project halted early)
- Comments show understanding of early performance indicators
Defect/Issue Disposition Log (10%)
Evaluate whether the student:
- Captured all issues from memos (Week 4 defects, Week 6 integration failures, staffing problems, reporting issues, HLDD delays)
- Classified severity accurately
- Provided reasonable dispositions (Fix Now / Defer / Cannot Evaluate)
- Understood downstream impact of critical issues
High Score Characteristics:
- Clear categorization
- Accurate defect severity level
- Reasonable, defensible disposition choices
Vendor Performance Evaluation (15%)
Students must assess WinSoft fairly using:
- Schedule performance
- Cost performance (CPI)
- Reporting compliance
- Staffing stability
- Quality of deliverables
- Responsiveness and transparency
- Adherence to Contract & SOW
High Score Characteristics:
- Evaluation is data-driven (not emotional)
- References contract obligations
- Balanced strengths and weaknesses
- Final vendor rating is justified
Final Acceptance Memo (15%)
Students must write a clear, professional acceptance decision:
- Acceptance or non-acceptance (typically non-acceptance)
- Reasons tied to evidence
- Contractual references
- Clear conditions or next steps
- Appropriate professional tone
High Score Characteristics:
- Executive-level tone
- Clear logic
- Contractually grounded
- No informal or emotional language
Closeout Summary Report (10%)
This is the “capstone” deliverable. Evaluate:
- Structure and clarity
- Completeness of required sections
- Accuracy in summarizing 6-week progress
- Insight into root causes
- Quality of recommendations
- Internal consistency across all documents
High Score Characteristics:
- Reads like a real PMO closeout report
- Contains data-driven conclusions
- Demonstrates mature project leadership judgment
Instructor Notes for Evaluating Judgment
Execution-phase and closeout work rely heavily on judgment.
Here are common red flags and strong indicators of mastery.
Common Student Errors (Red Flags)
- Over-accepting items that clearly fail SOW criteria
- Failing to reference SOW/Contract clauses
- Acceptance decisions based on hope rather than evidence
- Ignoring Earned Value trends
- Underestimating the impact of the HLDD delay
- Ignoring staffing violations (contract breach)
- Overlooking serious defects
- Writing acceptance memos with vague or emotional tone
- Confusing “deliverable exists” with “deliverable meets criteria”
Indicators of Strong Mastery
- Student identifies patterns across memos (e.g., consistent underperformance)
- Student cross-links SOW + Contract + Reporting Guidelines
- Final Acceptance Memo is written at a leadership-ready level
- Closeout Report shows systems thinking
- Earned Value narrative shows deep understanding
- Defect disposition aligns with severity and impact
- Vendor evaluation uses qualitative + quantitative evidence
- Reflection shows genuine ownership of learning
Recommended Scoring Grid (100 Points Total)
| Category | Points |
|---|---|
| Acceptance Matrix | 20 |
| Documentation Checklist | 10 |
| Earned Value Summary | 15 |
| Defect/Issue Log | 10 |
| Vendor Evaluation | 15 |
| Final Acceptance Memo | 15 |
| Closeout Report | 10 |
| Final Reflection | 5 |
Instructor Teaching Notes
- Encourage students to treat Week 6 as a hard stop.
- Emphasize that closing a failing or incomplete project is a real skill.
- Prompt them to defend decisions with SOW/Contract citations.
- Highlight that Earned Value provides objective evidence even when memos are subjective or incomplete.
- Reinforce that quality documentation is part of the acceptance criteria.
- Remind them that tone and professionalism matter just as much as analysis.
Final Note for Instructors
Closing a partly completed project reveals a student’s capacity to:
- Lead with structure
- Think critically under ambiguity
- Communicate with authority
- Protect organizational interests
- Transform scattered data into aligned decisions
This chapter is not just the end of NovaMed — it is the measure of their professional readiness.