8.7: Instructor Notes / Evaluation Criteria

  ↵

Instructor Notes / Evaluation Criteria

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.

---

1. 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

---

2. Evaluation Categories (Weighted Rubric)

This rubric is recommended for standardizing evaluation across instructors.

---

A. 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 1–6

High Score Characteristics:

• Student references specific criteria from SOW/SRS/HLDD

• Clear, justified acceptance decisions

• Matrix is organized, readable, and internally consistent

---

B. 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

---

C. 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

---

D. 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

---

E. 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

---

F. 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

---

G. 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

---

3. 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

---

4. Recommended Scoring Grid (100 Points Total)

Recommended Scoring Grid

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

---

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.

---

6. 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.