Topic: MGT210 Project Chapter (1 Page)

Task Two – Project Management Plan

In teams you are to work to develop a Project Management Plan. This task is broken down into three criteria:

1. Create a Project Charter

In response to the Request for Proposal (RFP), negotiate a clear understanding of the project and its requirements, in the form of a Project Charter, with the Client, reflected in version control. In general, the project charter should:  show appropriate use of the Project Charter template  Reflect all requirements per RFP and client communications  Demonstrate professionally conducted negotiations with the client over time

2. Create a Project Plan Based on the agreement between the project sponsor and the Project Manager, create a Project Plan for the client. In general, this should:  Be based on the template provided  Ensure use of PM terminology  Have alignment with the Project Charter  Be well-written, clear and with no dual meanings  Demonstrate integration of the PM Plan processes and phases  Provide clear and supported recommendations

3. Ensure professional report presentation

Report presentation should demonstrate:  Appropriate use of the Project Plan Template  Be formatted in report style per Summers & Smith Communication Skills Handbook 2nd ed  Include academic AND non-academic references  Include the RFP and Project Charter in the appendices  Demonstrate correct grammar and spelling throughout

Refer to the marking Criteria Sheet below for more specific guidance

Marking Criteria Task 2 – Project Plan

Criteria

Levels of Achievement High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail

Criteria 1: Project Charter

Weight 25.00%

85 to 100 % Demonstrates comprehensive and insightful knowledge of the Project Charter with the template followed at all times. The meaning is consistently clear. Use of discipline terminology is confident and assured. All requirements of the RFP and client communications are covered. The level of communication meets professional standards of the discipline.

75 to 84 % Demonstrates mostly comprehensive and insightful knowledge of the Project Charter with the template followed. The meaning is clear. Use of discipline terminology is extensive and largely correct. Most of the requirements of the RFP and client communications are covered. The level of communication meets professional standards of the discipline.

65 to 74 % Demonstrates some knowledge of the Project Charter with the template mostly followed. Overall meaning is clear though there are minor instances of awkward/ambiguous expression. Use of discipline terminology is adequate. The level of communication mostly meets professional standards of the discipline with some lapses in professionalism or detail.

50 to 64 % Basic knowledge of the Project Charter with the template partially followed. The intended meaning can be discerned but lacks clarity and/or examples of awkward/ambiguous expression. Limited discipline terminology with minor inaccuracies. Some professionalism but significant lapses in communication evident.

0 to 49 % Little or no knowledge of the Project Charter with the template not used or presented. Use of language fails to make meaning clear with limited discipline terminology. Professionalism in communication lacking.

Marking Criteria Task 2 – Project Plan

Criteria

Levels of Achievement High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail

Criteria 2: Project Plan

Weight 60.00%

85 to 100 % Demonstrates comprehensive and insightful knowledge of the Project Plan with the template followed at all times. The meaning is consistently clear. Use of discipline terminology is confident and assured. The Project Plan is completely integrated with the Project Charter. The Project Plan processes and phases are fully integrated. The level of presentation meets professional standards of the discipline. The recommendations are highly appropriate, integrated, and supported.

75 to 84 % Demonstrates mostly comprehensive and insightful knowledge of the Project Plan with the template followed. The meaning is consistently clear. Use of discipline terminology is extensive and largely correct. The Project Plan is fairly integrated with the Project Charter. The Project Plan processes and phases are mostly integrated. The level of presentation meets professional standards of the discipline. The recommendations are appropriate, integrated, and supported.

65 to 74 % Demonstrates some knowledge of the Project Plan with the template mostly followed. The meaning is fairly clear. Use of discipline terminology is adequate. The Project Plan is mostly integrated with the Project Charter with some lapses. The Project Plan processes and phases are fairly integrated. The level of presentation mostly meets professional standards of the discipline. The recommendations are appropriate and fairly supported.

50 to 64 % Basic knowledge of the Project Plan with the template partially followed. The intended meaning can be discerned but lacks clarity and/or examples of awkward/ambiguous expression. Limited discipline terminology with minor inaccuracies. The Project Plan is not fully integrated with the Project Charter with some lapses occurring. The Project Plan processes and phases are not completely integrated. The level of presentation mostly meets professional standards of the discipline with some lapses. The recommendations are appropriate, however lacking some instances and needing more.

0 to 49 % Little or no knowledge of the Project Plan with the template not followed/complete. Use of language fails to make meaning clear. Use of discipline terminology is lacking. The Project Plan is not integrated with the Project Charter. The Project Plan processes and phases are not integrated. The level of presentation does not meet professional standards of the discipline. The recommendations are lacking and are not supported.

Marking Criteria Task 2 – Project Plan

Criteria

Levels of Achievement High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail

Criteria 3: Report presentation

Weight 15.00%

85 to 100 % Demonstrates comprehensive and insightful knowledge of the Project Plan with the template followed at all times. The meaning is consistently clear. Use of discipline terminology is confident and assured. The level of presentation meets professional standards of the discipline, and there is a high level of attention to detail including grammar, syntax and spelling. Referencing and citations are appropriate and integrated.

75 to 84 % Demonstrates mostly comprehensive and insightful knowledge of the Project Plan with the template followed. The meaning is clear. Use of discipline terminology is extensive and largely correct. The level of presentation meets professional standards of the discipline, and there is attention to detail including grammar, syntax and spelling. Referencing and citations are appropriate.

65 to 74 % Demonstrates some knowledge of the Project Plan with the template mostly followed. Overall meaning is clear though there are minor instances of awkward/ambiguous expression. Use of discipline terminology is adequate. The level of presentation mostly meets professional standards of the discipline, with some lapses in detail in e.g. grammar, syntax and spelling. Referencing and/or citation errors.

50 to 64 % Basic knowledge of the Project Plan with the template partially followed. The intended meaning can be discerned but lacks clarity and/or examples of awkward/ambiguous expression. Limited discipline terminology with minor inaccuracies. Some professionalism but significant lapses in grammar syntax and spelling. Referencing and/or citation errors.

0 to 49 % Little or no knowledge of the Project Plan with the template not used. Use of language fails to make meaning clear; many errors of grammar, syntax and spelling, range of mistakes indicating lack of editing and proofreading. Limited or incorrect use of discipline terminology. Poor referencing and citation errors.