it systems

Unacceptable Below 70% F

Fair 70-79% C

Proficient 80-89% B

Exemplary 90-100% A

1. Goals: What the project hopes to accomplish.  Weight: 10%

Points Range:0 (0%) - 13.8 (6.9%)

Did not communicate what the project hopes to accomplish. Did not list project goals.

Points Range:14 (7%) - 15.8 (7.9%)

Communicated what the project hopes to accomplish. Did not list project goals.

Points Range:16 (8%) - 17.8 (8.9%)

Communicated what the project hopes to accomplish. Listed the project goals.

Points Range:18 (9%) - 20 (10%)

Communicated importance of project reaching its goals. Connected project goals to the organizational strategy.

2. Critical Success Factors: Identify at least 4 different stakeholders; for each, list at least 2 things that stakeholder requires in order to deem the project successful.  Weight: 10%

Points Range:0 (0%) - 13.8 (6.9%)

Did not identify 4 stakeholders. Listed things to make project successful, but did not connect each stakeholder.

Points Range:14 (7%) - 15.8 (7.9%)

Identified 4 stakeholders. Listed less than 2 things each stakeholder would require to deem project successful.

Points Range:16 (8%) - 17.8 (8.9%)

Identified 4 stakeholders. Listed 2 things that each stakeholder would require to deem the project successful.

Points Range:18 (9%) - 20 (10%)

Identified and justified the selection of 4 stakeholders. Explained why each stakeholder would be most interested in 2 things to deem project successful.

3. Acquisition strategy: Should the system be built in-house, created by a contractor, purchased off-the-shelf and customized, or leased as a service? Explain the rationale for your choice.  Weight: 10%

Points Range:0 (0%) - 13.8 (6.9%)

Did not compare acquisition strategies. Did not determine the best strategy for the proposed information system. Inadequately explained the rationale for choosing the acquisition strategy.

Points Range:14 (7%) - 15.8 (7.9%)

Reasonable comparison of acquisition strategies. Determined best acquisition strategy for the proposed information system. Somewhat explained the rationale for choosing the acquisition strategy.

Points Range:16 (8%) - 17.8 (8.9%)

Compared various acquisition strategies. Determined which acquisition strategy would be the best for the proposed system. Provided rationale for choosing a specific acquisition strategy.

Points Range:18 (9%) - 20 (10%)

Analyzed various acquisition strategies, or presented an acquisition strategy that was not previously mentioned. Explained why other acquisition strategies would potentially not work. Discussed cost considerations.

4. Resources: For in-house development, what people/skills are required and what development lifecycle do you recommend? Otherwise, identify 3 candidate organizations that can deliver the system.  Weight: 10%

Points Range:0 (0%) - 13.8 (6.9%)

Inadequately determined resources needed for the acquisition strategy. Limited recommendation for development lifecycle for in-house development, or three external organizations that can deliver the system. Inadequate justification.

Points Range:14 (7%) - 15.8 (7.9%)

Determined resources needed for the acquisition strategy, but did not justify reasoning. Recommended a project development lifecycle for in-house development, or three external organizations that can deliver the system, but did not justify why they were chosen.

Points Range:16 (8%) - 17.8 (8.9%)

Determined and justified resources needed for chosen acquisition strategy. Recommended a project development lifecycle for in-house development, or three external organizations that can deliver the system.

Points Range:18 (9%) - 20 (10%)

Presented resources not previously considered. Included risk identification and mitigation procedures. Proposed a combination of resources and strategy to organize stakeholder efforts toward project completion.

5. System functions: In a table format, summarize the types of users for the system; the business reason(s) each would use the system; the ways that the system supports each of these needs; and how this support differs from the current system.  Weight: 10%

Points Range:0 (0%) - 13.8 (6.9%)

Failed to put in table format. Inadequate summary of users for the system. Limited explanation of why users would use the system. Inadequate description of how system supports users. Inadequate comparison of the proposed system to the old system.

Points Range:14 (7%) - 15.8 (7.9%)

In table format: Summarized some of the types of users for the system. Somewhat explained business reasons for system use. Somewhat described how the system supports users. Reasonable comparison of the proposed system to the old information system.

Points Range:16 (8%) - 17.8 (8.9%)

In table format: Summarized the types of users for the information system. Explained business reasons why each user type would use the system. Described how the system supports the needs of each user type. Determined how this support differs from the current information system.

Points Range:18 (9%) - 20 (10%)

In table format: Analyzed user experience and user design considerations. Explained design changes that took place between the old and new system. Provided rationale for the user types identified. Discussed how to reach out to user types to test the system.

6. Connectivity: Provide a diagram that shows the other information systems this one will connect to, and what data flows among them.  Weight: 10%

Points Range:0 (0%) - 13.8 (6.9%)

Failed to put in diagram format. Inadequate diagram showing your system, hard to follow, incomplete. Inadequate or hard to follow the data that would flow among systems, incomplete.

Points Range:14 (7%) - 15.8 (7.9%)

In a diagram: Showed other information systems that your system would connect to, but hard to follow . Demonstrated what data would flow among systems, but hard to follow.

Points Range:16 (8%) - 17.8 (8.9%)

In a diagram: Showed other existing information systems that your proposed system would connect to Demonstrated what data would flow between your and other information systems.

Points Range:18 (9%) - 20 (10%)

In a diagram: Showed how you selected existing systems that your system would connect to. Explained how diagram would be updated and maintained based on changes in the marketplace.

7. Security: List the most serious cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities of the new system. Suggest strategies to address them.  Weight: 10%

Points Range:0 (0%) - 13.8 (6.9%)

Inadequate list of cybersecurity threats. Inadequate strategies to address each threat.

Points Range:14 (7%) - 15.8 (7.9%)

Reasonable list of cybersecurity threats, failed to show why they are most serious. Identified strategies to address each threat.

Points Range:16 (8%) - 17.8 (8.9%)

Listed the most serious cybersecurity threats to your new system. Proposed strategies to address each threat.

Points Range:18 (9%) - 20 (10%)

Proposed how your new system would integrate with Shadow IT, if at all. Demonstrated strategies for current users to avoid threats.

8. Mobility: Identify the system’s capabilities for mobile use.  Weight: 10%

Points Range:0 (0%) - 13.8 (6.9%)

Failed to identify your system’s capabilities for mobile use, incomplete.

Points Range:14 (7%) - 15.8 (7.9%)

Identified your system’s capabilities for mobile use, but not comprehensive.

Points Range:16 (8%) - 17.8 (8.9%)

Identified your system’s capabilities for mobile use.

Points Range:18 (9%) - 20 (10%)

Proposed situations in which mobile use would happen and situations where its limitations.

9. Speaker / Audio Notes: Include speaker notes or audio narration that explains each slide more fully. Weight: 10%

Points Range:0 (0%) - 13.8 (6.9%)

Inadequate speaker notes or audio narration, too much or too little information on each slide provided.

Points Range:14 (7%) - 15.8 (7.9%)

Somewhat detailed speaker notes or audio narration explaining each slide more fully.

Points Range:16 (8%) - 17.8 (8.9%)

Included speaker notes or audio narration explaining each slide more fully.

Points Range:18 (9%) - 20 (10%)

Speaker notes or audio narration succinct and direct, persuasive presentation. Discussed cost considerations, and risk identification & mitigation.

10. Clarity, persuasion, proper communication, writing mechanics, and formatting requirements.  Weight: 10%

Points Range:0 (0%) - 13.8 (6.9%)

Unclear structure, not persuasive, major grammatical errors.

Points Range:14 (7%) - 15.8 (7.9%)

Somewhat clear structure, limited persuasion, grammatical errors, language too simple or too wordy.

Points Range:16 (8%) - 17.8 (8.9%)

Clear structure, persuasive writing, minor or no grammatical errors, length and format within requirements, plain language.

Points Range:18 (9%) - 20 (10%)

No grammatical errors, plain language, organized by topic, references business needs, connects to technical specs, persuasive.