Rubric

Keep in mind that 96 students have already been assessed using this rubric. Changing it will affect their evaluations.
Solution Analysis - Analysis
Solution Analysis - Analysis
Criteria Ratings Pts
Exec Summary - Project Request Recap
This maximum 1-page email to your client sponsor should serve as a very high-level summary of your Solution Analysis work. At a minimum it should include in a logical order a short description of (1) a quick recap of the original project request, (2) a recap of the root cause(s) that led to the proposed system (3) a short description of the proposed system’s key objectives and constraints, and (4) a summary of major project risks and reduction plans. Include all major items your client should know about your project using appropriate language for them (i.e. use terms they understand). CC your MIS 374 professor and include a link to the Solution Summary Mural.
threshold: pts
1.5 pts Clear and concise recap of the project request
1 pts Clear recap of project request; too much detail included for an Executive Summary
0.5 pts Vague recap of project request; unclear what the original goal was
pts
1.5 pts
--
Exec Summary - Root Cause Recap Recap
threshold: pts
1.5 pts Clear and concise recap of the root cause
1 pts Clear recap of root cause; too much detail included for an Executive Summary
0.5 pts Vague recap of root cause; unclear what the root cause is an how it relates to the project
pts
1.5 pts
--
Exec Summary - Objectives & Constraints
threshold: pts
1.5 pts Clear description of overall objectives and project constraints
1 pts Clear description of overall objectives but missing project constraints
0.5 pts Vague description of overall objectives and project constraints
pts
1.5 pts
--
Exec Summary - Risk Summary
threshold: pts
1.5 pts Clear and concise summary of risks and associated reduction plans
1 pts Clear recap of risks; reduction plans not specific
0.5 pts Vague recap of risks and/or missing reduction plans
pts
1.5 pts
--
Exec Summary - Email CC with link
threshold: pts
1 pts CC’d prof and included link to Solution Summary Mural.
0.5 pts Cc’d prof but did not include link to Solution Summary Mural
pts
1 pts
--
Stakeholders Analysis - Aligns with relevant subset of org?
Clearly identify all parties impacted by the project. Capture their level of impact on the project as well as their level of interest in or availability for the project.
threshold: pts
1 pts Completely aligns with (relevant subset) of org chart (if included)
0.5 pts Misalignment between org stakeholders and people included in org chart (if included)
pts
1 pts
--
Stakeholders Analysis - All obvious included?
threshold: pts
1 pts Includes all obvious stakeholders (e.g. all users identified in user stories are included in this analysis)
0.5 pts Missing one or more obvious stakeholders (e.g. does not tie to user stories)
pts
1 pts
--
Stakeholders Analysis - Interest/Availability
threshold: pts
1 pts Appropriate assessment of the interest/availability of the stakeholder
0.5 pts Clear mistakes in the assessment of the interest/availability of the stakeholder
pts
1 pts
--
Stakeholders Analysis - Influence
threshold: pts
1 pts Appropriate assessment of the influence of the stakeholder
0.5 pts Clear mistakes in the assessment of the influence of the stakeholder
pts
1 pts
--
Model As-Is Client Situation - Model provides clarity
Create a diagram(s) to model relevant aspects of the current “as-is” situation for your client. Explain why the type of diagram is best. Where do you need clarity the most? What insights from this model were relevant to your root cause analysis and/or potential solution(s)?
threshold: pts
1.5 pts Diagram clearly and thoroughly portrays as-is situation as relevant to the project scope
1 pts Diagram portrays as-is situation as relevant to the project scope, but some clarity lacking (either through missing content, illegible items, or leaves reader with open questions)
0.5 pts Diagram missing relevant detail related to focus of the project OR Model only captures broad aspects of the org rather than only aspects related to the project
pts
1.5 pts
--
Model As-Is Client Situation - Follows guidelines for selected model
threshold: pts
1.5 pts Follows all guidelines of model type selected
1 pts 1-2 guidelines of model type selected not followed
0.5 pts Several guidelines of model type selected not followed OR Model type used is unclear
pts
1.5 pts
--
Model As-Is Client Situation - Relevance of type provided
threshold: pts
1.5 pts Provided clear relevance of type of diagram selected
1 pts Provided relevance of type of diagram selected, but could be more clearly stated
0.5 pts Vaguely described relevance of type of diagram selected, not very specific to client situation OR Statement of relevance of diagram type unclear
pts
1.5 pts
--
Model As-Is Client Situation - Where clarity is needed
threshold: pts
1.5 pts Clear and convincing reasoning for where clarity is needed
1 pts Reasoning for where clarity is needed, but could be more clearly stated
0.5 pts Vaguely described where clarity is needed, not very specific to client situation OR Statement of where clarity is needed is unclear
pts
1.5 pts
--
Model As-Is Client Situation - Shared insights gained
threshold: pts
1.5 pts Excellent reasoning for model insights and how they inform the root cause/potential solutions
1 pts Provided general and accurate reasoning for model insights and how they inform the root cause/potential solutions but could be more thoughtful
0.5 pts Vaguely identified insights gained, not very specific to client situation OR Statement of insights gained from model is unclear
pts
1.5 pts
--
Model As-Is Client Situation - Exercise feedback integrated?
threshold: pts
1.5 pts Exercise feedback thoroughly considered and thoughtfully integrated
1 pts More than one half of exercise feedback integrated into final model
0.5 pts Less than half of exercise feedback integrated into final model
pts
1.5 pts
--
Root Cause Analysis - Problem Chain
This section should comprehensively address all issues and concerns for project success down to the basic symptoms driving need.
threshold: pts
1.5 pts Symptoms, Problems, Root Cause identification clear, specific, and thorough, problems clearly tie to and explain “why” for symptoms
1 pts Symptoms, Problems, Root Cause identification clear, specific, and thorough, but connections between problems and symptoms is unclear (does not explain “why”)
0.5 pts Symptoms, Problems, Root Cause identification vague and/or obvious symptoms/problems seem to be missing, connections between problems and symptoms is unclear (does not explain “why”) OR Confusion between problems/root cause and symptoms (e.g. identified a problem as a symptom), connections between problems and symptoms is unclear (does not explain “why”)
pts
1.5 pts
--
Root Cause Analysis - Solution(s)
threshold: pts
1.5 pts Solution(s) proposed clearly articulated and clearly address the root cause(s) identified
1 pts Solution(s) proposed clearly articulated but does not address the root cause(s) identified
0.5 pts Solution(s) proposed vaguely articulated and generally address the root cause(s) identified OR Solution(s) proposed vague and unclear how they address the root cause(s) identified
pts
1.5 pts
--
Root Cause Analysis - Objectives
threshold: pts
1.5 pts Each objective clearly ties to a symptom/problem identified, and each symptom/problem has an associated objective
1 pts Most objectives clearly tie to a symptom/problem identified, and most symptoms/problems have an associated objective
0.5 pts Objectives are written broadly but still generally tie to symptoms/problems identified OR Objectives are written broadly and do not tie to symptoms/problems identified
pts
1.5 pts
--
Root Cause Analysis - Performance Criteria
threshold: pts
1.5 pts All performance criteria (PC) are measurable and tie to an objective; each objective has an associated PC
1 pts Most PCs are measurable and tie to an objective; most objectives have an associated PC; some confusion with non-functional requirements
0.5 pts Few PCs are measurable, and few tie to an objective; several objectives missing associated PC; some confusion with non-functional requirements OR PC are not measurable and /or do not tie to objectives; objectives do not have an associated PC; significant confusion with non-functional requirements
pts
1.5 pts
--
Root Cause Analysis - Constraints
threshold: pts
1.5 pts Project constraints clearly articulated, specific to the client situation; no obvious constraints missing
1 pts Project constraints identified but vaguely articulated, not very specific to the client situation; no obvious constraints missing
0.5 pts Project constraints identified but vaguely articulated, not very specific to the client situation OR Project constraints are unclear or not project constraints OR Missing most obvious constraints
pts
1.5 pts
--
Root Cause Analysis - Exercise feedback integrated?
threshold: pts
1.5 pts Exercise feedback thoroughly considered and thoughtfully integrated
1 pts More than one half of exercise feedback integrated into final root cause
0.5 pts Less than half of exercise feedback integrated into final root cause
pts
1.5 pts
--
To-Be Concept Diagram - Clarity
Concept diagram should illustrate the proposed system. This diagram should tie closely to the objectives of the proposed solution(s) in the root cause analysis and should tie closely to the identified user stories.
threshold: pts
1.5 pts Diagram clearly and thoroughly portrays to-be system and all parts of the diagram are legible
1 pts Diagram missing 1 or 2 details leading to confusion on what the new system will do OR Parts of diagram are not legible
0.5 pts Diagram missing significant detail of the to-be system OR Diagram is not legible
pts
1.5 pts
--
To-Be Concept Diagram - Ties to Root Cause Objectives?
threshold: pts
1.5 pts Diagram clearly ties closely to the objectives of the proposed solution(s) in the root cause analysis
1 pts Diagram missing one or more objectives of the proposed solution OR Diagram includes one or more objectives that are not included in root cause analysis
0.5 pts Diagram does not tie to proposed solution objectives at all
pts
1.5 pts
--
To-Be Concept Diagram - Ties to Stakeholders?
threshold: pts
1 pts Users tie to stakeholders analysis
0.5 pts 1 or more users in to-be concept diagram not included in stakeholder analysis
pts
1 pts
--
To-Be Concept Diagram - Follows 5 sketching rules
threshold: pts
1.5 pts All concept modeling guidelines are followed
1 pts 1 or more concept diagram guidelines not followed, reducing clarity of the model
0.5 pts Model type created is not a concept diagram
pts
1.5 pts
--
To-Be Concept Diagram - Exercise feedback intgrated?
threshold: pts
1.5 pts Exercise feedback thoroughly considered and thoughtfully integrated
1 pts More than one half of exercise feedback integrated into final model
0.5 pts Less than half of exercise feedback integrated into final model
pts
1.5 pts
--
User Stories - Correct format
Identify all user stories and tie directly to the to-be concept diagram. User Stories should follow correct format.
threshold: pts
1.5 pts Correct user story format for all user stories
1 pts Up to ¼ of stories do not follow the correct user story format OR Did not link correctly from Mural
0.5 pts ¼ or more of stories do not follow the correct user story format
pts
1.5 pts
--
User Stories - Tie to to-be concept
threshold: pts
1.5 pts All stories tie to the to-be concept diagram
1 pts Up to ¼ of stories do not tie directly to the to-be concept diagram.
0.5 pts ¼ or more stories do not tie directly to the to-be concept diagram
pts
1.5 pts
--
User Stories - No missing
threshold: pts
1.5 pts No stories missing that were identified in the to-be concept diagram
1 pts Up to ¼ of stories that were identified in the to-be concept diagram are missing
0.5 pts ¼ or more of stories that were identified in the to-be concept diagram are missing
pts
1.5 pts
--
User Stories - Sized right
threshold: pts
1.5 pts All user stories sized appropriately (e.g. can complete in 1 week; more than one story per user when applicable)
1 pts Up to ¼ of user stories sized inappropriately (e.g. cannot complete in a week; only one story per user when should have multiple)
0.5 pts ¼ or more of user stories sized inappropriately (e.g. cannot complete in a week; only one story per user when should have multiple)
pts
1.5 pts
--
User Stories - Exercise feedback intergrated?
threshold: pts
1.5 pts Exercise feedback thoroughly considered and thoughtfully integrated
1 pts More than one half of exercise feedback integrated into final list
0.5 pts Less than half of exercise feedback integrated into final list
pts
1.5 pts
--
User Acceptance Criteria - Relates to story
acceptable
threshold: pts
3 pts UAC relates specifically to the functionality of the story
2 pts ¾ or more relate specifically to the functionality of the user story
1 pts Less than ¾ relate specifically to the functionality of the user story
pts
3 pts
--
User Acceptance Criteria - Clear/actionalable?
threshold: pts
3 pts UAC clearly outlines how user story will meet their expectations
2 pts ¾ or more clearly outline how the user story will meet their expectations
1 pts Less than ¾ clearly outline how the user story will meet their expectations
pts
3 pts
--
User Acceptance Criteria - Feedback integrated?
threshold: pts
3 pts Exercise feedback thoroughly considered and thoughtfully integrated
2 pts More than one half of exercise feedback integrated into final model
1 pts Less than half of exercise feedback integrated into final model
pts
3 pts
--
Feasibility Matrix - All stories included?
Co-create a feasibility matrix with your client that includes all proposed user stories.
threshold: pts
1.5 pts All stories included
1 pts ¾ or more user stories included in matrix
0.5 pts Less than ¾ of user stories included in matrix
pts
1.5 pts
--
Feasibility Matrix - Difficulty
threshold: pts
1.5 pts Assessment of difficulty of all user stories seems appropriate for the project
1 pts Assessment of difficulty of ¾ or more user stories seems appropriate for the project
0.5 pts Assessment of difficulty less than ¾ of user stories seems appropriate for the project
pts
1.5 pts
--
Feasibility Matrix - Value
threshold: pts
1.5 pts Assessment of value of all user stories seems to align with other project analysis
1 pts Assessment of value of ¾ or more user stories seems to align with other project analysis
0.5 pts Assessment of value of less than ¾ of user stories seems to align with other project analysis
pts
1.5 pts
--
Feasibility Matrix - Exercise feedback integrated?
threshold: pts
1.5 pts Exercise feedback thoroughly considered and thoughtfully integrated
1 pts More than one half of exercise feedback integrated into final matrix
0.5 pts Less than half of exercise feedback integrated into final matrix
pts
1.5 pts
--
Non-Functional Context - Maintainability context
Address Maintainability, Portability, Scalability, Security, Performance, and Accessibility context and requirements for the project.
threshold: pts
1 pts Clearly and correctly stated, specific to client situation
0.5 pts Vague, not correct AND/OR not specific to the client situation AND/OR misunderstood maintainability
pts
1 pts
--
Non-Functional Requirements - Maintainability
threshold: pts
1 pts Specific to client and is something you could build/configure in the new system or create/do for the client
0.5 pts Not specific to client and/or is vague and/or is not a requirement and/or not correct
pts
1 pts
--
Non-Functional Context - Portability
threshold: pts
1 pts Clearly and correctly stated, specific to client situation
0.5 pts Vague, not correct AND/OR not specific to the client situation AND/OR misunderstood portability
pts
1 pts
--
Non-Functional Requirements - Portability
threshold: pts
1 pts Specific to client and is something you could build/configure in the new system or create/do for the client
0.5 pts Not specific to client and/or is vague and/or is not a requirement and/or not correct
pts
1 pts
--
Non-Functional Context - Scalability
threshold: pts
1 pts Clearly and correctly stated, specific to client situation
0.5 pts Vague, not correct AND/OR not specific to the client situation AND/OR misunderstood scalability
pts
1 pts
--
Non-Functional Requirements - Scalability
threshold: pts
1 pts Specific to client and is something you could build/configure in the new system or create/do for the client. Includes actual numbers
0.5 pts Not specific to client and/or is vague and/or is not a requirement and/or does not specify #s and/or not correct
pts
1 pts
--
Non-Functional Context - Security
threshold: pts
1 pts Clearly and correctly stated, specific to client situation
0.5 pts Vague, not correct AND/OR not specific to the client situation AND/OR misunderstood security
pts
1 pts
--
Non-Functional Requirements - Security
threshold: pts
1 pts Specific to client and is something you could build/configure in the new system or create/do for the client
0.5 pts Not specific to client and/or is vague and/or is not a requirement and/or not correct
pts
1 pts
--
Non-Functional Context - Performance
threshold: pts
1 pts Clearly and correctly stated, specific to client situation
0.5 pts Vague, not correct AND/OR not specific to the client situation AND/OR misunderstood performance
pts
1 pts
--
Non-Functional Requirements - Performance
threshold: pts
1 pts Specific to client and is something you could build/configure in the new system or create/do for the client. Includes actual numbers
0.5 pts Not specific to client and/or is vague and/or is not a requirement and/or does not specify #s and/or not correct
pts
1 pts
--
Non-Functional Context - Accessibility
threshold: pts
1 pts Clearly and correctly stated, specific to client situation
0.5 pts Vague, not correct AND/OR not specific to the client situation AND/OR misunderstood accessibility
pts
1 pts
--
Non-Functional Requirements - Accessibility
threshold: pts
1 pts Specific to client and is something you could build/configure in the new system or create/do for the client
0.5 pts Not specific to client and/or is vague and/or is not a requirement and/or not correct
pts
1 pts
--
Evaluation Table - List of possible options
Used to help determine system solution. Make research of alternatives clear. Be sure to clearly indicate what alternative the client chose.
threshold: pts
1 pts Included a list of 10 or more possible options varying by solution type (includes top 3 solutions)
0.5 pts Included a list of less than 10 possible options varying by solution type (includes top 3 solutions)
pts
1 pts
--
Evaluation Table - User Story Coverage
threshold: pts
1 pts Clearly identified the number of high/medium/low value user stories that are covered by each solution
0.5 pts Did not clearly identify the number of high/medium/low value user stories that are covered by each solution
pts
1 pts
--
Evaluation Table - Advantages
threshold: pts
1 pts Identified unique advantages of each solution not shared by the other options and tie to client needs
0.5 pts Advantages included are vague and/or redundant across solutions and/or do not tie to client needs
pts
1 pts
--
Evaluation Table - Disadvantages
threshold: pts
1 pts Identified unique disadvantages of each solution
0.5 pts Disadvantages included are vague and/or do not tie to client needs
pts
1 pts
--
Evaluation Table - Cost breakdown
threshold: pts
1 pts Cost – provided upfront (dev) costs and recurring (operational) costs
0.5 pts Cost – missing obvious costs and/or presentation of costs is difficult to understand
pts
1 pts
--
Evaluation Table - Cost (UOM)
threshold: pts
1 pts Costs – values included across solutions use a consistent unit of measurement (e.g. monthly, by user)
0.5 pts Costs – used different units of measurement across solutions (e.g. monthly fees for one and number of users for another)
pts
1 pts
--
Evaluation Table - Questions/Unknowns
threshold: pts
1 pts Thoughtful questions included and team transparent about unknowns
0.5 pts Questions are vague and/or obvious unknowns not included
pts
1 pts
--
Evaluation Table - Client Decision
threshold: pts
1 pts Client decision clearly shown
0 pts Not clear
pts
1 pts
--
Client Background/Overview - Clear & Concise
Address the following items: a) identify the organization structure broadly, b) pinpoint the part(s) of the organization that the proposed system affects, and c) address impact of the system and benefits to areas of strategy, management, and operations of the organization that is particularly relevant in the context of the system
threshold: pts
1.5 pts Clear and concise background on org’s mission and overall structure
1 pts Vague background on org’s mission and overall structure OR did not consider overall structure of the org OR Did not link correctly from Mural
pts
1.5 pts
--
Client Background/Overview - Parts of org affected
threshold: pts
1.5 pts Clear identification of the part(s) of org affected by the proposed system
1 pts Vague identification of the part(s) of org affected by the proposed system
pts
1.5 pts
--
Client Background/Overview - Strategic Impact
threshold: pts
1.5 pts Clearly considered both positive and negative impact, specific to client situation
1 pts Only considered either positive or negative impact, specific to client situation
0.5 pts Vaguely written OR not specific to the client situation OR misunderstood strategic impact
pts
1.5 pts
--
Client Background/Overview - Managerial Impact
threshold: pts
1.5 pts Clearly considered both positive and negative impact, specific to client situation
1 pts Only considered either positive or negative impact, specific to client situation
0.5 pts Vaguely written OR not specific to the client situation OR misunderstood managerial impact
pts
1.5 pts
--
Client Background/Overview - Operational Impact
threshold: pts
1.5 pts Clearly considered both positive and negative impact, specific to client situation
1 pts Only considered either positive or negative impact, specific to client situation
0.5 pts Vaguely written OR not specific to the client situation OR misunderstood operational impact
pts
1.5 pts
--
Organization Chart [Optional]
This should be labeled “ABC Corporation Organization Chart.” Its purpose is to show the organizational roles of the clients you are working with.
threshold: pts
2 pts If included – clear, legible org chart highlighting relevant aspects of org OR If not included – detailed comment in Trello with valid justification why org chart was omitted
1.5 pts If included – clear, legible org chart but doesn’t highlight the aspects of the org relevant to project (e.g. can’t distinguish which are unaffected departments) OR If not included – detailed comment with invalid justification why org chart was omitted OR Did not link correctly from Mural
1 pts If included – org chart unclear and/or illegible OR If not included – vague comment in Trello does not sufficiently justify why org chart was omitted
pts
2 pts
--
Empathy Map [Optional]
Create an empathy map for your main client/stakeholder in your project.
threshold: pts
2 pts If included – thorough analysis demonstrated with correct use of quadrants, sketch of client in the middle, and related to project needs OR If not included – detailed comment in Trello with valid justification why empathy map was omitted
1.5 pts If included – thorough analysis with some mistakes in how the map was used (e.g. missing sketch or incorrect use of quadrants) OR If not included – detailed comment with invalid justification why empathy map was omitted OR Did not link correctly from Mural
1 pts If included – minimal analysis demonstrated and/or misunderstanding of empathy map OR If not included – vague comment in Trello does not sufficiently justify why empathy map was omitted
pts
2 pts
--
As-Is Systems Architecture Checklist [Optional]
Identify the necessary software tools and hardware environment for the as-is system using the provided checklist.
threshold: pts
2 pts If included – Correctly and thoroughly completed the entire as-is checklist OR If not included – detailed comment in Trello with valid justification why as-is sys arch was omitted
1.5 pts If included – Completed at least ¾ of the as-is checklist correctly and thoroughly OR If not included – detailed comment with invalid justification why as-is sys arch was omitted OR Did not link correctly from Mural
1 pts If included – Completed less than ¾ of the as-is checklist correctly and thoroughly OR If not included – vague comment in Trello does not sufficiently justify why as-is sys arch was omitted
pts
2 pts
--
Additional To-Be Models or Diagrams [Optional]
Any additional models or diagrams – not “types” of models/diagrams, just models/diagrams. The models/diagrams you include should help your team better understand the clients’ problems and/or help your client more clearly understand various aspects of your proposed solution.
threshold: pts
2 pts If included – additional diagrams clearly add value to understanding the current situation, appropriate model types used, followed model type rules/guidelines OR If not included – detailed comment in Trello with valid justification why additional to-be models were omitted
1.5 pts If included – additional diagrams add some value to understanding the current situation, appropriate model types used, followed most model type rules/guidelines OR If not included – detailed comment with invalid justification why additional to-be models were omitted OR Did not link correctly from Mural
1 pts If included – additional diagrams do not add value to understanding the current situation, inappropriate model types used, violated model type rules/guidelines OR If not included – vague comment in Trello does not sufficiently justify why additional to-be models were omitted
pts
2 pts
--
Risk Evaluation & Risk Reduction [Optional]
Complete a full risk analysis with clear rationales for each risk score and clear next steps or mitigations for 0s and -1s
threshold: pts
2 pts If included – detailed comments specific to the situation provided for each risk, correct interpretation of each risk, all 0 and 1 have actionable risk reduction strategies OR If not included – detailed comment in Trello with valid justification why risk was omitted
1.5 pts If included – for ¾ or more: detailed comments specific to the situation provided for each risk, correct interpretation of each risk, all 0 and 1 have actionable risk reduction strategies OR If not included – detailed comment with invalid justification why risk was omitted OR Did not link correctly from Mural
1 pts If included – for less than ¾: detailed comments specific to the situation provided for each risk, correct interpretation of each risk, all 0 and 1 have actionable risk reduction strategies; vague comments and/or strategies provided OR If not included – vague comment in Trello does not sufficiently justify why risk was omitted
pts
2 pts
--
To-Be Architecture Checklist [Optional]
Identify the necessary software tools and hardware environment for the as-is system using the provided checklist.
threshold: pts
2 pts If included – Correctly and thoroughly completed the to-be checklist OR If not included – detailed comment in Trello with valid justification why to-be arch was omitted
1.5 pts If included – Completed ¾ or more of the to-be checklist correctly and thoroughly OR If not included – detailed comment with invalid justification why to-be arch was omitted OR Did not link correctly from Mural
1 pts If included – Completed less than ¾ of the to-be checklist OR If not included – vague comment in Trello does not sufficiently justify why to-be arch was omitted
pts
2 pts
--
Sample Input/output Documents/Sample Data from Client [Optional]
Include documents provided by your client and any documents you have created or obtained from the client.
threshold: pts
2 pts If included – Relevant documents and data retrieved from client and stored in Box OR If not included – detailed comment in Trello with valid justification why sample documents/data were omitted
1.5 pts If not included – detailed comment with invalid justification why sample documents/data were omitted OR vague comment in Trello does not sufficiently justify why documents/data were omitted OR Did not link correctly from Mural
pts
2 pts
--