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.

✔ Acceptance Matrix (Partial)

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

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