- Premium Academic Help From Professionals
- +1 810 395 5448
- support@essayshredder.com
Project Scope Assignment Help
NOTE: Refer to the Instructions for Citrix in the Course Materials.
The purpose of this assignment is to create a work breakdown structure (WBS) for a given project. Specifically, complete Case 4.1: Manchester United Soccer Club in Larson and Gray.
In addition to the items requested for Question 1 in the case, complete the following for Question 1 using Microsoft Project:
1. Create a list of tasks in Microsoft Project. At a minimum, 30 lowest-level tasks are required.
2. Using Microsoft Project’s task indent tool, create a WBS for your project. Include summary tasks to effectively identify the key areas of work for the project.
3. Ensure that the WBS column is displayed.
Respond to Questions 2, 3 and 4 in the case. Ensure each response includes at least 100 words. APA format is not required, but solid academic writing is expected.
While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and in-text citations and references should be presented using APA documentation guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion
Rubic_Print_Format
| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points | |||||
| MGT-440 | MGT-440-O500 | Project Scope Assignment (O) | 50.0 | |||||
| Criteria | Percentage | Unsatisfactory (0.00%) | Less Than Satisfactory (65.00%) | Satisfactory (75.00%) | Good (85.00%) | Excellent (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned |
| Content | 85.0% | |||||||
| Q.1 Make a list of the major deliverables for the project and use them to develop a draft of the work breakdown structure for the tournament that contains at least three levels of detail. What are the major deliverables associated with hosting an event such as a soccer tournament? | 25.0% | A list of the major deliverables for the project and a draft of the work breakdown structure for the tournament that contains at least three levels of detail is not made. | A list of the major deliverables for the project and a draft of the work breakdown structure for the tournament that contains at least three levels of detail is present but vague; very few details are given; discussion of the major deliverables associated with hosting an event such as a soccer tournament is irrelevant and/or incomplete. | A list of the major deliverables for the project and a draft of the work breakdown structure for the tournament that contains at least three levels of detail is partially complete and correct; discussion of the major deliverables associated with hosting an event such as a soccer tournament is somewhat limited and lacks some details to support claims. | A list of the major deliverables for the project and a draft of the work breakdown structure for the tournament that contains at least three levels of detail are mostly complete and correct; discussion of the major deliverables associated with hosting an event such as a soccer tournament is strong with sound analysis and appropriate details to support claims. | A list of the major deliverables for the project and a draft of the work breakdown structure for the tournament that contains at least three levels of detail are complete and comprehensive. The discussion of the major deliverables associated with hosting an event such as a soccer tournament is complete, and insightful with relevant details to support claims. | Written WBS was 3 levels deep and provided many of the key deliverables | 10.62/12.50 |
| Create a list of tasks in Microsoft Project. At a minimum, 30 lowest-level tasks are required. | 15.0% | A list of tasks in Microsoft project is not made. | A list of tasks in Microsoft Project is made. The list does not meet the minimum of at least 30 lowest-level tasks. Vague or very few details are given. | A list of tasks in Microsoft Project is made. The list meets the minimum of at least 30 lowest-level tasks. Task details are partially complete and correct. | A list of tasks in Microsoft Project is made. The list meets the minimum of at least 30 lowest-level tasks. Task details are mostly complete and correct. | A list of tasks in Microsoft Project is made. The list meets the minimum of at least 30 lowest-level tasks. Task details are complete and correct. | No MS Project file provided. For this week only, if this is provided by end of week (11:59 pm Phoenix time on 9/13), I will go back and update this grade. | 0.00/7.50 |
| Using Microsoft Project’s task indent tool, create a WBS for your project. Include summary tasks to effectively identify the key areas of work for the project. Ensure that the WBS column is displayed. | 30.0% | Did not create a WBS for the project; the WBS column is not displayed. | WBS with summary tasks to identify key areas of work for the project are incomplete or incorrect; the WBS column is displayed. | WBS with summary tasks to identify key areas of work for the project are partially complete and correct; the WBS column is displayed. | WBS with summary tasks to identify key areas of work for the project are mostly complete and correct; the WBS column is displayed. | WBS with summary tasks to identify key areas of work for the project are complete and correct; the WBS column is displayed. | No MS Project file provided. For this week only, if this is provided by end of week (11:59 pm Phoenix time on 9/13), I will go back and update this grade. | 0.00/15.00 |
| Q.2 How would developing a WBS alleviate some of the problems that occurred during the first meeting and help Nicolette organize and plan the project? | 5.0% | Response does not explain how developing a WBS would alleviate some of the problems that occurred during the first meeting and help Nicolette organize and plan the project. | Response attempts to explain how developing a WBS would alleviate some of the problems that occurred during the first meeting and help Nicolette organize and plan the project but is inadequate; explanation is irrelevant and/or incomplete and is lacking evidence to support claims. | Response explains how developing a WBS would alleviate some of the problems that occurred during the first meeting and help Nicolette organize and plan the project in an adequate manner; explanation is somewhat limited and lacks some details to support claims. | Response explains how developing a WBS would alleviate some of the problems that occurred during the first meeting and help Nicolette organize and plan the project in a clear and coherent manner; explanation is strong with sound analysis and appropriate details to support claims. | The response explaining how developing a WBS would alleviate some of the problems that occurred during the first meeting and help Nicolette organize and plan the project is expertly written; explanation is comprehensive and insightful with relevant details to support claims. | Noted how WBS could help in general but did not translate this analysis to the case study’s issues | 1.88/2.50 |
| Q 3. Where can Nicolette find additional information to help her develop a WBS for the tournament? | 5.0% | Response does not indicate where Nicolette can find additional information to help her develop a WBS for the tournament. | Response attempts to indicate where Nicolette can find additional information to help her develop a WBS for the tournament but is inadequate; explanation is irrelevant and/or incomplete and is lacking evidence to support claims. | Response indicates where Nicolette can find additional information to help her develop a WBS for the tournament in an adequate manner; explanation is somewhat limited and lacks some details to support claims. | Response indicates where Nicolette can find additional information to help her develop a WBS for the tournament in a clear and coherent manner; explanation is strong with sound analysis and appropriate details to support claims. | The response indicating where Nicolette can find additional information to help her develop a WBS for the tournament is expertly written; explanation is comprehensive and insightful with relevant details to support claims. | Noted the importance of leveraging lessons learned but assumed they had done one of these projects in their past. This wasn’t provided in the case study. | 1.88/2.50 |
| Q.4 How could Nicolette and her task force use the WBS to generate cost estimates for the tournament? Why would this be useful information? | 5.0% | Response does not discuss how Nicolette and her task force could use the WBS to generate cost estimates for the tournament or why would this be useful information. | Response attempts to discuss how Nicolette and her task force could use the WBS to generate cost estimates for the tournament but is inadequate; explanation regarding why this would be useful information is irrelevant and/or incomplete and is lacking evidence to support claims. | Response discusses how Nicolette and her task force could use the WBS to generate cost estimates for the tournament in an adequate manner; explanation regarding why this would be useful information is somewhat limited and lacks some details to support claims. | Response discusses how Nicolette and her task force could use the WBS to generate cost estimates for the tournament in a clear and coherent manner; explanation regarding why this would be useful information is strong with sound analysis and appropriate details to support claims. | The response discussing how Nicolette and her task force could use the WBS to generate cost estimates for the tournament is expertly written; explanation regarding why this would be useful information is comprehensive and insightful with relevant details to support claims. | Little detailed content provided to address this question on how the WBS will lead them to their cost estimates | 1.62/2.50 |
| Grammer and Format | 15.0% | |||||||
| Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) | 10.0% | Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used. | Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. | Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. | Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. | Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. | Small number of grammatical errors found | 4.25/5.00 |
| Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) | 5.0% | Sources are not documented. | Documentation of sources is inconsistent and/or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. | Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. | Reference properly formatted. Don’t forget to include textbook when it’s the foundation for an assignment. | 2.12/2.50 |
| Total Weightage | 100% | 22.38/50.0 |
