DEVELOPING A SMALL INFORMATICS PROJECT FOR YOUR ORGANIZATION, PART 2: IMPLEMENTATION
DEVELOPING A SMALL INFORMATICS PROJECT FOR YOUR ORGANIZATION, PART 2: IMPLEMENTATION
The final summary will include the complete evaluation of the full project and lessons learned—what went well and what needs update and revisions.
This will be a professional scholarly paper using APA 7. Be sure to include a one-half to one-page executive summary.
The scholarly paper will include a minimum of 10 current citations from peer-reviewed journals. Every statement made in a scholarly report must be supported by a reference. Please note that only primary sources are to be used. Peer-reviewed journal articles should make up the bulk of your references specific page numbers when necessary. Note that an article referred in a book is a secondary source. . Please review the APA Publication Manual (APA; 7th ed.) and in the Walden Writing Center. See also “Policies on Academic IntegrityLinks to an external site..”
The final paper should be 17–20 pages, not including references.
Reminder: The College of Nursing requires that all papers submitted include a title page, introduction, summary, and references. The Sample Paper provided at the Walden Writing Center provides an example of those required elements (available at https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/templates/general#s-lg-box-20293632Links to an external site.). All papers submitted must use this formatting.
Submit the Assignment by Day 7 of Week 9.
RESOURCES
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.
WEEKLY RESOURCES
SUBMISSION INFORMATION
Before submitting your final assignment, you can check your draft for authenticity. To check your draft, access the Turnitin Drafts from the Start Here area.
To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as WK9Assgn_LastName_Firstinitial
Then, click on Start Assignment near the top of the page.
Next, click on Upload File and select Submit Assignment for review.
Rubric
NURS_8210_Week9_Assignment_Rubric
NURS_8210_Week9_Assignment_Rubric
Criteria
Ratings
Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAll documents from Part 1 are included in the Part 2 submission.
150 to >134.0 pts
Excellent
All documents and tracking tools submitted from Part 1 have been revised and accurately updated in detail to sufficiently support the proposed small nursing informatics project.
134 to >119.0 pts
Good
All documents and tracking tools submitted from Part 1 have been revised and updated to support the proposed small nursing informatics project.
119 to >104.0 pts
Fair
All documents and tracking tools submitted from Part 1 have been inaccurately or vaguely revised and may support the proposed small nursing informatics project.
104 to >0 pts
Poor
All documents and tracking tools from Part 1 have been inaccurately and vaguely revised, and do not lend support to the proposed small nursing informatics project, or it is missing.
150 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIs the project staying within scope?
40 to >35.0 pts
Excellent
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail whether the project is staying within scope…. The response accurately and clearly adheres to the project scope provided in the final submission.
35 to >31.0 pts
Good
The response accurately explains whether the project is staying within scope. … The response accurately adheres to the project scope provided in the final submission.
31 to >27.0 pts
Fair
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains whether the project is staying within scope. … The response inaccurately or vaguely adheres to the project scope provided in the final submission.
27 to >0 pts
Poor
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains whether the project is staying within scope, or it is missing. … The response inaccurately and vaguely adheres to the project scope provided in the final submission, or it is missing.
40 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWere all of the gaps identified?
20 to >17.0 pts
Excellent
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail whether all the gaps were identified for the proposed small nursing informatics project. … The response accurately and clearly adheres to the Gap Analysis provided in the final submission.
17 to >15.0 pts
Good
The response accurately explains whether all the gaps were identified for the proposed small nursing informatics project…. The response accurately adheres to the Gap Analysis provided in the final submission.
15 to >13.0 pts
Fair
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains whether all the gaps were identified for the proposed small nursing informatics project. … The response inaccurately or vaguely adheres to the Gap Analysis provided in the final submission.
13 to >0 pts
Poor
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains whether all the gaps were identified for the proposed small nursing informatics project, or it is missing. … The response inaccurately and vaguely adheres to the Gap Analysis provided in the final submission, or it is missing.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIs the project following the timeline?
40 to >35.0 pts
Excellent
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail whether the project is following the timeline. … The response accurately and clearly adheres to the project timeline provided in the final submission.
35 to >31.0 pts
Good
The response accurately explains whether the project is following the timeline. … The response accurately adheres to the project timeline provided in the final submission.
31 to >27.0 pts
Fair
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains whether the project is following the timeline. … The response inaccurately or vaguely adheres to the project timeline provided in the final submission.
27 to >0 pts
Poor
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains whether the project is following the timeline, or it is missing. … The response inaccurately and vaguely adheres to the project timeline provided in the final submission, or it is missing.
40 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIf you had a budget, is it on track?
40 to >35.0 pts
Excellent
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail whether the project is adhering to the proposed budget.
35 to >31.0 pts
Good
The response accurately explains whether the project is adhering to the proposed budget.
31 to >27.0 pts
Fair
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains whether the project is adhering to the proposed budget.
27 to >0 pts
Poor
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains whether the project is adhering to the proposed budget, or it is missing.
40 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWere all of the work activities correctly assigned?
20 to >17.0 pts
Excellent
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail whether all the work activities were correctly assigned. … The response accurately and clearly adheres to the Work Breakdown Structure provided in the final submission.
17 to >15.0 pts
Good
The response accurately explains whether all the work activities were correctly assigned. … The response accurately adheres to the Work Breakdown Structure provided in the final submission.
15 to >13.0 pts
Fair
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains whether all the work activities were correctly assigned. … The response inaccurately or vaguely adheres to the Work Breakdown Structure provided in the final submission.
13 to >0 pts
Poor
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains whether all the work activities were correctly assigned, or it is missing. … The response inaccurately or vaguely adheres to the Work Breakdown Structure provided in the final submission, or it is missing.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAre team members responsible?
20 to >17.0 pts
Excellent
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail whether all team members were responsible for the proposed small nursing informatics project. … The response accurately and clearly adheres to the responsibility chart provided in the final submission.
17 to >15.0 pts
Good
The response accurately explains whether all team members were responsible for the proposed small nursing informatics project. … The response accurately adheres to the responsibility chart provided in the final submission.
15 to >13.0 pts
Fair
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains whether all team members were responsible for the proposed small nursing informatics project. … The response inaccurately or vaguely adheres to the responsibility chart provided in the final submission.
13 to >0 pts
Poor
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains whether all team members were responsible for the proposed small nursing informatics project, or it is missing. … The response inaccurately and vaguely adheres to the responsibility chart provided in the final submission, or it is missing.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDid the project start on time, inline to meet due dates?
40 to >35.0 pts
Excellent
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail whether the small nursing informatics project started on time and is inline to meet due dates. … The response accurately and clearly adheres to the Gantt chart provided in the final submission.
35 to >31.0 pts
Good
The response accurately explains whether the small nursing informatics project started on time and is inline to meet due dates. … The response accurately adheres to the Gantt chart provided in the final submission.
31 to >27.0 pts
Fair
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains whether the small nursing informatics project started on time and is inline to meet due dates. … The response inaccurately or vaguely adheres to the Gantt chart provided in the final submission.
27 to >0 pts
Poor
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains whether the small nursing informatics project started on time and is inline to meet due dates, or it is missing. … The response inaccurately and vaguely adheres to the Gantt chart provided in the final submission, or it is missing.
40 pts
