Assignment Prompt & Instructions
See attached
– ## GizmotronsProductRolloutcopy.docx
– ## TeamCharterexample.docx
**## GizmotronsProductRolloutcopy.docx**
**DELIVERABLE**
This deliverable requires you to create a project charter, a WBS in pictorial inverted-
tree format, and an MS Project file for the project.
The WBS pictorial can be put together using any software you wish. One easy way to do this is
to use the MS Excel org chart template. Stormboard (which currently has a free subscription),
Visio, MS PowerPoint, etc. are other tools you may wish to consider. A neat and
**very legible**
hand-drawn version is also acceptable.
Your Microsoft Project file must clearly reflect the structure of your WBS inverted-tree pictorial,
should show all activities under each work package, their duration, and their dependencies
(predecessors), as well as clearly show the critical path (or paths) colored in RED. In addition,
add a column to your MS Project file labeled "OWNER" and place in it, for each activity, the
name of the team member who identified that activity and provided and verified correctness of
the duration and predecessors of that activity.
**Gizmotron’s Product Rollout**
The selected project should bring out real-world consideration and challenges, so it should not be too simple or trivial. Here are basic assignment requirements which will ensure that your project is not too easy or too challenging:
Make sure that there are three or four main deliverables (first level of WBS)
Have between 10 to 16 work packages (“leaves” of the WBS)
Have between 25 to 40 activities
The activities should have a reasonable amount of concurrency, meaning that it should be
possible to perform some of them in parallel.
Gizmotron’s Product Rollout
Note: The information in the project description below provides most but not all information that you will need to develop reasonably sound scope, schedule, and cost baselines for the product rollout project. There are some deliberate minor gaps in the information that will require you to use some common sense and judgment, even some plausible intuition/guesswork in a very few cases. Seldom will youencounter real life projects that are detailed to 100% accuracy and perfection, so this project is intended
to demonstrate that there is some room for judgment, flexibility, reasonable assumptions, and common
sense in project management, as opposed to investing unreasonable amounts of time and effort in
striving for complete perfection and accuracy (which are usually not attainable anyway!). Hence, there is
no one right “solution” here. Different teams could come up with slightly different scope, schedule, and
cost baselines. When you work through this assignment as a team, do not waste time quibbling over infinitesimal details. Strive for a “roughly right” but logically and practically sound approach which you can defend if you need to.
Gizmotron is rolling out a new product in several metropolitan areas in the US. For the purposes of this assignment, let us restrict our attention to the Chicago area. An extensive marketing campaign is being planned in eight Chicagoland suburbs. For the purposes of this assignment, you may group the campaigns for the eight suburbs, so there is just one Chicagoland campaign as opposed to eight separate ones.
The Chicagoland marketing campaign comprises three major efforts, which are distinct but interrelated, meaning that there are dependencies between activities in the three efforts: Publicity, events, and sales/marketing. Here is a brief description of each of the three efforts:
1. Publicity: News of the event needs to be disseminated. This will be done via mailings (of a
brochure) and media (radio and TV ads). Mailings require graphics design, developing a
brochure (based on the graphics design and content provided by the sales/marketing effort),
and a two-part mailing campaign: paper-mail as well as e-mail. The paper-mail campaign is to
occur a week after the email campaign has ended (because the email campaign will generate
some leads on who should be targeted in the paper-mail campaign). The media component has
two aspects: radio ads and TV ads, each of which requires scripting and slotting (when to run the
ads). Some details associated with the various activities are:
a. Graphics design is based on “intelligence” provided by the sales/marketing effort that provides
the graphics design team a draft proposal of the key types of messages to include and also some
content to back-up those messages. (The graphics design team may further refine the content.)
Graphics design takes 8 business days (after the draft proposal has been received). Its total cost is
approximately $5,000.2. 3.
b. The brochure takes 4 business days (after graphics design is completed) to finalize and the cost is
about $2,000
c. The e-mail campaign commences right after the brochure is ready and takes 1 business day (cost
$6,000). A week after the email campaign ends, the paper-mail campaign commences and lasts 3
business days (cost $5,000).
d. Scripting for the radio and TV ads take 3 business days and 7 business days (respectively), costs
being $2,000 and $5,000 (respectively). The scripting is also based on the draft proposal from
sales/marketing. The slotting effort for the radio and TV ads takes 2 business days each (at a cost
of $1,000 each). The radio ad slotting uses a radio listener report done by the sales/marketing
team, and the TV ad slotting uses a TV watchers report, also done by the sales/marketing team.
The radio and TV ads run over a period of 10 business days, commencing immediately after
slotting has been finalized.
Events: The events effort comprises venue identification and setup, catering, and agenda
finalization (speakers, entertainment, giveaways, etc.). Venue identification and setup as well as
catering are contracted out to companies who can be trusted to complete on time and budget.
Venue identification takes 5 business days (cost $2,000 for eight venues) and must be
completed before the brochures are finalized (simply because the addresses are needed for the
brochures). Venue setup is the act of determining how much space to rent at the venue, how
the space will be organized, etc. This cannot be started until after the mailing campaigns (paper
and email), radio and TV ads have run (because campaign statistics/viewership is used to
estimate event attendance). Venue setup (for all 8 venues) takes 6 business days and costs
$5,000.
Catering cannot be started until after the mailing campaigns (paper and email), radio and TV ads
have run, and (for all 8 venues) takes 6 business days to finalize, with catering costs dependent
on projected attendance. From historical data, catering costs are estimated to average $4,000
per venue.
Agenda finalization requires contracting (for speakers, entertainment, etc.) and product
promotion planning (displaying, demonstrating, giveaways, etc. of products). The contracting
and promotion planning are both dependent on projected attendance. Contracting (for all 8
venues) takes 6 business days and the total costs are anticipated to be around $60,000 (which
includes speaker fees). Total promotion planning duration is 10 business days (cost $35,000,
which includes product giveaways).
Sales/marketing: This effort comprises (market) message development, marketing analysis,
surveys, and legal approval. Message development is broken into two parts: draft proposal development (5 business days, $5000) and executive approval (2 business days, $1,000). The message development does not start until after the surveys are completed. The survey effort comprises focus groups (10 business days, $15,000) and web surveys (4 business days, $6,000). Marketing analysis includes development of a radio listener report and a TV watchers report, each of which takes 3 days and costs $2,000. The surveying effort requires legal approval (2 days, $1,000 for each approval) prior to conducting focus groups and web surveys, and the draft proposal requires legal approval after it is developed (and before it is released to the
promotions team).
**## TeamCharterexample.docx**
**Team Charter: Grey, Timothy, and Spencer**
**Communication Plan**
Grey will be responsible for the Communication Plan. Our team will coordinate primarily through email and group chat to ensure rapid responses and accountability. Weekly virtual meetings will be held to track progress, clarify responsibilities, and discuss challenges. All updates and meeting notes will be stored in a shared document repository for transparency.
**Conflict Management Plan**
Grey will also be responsible for the Conflict Management Plan. In cases of conflict, the first step will be direct communication between the involved parties. If unresolved, the issue will be escalated to the team as a whole during scheduled meetings. For non-responsiveness, a reminder will be sent after one day, followed by escalation to the professor if no communication occurs within three days. Emergency situations will be accommodated by redistributing tasks.
**Document Management Plan**
Spencer will manage the Document Management Plan. All team documents will be stored in a central shared drive (e.g., Google Drive or OneDrive) with clearly labeled folders for drafts, finalized documents, and reference materials. Version control will be maintained by including dates in file names and only one person at a time making edits to avoid conflicts.
**Quality Plan**
Spencer will also oversee the Quality Plan. All documents and deliverables will undergo peer review by at least one other team member before submission. Formatting will follow APA guidelines, and a standardized template will be used to maintain consistency. Final review sessions will be conducted prior to submission to ensure accuracy, completeness, and professionalism.
**Roles & Responsibilities**
Timothy will lead the Roles & Responsibilities section. Work will be divided among the team to ensure balanced workload distribution. Grey will handle Communication and Conflict Management, Spencer will oversee Document Management and Quality, and Timothy will coordinate overall team responsibilities and finalize role assignments. A fictitious customer role will be assumed by one designated team member to provide realistic project dynamics, and this role will be rotated if necessary. Everything will be completed on or before 1 September 2025.
**Quality Plan**
**Purpose and quality objectives**
Our goal is to deliver a four-page Team Charter that is fit for purpose and meets stakeholder expectations: clear, complete, consistent, and aligned to the assignment brief. In PMBOK 7e terms, quality activities should both move the deliverable quickly to the point of delivery and prevent or catch defects early to avoid rework, while aligning with explicit acceptance criteria.
**Acceptance criteria and “Definition of Done”**
The assignment’s Quality Plan must ensure the final submission:
1. addresses all five required charter elements and fits within four double-spaced pages;
2. demonstrates high-level integration of PMBOK 6e Integration and Scope processes and PMBOK 7e principles;
3. uses consistent voice, APA citations, and polished mechanics; and
4. evidences a coherent team process (communication, conflict handling, roles).
We will operationalize these through a simple Definition of Done checklist that includes content coverage, style/format checks, and evidence that deliverables have been “verified” and then “accepted,” consistent with the path from Control Quality to Validate Scope and into Close Project or Phase.
**Standards and sources of truth**
Content must reflect the required readings: PMBOK 6e (Scope 5.1–5.6 at the appropriate high-level depth), PMBOK 7e Delivery Performance Domain (focus on value, deliverables, DoD), and the Team Charter instructions (Quality Plan and Document Management Plan expectations).
**Quality assurance (build quality in)**
Given our dispersed schedule (Grey in Japan/Philippines; Timothy in Tennessee; Spencer ramping up mid-week), we will design the workflow to surface issues early, reducing the cost of change. Each contributor drafts against the DoD by
**Monday 12:00 Eastern** (which is
**00:00 Tuesday PHT** and
**01:00 Tuesday JST**), enabling an early integrated review and defect prevention before we’re forced into costly late edits.
Practices:
•
**Calibrated outline** tied to the assignment rubric and readings before drafting (prevents scope and quality drift).
•
**Peer dialog** in Signal for ambiguities and edge cases; quick decisions reduce “done drift.”
**Quality control (verification and acceptance)**
We will use a two-gate approach:
•
**Gate 1 – Verification:** Monday consolidated draft is checked against the DoD, assignment guidelines, and references (content coverage, flow, APA, mechanics).
•
**Gate 2 – Acceptance:** A designated “customer” proxy performs a final acceptance read. This mirrors PMBOK’s flow from verified deliverables (Control Quality) to accepted deliverables (Validate Scope).
**Customer proxy:** Assign Spencer as the acceptance authority for this charter (he offered to take on larger sections and is assembling pieces). The instructor remains the ultimate customer; Spencer acts as our internal proxy for formal acceptance before submission. (This also satisfies the “customer role” requirement.)
**Metrics, thresholds, and escalation**
We will track three simple measures: a) completeness (all required elements present), b) conformance (APA/style/format), and c) coherence (logical flow across sections). Threshold: zero critical gaps; minor style issues acceptable if corrected by Tuesday morning. If Gate 1 uncovers material gaps, the section owner has a two-hour window to remediate; if not feasible, the compiler makes targeted edits. This satisfies the Quality Plan line items in the Team Charter Guidelines.
**Interface with Scope management**
Our quality controls reinforce scope discipline: we will
**Validate Scope** by comparing the assembled draft to the scope baseline implied by the charter instructions; any material scope change triggers a quick change decision in Signal (major change = consensus vote; minor edit = editor decision).
**Knowledge capture**
After submission, we log two lessons learned: one process improvement and one content insight, to seed the course repository. This aligns to Manage Project Knowledge in the weekly lecture.
**Document Management Plan**
**Repository and single source of truth**
We will use a shared Google Docs folder as the
**authoring** space and maintain a
**Master Charter** document as the single source of truth. Only the compiler edits the Master directly; contributors draft in their own files and paste into the Master during the integration window. This prevents collisions when “multiple team members contribute to the same document” and preserves integrity, per the Charter Guidelines.
**Access:** All teammates (Grey, Timothy, Spencer, plus the fourth member if they appear) have edit access; the compiler owns the folder and ensures backups.
**Communications:** Signal remains the rapid channel for coordination (already established in the thread). Meeting minutes, if any, are short and posted to the group space, as requested in the guidelines.
**Versioning and file naming**
Drafts use the pattern: Team#_Charter_<Section>_<Initials>_v0.1_YYYYMMDD-HHMM. The Master carries v1.0-Submitted upon finalization and is exported to PDF for submission. The version log sits at the top of the Master with date, editor, and a one-line change note. This lightweight configuration control mirrors PMBOK guidance to keep acceptance criteria and WBS-level attributes clear in the supporting “dictionary” for each deliverable segment.
**Contribution workflow and deadlines**
1.
**Drafting:** Each owner produces their section by
**Monday12:00 Eastern** (00:00 Tuesday PHT; 01:00 Tuesday JST).
2.
**Integration:** The compiler integrates from 12:00–16:00 Eastern and requests clarifications in Signal.
3.
**Gate 1 Verification:** 16:00–18:00 Eastern.
4.
**Gate 2 Acceptance:** 18:00–20:00 Eastern by the customer proxy.
5.
**Submission package:** Tuesday morning Eastern.
This cadence emphasizes early value and interim deliverables, consistent with PMBOK 7e’s Delivery of Value perspective.
**Change control within documents**
Minor editorial changes (grammar, local rewrites for cohesion) may be executed by the compiler without prior approval. Substantive content changes (adding or removing required elements) are flagged with a comment and decided in Signal via quick voting. This aligns with the integration/change-control flow highlighted in the Unit 2 lecture: small changes can be handled informally; larger ones should be explicitly decided and traced.
**Referencing and traceability**
We will cite PMBOK 6e/7e and the Unit 2 materials directly in text and reference list. A simple trace table (kept in the Master’s appendix) maps the five required charter elements to the exact paragraphs where they are addressed. This brings the spirit of a requirements traceability matrix to a short paper, ensuring every requirement adds value and is verifiably covered.
**Formatting and polish**
Style is APA, 12-pt font, double spacing, and consistent headings. We avoid overuse of lists and hyphens to maintain flow and a professional tone, as requested by the instructor’s guidelines for quality and coherence.
**Risk controls for distributed work**
Time-zone and availability risks (Grey traveling; fourth member absent) are mitigated by the Monday noon Eastern internal deadline and a single compiler. If a section is not delivered by the internal deadline, the compiler drafts a placeholder to maintain flow, then tags the owner for edits within the verification window. This keeps us oriented to deliverables instead of activities, a distinction Davidson stresses when “laying out your plan.”
**## TeamCharterexample.docx**
**Team Charter: Grey, Timothy, and Spencer**
**Communication Plan**
Grey will be responsible for the Communication Plan. Our team will coordinate primarily through email and group chat to ensure rapid responses and accountability. Weekly virtual meetings will be held to track progress, clarify responsibilities, and discuss challenges. All updates and meeting notes will be stored in a shared document repository for transparency.
**Conflict Management Plan**
Grey will also be responsible for the Conflict Management Plan. In cases of conflict, the first step will be direct communication between the involved parties. If unresolved, the issue will be escalated to the team as a whole during scheduled meetings. For non-responsiveness, a reminder will be sent after one day, followed by escalation to the professor if no communication occurs within three days. Emergency situations will be accommodated by redistributing tasks.
**Document Management Plan**
Spencer will manage the Document Management Plan. All team documents will be stored in a central shared drive (e.g., Google Drive or OneDrive) with clearly labeled folders for drafts, finalized documents, and reference materials. Version control will be maintained by including dates in file names and only one person at a time making edits to avoid conflicts.
**Quality Plan**
Spencer will also oversee the Quality Plan. All documents and deliverables will undergo peer review by at least one other team member before submission. Formatting will follow APA guidelines, and a standardized template will be used to maintain consistency. Final review sessions will be conducted prior to submission to ensure accuracy, completeness, and professionalism.
**Roles & Responsibilities**
Timothy will lead the Roles & Responsibilities section. Work will be divided among the team to ensure balanced workload distribution. Grey will handle Communication and Conflict Management, Spencer will oversee Document Management and Quality, and Timothy will coordinate overall team responsibilities and finalize role assignments. A fictitious customer role will be assumed by one designated team member to provide realistic project dynamics, and this role will be rotated if necessary. Everything will be completed on or before 1 September 2025.
**Quality Plan**
**Purpose and quality objectives**
Our goal is to deliver a four-page Team Charter that is fit for purpose and meets stakeholder expectations: clear, complete, consistent, and aligned to the assignment brief. In PMBOK 7e terms, quality activities should both move the deliverable quickly to the point of delivery and prevent or catch defects early to avoid rework, while aligning with explicit acceptance criteria.
**Acceptance criteria and “Definition of Done”**
The assignment’s Quality Plan must ensure the final submission:
1. addresses all five required charter elements and fits within four double-spaced pages;
2. demonstrates high-level integration of PMBOK 6e Integration and Scope processes and PMBOK 7e principles;
3. uses consistent voice, APA citations, and polished mechanics; and
4. evidences a coherent team process (communication, conflict handling, roles).
We will operationalize these through a simple Definition of Done checklist that includes content coverage, style/format checks, and evidence that deliverables have been “verified” and then “accepted,” consistent with the path from Control Quality to Validate Scope and into Close Project or Phase.
**Standards and sources of truth**
Content must reflect the required readings: PMBOK 6e (Scope 5.1–5.6 at the appropriate high-level depth), PMBOK 7e Delivery Performance Domain (focus on value, deliverables, DoD), and the Team Charter instructions (Quality Plan and Document Management Plan expectations).
**Quality assurance (build quality in)**
Given our dispersed schedule (Grey in Japan/Philippines; Timothy in Tennessee; Spencer ramping up mid-week), we will design the workflow to surface issues early, reducing the cost of change. Each contributor drafts against the DoD by
**Monday 12:00 Eastern** (which is
**00:00 Tuesday PHT** and
**01:00 Tuesday JST**), enabling an early integrated review and defect prevention before we’re forced into costly late edits.
Practices:
•
**Calibrated outline** tied to the assignment rubric and readings before drafting (prevents scope and quality drift).
•
**Peer dialog** in Signal for ambiguities and edge cases; quick decisions reduce “done drift.”
**Quality control (verification and acceptance)**
We will use a two-gate approach:
•
**Gate 1 – Verification:** Monday consolidated draft is checked against the DoD, assignment guidelines, and references (content coverage, flow, APA, mechanics).
•
**Gate 2 – Acceptance:** A designated “customer” proxy performs a final acceptance read. This mirrors PMBOK’s flow from verified deliverables (Control Quality) to accepted deliverables (Validate Scope).
**Customer proxy:** Assign Spencer as the acceptance authority for this charter (he offered to take on larger sections and is assembling pieces). The instructor remains the ultimate customer; Spencer acts as our internal proxy for formal acceptance before submission. (This also satisfies the “customer role” requirement.)
**Metrics, thresholds, and escalation**
We will track three simple measures: a) completeness (all required elements present), b) conformance (APA/style/format), and c) coherence (logical flow across sections). Threshold: zero critical gaps; minor style issues acceptable if corrected by Tuesday morning. If Gate 1 uncovers material gaps, the section owner has a two-hour window to remediate; if not feasible, the compiler makes targeted edits. This satisfies the Quality Plan line items in the Team Charter Guidelines.
**Interface with Scope management**
Our quality controls reinforce scope discipline: we will
**Validate Scope** by comparing the assembled draft to the scope baseline implied by the charter instructions; any material scope change triggers a quick change decision in Signal (major change = consensus vote; minor edit = editor decision).
**Knowledge capture**
After submission, we log two lessons learned: one process improvement and one content insight, to seed the course repository. This aligns to Manage Project Knowledge in the weekly lecture.
**Document Management Plan**
**Repository and single source of truth**
We will use a shared Google Docs folder as the
**authoring** space and maintain a
**Master Charter** document as the single source of truth. Only the compiler edits the Master directly; contributors draft in their own files and paste into the Master during the integration window. This prevents collisions when “multiple team members contribute to the same document” and preserves integrity, per the Charter Guidelines.
**Access:** All teammates (Grey, Timothy, Spencer, plus the fourth member if they appear) have edit access; the compiler owns the folder and ensures backups.
**Communications:** Signal remains the rapid channel for coordination (already established in the thread). Meeting minutes, if any, are short and posted to the group space, as requested in the guidelines.
**Versioning and file naming**
Drafts use the pattern: Team#_Charter_<Section>_<Initials>_v0.1_YYYYMMDD-HHMM. The Master carries v1.0-Submitted upon finalization and is exported to PDF for submission. The version log sits at the top of the Master with date, editor, and a one-line change note. This lightweight configuration control mirrors PMBOK guidance to keep acceptance criteria and WBS-level attributes clear in the supporting “dictionary” for each deliverable segment.
**Contribution workflow and deadlines**
1.
**Drafting:** Each owner produces their section by
**Monday12:00 Eastern** (00:00 Tuesday PHT; 01:00 Tuesday JST).
2.
**Integration:** The compiler integrates from 12:00–16:00 Eastern and requests clarifications in Signal.
3.
**Gate 1 Verification:** 16:00–18:00 Eastern.
4.
**Gate 2 Acceptance:** 18:00–20:00 Eastern by the customer proxy.
5.
**Submission package:** Tuesday morning Eastern.
This cadence emphasizes early value and interim deliverables, consistent with PMBOK 7e’s Delivery of Value perspective.
**Change control within documents**
Minor editorial changes (grammar, local rewrites for cohesion) may be executed by the compiler without prior approval. Substantive content changes (adding or removing required elements) are flagged with a comment and decided in Signal via quick voting. This aligns with the integration/change-control flow highlighted in the Unit 2 lecture: small changes can be handled informally; larger ones should be explicitly decided and traced.
**Referencing and traceability**
We will cite PMBOK 6e/7e and the Unit 2 materials directly in text and reference list. A simple trace table (kept in the Master’s appendix) maps the five required charter elements to the exact paragraphs where they are addressed. This brings the spirit of a requirements traceability matrix to a short paper, ensuring every requirement adds value and is verifiably covered.
**Formatting and polish**
Style is APA, 12-pt font, double spacing, and consistent headings. We avoid overuse of lists and hyphens to maintain flow and a professional tone, as requested by the instructor’s guidelines for quality and coherence.
**Risk controls for distributed work**
Time-zone and availability risks (Grey traveling; fourth member absent) are mitigated by the Monday noon Eastern internal deadline and a single compiler. If a section is not delivered by the internal deadline, the compiler drafts a placeholder to maintain flow, then tags the owner for edits within the verification window. This keeps us oriented to deliverables instead of activities, a distinction Davidson stresses when “laying out your plan.”
**## GizmotronsProductRolloutcopy.docx**
**DELIVERABLE**
This deliverable requires you to create a project charter, a WBS in pictorial inverted-
tree format, and an MS Project file for the project.
The WBS pictorial can be put together using any software you wish. One easy way to do this is
to use the MS Excel org chart template. Stormboard (which currently has a free subscription),
Visio, MS PowerPoint, etc. are other tools you may wish to consider. A neat and
**very legible**
hand-drawn version is also acceptable.
Your Microsoft Project file must clearly reflect the structure of your WBS inverted-tree pictorial,
should show all activities under each work package, their duration, and their dependencies
(predecessors), as well as clearly show the critical path (or paths) colored in RED. In addition,
add a column to your MS Project file labeled "OWNER" and place in it, for each activity, the
name of the team member who identified that activity and provided and verified correctness of
the duration and predecessors of that activity.
**Gizmotron’s Product Rollout**
The selected project should bring out real-world consideration and challenges, so it should not be too simple or trivial. Here are basic assignment requirements which will ensure that your project is not too easy or too challenging:
Make sure that there are three or four main deliverables (first level of WBS)
Have between 10 to 16 work packages (“leaves” of the WBS)
Have between 25 to 40 activities
The activities should have a reasonable amount of concurrency, meaning that it should be
possible to perform some of them in parallel.
Gizmotron’s Product Rollout
Note: The information in the project description below provides most but not all information that you will need to develop reasonably sound scope, schedule, and cost baselines for the product rollout project. There are some deliberate minor gaps in the information that will require you to use some common sense and judgment, even some plausible intuition/guesswork in a very few cases. Seldom will youencounter real life projects that are detailed to 100% accuracy and perfection, so this project is intended
to demonstrate that there is some room for judgment, flexibility, reasonable assumptions, and common
sense in project management, as opposed to investing unreasonable amounts of time and effort in
striving for complete perfection and accuracy (which are usually not attainable anyway!). Hence, there is
no one right “solution” here. Different teams could come up with slightly different scope, schedule, and
cost baselines. When you work through this assignment as a team, do not waste time quibbling over infinitesimal details. Strive for a “roughly right” but logically and practically sound approach which you can defend if you need to.
Gizmotron is rolling out a new product in several metropolitan areas in the US. For the purposes of this assignment, let us restrict our attention to the Chicago area. An extensive marketing campaign is being planned in eight Chicagoland suburbs. For the purposes of this assignment, you may group the campaigns for the eight suburbs, so there is just one Chicagoland campaign as opposed to eight separate ones.
The Chicagoland marketing campaign comprises three major efforts, which are distinct but interrelated, meaning that there are dependencies between activities in the three efforts: Publicity, events, and sales/marketing. Here is a brief description of each of the three efforts:
1. Publicity: News of the event needs to be disseminated. This will be done via mailings (of a
brochure) and media (radio and TV ads). Mailings require graphics design, developing a
brochure (based on the graphics design and content provided by the sales/marketing effort),
and a two-part mailing campaign: paper-mail as well as e-mail. The paper-mail campaign is to
occur a week after the email campaign has ended (because the email campaign will generate
some leads on who should be targeted in the paper-mail campaign). The media component has
two aspects: radio ads and TV ads, each of which requires scripting and slotting (when to run the
ads). Some details associated with the various activities are:
a. Graphics design is based on “intelligence” provided by the sales/marketing effort that provides
the graphics design team a draft proposal of the key types of messages to include and also some
content to back-up those messages. (The graphics design team may further refine the content.)
Graphics design takes 8 business days (after the draft proposal has been received). Its total cost is
approximately $5,000.2. 3.
b. The brochure takes 4 business days (after graphics design is completed) to finalize and the cost is
about $2,000
c. The e-mail campaign commences right after the brochure is ready and takes 1 business day (cost
$6,000). A week after the email campaign ends, the paper-mail campaign commences and lasts 3
business days (cost $5,000).
d. Scripting for the radio and TV ads take 3 business days and 7 business days (respectively), costs
being $2,000 and $5,000 (respectively). The scripting is also based on the draft proposal from
sales/marketing. The slotting effort for the radio and TV ads takes 2 business days each (at a cost
of $1,000 each). The radio ad slotting uses a radio listener report done by the sales/marketing
team, and the TV ad slotting uses a TV watchers report, also done by the sales/marketing team.
The radio and TV ads run over a period of 10 business days, commencing immediately after
slotting has been finalized.
Events: The events effort comprises venue identification and setup, catering, and agenda
finalization (speakers, entertainment, giveaways, etc.). Venue identification and setup as well as
catering are contracted out to companies who can be trusted to complete on time and budget.
Venue identification takes 5 business days (cost $2,000 for eight venues) and must be
completed before the brochures are finalized (simply because the addresses are needed for the
brochures). Venue setup is the act of determining how much space to rent at the venue, how
the space will be organized, etc. This cannot be started until after the mailing campaigns (paper
and email), radio and TV ads have run (because campaign statistics/viewership is used to
estimate event attendance). Venue setup (for all 8 venues) takes 6 business days and costs
$5,000.
Catering cannot be started until after the mailing campaigns (paper and email), radio and TV ads
have run, and (for all 8 venues) takes 6 business days to finalize, with catering costs dependent
on projected attendance. From historical data, catering costs are estimated to average $4,000
per venue.
Agenda finalization requires contracting (for speakers, entertainment, etc.) and product
promotion planning (displaying, demonstrating, giveaways, etc. of products). The contracting
and promotion planning are both dependent on projected attendance. Contracting (for all 8
venues) takes 6 business days and the total costs are anticipated to be around $60,000 (which
includes speaker fees). Total promotion planning duration is 10 business days (cost $35,000,
which includes product giveaways).
Sales/marketing: This effort comprises (market) message development, marketing analysis,
surveys, and legal approval. Message development is broken into two parts: draft proposal development (5 business days, $5000) and executive approval (2 business days, $1,000). The message development does not start until after the surveys are completed. The survey effort comprises focus groups (10 business days, $15,000) and web surveys (4 business days, $6,000). Marketing analysis includes development of a radio listener report and a TV watchers report, each of which takes 3 days and costs $2,000. The surveying effort requires legal approval (2 days, $1,000 for each approval) prior to conducting focus groups and web surveys, and the draft proposal requires legal approval after it is developed (and before it is released to the
promotions team).
**## TeamCharterexample.docx**
**Team Charter: Grey, Timothy, and Spencer**
**Communication Plan**
Grey will be responsible for the Communication Plan. Our team will coordinate primarily through email and group chat to ensure rapid responses and accountability. Weekly virtual meetings will be held to track progress, clarify responsibilities, and discuss challenges. All updates and meeting notes will be stored in a shared document repository for transparency.
**Conflict Management Plan**
Grey will also be responsible for the Conflict Management Plan. In cases of conflict, the first step will be direct communication between the involved parties. If unresolved, the issue will be escalated to the team as a whole during scheduled meetings. For non-responsiveness, a reminder will be sent after one day, followed by escalation to the professor if no communication occurs within three days. Emergency situations will be accommodated by redistributing tasks.
**Document Management Plan**
Spencer will manage the Document Management Plan. All team documents will be stored in a central shared drive (e.g., Google Drive or OneDrive) with clearly labeled folders for drafts, finalized documents, and reference materials. Version control will be maintained by including dates in file names and only one person at a time making edits to avoid conflicts.
**Quality Plan**
Spencer will also oversee the Quality Plan. All documents and deliverables will undergo peer review by at least one other team member before submission. Formatting will follow APA guidelines, and a standardized template will be used to maintain consistency. Final review sessions will be conducted prior to submission to ensure accuracy, completeness, and professionalism.
**Roles & Responsibilities**
Timothy will lead the Roles & Responsibilities section. Work will be divided among the team to ensure balanced workload distribution. Grey will handle Communication and Conflict Management, Spencer will oversee Document Management and Quality, and Timothy will coordinate overall team responsibilities and finalize role assignments. A fictitious customer role will be assumed by one designated team member to provide realistic project dynamics, and this role will be rotated if necessary. Everything will be completed on or before 1 September 2025.
**Quality Plan**
**Purpose and quality objectives**
Our goal is to deliver a four-page Team Charter that is fit for purpose and meets stakeholder expectations: clear, complete, consistent, and aligned to the assignment brief. In PMBOK 7e terms, quality activities should both move the deliverable quickly to the point of delivery and prevent or catch defects early to avoid rework, while aligning with explicit acceptance criteria.
**Acceptance criteria and “Definition of Done”**
The assignment’s Quality Plan must ensure the final submission:
1. addresses all five required charter elements and fits within four double-spaced pages;
2. demonstrates high-level integration of PMBOK 6e Integration and Scope processes and PMBOK 7e principles;
3. uses consistent voice, APA citations, and polished mechanics; and
4. evidences a coherent team process (communication, conflict handling, roles).
We will operationalize these through a simple Definition of Done checklist that includes content coverage, style/format checks, and evidence that deliverables have been “verified” and then “accepted,” consistent with the path from Control Quality to Validate Scope and into Close Project or Phase.
**Standards and sources of truth**
Content must reflect the required readings: PMBOK 6e (Scope 5.1–5.6 at the appropriate high-level depth), PMBOK 7e Delivery Performance Domain (focus on value, deliverables, DoD), and the Team Charter instructions (Quality Plan and Document Management Plan expectations).
**Quality assurance (build quality in)**
Given our dispersed schedule (Grey in Japan/Philippines; Timothy in Tennessee; Spencer ramping up mid-week), we will design the workflow to surface issues early, reducing the cost of change. Each contributor drafts against the DoD by
**Monday 12:00 Eastern** (which is
**00:00 Tuesday PHT** and
**01:00 Tuesday JST**), enabling an early integrated review and defect prevention before we’re forced into costly late edits.
Practices:
•
**Calibrated outline** tied to the assignment rubric and readings before drafting (prevents scope and quality drift).
•
**Peer dialog** in Signal for ambiguities and edge cases; quick decisions reduce “done drift.”
**Quality control (verification and acceptance)**
We will use a two-gate approach:
•
**Gate 1 – Verification:** Monday consolidated draft is checked against the DoD, assignment guidelines, and references (content coverage, flow, APA, mechanics).
•
**Gate 2 – Acceptance:** A designated “customer” proxy performs a final acceptance read. This mirrors PMBOK’s flow from verified deliverables (Control Quality) to accepted deliverables (Validate Scope).
**Customer proxy:** Assign Spencer as the acceptance authority for this charter (he offered to take on larger sections and is assembling pieces). The instructor remains the ultimate customer; Spencer acts as our internal proxy for formal acceptance before submission. (This also satisfies the “customer role” requirement.)
**Metrics, thresholds, and escalation**
We will track three simple measures: a) completeness (all required elements present), b) conformance (APA/style/format), and c) coherence (logical flow across sections). Threshold: zero critical gaps; minor style issues acceptable if corrected by Tuesday morning. If Gate 1 uncovers material gaps, the section owner has a two-hour window to remediate; if not feasible, the compiler makes targeted edits. This satisfies the Quality Plan line items in the Team Charter Guidelines.
**Interface with Scope management**
Our quality controls reinforce scope discipline: we will
**Validate Scope** by comparing the assembled draft to the scope baseline implied by the charter instructions; any material scope change triggers a quick change decision in Signal (major change = consensus vote; minor edit = editor decision).
**Knowledge capture**
After submission, we log two lessons learned: one process improvement and one content insight, to seed the course repository. This aligns to Manage Project Knowledge in the weekly lecture.
**Document Management Plan**
**Repository and single source of truth**
We will use a shared Google Docs folder as the
**authoring** space and maintain a
**Master Charter** document as the single source of truth. Only the compiler edits the Master directly; contributors draft in their own files and paste into the Master during the integration window. This prevents collisions when “multiple team members contribute to the same document” and preserves integrity, per the Charter Guidelines.
**Access:** All teammates (Grey, Timothy, Spencer, plus the fourth member if they appear) have edit access; the compiler owns the folder and ensures backups.
**Communications:** Signal remains the rapid channel for coordination (already established in the thread). Meeting minutes, if any, are short and posted to the group space, as requested in the guidelines.
**Versioning and file naming**
Drafts use the pattern: Team#_Charter_<Section>_<Initials>_v0.1_YYYYMMDD-HHMM. The Master carries v1.0-Submitted upon finalization and is exported to PDF for submission. The version log sits at the top of the Master with date, editor, and a one-line change note. This lightweight configuration control mirrors PMBOK guidance to keep acceptance criteria and WBS-level attributes clear in the supporting “dictionary” for each deliverable segment.
**Contribution workflow and deadlines**
1.
**Drafting:** Each owner produces their section by
**Monday12:00 Eastern** (00:00 Tuesday PHT; 01:00 Tuesday JST).
2.
**Integration:** The compiler integrates from 12:00–16:00 Eastern and requests clarifications in Signal.
3.
**Gate 1 Verification:** 16:00–18:00 Eastern.
4.
**Gate 2 Acceptance:** 18:00–20:00 Eastern by the customer proxy.
5.
**Submission package:** Tuesday morning Eastern.
This cadence emphasizes early value and interim deliverables, consistent with PMBOK 7e’s Delivery of Value perspective.
**Change control within documents**
Minor editorial changes (grammar, local rewrites for cohesion) may be executed by the compiler without prior approval. Substantive content changes (adding or removing required elements) are flagged with a comment and decided in Signal via quick voting. This aligns with the integration/change-control flow highlighted in the Unit 2 lecture: small changes can be handled informally; larger ones should be explicitly decided and traced.
**Referencing and traceability**
We will cite PMBOK 6e/7e and the Unit 2 materials directly in text and reference list. A simple trace table (kept in the Master’s appendix) maps the five required charter elements to the exact paragraphs where they are addressed. This brings the spirit of a requirements traceability matrix to a short paper, ensuring every requirement adds value and is verifiably covered.
**Formatting and polish**
Style is APA, 12-pt font, double spacing, and consistent headings. We avoid overuse of lists and hyphens to maintain flow and a professional tone, as requested by the instructor’s guidelines for quality and coherence.
**Risk controls for distributed work**
Time-zone and availability risks (Grey traveling; fourth member absent) are mitigated by the Monday noon Eastern internal deadline and a single compiler. If a section is not delivered by the internal deadline, the compiler drafts a placeholder to maintain flow, then tags the owner for edits within the verification window. This keeps us oriented to deliverables instead of activities, a distinction Davidson stresses when “laying out your plan.”
**## GizmotronsProductRolloutcopy.docx**
**DELIVERABLE**
This deliverable requires you to create a project charter, a WBS in pictorial inverted-
tree format, and an MS Project file for the project.
The WBS pictorial can be put together using any software you wish. One easy way to do this is
to use the MS Excel org chart template. Stormboard (which currently has a free subscription),
Visio, MS PowerPoint, etc. are other tools you may wish to consider. A neat and
**very legible**
hand-drawn version is also acceptable.
Your Microsoft Project file must clearly reflect the structure of your WBS inverted-tree pictorial,
should show all activities under each work package, their duration, and their dependencies
(predecessors), as well as clearly show the critical path (or paths) colored in RED. In addition,
add a column to your MS Project file labeled "OWNER" and place in it, for each activity, the
name of the team member who identified that activity and provided and verified correctness of
the duration and predecessors of that activity.
**Gizmotron’s Product Rollout**
The selected project should bring out real-world consideration and challenges, so it should not be too simple or trivial. Here are basic assignment requirements which will ensure that your project is not too easy or too challenging:
Make sure that there are three or four main deliverables (first level of WBS)
Have between 10 to 16 work packages (“leaves” of the WBS)
Have between 25 to 40 activities
The activities should have a reasonable amount of concurrency, meaning that it should be
possible to perform some of them in parallel.
Gizmotron’s Product Rollout
Note: The information in the project description below provides most but not all information that you will need to develop reasonably sound scope, schedule, and cost baselines for the product rollout project. There are some deliberate minor gaps in the information that will require you to use some common sense and judgment, even some plausible intuition/guesswork in a very few cases. Seldom will youencounter real life projects that are detailed to 100% accuracy and perfection, so this project is intended
to demonstrate that there is some room for judgment, flexibility, reasonable assumptions, and common
sense in project management, as opposed to investing unreasonable amounts of time and effort in
striving for complete perfection and accuracy (which are usually not attainable anyway!). Hence, there is
no one right “solution” here. Different teams could come up with slightly different scope, schedule, and
cost baselines. When you work through this assignment as a team, do not waste time quibbling over infinitesimal details. Strive for a “roughly right” but logically and practically sound approach which you can defend if you need to.
Gizmotron is rolling out a new product in several metropolitan areas in the US. For the purposes of this assignment, let us restrict our attention to the Chicago area. An extensive marketing campaign is being planned in eight Chicagoland suburbs. For the purposes of this assignment, you may group the campaigns for the eight suburbs, so there is just one Chicagoland campaign as opposed to eight separate ones.
The Chicagoland marketing campaign comprises three major efforts, which are distinct but interrelated, meaning that there are dependencies between activities in the three efforts: Publicity, events, and sales/marketing. Here is a brief description of each of the three efforts:
1. Publicity: News of the event needs to be disseminated. This will be done via mailings (of a
brochure) and media (radio and TV ads). Mailings require graphics design, developing a
brochure (based on the graphics design and content provided by the sales/marketing effort),
and a two-part mailing campaign: paper-mail as well as e-mail. The paper-mail campaign is to
occur a week after the email campaign has ended (because the email campaign will generate
some leads on who should be targeted in the paper-mail campaign). The media component has
two aspects: radio ads and TV ads, each of which requires scripting and slotting (when to run the
ads). Some details associated with the various activities are:
a. Graphics design is based on “intelligence” provided by the sales/marketing effort that provides
the graphics design team a draft proposal of the key types of messages to include and also some
content to back-up those messages. (The graphics design team may further refine the content.)
Graphics design takes 8 business days (after the draft proposal has been received). Its total cost is
approximately $5,000.2. 3.
b. The brochure takes 4 business days (after graphics design is completed) to finalize and the cost is
about $2,000
c. The e-mail campaign commences right after the brochure is ready and takes 1 business day (cost
$6,000). A week after the email campaign ends, the paper-mail campaign commences and lasts 3
business days (cost $5,000).
d. Scripting for the radio and TV ads take 3 business days and 7 business days (respectively), costs
being $2,000 and $5,000 (respectively). The scripting is also based on the draft proposal from
sales/marketing. The slotting effort for the radio and TV ads takes 2 business days each (at a cost
of $1,000 each). The radio ad slotting uses a radio listener report done by the sales/marketing
team, and the TV ad slotting uses a TV watchers report, also done by the sales/marketing team.
The radio and TV ads run over a period of 10 business days, commencing immediately after
slotting has been finalized.
Events: The events effort comprises venue identification and setup, catering, and agenda
finalization (speakers, entertainment, giveaways, etc.). Venue identification and setup as well as
catering are contracted out to companies who can be trusted to complete on time and budget.
Venue identification takes 5 business days (cost $2,000 for eight venues) and must be
completed before the brochures are finalized (simply because the addresses are needed for the
brochures). Venue setup is the act of determining how much space to rent at the venue, how
the space will be organized, etc. This cannot be started until after the mailing campaigns (paper
and email), radio and TV ads have run (because campaign statistics/viewership is used to
estimate event attendance). Venue setup (for all 8 venues) takes 6 business days and costs
$5,000.
Catering cannot be started until after the mailing campaigns (paper and email), radio and TV ads
have run, and (for all 8 venues) takes 6 business days to finalize, with catering costs dependent
on projected attendance. From historical data, catering costs are estimated to average $4,000
per venue.
Agenda finalization requires contracting (for speakers, entertainment, etc.) and product
promotion planning (displaying, demonstrating, giveaways, etc. of products). The contracting
and promotion planning are both dependent on projected attendance. Contracting (for all 8
venues) takes 6 business days and the total costs are anticipated to be around $60,000 (which
includes speaker fees). Total promotion planning duration is 10 business days (cost $35,000,
which includes product giveaways).
Sales/marketing: This effort comprises (market) message development, marketing analysis,
surveys, and legal approval. Message development is broken into two parts: draft proposal development (5 business days, $5000) and executive approval (2 business days, $1,000). The message development does not start until after the surveys are completed. The survey effort comprises focus groups (10 business days, $15,000) and web surveys (4 business days, $6,000). Marketing analysis includes development of a radio listener report and a TV watchers report, each of which takes 3 days and costs $2,000. The surveying effort requires legal approval (2 days, $1,000 for each approval) prior to conducting focus groups and web surveys, and the draft proposal requires legal approval after it is developed (and before it is released to the
promotions team).
**## TeamCharterexample.docx**
**Team Charter: Grey, Timothy, and Spencer**
**Communication Plan**
Grey will be responsible for the Communication Plan. Our team will coordinate primarily through email and group chat to ensure rapid responses and accountability. Weekly virtual meetings will be held to track progress, clarify responsibilities, and discuss challenges. All updates and meeting notes will be stored in a shared document repository for transparency.
**Conflict Management Plan**
Grey will also be responsible for the Conflict Management Plan. In cases of conflict, the first step will be direct communication between the involved parties. If unresolved, the issue will be escalated to the team as a whole during scheduled meetings. For non-responsiveness, a reminder will be sent after one day, followed by escalation to the professor if no communication occurs within three days. Emergency situations will be accommodated by redistributing tasks.
**Document Management Plan**
Spencer will manage the Document Management Plan. All team documents will be stored in a central shared drive (e.g., Google Drive or OneDrive) with clearly labeled folders for drafts, finalized documents, and reference materials. Version control will be maintained by including dates in file names and only one person at a time making edits to avoid conflicts.
**Quality Plan**
Spencer will also oversee the Quality Plan. All documents and deliverables will undergo peer review by at least one other team member before submission. Formatting will follow APA guidelines, and a standardized template will be used to maintain consistency. Final review sessions will be conducted prior to submission to ensure accuracy, completeness, and professionalism.
**Roles & Responsibilities**
Timothy will lead the Roles & Responsibilities section. Work will be divided among the team to ensure balanced workload distribution. Grey will handle Communication and Conflict Management, Spencer will oversee Document Management and Quality, and Timothy will coordinate overall team responsibilities and finalize role assignments. A fictitious customer role will be assumed by one designated team member to provide realistic project dynamics, and this role will be rotated if necessary. Everything will be completed on or before 1 September 2025.
**Quality Plan**
**Purpose and quality objectives**
Our goal is to deliver a four-page Team Charter that is fit for purpose and meets stakeholder expectations: clear, complete, consistent, and aligned to the assignment brief. In PMBOK 7e terms, quality activities should both move the deliverable quickly to the point of delivery and prevent or catch defects early to avoid rework, while aligning with explicit acceptance criteria.
**Acceptance criteria and “Definition of Done”**
The assignment’s Quality Plan must ensure the final submission:
1. addresses all five required charter elements and fits within four double-spaced pages;
2. demonstrates high-level integration of PMBOK 6e Integration and Scope processes and PMBOK 7e principles;
3. uses consistent voice, APA citations, and polished mechanics; and
4. evidences a coherent team process (communication, conflict handling, roles).
We will operationalize these through a simple Definition of Done checklist that includes content coverage, style/format checks, and evidence that deliverables have been “verified” and then “accepted,” consistent with the path from Control Quality to Validate Scope and into Close Project or Phase.
**Standards and sources of truth**
Content must reflect the required readings: PMBOK 6e (Scope 5.1–5.6 at the appropriate high-level depth), PMBOK 7e Delivery Performance Domain (focus on value, deliverables, DoD), and the Team Charter instructions (Quality Plan and Document Management Plan expectations).
**Quality assurance (build quality in)**
Given our dispersed schedule (Grey in Japan/Philippines; Timothy in Tennessee; Spencer ramping up mid-week), we will design the workflow to surface issues early, reducing the cost of change. Each contributor drafts against the DoD by
**Monday 12:00 Eastern** (which is
**00:00 Tuesday PHT** and
**01:00 Tuesday JST**), enabling an early integrated review and defect prevention before we’re forced into costly late edits.
Practices:
•
**Calibrated outline** tied to the assignment rubric and readings before drafting (prevents scope and quality drift).
•
**Peer dialog** in Signal for ambiguities and edge cases; quick decisions reduce “done drift.”
**Quality control (verification and acceptance)**
We will use a two-gate approach:
•
**Gate 1 – Verification:** Monday consolidated draft is checked against the DoD, assignment guidelines, and references (content coverage, flow, APA, mechanics).
•
**Gate 2 – Acceptance:** A designated “customer” proxy performs a final acceptance read. This mirrors PMBOK’s flow from verified deliverables (Control Quality) to accepted deliverables (Validate Scope).
**Customer proxy:** Assign Spencer as the acceptance authority for this charter (he offered to take on larger sections and is assembling pieces). The instructor remains the ultimate customer; Spencer acts as our internal proxy for formal acceptance before submission. (This also satisfies the “customer role” requirement.)
**Metrics, thresholds, and escalation**
We will track three simple measures: a) completeness (all required elements present), b) conformance (APA/style/format), and c) coherence (logical flow across sections). Threshold: zero critical gaps; minor style issues acceptable if corrected by Tuesday morning. If Gate 1 uncovers material gaps, the section owner has a two-hour window to remediate; if not feasible, the compiler makes targeted edits. This satisfies the Quality Plan line items in the Team Charter Guidelines.
**Interface with Scope management**
Our quality controls reinforce scope discipline: we will
**Validate Scope** by comparing the assembled draft to the scope baseline implied by the charter instructions; any material scope change triggers a quick change decision in Signal (major change = consensus vote; minor edit = editor decision).
**Knowledge capture**
After submission, we log two lessons learned: one process improvement and one content insight, to seed the course repository. This aligns to Manage Project Knowledge in the weekly lecture.
**Document Management Plan**
**Repository and single source of truth**
We will use a shared Google Docs folder as the
**authoring** space and maintain a
**Master Charter** document as the single source of truth. Only the compiler edits the Master directly; contributors draft in their own files and paste into the Master during the integration window. This prevents collisions when “multiple team members contribute to the same document” and preserves integrity, per the Charter Guidelines.
**Access:** All teammates (Grey, Timothy, Spencer, plus the fourth member if they appear) have edit access; the compiler owns the folder and ensures backups.
**Communications:** Signal remains the rapid channel for coordination (already established in the thread). Meeting minutes, if any, are short and posted to the group space, as requested in the guidelines.
**Versioning and file naming**
Drafts use the pattern: Team#_Charter_<Section>_<Initials>_v0.1_YYYYMMDD-HHMM. The Master carries v1.0-Submitted upon finalization and is exported to PDF for submission. The version log sits at the top of the Master with date, editor, and a one-line change note. This lightweight configuration control mirrors PMBOK guidance to keep acceptance criteria and WBS-level attributes clear in the supporting “dictionary” for each deliverable segment.
**Contribution workflow and deadlines**
1.
**Drafting:** Each owner produces their section by
**Monday12:00 Eastern** (00:00 Tuesday PHT; 01:00 Tuesday JST).
2.
**Integration:** The compiler integrates from 12:00–16:00 Eastern and requests clarifications in Signal.
3.
**Gate 1 Verification:** 16:00–18:00 Eastern.
4.
**Gate 2 Acceptance:** 18:00–20:00 Eastern by the customer proxy.
5.
**Submission package:** Tuesday morning Eastern.
This cadence emphasizes early value and interim deliverables, consistent with PMBOK 7e’s Delivery of Value perspective.
**Change control within documents**
Minor editorial changes (grammar, local rewrites for cohesion) may be executed by the compiler without prior approval. Substantive content changes (adding or removing required elements) are flagged with a comment and decided in Signal via quick voting. This aligns with the integration/change-control flow highlighted in the Unit 2 lecture: small changes can be handled informally; larger ones should be explicitly decided and traced.
**Referencing and traceability**
We will cite PMBOK 6e/7e and the Unit 2 materials directly in text and reference list. A simple trace table (kept in the Master’s appendix) maps the five required charter elements to the exact paragraphs where they are addressed. This brings the spirit of a requirements traceability matrix to a short paper, ensuring every requirement adds value and is verifiably covered.
**Formatting and polish**
Style is APA, 12-pt font, double spacing, and consistent headings. We avoid overuse of lists and hyphens to maintain flow and a professional tone, as requested by the instructor’s guidelines for quality and coherence.
**Risk controls for distributed work**
Time-zone and availability risks (Grey traveling; fourth member absent) are mitigated by the Monday noon Eastern internal deadline and a single compiler. If a section is not delivered by the internal deadline, the compiler drafts a placeholder to maintain flow, then tags the owner for edits within the verification window. This keeps us oriented to deliverables instead of activities, a distinction Davidson stresses when “laying out your plan.”
– 1
– 2