Project 2 Desktop Migration Proposal Assignment | University of Maryland Global Campus
Looking for Plagiarism free Answers for your US, UK, Singapore college/ university Assignments.
| University | University of Maryland Global Campus (UMGC) |
| Subject | Project 2 Desktop Migration Proposal |
Project 2: Desktop Migration Proposal
Hide Assignment Information
Instructions
This week, you will submit the second project, the Desktop Migration Proposal. Using the requirements analysis your manager provided and the Internet research you conducted, submit your recommendation to the assignment folder. As you are writing your recommendation, ensure your analysis and recommendations align with your manager’s priorities and concerns.
You should carefully document any assumptions made (e.g., how you analyzed the requirement for upgrading monitors, peripherals devices, etc.).
Refer to the HFA Desktop Migration: Corporate PC Refresh Documentation for the company’s needs (requirements). Your justification should clearly indicate how you bridge the gap between the existing desktop specifications and the new machines you recommend.
How Will My Work Be Evaluated?
For this assignment, you are asked by your manager to research the replacement of 50 aging desktop machines with new laptops. Review the business needs from your manager carefully so that you fully appreciate the requirements you must address in selecting the new laptops.
For example, what is significant about the need for “multiple external monitors”? Ask yourself what it takes to connect a laptop to external monitors. What ports are included on your recommended laptop? What kind of cables are required? Can those ports/cables be used with the external monitors? Does the laptop have sufficient graphics capabilities to drive external displays and if so, how many and at what resolution? Follow this same process for all the business needs.
By documenting your choices and the overall recommendation in an effective background report, you are showing how you use your technical knowledge to convey your ideas to others in a professional setting. Your ability to express your findings using the right mix of technical detail in a business context is an important workplace skill.
The following evaluation criteria aligned to the competencies will be used to grade your assignment:
1.1.3: Present ideas in a clear, logical order appropriate to the task.
1.2.3: Explain specialized terms or concepts to facilitate audience comprehension.
1.4.3: Write concise and logical sentences in standard academic English that clarify relationships among concepts and ideas.
2.1.2: Describe the context surrounding the issue or problem.
2.3.3: Explain inferences and deductions that follow logically from the evidence provided.
10.1.3: Define the specifications of required technologies.
13.1.1: Create documentation appropriate to the stakeholder.
13.2.1: Evaluate vendor recommendations in the context of organization requirements.
This project is a three- to four-page business-oriented proposal should contain the following:
- at least one high-quality graphic
- one or more tables to present information
- at least one online configurator
- your purchase recommendations, specifications, and justification for your choice
- one to two IEEE references
If you didn’t download it last week, download the Desktop Migration Proposal Resources now and follow the instructions in the document.
Delete the instructional text from the template before you submit.
When you are finished, click “add a file” to upload your work, then click the Submit button.
Rubric Project 2: Desktop Migration Proposal
| Evaluation Criteria | Exceeds Performance Requirements 100% | Meets Performance Requirements 85% | Approaches Performance Requirements 75% | Does Not Meet Performance Requirements 0% | Criterion Score |
| 1.1.3: Present ideas in a clear, logical order appropriate to the task. | 8 points
Presents a logical flow of ideas that is easily identifiable and completely appropriate to the task. |
6.8 points
Presents ideas in a clear, logical order appropriate to the task. |
6 points
Attempts to present ideas, but the logic is not clear and/or not appropriate to the task. |
0 points
Does not present ideas in a clear, logical order appropriate to the task. |
Score of 1.1.3: Present ideas in a clear, logical order appropriate to the task.,
/ 8 |
| 1.2.3: Explain specialized terms or concepts to facilitate audience comprehension. | 8 points
Explains specialized terms or concepts thoroughly and accurately to facilitate and enhance audience comprehension. |
6.8 points
Explains specialized terms or concepts to facilitate audience comprehension. |
6 points
Attempts to explain specialized terms or concepts, but there are problems with accuracy of explanation, or the explanation doesn’t enhance audience comprehension. |
0 points
Does not explain specialized terms or concepts as needed. |
Score of 1.2.3: Explain specialized terms or concepts to facilitate audience comprehension.,
/ 8 |
| 1.4.3: Write concise and logical sentences in standard academic English that clarify relationships among concepts and ideas. | 8 points
Writes concise and logical sentences in flawless standard academic English that leave no doubt as to the relationships among concepts and ideas. |
6.8 points
Writes concise and logical sentences in standard academic English that clarify relationships among concepts and ideas. |
6 points
Attempts to write concise and logical sentences in standard academic English, but issues with concision and/or clarity inhibit understanding of the relationships among concepts and ideas. |
0 points
Does not write concise and logical sentences in standard academic English, and lapses in logic and sentence structure make it impossible to see relationships between concepts and ideas. |
Score of 1.4.3: Write concise and logical sentences in standard academic English that clarify relationships among concepts and ideas.,
/ 8 |
| 2.1.2: Describe the context surrounding the issue or problem. | 8 points
Describes the context surrounding the issue or problem clearly and accurately. |
6.8 points
Describes the context surrounding the issue or problem. |
6 points
Attempts to describe the context surrounding the issue or problem. |
0 points
Does not describe the context surrounding the issue or problem. |
Score of 2.1.2: Describe the context surrounding the issue or problem.,
/ 8 |
| 2.3.3: Explain inferences and deductions that follow logically from the evidence provided. | 8 points
Explains clearly the inferences and deductions that follow logically from the evidence provided. |
6.8 points
Explains inferences and deductions that follow logically from the evidence provided. |
6 points
Attempts to explain inferences and deductions, but the explanation is not clear or the inferences do not follow logically from the evidence provided. |
0 points
Does not explain inferences and deductions that follow logically from the evidence provided. |
Score of 2.3.3: Explain inferences and deductions that follow logically from the evidence provided.,
/ 8 |
| 10.1.3: Define the specifications of required technologies. | 20 points
Defines thoroughly and clearly the specifications of required technologies. |
17 points
Defines the specifications of required technologies. |
15 points
Attempts to define the specifications of required technologies, but there are gaps and/or lack of clarity. |
0 points
Does not define the specifications of required technologies. |
Score of 10.1.3: Define the specifications of required technologies.,
/ 20 |
| 13.1.1: Create documentation appropriate to the stakeholder. | 20 points
Creates thorough and accurate IT documentation that exceeds requirements. |
17 points
Creates IT documentation that meets requirements. |
15 points
Creates IT documentation that lacks detail and/or does not fully meet requirements. |
0 points
Does not create appropriate IT documentation. |
Score of 13.1.1: Create documentation appropriate to the stakeholder.,
/ 20 |
| 13.2.1: Evaluate vendor recommendations in the context of organization requirements. | 20 points
Evaluate and provides detailed justification for vendor recommendations in the context of organization requirements. |
17 points
Evaluates vendor recommendations in the context of organization requirements. |
15 points
Attempts to evaluate vendor recommendations in the context of organization requirements, but some recommendations lack detail or do not consider context. |
0 points
Does not evaluate vendor recommendations in the context of organization requirements |
Score of 13.2.1: Evaluate vendor recommendations in the context of organization requirements.,
/ 20 |
Total Score of Project 2: Desktop Migration Proposal, / 100
Overall Score
Exceeds
90 points minimum
Meets
80 points minimum
Approaches
70 points minimum
Does Not Meet
0 points minimum
Associated Learning Objectives
1.1.3: Present ideas in a clear, logical order appropriate to the task.
Assessment Method: Score on Criteria – 1.1.3: Present ideas in a clear, logical order appropriate to the task.
Required Performance: Meets Performance Requirements 85%
1.2.3: Explain specialized terms or concepts to facilitate audience comprehension.
Assessment Method: Score on Criteria – 1.2.3: Explain specialized terms or concepts to facilitate audience comprehension.
Required Performance: Meets Performance Requirements 85%
1.4.3: Write concise and logical sentences in standard academic English that clarify relationships among concepts and ideas.
Assessment Method: Score on Criteria – 1.4.3: Write concise and logical sentences in standard academic English that clarify relationships among concepts and ideas.
Required Performance: Meets Performance Requirements 85%
10.1.3: Define the specifications of required technologies.
Assessment Method: Score on Criteria – 10.1.3: Define the specifications of required technologies.
Required Performance: Meets Performance Requirements 85%
13.1.1: Create documentation appropriate to the stakeholder.
Assessment Method: Score on Criteria – 13.1.1: Create documentation appropriate to the stakeholder.
Required Performance: Meets Performance Requirements 85%
13.2.1: Evaluate vendor recommendations in the context of organization requirements.
Assessment Method: Score on Criteria – 13.2.1: Evaluate vendor recommendations in the context of organization requirements.
Required Performance: Meets Performance Requirements 85%
2.1.2: Describe the context surrounding the issue or problem.
Assessment Method: Score on Criteria – 2.1.2: Describe the context surrounding the issue or problem.
Required Performance: Meets Performance Requirements 85%
2.3.3: Explain inferences and deductions that follow logically from the evidence provided.
Assessment Method: Score on Criteria – 2.3.3: Explain inferences and deductions that follow logically from the evidence provided.
Required Performance: Meets Performance Requirements 85%
Flexible Rates Compatible With Everyone’s Budget
Hire a Professional Essay & Assignment Writer for completing your Academic Assessments
Looking for Plagiarism free Answers for your US, UK, Singapore college/ university Assignments.
