IT Capstone Proposal

Edit the IT proposal to meet the competency on the Rubric Provided. Below are the issues identified that need correction.

Overall Evaluator Comments:

The project demonstrated a strong understanding of centralized security monitoring by explaining how decentralized logs prevent detection of lateral movement and delay identification of ransomware activity in the cclinic’sWindows and Microsoft 365 environment. Please see the comments for information about aspects that need further development.

A1. PROBLEM SUMMARY

Approaching Competence: The problem summary is incomplete or illogical. Or the summary does not include the context in which the problem exists. Or the summary lacks supporting details.

Evaluator Comments:

The submission rightly includes a discussion on the problem summary, including context and supporting details. The summary of the problem is incomplete or illogical.

A2. IT SOLUTION

Approaching Competence: The proposed IT solution would not feasibly solve the problem summarized in part A1. Or the proposal lacks supporting details that describe the relationship between the problem and the proposed solution.

Evaluator Comments:

The explanation accurately explains how the proposed IT solution addresses the identified problem. The proposal lacks supporting details that describe the relationship between the problem and the proposed solution.

A3. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Approaching Competence: The implementation plan description is incomplete or not related to the proposed solution in part A2. Or specific steps are not included. Or who will be implementing the plan is not included.

Evaluator Comments:

The submission includes a description of the implementation plan related to the proposed solution. Specific steps are not included.

A3a. JUSTIFICATION OF PLAN

Approaching Competence. The justification does not address why the implementation plan from part A3 is appropriate for the IT solution in part A2, or whether it is not feasible.

Evaluator Comments:

The submission rightly explains why the implementation plan is appropriate for the IT solution. The justification does not address why the implementation plan from part A3 is appropriate for the IT solution in part A2.

B. REVIEW OF OTHER WORKS

Approaching Competence: The summary of 4 works is provided, but one or more of the works are not related to the topic of the proposed project. Or a summary of only 13 works is provided. Or the summary is inaccurate.

Evaluator Comments:

The submission includes an apt summary of four works related to the proposed project topic. The summary of 4 works is provided, but one or more of the works are not related to the topic of the proposed project.

B1. WORKS INFORMING DESIGN

Approaching CompetenceThe description of how each of the 4 works summarized in part B is incomplete or not related to the design. Or a description of only 13 works is provided.

Evaluator Comments:

The explanation accurately explains how each of the four works informed the pproposal’sdesign. The description of how each of the 4 works summarized in part B is incomplete or not related to the design.

C. PROJECT RATIONALE

Approaching Competence

Approaching Competence: The justification does not address the need of the proposed project or is not feasible.

Evaluator Comments: Attempt 1

The project rationale is provided. The justification does not address the need for the proposed project.

D. CURRENT PROJECT ENVIRONMENT

Approaching Competence: The justification of how the proposed solution in part A2 aligns with the current organizational culture, environment, and strategy is incomplete. Or the justification is not related to the proposed solution in part A2.

Evaluator Comments:

Alignment with the current organizational environment and strategy is evident. The justification of how the proposed solution in part A2 aligns with the current organizational culture, environment, and strategy is incomplete.

E. METHODOLOGY

Approaching Competence

Approaching Competence: The explanation of how a standard methodology will be used to implement the project is incomplete. Or a description of the specific steps are not included. Or the described steps are not related to the standard methodology.

Evaluator Comments:

The submission rightly includes a discussion on the standard methodology used to implement the project. A description of the specific steps are not included.

F1. RELATIONSHIP TABLE

Approaching Competence: The provided table does not demonstrate the relationship between each goal and its supporting objectives and deliverables from part F1. Or the demonstrated relationship is inaccurate.

Evaluator Comments:

The submission includes a table that demonstrates the relationship among goals, objectives, and deliverables. The demonstrated relationship is inaccurate.

F2. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND DELIVERABLES

Approaching Competence: The described goals, objectives, and deliverables are not related to the project. Or each goal does not have at least 2 objectives, or each objective does not have at least 1 deliverable.

Evaluator Comments:

Goals, objectives, and deliverables are correctly discussed. No goal has at least 2 objectives.

G. PROJECT TIMELINE WITH MILESTONES

Approaching Competence: The estimated timeline is not feasible for the project. Or the timeline does not include either future dates, milestones, duration, or start and end dates for each milestone.

Evaluator Comments:

The submission rightly highlights a project timeline with milestones, including duration and projected dates. The timeline does not include future dates, milestones, duration, or start and end dates for each milestone.

H. OUTCOME

Approaching Competence: The description of the given points is incomplete or not relevant to the project.

Evaluator Comments:

A description of the expected outcome is present. The description of the given points is incomplete or not relevant to the project.

I. SOURCES

Not Evident. The submission does not include both in-text citations and a reference list for sources that are quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.

Evaluator Comments:

This aspect will be assessed once revisions are made.

J. PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION

Not Evident. This submission includes pervasive errors in professional communication, including grammar, sentence fluency, contextual spelling, and punctuation, negatively impacting the professional quality and clarity of the writing. Grammarly for Education has identified specific errors under the Correctness category.