change request process amp documentation

Project Objectives Checklist

  1. Enhance the project documentation
  2. Create a final project signature page
  3. Write a typical change request scenario
  4. Write a professional change request procedure
  5. Submit the module use-case document to the course Dropbox for grading

During these project objectives, you will work with project scope and handling changes to prevent catastrophic failure to the project. The project scope is usually defines as the use-case documentation is created and approved. The project manager should finally get signatures from the other managers when everyone agrees on the final draft of the project. The final draft is the scope and it will typically not change unless there is a change request.

  1. At the bottom of the project use-case documentation, add a signature page for all required manager signatures. Make sure the signature page looks and feels professional which should include the date of when a manager signed the use-case documentation for approval. You have more objectives in the course to build and integrate into your documentation but this should always be the last page of the document.
  2. Next document a typical scenario that might actually be a good reason to change the scope of a project. For instance, the documentation might not include form validation controls. As the users are testing, the validation is always necessary to keep the data clean in the database. Create your own scenario that could change the scope of the project and would cause the managers to agree and accept the change request.
  3. Document the change request procedure. This professional procedure would be used in a business when a tester found an issue that requires a project change and the requestor would need to follow through each step before the change would even be considered. Document the procedure in a chronological order as if each step was a checklist.

 

Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount!
Use Discount Code “Newclient” for a 15% Discount!

NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

The post change request process amp documentation appeared first on The Nursing Hub.

 

“Are you looking for this answer? We can Help click Order Now”


Write a Short Paper (4 to 5 pages) – Data Backup/Disaster Recovery

Write a Short Paper (Data Backup/Disaster Recovery), has to be 4 to 5 pages Short Paper.

Define, describe and identify the elements of (a) good Data Backup Planning, (b) good Disaster Recovery Planning, and (c) good Business Continuity Planning. Be sure to identify and describe any interdependencies in the planning.

The paper must following the formatting guidelines in The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2010), (6th ed., 7th printing), and contain a title page, and a minimum of five peer-reviewed references, four to five pages of content, and a reference page.

In addition, The rubric for this assignment can be viewed when clicking on the above assignment link, which you will use to submit your assignment.

The post Write a Short Paper (4 to 5 pages) – Data Backup/Disaster Recovery first appeared on Submit Your Essays.


Write a Short Paper (4 to 5 pages) – Data Backup/Disaster Recovery was first posted on November 4, 2020 at 11:48 pm.
©2019 "Submit Your Assignment". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at support@nursingessayswriters.com

 

“Are you looking for this answer? We can Help click Order Now”


Internet Services: Term Papers

Must be all original work

Term papers on practically every subject imaginable are available on the Internet. Many of those who submit the papers as their own work defend their practice in Various ways: (1) These papers are posted to assist in research in the same way any other resource is posted on the Web and should simply be cited if used; (2) these papers are posted in order to encourage faculty to modify paper topics and/or exams and not to simply bring back assignments that have been used countless times in the past, (3) they don’t have time to complete a paper and since they have paid for the course they have in effect paid for the degree, and (4) if the professor doesn’t “catch” them what harm has been done?

Are you persuaded?

Write a 2-3 page, APA style paper addressing the above issues while answering the following:

  1. Is there anything unethical about this service in general?
  2. If so, who should be held accountable, the poster, the ultimate user (student), the professor, the university, or someone else?

Use the ethical decision making model process to determine the ethics of the term paper service.

Provide 3-5 APA style references both inline and at the end of the paper to support your analysis. Note: This is your opportunity to demonstrate your knowledge of the week’s theory linked to personal opinion and outside evidence.

Your paper should reflect scholarly writing and current APA standards. Please include citations to support your ideas.

The post Internet Services: Term Papers first appeared on https://nursingessayswriters.com.


Internet Services: Term Papers was first posted on November 4, 2020 at 11:48 pm.
©2019 "Submit Your Assignment". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at support@nursingessayswriters.com

 

“Are you looking for this answer? We can Help click Order Now”


HUM101 Chamberlain College of Nursing Critical Reasoning Evaluating Arguments

Introduction
The first two steps in evidence-based practice are to identify knowledge gaps and formulate relevant questions. In this writing exercise, you will be doing just that, across three types of inductive reasoning. In addition, you will be applying evaluation techniques to determine how credible, authoritative, and reliable the arguments are.

Scenario
Imagine your boss has asked you to evaluate four ideas that she is thinking of using to implement programs. You must evaluate whether these are good ideas that she can safely and immediately green-light or whether further evidence is needed. She is anxious to move forward, so she will be unhappy if you reject a good idea; however, if you approve a bad idea, she will be equally as unhappy. She has specifically directed you not to do any outside research. You must evaluate the ideas strictly on the brief passages available. She also wants to know what specific kind of reasoning is used in each passage

Instructions
Using everything you have learned from the text, as well as any other information you have gathered from your searches related to this week’s discussion, evaluate the following four arguments:

  • Chapter 8 Exercise 8.9 Examples 7 and 10
  • Chapter 9 Exercise 9.9 Example 1
  • Chapter 10 Exercise 10.9 Example 1

For each exercise, address the following:

  • Identify the type of inductive argument and any features of the way the argument is constructed that you find relevant.
  • Explain how convincing you think the argument is.
  • Does it have sufficient evidence to allow you to suggest that she move forward with the idea or does the argument have knowledge gaps?
  • What questions need to be answered to close these gaps?
  • Does the argument contain any information that adds to its authority, credibility, or reliability?

You need to show your boss that you know what factors have to be considered in evaluating each type of argument and how well the argument meets the criteria.

Writing Requirements (APA format)

  • Length: 100-150 words per exercise (not including title page or references page)
  • 1-inch margins
  • Double spaced
  • 12-point Times New Roman font
  • Title page
  • References page

Grading
This activity will be graded using the Argument Analysis (W6) Grading Rubric.

Course Outcomes (CO): 3, 5

Due Date: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Sunday

Rubric

Argument Analysis (W6) Grading Rubric – 75 pts

Argument Analysis (W6) Grading Rubric – 75 pts

Criteria

Ratings

Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Timeliness of Submission

7.0 pts Assignment submitted by due date

0.0 pts Assignment not submitted by due date

7.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Exercise Identification

20.0 pts Type of argument correctly identified for all 4 exercises.

15.0 pts Type of argument correctly identified for 3 exercises.

10.0 pts Type of argument correctly identified for 2 exercises.

5.0 pts Type of argument correctly identified 1 exercise.

0.0 pts None are correct, fully developed, or present.

20.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Evaluation of Criteria

12.0 pts Evaluates argument according to correct criteria for that type of argument for all 4 exercises.

9.0 pts Evaluates argument according to correct criteria for that type of argument for 3 exercises.

6.0 pts Evaluates argument according to correct criteria for that type of argument for 2 exercises.

3.0 pts Evaluates argument according to correct criteria for that type of argument for 1 exercise.

0.0 pts None are correct, fully developed, or present.

12.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Value of Evidence

12.0 pts Provides full discussion of probative value of evidence (strength of evidence) for all 4 exercises.

9.0 pts Provides full discussion of probative value of evidence (strength of evidence) for 3 exercises.

6.0 pts Provides full discussion of probative value of evidence (strength of evidence) for 2 exercises.

3.0 pts Provides full discussion of probative value of evidence (strength of evidence) for 1 exercise.

0.0 pts None are correct, fully developed, or present.

12.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Questions

12.0 pts Forms pertinent question to fill information gaps for all 4 exercises.

9.0 pts Forms pertinent question to fill information gaps for 3 exercises.

6.0 pts Forms pertinent question to fill information gaps for 2 exercises.

3.0 pts Forms pertinent question to fill information gaps for 1 exercises.

0.0 pts None are correct, fully developed, or present.

12.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Authority, Credibility, Reliability

12.0 pts Full discussion of authority, credibility and reliability of passage for all 4 exercises.

9.0 pts Full discussion of authority, credibility and reliability of passage for 3 exercises.

6.0 pts Full discussion of authority, credibility and reliability of passage for 2 exercises.

3.0 pts Full discussion of authority, credibility and reliability of passage for 1 exercises.

0.0 pts None are correct, fully developed, or present.

12.0 pts

The post HUM101 Chamberlain College of Nursing Critical Reasoning Evaluating Arguments first appeared on The Nursing Tutors.

 

“Are you looking for this answer? We can Help click Order Now”