Task 2

Students starting C769 after 8/25/2024 will be automatically enrolled in the newest version, ROM3. The ROM3 requirements are very similar to ROM2. However, faculty could only review the new course after its release, and there may be some minor discrepancies between the latest course and our stated best practices. This website will be updated by 9/4.

Task 2#

Write your proposal following Task 2: The Proposal template:

To gauge the level of detail evaluators typically expect, see the task 2 examples - passing, albeit not great, projects.

Tip

Sections are assessed independently against the rubric requirements, i.e., when evaluating a section, the evaluator will check for the fulfillment of the requirements within that section. They don’t assess writing style. You can (and sometimes must) reuse content from other areas as needed. It’s not about writing something fun to read -it’s about demonstrating that the requirements are met.

Sections A1, A2, and A3: Overview#

The Proposal Overview has three parts:

The Problem Summary
The IT Solution
The Implementation Plan

It is not assessed, but you are writing for an uninformed reader -the client needing your expertise. Explain what’s wrong with their situation, why your solution is the fix, and how you’ll implement that solution.

Keeping an uninformed reader in mind may help you understand why the Proposal Overview could extend for several pages. Imagine explaining the project to a non-technical friend. Adopting more accessible language requires explaining terms and concepts customarily taken for granted, which creates content. Also, WGU evaluators need to understand the problem at hand, the organizational environment in which it exists, what might or might not work as a solution, and how you will implement the solution. These sections introduce them to your project and provide the context by which they assess other areas.

Tip

Write these sections last or return to them after writing each subsequent section to ensure your overview accurately summarizes your project.
The required depth of detail is up to the subjectivity of the evaluator. Though summaries are typically short, there is no penalty for too much detail.

Sections B and B1: Review of Other Work & Relations of Artifacts#

Think of this section as a literature review where you summarize a work (part B) and then relate it to your project (B1). The works only need to connect to an aspect of your project; they don’t need to align with it entirely. And you can use anything created by an industry professional, e.g., online articles, whitepapers, technical documentation, etc. Most importantly, you must have four different works cited following APA guidelines. Typically, a proposal would cite sources as needed, but for evaluation purposes, they added this section for demonstrating research.

Review a work. For example, online articles, blogs, case studies, white papers, videos, etc.
Summarize the work. Simply tell your reader what’s in the resource you reviewed, no need to offer an opinion or analyze it -simply summarize the content. We recommend 1-2 paragraphs per work.
Relate the work to your project. Following the summary, describe how the work expands the context of the problem or supports the implementation solution.
Include an APA style in-text citation, e.g., (Author, year); follow APA guidelines and use a referencing tool.

Tip

Stuck? Return to this section later. You will likely collect sources while conducting research for other sections. Hang on to any extras; you’ll need three different works for Task 3.

These resources do not have to be a one-to-one match to your project. What’s accepted is very broad.

Tip

You can search WGU’s library and other open-source libraries using google.scholar.com Go to >’Google.scholar>setting>libraires>’ and then add WGU and other libraries.

An aninmated GIF demonstrating how to use google.scholar.com

Sections C and D: Rationale and Current Environment#

Rationale#

The Project Rationale provides a comprehensive picture of why the project is needed. Describe the business, technical, and/or user needs. Internal and external environmental factors might also be included.

Current Environment#

In the Current Project Environment section, describe:

The client’s current state, e.g., number of employees, tech, software, etc.
What’s wrong with the client’s current state?
Why your solution fixes it?

Tip

Sections are checked against the rubric requirements individually. So when the rubric is redundant, be redundant -adding appropriate detail or emphasis.

Sections E and F: Methodology & Goals…#

Methodology#

In this section, you must

Identify a “standard” methodology used to plan the project, e.g., ADDIE or SDLC.
Describe the project steps to be completed in each phase of the methodology, e.g., analysis, design, etc.

Step 2 provides a detailed implementation plan of what is outlined in section A2. If using a less-known methodology, relate it to a “standard” one.

Goals, Objectives, & Deliverables#

For this section,

Provide a table outlining project goals, objectives, and deliverables.
Separate from the table, describe each listed goal and objective.

At minimum, there should be one goal, each goal should have two objectives, and each objective have one deliverable. Here’s an example of what this might look like:

F1. Goals, Objectives, and Deliverables Table

Goals Objectives Deliverables

1. Goal summary 1.a. Objective summary 1.a.i Deliverable

1.a.ii Deliverable

1.a.iii Deliverable

1.b. Objective summary 1.b.i Deliverable

1.b.ii Deliverable

2. Goal summary 2.a Objective summary 2.a.i Deliverable

2.b Objective summary 1.b.i Deliverable

1.b.ii Deliverable

... ... ...

F2. Goals, Objectives, and Deliverables Descriptions

Goal 1: Description of the goal

Objective 1.a: Description of the objective and how it supports the goal.

Deliverable 1.a.i: Description of the objective and how it supports the objective.

Deliverable 1.a.ii: Description of the objective and how it supports the objective.

Deliverable 1.a.iii: Description of the objective and how it supports the objective.

Objective 1.b: Description of the objective and how it supports the goal.

Deliverable 1.b.i: Description of the objective and how it supports the objective.

Deliverable 1.b.ii: Description of the objective and how it supports the objective.

Goal 2: Description of the goal

Objective 2.a: ...

Goals and objectives are very similar. Goals are broader, defining the end you are trying to achieve (e.g., improving customer service). You need at least one goal. Objectives are more specific, often measurable steps supporting the goal (e.g., real-time inventory updates for customers). Goals and objectives can be considered high-level and mid-management tasks, respectively. Deliverables are tangible tasks supporting the objectives (e.g., an inventory status screen reporting real-time inventory to customers).

Sections G and H: Timeline & Outcomes#

Project Timeline with Milestones#

Create a table providing the Duration, Projected start date, and Anticipated end date for each milestone and deliverable. No additional information is needed.

Milestone or Deliverable	Duration	Projected Start Date	Projected End date
Some milestones	7 days	7/23/2022	7/30/2022
Some deliverables	14 days	7/16/2022	7/30/2022
\(\vdots\)	\(\vdots\)	\(\vdots\)	\(\vdots\)

Note

All dates must be in the future. Task 2 is a proposal. Write as if you are trying to convince the client to adopt your plan. Even if based on an already completed project, you should write task 2 as though it’s yet to be done.

Outcome#

Provide objective, measurable criteria for success. You need specific details so that the conclusion report, task 3, can comparatively be used to show the project was a success. Time-based metrics work best, for example, from page 18 of the task 2 example,

…This project will be considered a success when the wireless network maintains has maintained 90% uptime a week for a month and when 75% of new member and loan documentation is processed over the credit union [].

Grammar, Sources, and APA#

It’s easy to overlook them when focusing on content, but grammar, sources, and APA formatting are the most common reasons for rejected submissions! Check your grammar using Grammarly.com (it’s what the evaluators use). Style is not assessed (Grammarly marks these in blue, green, or purple), but even a few grammar errors (marked in red) will prevent competency in Professional Communication. The free side has been sufficient, but if using the online app, you sometimes need to wait before mistakes are caught.

Warning

Students have reported missed mistakes when using the Google doc Grammarly extension. Therefore, we advise copying content directly into the app or purchasing the premium version compatible with MS Word.

Sources and format should follow APA \(7^{\text{th}}\) edition guidelines. Outside of grammar mistakes, most APA errors involve formatting of the sources or in-text citations. In-text citations should be of the form, (Author, year). For more details, see APA guidelines for citations.

Avoid reference errors by using a referencing tool:

MS Word Reference Tool \(\leftarrow\) desktop version only.
JabRef \(\leftarrow\) free and works on most platforms.
LibreOffice Reference Tool. - Download LibreOffice for free.

Get the best help from the WGU Academic Coaching Center.

FAQ#

I’ve completed task 2. Should I send it to my course instructor for review?#

If you have specific questions or concerns -yes. However, in most cases, it’s best just to submit. What suffices as “sufficient detail” is highly subjective. We can always tell you to add more, but if you’ve done your best to fulfill the requirements, submit it and let them tell you which (if any) parts need to be rewritten. At best, it passes; at worst, we address the issues cited by the evaluator -and then it passes. Responding to the more narrow focus of the evaluator’s comments is generally easier than overworking the entire project.

You have unlimited submissions but limited time. And, typically this is the best and most efficient approach.

The Task 2 template has suggested page lengths. Are these lengths required?#

No. Those are just suggestions. The individual evaluator determines what qualifies as “sufficient detail” and will vary depending on the project and writing style. If you feel you’ve met the requirements, simply move on to the next section. Upon submission, it will pass, or they will request more details.

How many submission attempts do I have?#

You have unlimited submissions (as with all WGU performance assessments). Furthermore, a project requiring multiple submissions is not precluded from being given an excellence award. However, do attempt to fully meet each requirement as submissions falling significantly short of the minimum requirements may be locked from further submissions without instructor approval. Moreover, such submissions do not receive meaningful evaluator comments.

I can’t find sources for section B, Other Works. What can I do?#

You are likely over interpreting what’s required. Rarely are submissions sent back because cited works are unsuitable. You can use any citable work created by a professional which can be related to your project -it does not need to align with your project entirely. For example, a cloud migration project might include articles about AWS, security advantages, cost advantages, etc.

My task was returned for “In-text citations could not be found…”#

My task two was returned for sources stating:

“In-text citations could not be found for portions of the task that have been quoted or paraphrased… “ What does this comment mean?

This comment indicates they could not find a matching in-text citation for every source on your reference list. Check that each reference has a match following APA style, e.g., (Author, year), and remove any references without matches. Use a referencing tool to create, manage references, and avoid such errors. Follow the in-text citations and the reference page format of the tasks 2 and 3 examples.

What if I start writing task 2 and want to change things? Do I need to resubmit task 1?#

No. Minor changes from task 1 to task 2 are expected and allowed without updating the approval form. Evaluators will not rigorously compare tasks 1 and 2. Task 2 is where the work is, and even with complete topic changes at most, you might need to revise the approval form (if at all). So never let task 1 dictate what you do in task 2. However, deviating significantly from what was approved could put you at risk of completing a project not meeting the requirements. So while small changes do not need review, substantial changes should be discussed with your assigned course instructor.

Are the appendices required?#

No, not for Task 2. You can remove them from the template if you don’t need them.