Project Checklist For Listms611 Student Name Professor Propo

Check Listms611 Project Checkliststudent Nameprofessorproposaltotal Po

Check List MS611 Project Checklist Student Name Professor Proposal Total Points 15 Yes No N/A 1 Did you created a cover page with your student ID, name, professor name, title of your paper, date, and school logo? 2 Is the title of the paper based on your problem statement or recommendations? 3 Is your problem statement is a once complete sentence with 3 major problems? 4 Did you write a brief history of the company? 5 Do you have 3 recommendations? 6 Does each of your recommendation have 3 implementations? 7 Did you write as to why should the company implement your recommendations? 8 Did you complete the MS611 Procedure document Task #1 ? (Project Title Proposal and Rationale) 9 Did you complete the MS611 Project Grading Criteria? (Name of Student, Student ID No, Program) 10 Is your paper written in third person? 11 Do you have grammatical correct, complete, active voice sentences? 12 Is your page dimensions 8 ½-by-11, 1 inch margin, font Times New Roman, size 12 point, regular, double spaced? 13 Green or red underline means grammatical or spelling error. Does your paper is free of green and red underline? 14 Is your submission on time? 15 Did you use the naming conventions to save and email your document? Student ID-Your Name-Proposal-Project Title-Submission Date?

Paper For Above instruction

The provided checklist serves as a comprehensive guide to ensure the completion and quality of the MS611 project. It encompasses critical components such as preparing a detailed cover page with essential information—student ID, name, professor’s name, title, date, and school logo—aligning with academic standards. The project’s title should be directly derived from the problem statement or recommendations to maintain coherence.

A well-formulated problem statement, expressed as a single complete sentence encapsulating three major issues, forms the foundation of the project. Background information, including a brief history of the company, contextualizes the problem and grounds the research. The project must include three actionable recommendations, each supported by three specific implementations, with justifications explaining why these should be adopted by the company. Such clarity in reasoning aligns the project with real-world applicability.

The MS611 Procedure document, especially Task #1 (Project Title Proposal and Rationale), should be thoroughly completed, demonstrating clarity in objectives and rationale. The project grading criteria must be adhered to, including personal and program identification details. Academic writing standards dictate that the paper remains in third person, with grammatically correct, complete sentences written in active voice. Formatting requirements—8 ½-by-11-inch pages, 1-inch margins, Times New Roman font size 12, double-spaced—are non-negotiable. Proper proofreading using green and red underlines ensures free of spelling or grammatical errors, vital for professionalism.

Timeliness and proper file naming conventions—Student ID, Name, Proposal/Outline/Analysis derivatives, and submission date—are essential for compliance. Overall, the checklist facilitates a structured, rigorous approach to project preparation, promoting clarity, coherence, and academic integrity throughout the research and writing process.

First Draft

The first draft of a project requires comprehensive organization and clarity. It must include a detailed cover page with all pertinent information—student ID, name, professor’s name, title, date, and school logo—setting a professional tone. The title should be directly relevant to the problem statement or recommendations to ensure consistency.

The document should feature the “Table of Contents” as guided, with all headers listed with page numbers, formatted per guidelines. An abstract, concise yet comprehensive, should summarize the problem statement, methodology, and key findings or planned analysis in fewer than six sentences. The introduction must provide detailed background—company history, mission, vision, current situation—and end with the clear problem statement as the last sentence.

The core of the draft involves an analysis section that should be 5-6 pages long, clearly introducing the analysis type, providing proper definitions with citations, and explaining the rationale for selecting particular analyses, such as SWOT. The analysis should be free of bullets, well-cited, and written in formal, third-person language. Transition sentences and logical flow are emphasized for clarity and coherence.

The recommendation section must include introductory paragraphs reiterating the problem and highlighting the three main recommendations, each with three specific implementations. Proper citations must be integrated, and the section should end with a summary emphasizing the benefits, potential dollar or percentage improvements, and the targeted timeframe for results. The conclusion should restate the problem, summarize recommendations, and justify their use based on anticipated company benefits.

References must be formatted in APA style, alphabetized, with proper indentation—hanging indent—and cited throughout the paper where applicable, especially for graphs, tables, and analytical content.

Overall, the first draft should demonstrate a logical structure: an introduction, detailed analysis, comprehensive recommendations, and a conclusive summary, all compliant with formatting and citation guidelines, ready for review and revision.

Second and Final Draft

The second and final drafts are expected to incorporate feedback received on earlier versions, refining clarity, coherence, and adherence to formatting guidelines. The final document must uphold academic integrity, proper citations, and a professional appearance, demonstrating thorough research, critical thinking, and meticulous editing.

Project Components Summary

• Outline: Organized with main points, logical flow, research-backed content, formatted with Roman numerals and subheadings, identifying recommendations and implementations.
• Analysis: Clear explanation of chosen methods, definitions, justifications, with citations, free of bullets, well-structured paragraphs, covering SWOT and other relevant analyses if applicable.
• Recommendations and Implementations: Clearly articulated, with an introductory paragraph, three main recommendations, each with three detailed implementations, and cited sources supporting the justifications.

References

• American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.).
• Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. (2008). The craft of research (3rd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
• Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
• Gerring, J. (2012). Social science methodology: A unified framework (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
• Ketokivi, M., & Choi, T. (2014). Renaissance of case research as a scientific method. Journal of Operations Management, 32(5), 232-240.
• Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2016). Designing qualitative research (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
• Robson, C., & McCartan, K. (2016). Real world research (4th ed.). Wiley.
• Silverman, D. (2016). Interpreting qualitative data (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
• Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
• Zikmund, W. G., Babin, B. J., Carr, J. C., & Griffin, M. (2012). Business research methods (9th ed.). Cengage Learning.