GEOG 871
Geospatial Technology Project Management

Assignment 3 - Assemble Project Team


Assignment 3 - Assemble Project Team


Timing: This assignment spans Week 4
Submittal: Assignment 3 - The introductory explanation and table are due at the end of Week 4

Target Word Count: 500-1500 words (this is just a target to provide a general idea on level of detail)
Total Points: 40 points - see rubric for specific details

For Assignment 3, you are the project manager for the GIS contractor chosen to carry out the City of Metropolis Geodatabase Design and Development project. You will assemble a project team (the contractor's project team) for the City of Metropolis Geodatabase Development Project. You can assume that your company has already been selected by the City—that is, your company and other companies have submitted proposals in response to the City’s RFP and your proposal was determined to be the most responsive and was formally selected to do the work. Now you, as the contractor’s project manager, have been asked by the City’s project manager (Lucille Geodata) to present information about your project team—the people and their roles for the project.

Your Submittal for Assignment 3

Take a look at the City of Metropolis RFP--particularly the summary of major work elements (subsection 1.2) and expectations on project team roles in 2.3.5. Use the material that you have reviewed in this lesson to identify team members with positions and skills needed to carry out the project work. Assume that necessary staff are already employees of your firm and are available for work on this project. Since you are taking the role of the contracted company, you should make up a company name and refer to this in your assignment. This assignment identifies and describes members of the contractor's team, NOT any of the City's project team members.

The content for this Assignment consists of a brief introductory explanation of the project. Provide enough information in this summary to give a reader, not already familiar with the project, an understanding of its background and context--including reference to the RFP as the basis for selection of the contractor. Then prepare a table that presents a summary of the contractor’s (your company’s) project team members (not the City’s project team). Content in this table should include:

  • Name of the team member
  • Project functional title (e.g., “Project Manager”, “Field Data Collector”)
  • Hourly billable rate*
  • Brief description of project role and duties: one paragraph describing each team member’s assigned work on the project.

*Select hourly billable rates to the best of your ability. In practice, billable rates, which cover all company employee compensation and overhead do vary by company, region of the country, and type of project.  Assume that the project manager rate will be in the range of $100 to $175 per hour and the field data collection personnel will be about $40 to $60 per hour. Rates for other project roles (e.g., database design, application development) will fall between these ranges.

There is no single ideal size for the project team. The number of people on the team and their mix of skills and roles needs to be adequate to carry out all work on the project in a reasonable period of time. As a general rule, it is best to keep the team as small as possible as long as it has enough people with management and technical roles to perform the work. For a project like this, a team size of about 6 to 10 people is appropriate.

Assignment 3 is due at the end of Lesson 4 (this lesson).

Refer to the grading rubric below for guidelines on expected content and format.

Submitting the Assignment

View specific directions for submitting Assignment 3.


This assignment is worth 40 points. The grading approach is explained in the table below.

 The instructor may deduct points if the Assignment is turned in late, unless a late submittal has been approved by the Instructor prior to the Assignment submittal date.

Assignment 3 Grading Rubric
Grading Category Basis for Scoring Total Possible Points

Point Award Explanation

A. Appropriateness of Identified positions
  • Team table includes positions/roles necessary to complete project work.
  • Team size is appropriate for project.
  • Roles discuss integration of the team and communication with City personnel.
  • Team titles are effectively named (ton convey the functional role of the team members)
  • EXCEPTIONAL: 11 to 12 points if the table includes required roles and positions are covered, non-essential roles are NOT included, and the team size is appropriate.
  • INADEQUATE: 1 to 2 points if there are major deficiencies with the types/roles of team members or team size in the table.
  • MINIMALLY ADEQUATE to VERY GOOD: 3 to 10 points if there are deficiencies in the team table that fall between the “Exceptional” and “Inadequate” categories above.
B. Overall Document Organization
  • Title of the document, course, assignment, author, and date. (cover page or top of the document)
  • Introductory text is included (to give necessary background and context for the project team table).
  • Project team table includes all required information (i.e., columns in table).
  • Content is referenced to RFP and/or other course materials.
  • EXCEPTIONAL: 7 to 8 points if effective introductory text is included and the project team table includes all required information.
  • INADEQUATE: 1 to 2 points if a significant number of required items are not included.
  • MINIMALLY ADEQUATE to VERY GOOD: 3 to 6 points if there are deficiencies in content that fall between the “Exceptional” and “Inadequate”
C. Quality/Clarity of Writing Submittal includes an introduction providing background and context for the project team table. Content in the introduction and in the table shows:
  • Good, appropriate choice of words.
  • Sentence construction and lack of grammar and syntax problems.
  • Concise and to the point without redundancies.
  • Length appropriate to the stated requirements without significantly exceeding stated word count.
  • EXCEPTIONAL: 11 to 12 points for a very clear, extremely well-written document, with no or insignificant problems in word choice, grammar, etc.
  • INADEQUATE: 1 to 2 points with significant, frequent problems in introduction, word choice, sentence construction, grammar, and length
  • MINIMALLY ADEQUATE to VERY GOOD: 3 to 10 points for deficiencies in writing quality of clarity between the “Exceptional” and “Inadequate” categories described above.
D. Format Quality Well-formatted text and table addressing the following:
  • Use of numbering and naming for sections.
  • Choice of fonts (type, style, size for headings and body).
  • Table column width and row height setting and effective use of table borders and shading.
  • Overall vertical and horizontal spacing (line spacing, indents, etc.).
  • Page breaking in manner that avoids disruption of content.
  • Spelling
  • Overall consistency of format throughout document.
  • EXCEPTIONAL: 8 points for an extremely well-formatted document that is attractive, uses very effective text, table, and graphic formatting, format rules are applied consistently throughout, and overall presentation makes it easy for the reader to navigate and grasp content.
  • INADEQUATE: 1 to 2 points with significant and frequent problems in multiple format parameters to the point where the document is distracting and very hard to understand.
  • MINIMALLY ADEQUATE to VERY GOOD: 3 to 7 points for deficiencies in selection of format rules and their consistent application between the “Exceptional” and “Very Poor” categories described above.