Capstone Rubric

How your Project Initiation Package is assessed. Published in full, from the day you register, so you always know what good looks like. The same rubric is applied to every candidate.

How the rubric works

Your capstone is one submission: a Project Initiation Package of eight components, built for the scenario and the organisational context you chose in the Capstone Brief.

Each component is scored on a scale of nought to ten, then weighted as shown below. There is also a weighting for internal consistency, which asks whether the eight components describe the same project. The weighted total gives a mark out of one hundred, which falls into one of four bands.

There is no presentation and no interview. Everything is assessed on the written submission, which is why consistency across the components carries real weight: a package that cannot explain itself on paper has nowhere else to make its case.

The pass mark is 55. A mark of 55 or above earns the certificate. Below 55 you are given the assessor's feedback and may submit again once, without paying again. If a second submission also falls below 55, the certificate is not issued, and you keep the feedback and the free learning.

The eight components

1. Project Charter · 15%

Does the Charter capture scope, objectives, success criteria, deliverables, constraints and sponsor sign-off, with no ambiguity a sceptical sponsor could exploit?

Distinction: the Charter is the document a real sponsor would sign without amendment. Common weakness at pass level: success criteria written as outputs rather than outcomes.

2. Work Breakdown Structure · 11%

Is the decomposition outcome-oriented, at the right level of detail, with deliverables that are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive?

Distinction: the structure is granular enough to estimate from, and no finer. Each work package is a noun, not a verb. Common weakness at pass level: a task list rather than a deliverable list.

3. Three-point estimation · 11%

Are the optimistic, most likely and pessimistic estimates internally consistent? Is the expected duration calculated correctly and applied to the activities on the critical path?

Distinction: the estimates reflect genuine uncertainty, with the reasoning visible. Common weakness at pass level: mechanical estimates with no reasoning, and optimistic figures implausibly close to the most likely ones.

4. Network diagram and critical path · 11%

Are the dependencies correctly modelled? Is the critical path identified, and is it consistent with the work breakdown structure and the estimates?

Distinction: the path holds up under challenge, and the reason for each dependency is explained. Common weakness at pass level: a critical path drawn but never explained, or one that contradicts the durations.

5. Stakeholder register · 11%

Are the relevant stakeholders identified, positioned on the influence and interest grid, with an engagement approach that actually differs by quadrant?

Distinction: the register names stakeholders most candidates miss, and shows judgement in where it places them. Common weakness at pass level: every stakeholder pushed into the same quadrant, or one generic engagement strategy applied to all of them.

6. Stakeholder communication plan · 11%

Does the plan match channel and frequency to what each stakeholder actually needs? Is it specific about owner, frequency and content, rather than generic? Does it avoid both over-communication and silence?

Distinction: a plan a project manager could pick up tomorrow and run. Common weakness at pass level: email and a weekly meeting for everybody, regardless of need.

7. RACI matrix · 11%

Is accountability unambiguous for every major activity? One accountable person per activity? Does the matrix agree with the stakeholder register?

Distinction: the matrix finds the places where accountability would have been contested, and settles them. Common weakness at pass level: two accountable people on one row, or accountable and responsible treated as the same thing.

8. Status report, first cycle · 9%

Does the report communicate schedule, cost, risk and the ask in a way a tired sponsor would read in two minutes? Is red, amber and green status used with discipline?

Distinction: a one-page report the sponsor would forward unchanged. Common weakness at pass level: green-washing, or padding with detail no sponsor reads.

Internal consistency across the components · 10%

Do the eight components tell the same story? Does the work breakdown structure support the Charter? Does the critical path align with the cadence in the communication plan? Does the RACI reflect the stakeholder register?

Distinction: the Package reads as one project, not eight artefacts. Common weakness at pass level: the Charter says one thing, the structure another, and the RACI a third.

What is not assessed

Presentation and polish. Clean formatting helps a reader, but a plain package with sound judgement scores above a handsome one without it. Nothing in this rubric rewards design.

Length. A longer Charter is not a better Charter. Several components score highest when they are short enough to be used.

Agreement with the assessor. Where a decision is genuinely contestable, you are assessed on whether you recognised the choice and reasoned your way through it, not on whether you reached the conclusion the assessor would have reached. Saying why you rejected the alternative is worth marks. Pretending there was no alternative is not.

Which organisational context you chose. The contexts in the Brief are of equivalent difficulty and the rubric applies identically to each.

How the mark reaches you

Your assessor returns a mark out of one hundred, the band it falls into, and written feedback that works through the components in turn, strengths first and then what would raise the mark. The feedback is about your Package, not a form letter, and it is yours to keep whichever way the decision goes.