(IC)2 Demonstration Project Scoring
Directions for Reviewers: For each of the proposals, please fill in the proposal information requested
below. Then, rate the proposal on the 0 to 4 scale (see attached explanation) on each of the criteria
listed below. Finally, please provide additional information about the strengths and weaknesses. This
information will be compiled and shared with the Deans, Provost and President.
Project Title
Proposal Author
Reviewer
Overview
Contribution to vision of (IC)2
It is clear that the proposed project aligns with the intended function of (IC)2
Ability to serve as a model
Rating Scale
0 = Not found
1 = Inadequate
2 = Minimal
3 = Adequate
4 = Strong
It is evident that the methodologies and activities are comprehensive and reflective of current research and/or best
practice.
Possibility for expansion
It is evident that the proposed project is focused on a concept that can be expanded to a variety of different
schools/disciplines/etc.
Advancement of the (IC)2 agenda
This project will provide valuable data that will give the IC community useful and constructive information that can
be applied toward future (IC)2 projects and initiatives.
Project Design
Specific objectives
The objectives are challenging, yet achievable and address all expected outcomes of the proposed project.
Project description
The proposal includes a detailed plan for implementation. In addition, the project is comprehensive in nature, likely
to be effective, and has the potential to meet the specified objectives.
Assessments and benchmarks
The evaluation plan is rigorous, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives and outcomes of the proposed
project. In addition, the methods of evaluation are comprehensive and include an effective approach for using the
results to refine, improve, and expand the project.
Timeline
Specific and realistic timeframes are identified for each activity/phase of the project that are likely to enable the
project to achieve the measureable objectives within the projected timeframe.
Faculty/Staff Involvement
The proposal includes multiple partners reflecting the community as a whole. Partners are clearly identified and
have acknowledged their commitment to the project.
Budget
Cost/Benefit
The costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design and potential significance of the proposed project.
Appropriateness
The proposed budget presents expenses that are appropriate, realistic, accurate and clearly relate to and reflect
project activities, objectives and outcomes.
Accuracy
The proposed budget accurately reflects that amount of time that faculty/staff will need to provide toward
implementation of the project.
Please return evaluations to Hillary Barrett in the Provost Office by 8am Monday, July 13, 2009
General Comments
Please provide detailed general comments about the strengths and weaknesses of the overall project in the space below.
Overall Strengths:
Overall Weaknesses:
Please return evaluations to Hillary Barrett in the Provost Office by 8am Monday, July 13, 2009
(IC)2 Demonstration Project Scoring Scale
For each criteria, assess how well the proposal meets the criteria using the following Likert
Scale:
0 = Not found  This score is used when the information is not included in the proposal.
1 = Inadequate  This score is used when the information and/or plan is inadequate,
incomplete, vague, inappropriate, or in other ways does not meet the
requirements and/or objectives.
2 = Minimal
 This score is used when the information and/or plan is minimally adequate
and thus provides information that only minimally meets the requirements
and/or objectives.
3 = Adequate
 This score indicates that the information and/or plan is fully adequate,
providing enough information to meet the requirements and/or objectives.
4 = Strong
 This score indicates that the information and/or plan is strong and exceeds
expectations, providing ample detail that goes beyond the basic
requirements and/or objectives, uses unique and creative methods of
addressing the requirements and/or objectives. This aspect of the proposal
surpasses a fully adequate proposal.
Please return evaluations to Hillary Barrett in the Provost Office by 8am Monday, July 13, 2009