Four parts make up the scope statement produced in WMBA 6620 week three: deliverables, acceptance criteria somebody could test, exclusions stated outright, and the constraints fixing the boundary. Searches like "wmba 6620 week 3 assignment example", "wmba6620 week 3 sample" and "wmba 6620 week 3 example" land here.
What a finished WMBA 6620 Week 3 scope statement looks like
The statement runs two to four pages, built as lists with short prose between them. A product description opens it, three or four sentences on what the finished thing is. Deliverables follow as a numbered list, each a noun a reader could receive: a migrated database, a trained user group of forty, a signed vendor contract. Acceptance criteria attach to every deliverable and are written as tests rather than adjectives, so a trained user group becomes forty people passing a skills check at eighty percent. Exclusions come next, six to twelve of them, each a flat statement of what will not be delivered. Constraints and assumptions close the document, and a short paragraph names who may approve a change to any of it.
How a WMBA 6620 Week 3 example is structured
Deliverables and their acceptance criteria stay on the same line rather than in separate sections, because splitting them is what lets a deliverable survive with no test attached to it. Every criterion carries a number, a unit or a named document behind it. Exclusions follow immediately and are drawn from the same territory as the deliverables, so an exclusion about historical data sits under the deliverable about migration rather than in a general list at the back. Constraints are stated with their source, a contract clause, a budget ceiling, a regulatory date, since a constraint with no origin gets treated as a preference. The approval paragraph names a role rather than a committee and points back at the charter, so the two documents cannot disagree about who decides.
Deliverables that are nouns, not activities
An entry reading migrate the data describes work. An entry reading a migrated production database with three years of history describes a thing somebody can be handed and can refuse. The distinction sounds pedantic until a handover meeting, where a list of verbs reopens every argument the document was written to close.
Acceptance criteria written as tests
Each criterion answers who checks, against what, and at what level. Ninety-nine percent of records reconciled by the finance lead within five business days of cutover. Written that way, acceptance becomes an event with a date. Written as delivered to a high standard, it becomes a negotiation with whoever has the most patience.
Exclusions in the same territory as the deliverables
Useful exclusions shadow the deliverables one for one, since that is where the ambiguity lives. Data older than three years. Training for staff hired after cutover. Hardware at the two sites closing next year. A general exclusion about anything not listed above covers everything and settles nothing.
Constraints with a source attached
A constraint carries the document that created it: a contract clause, a regulatory effective date, a board-approved ceiling, a union agreement on shift patterns. Sourced that way, a constraint tells a reader what would have to change for it to move. Unsourced, it reads as the writer's preference dressed in stronger language.
The edge cases nobody wants to write down
Every project has two or three questions whose answers somebody would rather leave open: who pays for overtime at cutover, whether the vendor or the client owns data cleansing, what happens to the pilot site's customizations. Statements that name those are uncomfortable to draft and are exactly what separates a working boundary from a tidy one.
Where marks go in WMBA 6620 Week 3
Exclusions carry the heaviest weight in the shortest section. A statement with three general exclusions loses ground to one with ten that follow the deliverables item by item, since only the second version has actually walked the boundary. Acceptance criteria form the other scoring center and are marked on testability, so delivered to a high standard is not a criterion and a reader can do nothing with it. Third, graders check the deliverable list for verbs, because an entry describing work rather than a thing to be received quietly reopens the argument this document exists to close. Agreement with the charter takes the remainder, and a boundary that contradicts the approved one costs more than any formatting lapse.
Get a WMBA 6620 Week 3 example written to your instructions
Attach the scope prompt, the rubric, and the charter already submitted so the two documents agree with each other. A scope statement with deliverables, tested acceptance criteria, exclusions and sourced constraints comes back in 24 to 48 hours, the first one free. Where a heading order is fixed, the draft follows that order exactly.
WMBA 6620 Week 3 questions, answered
How many exclusions is enough?
Six to twelve for a course-sized project, and the working test is whether each one answers a question somebody would actually raise. Training for staff hired after go-live. Data older than three years. Integration with the legacy reporting tool. Exclusions nobody would have assumed anyway add length, while the ones covering a genuine ambiguity are what a grader counts.
Can acceptance criteria be qualitative?
Sometimes, and when they are they still need a named judge and a defined method. A design accepted by the marketing director at a documented review is testable, because a reader knows who decides and when it happens. What fails is a criterion resting on an adjective with nobody attached, since two readers will reach different conclusions and this document exists to prevent that.
Does the scope statement repeat the charter?
It elaborates rather than repeats. The charter draws a boundary a sponsor approved, and the scope statement works that boundary down into deliverables with tests on them. A short reference back to the charter objective is normal and expected. Copying the charter purpose section wholesale spends a page a grader expected to see spent on exclusions.