18.3 Submit

It's time to take what you've learned and share it with others. In this step, you'll put together all the work you did so far into a presentation deck, which you'll submit in the slack challen #capstone-03.

Assume that your audience for the presentation is company executives who are unfamiliar with the details of your project; some might even be unfamiliar with product development. Make sure your final plans take into account the feedback and technology constraints you learned about from reviewing your plans with a developer.

You can see the suggested structure for the presentation deck below:

• Restate the problem that you are trying to solve.
• Give a demo of the feature in your slide decks.
• Walk through the roadmap for how and when you'll complete the first launch.
  • Focus on explaining the trade-offs you had to make so that the feature would launch on time.
  • Briefly discuss how you would utilize additional time or resources if you had them.
  • Identify risks and share your plans to mitigate them.
• Discuss your plan for what to work on after the first launch (in other words, what's version 2?).

Though not required, we encourage you to include an appendix that addresses common follow-up questions that product managers would receive during a presentation like this.

• If you had an extra month to work on this, what would you do?
• If you had two more devs, what would you be able to complete?
• What's the biggest risk in this project? How will you mitigate that risk?

This is the type of presentation product managers give all the time. Treat this as a real work project, and you'll be better prepared to handle this situation when you do so as a new product manager.

Assignment

Submit your slide deck and detailed speaker notes. Keep the deck visually appealing, but include a script or speaker notes in a separate document so community members can review all of the information you would share in the presentation.

You should be meeting the following rubric.

Evaluation Criteria	Exemplary	Proficient	Needs Revision
The planned feature or features effectively address research problem.	The features clearly address the problem; the prioritization is effective and reflects the most relevant factors.	Some features are not backed up by research; the prioritization is good but misses one or two relevant factors.	Most features are not backed up by research; the prioritization lacks justification or understanding of users' problems.
The prototype is well designed and adheres to best practices.	All mockups use best practices in design; the prototype clearly solves the user problem.	Most mockups are good, but a few have minor errors or design flaws; the prototype mostly solves the user problem.	The mockups have major errors or design flaws; the prototype does not solve the user problem.
The work is feasible to complete within the timeline.	The roadmap clearly creates a path to success; estimates of the work to be done are reasonable.	The roadmap is missing one or two major pieces to success; one or two estimates are unreasonable.	The roadmap is missing several major components; estimates are missing or are unreasonable.
Trade-offs and decisions made were clearly explained.	The student provided a clear explanation of trade-offs made; the rationale for their decisions was well explained.	The student was unclear about the trade-offs made; the rationale for their decisions was a bit vague or unclear.	The student couldn't explain or didn't seem to fully understand trade-offs; the rationale for their decisions was flawed or missing.
Effective use of additional resources.	The student's plans for how to use extra time or resources were well considered and specific.	The student's plans for how to use extra time or resources were okay, but not specific or realistic enough.	The student did not address the effects additional resources would have on the project or did so very poorly.
Identified and mitigated for project risks.	Top risks were accurately identified; the student presented clear and realistic mitigation plans.	Some risks were identified, but at least one important one was missed; the student presented some mitigation plans that were lacking and unrealistic.	The student did not identify several of the most important risks; mitigation plans for most risks were lacking or unrealistic.
The after-launch plan was clear and well prioritized.	The plan for what was in v1 versus v2 was clear and easy to understand; the justification for why items were prioritized for the earlier or later version was clear and comprehensive.	The student presented a reasonably clear plan for what was in version 1 (v1) versus version 2 (v2); the justification for why items were prioritized for the earlier or later version was somewhat unclear.	Student didn't include a v2 plan, or their v2 plan was vague or unrealistic; it was unclear why items were prioritized for the earlier or later version.