case4

Criteria

Excellent

Outstanding

Acceptable

Needs Improvement

Needs Significant Improvement

Missing or Unacceptable

Introduction or Overview for Public-Private Partnerships

10 points

Provided an excellent introduction or overview for public-private partnerships which provided definitions and addressed the laws and policies which permit this type of cooperation between federal, state, and local governments and private companies. The overview appropriately used information from 3 or more authoritative sources.

8.5 points

Provided an outstanding introduction or overview for public-private partnerships which addressed the laws and policies which permit this type of cooperation between federal, state, and local governments and private companies. The overview appropriately used information from 2 or more authoritative sources.

7 points

Provided an acceptable discussion which addresses public-private partnerships and the laws and policies which permit this type of cooperation between federal, state, and local governments and private companies. The discussion appropriately used information from 1 or more authoritative sources.

6 points

Introduced the topic of public-private partnerships for cybersecurity. Included some information about laws and policies which influence these partnerships. Appropriately used information from authoritative sources.

4 points

Attempted to provide an introduction to the case study but this section lacked detail and/or was not well supported by information drawn from authoritative sources.

0 points

The introduction and/or overview sections of the paper were off topic.

Overview of P-P Cooperation for Cybersecurity (What, why, how, who)

20 points

Provided an excellent discussion of the types of public-private partnership activities which the utility company could reasonably be expected to contribute to (cybersecurity activities for energy sector critical infrastructures). Provided 3 or more specific examples. Appropriately used information from 3 or more authoritative sources.

18 points

Provided an outstanding discussion of the types of public-private partnershipactivities which the utility company could reasonably be expected to contribute to (cybersecurity activities for energy sector critical infrastructures). Provided 2 or more specific examples. Appropriately used information from 2 or more authoritative sources.

16 points

Provided an acceptable discussion of the types of public-private partnershipactivities which the utility company could reasonably be expected to contribute to (cybersecurity activities for energy sector critical infrastructures). Provided at least one specific example. Appropriately used information from 1 or more authoritative sources.

14 points

Discussed participation in existing public-private partnerships for critical infrastructure cybersecurity. Appropriately used information from authoritative sources.

10 points

Mentioned public-private partnerships for cybersecurity. This section lacked detail and/or was not well supported by information drawn from authoritative sources. 

0 points

Did not discuss public-private partnerships for cybersecurity. 

Identified and Discussed Benefits & Risks of Participation in P-P Partnerships

20 points

Provided an excellent analysis of whether or not participation in a public-private partnership is likely to have benefits for the utility company. Provided three or more specific examples of expected benefits. Provided a discussion of potential participation-related costs or risks which the company could expect to face (with 3 or more specific examples). Appropriately used information from 3 or more authoritative sources.

18 points

Provided an outstanding analysis of whether or not participation in a public-private partnership is likely to have benefits for the utility company. Provided two or more specific examples of expected benefits. Provided a discussion of potential participation-related costs or risks which the company could expect to face (with 2 or more specific examples). Appropriately used information from 2 or more authoritative sources.

16 points

Provided an acceptable analysis of whether or not participation in a public-private partnership is likely to have benefits for the utility company. Provided at least one specific example of an expected benefit. Provided a discussion of potential participation-related costs or risks which the company could expect to face (with 1 or more specific examples). Appropriately used information from 1 or more authoritative sources.

14 points

Provided a discussion of the benefits / risks of participation in public/private partnerships for cybersecurity in the energy sector. Appropriately used information from authoritative sources.

10 points

Provided a discussion of benefits / risks of participation in public/private partnerships for cybersecurity in the energy sector. The discussion lacked detail and/or was not well supported by information drawn from authoritative sources.

0 points

This section was missing, off topic, or failed to provide information about benefits / costs of participation in public-private partnerships for cybersecurity.

Recommendations

10 points

Provided an excellent, well-reasoned recommendation (with justification and/or rationale) for which, if any, existing or proposed public-private partnerships the utility company should consider participating in. Addressed both the potential benefits and the risks. Appropriately used information from 3 or more authoritative sources.

8.5 points

Provided an outstanding recommendation (with justification and/or rationale) for which, if any, existing or proposed public-private partnerships the utility company should consider participating in.Addressed both the potential benefits and the risks.Appropriately used information from 2 or more authoritative sources.

7 points

Provided an acceptable recommendation (with justification and/or rationale) for which, if any, existing or proposed public-private partnerships the utility company should consider participating in. Mentioned benefits and/or risks. Appropriately used information from 1 or more authoritative sources.

6 points

Discussed participation in public-private partnerships but the recommendations were weak or lacked justification / rational. Appropriately used information from authoritative sources.

4 points

Mentioned the possible benefits of participation in a public-private partnership but the discussion lacked detail and/or was not supported by information from authoritative sources.

0 points

Did not provide recommendations which addressed participation in public-private partnerships.

Summary of Research and Recommendations

10 points

Provided an excellent summary of the research and recommendations for this deliverable. Summary was clear, concise, and accurate. Appropriately used information from authoritative sources.

8.5 points

Provided an outstanding summary of the research and recommendations for this deliverable. Summary was clear and accurate. Appropriately used information from authoritative sources.

7 points

Provided an acceptable summary of the research and recommendations for this deliverable. Appropriately used information from authoritative sources.

6 points

Provided a summary section but, this section was disorganized or lacked relevant details. Mentioned information from authoritative sources.

4 points

Attempted to provide a summary for this deliverable. But, the summary was not relevant to the deliverable. OR, this section was not well supported by information from authoritative sources.

0 points

The summary was missing.

Professionalism: Addressed security issues using standard cybersecurity terminology

5 points

Demonstrated excellence in the integration of standard cybersecurity terminology into the case study.

4 points

Provided an outstanding integration of standard cybersecurity terminology into the case study.

3 points

Integrated standard cybersecurity terminology into the into the case study

2 points

Used standard cybersecurity terminology but this usage was not well integrated with the discussion.

1 point

Misused standard cybersecurity terminology.

0 points

Did not integrate standard cybersecurity terminology into the discussion.

Professionalism: APA Formatting for Citations and Reference List

5 points

Work contains a reference list containing entries for all cited resources. Reference list entries and in-text citations are correctly formatted using the appropriate APA style for each type of resource.

4 points

Work contains a reference list containing entries for all cited resources. One or two minor errors in APA format for in-text citations and/or reference list entries.

3 points

Work contains a reference list containing entries for all cited resources. No more than 3 minor errors in APA format for in-text citations and/or reference list entries.

2 points

Work has no more than three paragraphs with omissions of citations crediting sources for facts and information. Work contains a reference list containing entries for cited resources. Work contains no more than 5 minor errors in APA format for in-text citations and/or reference list entries.

1 point

Work attempts to credit sources but demonstrates a fundamental failure to understand and apply the APA formatting standard as defined in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.).

0 points

Reference list is missing. Work demonstrates an overall failure to incorporate and/or credit authoritative sources for information used in the paper.

Professionalism: Organization & Appearance

5 points

Submitted work shows outstanding organization and the use of color, fonts, titles, headings and sub-headings, etc. is appropriate to the assignment type.

4 points

Submitted work has minor style or formatting flaws but still presents a professional appearance. Submitted work is well organized and appropriately uses color, fonts, and section headings (per the assignment’s directions).

3 points

Organization and/or appearance of submitted work could be improved through better use of fonts, color, titles, headings, etc. OR Submitted work has multiple style or formatting errors. Professional appearance could be improved.

2 points

Submitted work has multiple style or formatting errors. Organization and professional appearance need substantial improvement.

1 point

Submitted work meets minimum requirements but has major style and formatting errors. Work is disorganized and needs to be rewritten for readability and professional appearance.

0 points

Submitted work is poorly organized and formatted. Writing and presentation are lacking in professional style and appearance. Work does not reflect college level writing skills.

Professionalism: Execution

15 points

No formatting, grammar, spelling, or punctuation errors.

14 points

Work contains minor errors in formatting, grammar, spelling or punctuation which do not significantly impact professional appearance.

13 points

Errors in formatting, spelling, grammar, or punctuation which detract from professional appearance of the submitted work.

11 points

Submitted work has numerous errors in formatting, spelling, grammar, or punctuation. Work is unprofessional in appearance.

4 points

Submitted work is difficult to read / understand and has significant errors in formatting, spelling, grammar, punctuation, or word usage.

0 points

Submitted work is poorly executed OR does not reflect college level work.

Overall Score

Excellent 90 or more

Outstanding 80 or more

Acceptable 70 or more

Needs Improvement 56 or more

Needs Significant Improvement 36 or more

Missing or Unacceptable 0 or more