COMPANY PROJECT ANALYSIS
Case Analysis Rubric
| Section/Grade Level | A | B | C | F | ||
| 90--100% | 80-89% | 70-79% | Zero points | TOTAL POINTS AVAILABLE | TOTAL POINTS EARNED | |
| Historical Background | Information is clear and insightful. Ideas are in-depth and complex. | Information is clear. Ideas are insightful. | Information is somewhat clear. Ideas are obvious. | Information is unclear. Ideas are weak. | 10 | |
| Internal Analysis: Strengths & Weaknesses | Information is clear and insightful. Ideas are in-depth and complex. Minimum of 18 Strengths and 18 Weaknesses that are correct. (22=100%) | Information is clear. Ideas are insightful. Minimum of 14 Strengths and 14 Weaknesses that are correct. | Information is somewhat clear. Ideas are obvious. Minimum of 10 Strengths and 10 Weaknesses that are correct. | Information is unclear. Ideas are weak. Minimum is not met. | 50 | |
| External Analysis: Opportunities & Threats | Information is clear and insightful. Ideas are in-depth and complex. Minimum of 18 Opportunities and 18 Threats that are correct. (22=100%) | Information is clear. Ideas are insightful. Minimum of 14 Opportunities and 14 Threats that are correct. | Information is somewhat clear. Ideas are obvious. Minimum of 10 Opportunities and 10 Threats that are correct. | Information is unclear. Ideas are weak. Minimum is not met. | 50 | |
| Financial Analysis | Critical factors considered and articulated. Quantitative evidence is synthesized as appropriate. Documented evidence addressing the issues in terms of key business functions as appropriate. Provides support for justification of analysis. Minimum of 5 competitior comarisons. Failure to include the key profit ratios, liquidity ratios, leverage ratios, and shareholder ratios results in an automatic 50 point deduction. | Critical factors noted and supported. Documented evidence addressing the issues in terms of key business functions as appropriate. Minimum of 4 competitior comarisons. Failure to include the key profit ratios, liquidity ratios, leverage ratios, and shareholder ratios results in an automatic 50 point deduction. | Critical factors noted. Evidence has marginal support. Minimum of 3 competitior comarisons. Failure to include the key profit ratios, liquidity ratios, leverage ratios, and shareholder ratios results in an automatic 50 point deduction. | Some critical factors omitted. Evidence has weak support or is supported based on opinion. Failure to include the key profit ratios, liquidity ratios, leverage ratios, and shareholder ratios results in an automatic 50 point deduction. | 75 | |
| Porter's Model of Competition | Effective and in-depth identification and analysis of each business strategy based on case data, course principles, and current research. | Business strategies are listed and discussed in terms of case data, course principles, and current research.\ | Business strategies are noted with marginal support. | Some business strategies are missing, research and analysis is weak. | 20 | |
| Current Situation | Credible/Current (within the last two years) varied sources are used and are well integrated with student's ideas | Credible and varied sources | Credible sources | Insufficient resources or non-credible sources | 10 | |
| Recommendations | Effective and in-depth justification of recommended course(s) of action based on case data, course principles, and current research. Include a discussion of implementation issues. 18: is the minimum. (22=100%) Automatic 40 point deduction for failure to include the required spreadsheet connecting the recommendations to the SWOT analysis. | Recommended course(s) of action are listed and discussed in terms of case data, course principles, and current research. 14: is the minimum. Automatic 40 point deduction for failure to include the required spreadsheet connecting the recommendations to the SWOT analysis. | Recommended course(s) of action are noted with marginal support. 10: is the minimum. Automatic 40 point deduction for failure to include the required spreadsheet connecting the recommendations to the SWOT analysis. | Potential recommended course(s) of action are missing, research and analysis is weak. Less than 10 recommendations are listed. Automatic 40 point deduction for failure to include the required spreadsheet connecting the recommendations to the SWOT analysis. | 75 | |
| Case Presentation | Correctly formatted in APA | Minor format errors | Noticeable format errors | Significant format errors | 10 | |
| Grammar & Mechanics | 5-points will be deducted for each statement missing source documentation, each misspelled word, and each grammatical error before the assignment/analysis is graded for content. | Beginning with the sixth statement missing source documentation, the paper will be graded as plagiarized, resulting in a final grade of zero points. | 300 |
&C&"Arial,Bold"&12CASE ANALYSIS RUBRIC
&RDraft 2-20-02