Operation Security

Criteria (Weight)

4

3

2

1

Total

1. IRT Charter (20%)

IRT Charter reflects a strong depth of knowledge and understanding. IRT Charter includes typical elements plus other relevant information.

IRT Charter reflects an adequate depth of knowledge and understanding. IRT Charter includes typical elements. Minor inaccuracies were noted, and the information was generally relevant.

IRT Charter reflects limited depth of knowledge and understanding. IRT Charter did not include typical elements. Several inaccuracies were noted, and some irrelevant material was present.

IRT Charter reflects a lack of knowledge and understanding. IRT Charter did not include typical elements. The paper is fraught with inaccurate information that was often irrelevant.

40

2. Security Incident Response Policy (20%)

The Security Incident Response Policy reflects a strong depth of knowledge and understanding. IRT Charter includes typical elements plus other relevant information.

The Security Incident Response Policy reflects an adequate depth of knowledge and understanding. IRT Charter includes typical elements. Minor inaccuracies were noted, and the information was generally relevant.

The Security Incident Response Policy reflects limited depth of knowledge and understanding. IRT Charter did not include typical elements. Several inaccuracies were noted, and some irrelevant material was present.

The Security Incident Response Policy reflects a lack of knowledge and understanding. IRT Charter did not include typical elements. The paper is fraught with inaccurate information that was often irrelevant.

40

3. Presentation Organization (10%)

The Presentation is extremely well organized.

Information is well structured. The elements flow smoothly from one to another.

The Presentation is organized.

Information is adequately phrased and structured.

The elements flow is generally smooth.

The Presentation is somewhat organized ideas; not presented in sequence

The Presentation has a lack of organization; choppy and confusing; format difficult to follow

20

4. PPT presentation document (30%)

The PPT document reflects a strong depth of knowledge and understanding. The PPT document includes all part 1 and part 2 requirements. Notes are used to support slides.

The PPT document reflects an adequate depth of knowledge and understanding. The PPT document includes all part 1 and part 2 requirements. Notes are used to support slides. Minor inaccuracies were noted, and the information was generally relevant.

The PPT document reflects limited depth of knowledge and understanding. The PPT document did not include all part 1 and part 2 requirements. Several inaccuracies were noted, and some irrelevant material was present.

The PPT document reflects a lack of knowledge and understanding. The PPT document did not include all part 1 and part 2 requirements. The PPT is fraught with inaccurate information that was often irrelevant.

60

5. Writing Style (10%)

Word choice is consistently precise and accurate. The writing is free or almost free of errors.

Word choice is acceptable. For the most part, it is appropriate for a professional presentation. There are occasional errors, but they do not represent a major distraction or obscure meaning.

Word choice is merely adequate, and the range of words is limited.

Some words are used inappropriately. The writing has many errors, and the audience is distracted by them.

Many words are used inappropriately, confusing the reader. It is not a professional presentation. There are so many errors that meaning is obscured.  The audience is confused.

20

6. APA Format (10%)

APA format is used accurately and consistently particularly on the "References" page.

APA format is used with minor errors.

There are frequent errors in APA format.

Format of the “References” page and other elements are not recognizable as APA.

20

200