| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points |
| DBA-835 | DBA-835-O500 | Benchmark - Case Study Paper | 300.0 |
| Criteria | Percentage | Unsatisfactory (0.00%) | Less Than Satisfactory (73.00%) | Satisfactory (82.00%) | Good (91.00%) | Excellent (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned |
| Content | 80.0% |
| Summary of the Current Environment as Presented in the Case | 3.0% | A summary of the current environment as presented in the case is either missing or not evident to the reader. | A summary of the current environment as presented in the case is included, but is inaccurate or incomplete. | A summary of the current environment as presented in the case is included, but focuses on minor rather than major themes and ideas. | A summary of the current environment as presented in the case is included and focuses on major themes and ideas. | A summary of the current environment as presented in the case is included and thorough illuminating major themes and ideas with rich detail. |
| Summary of the Business Issue | 3.0% | A summary of the business issue is not presented. | A summary of the business issue is included, but is inaccurate or incomplete. | A summary of the business issue is presented, but does not focus on the sustainability concerns of the case. | A summary of the business issue is presented and focuses on the sustainability concerns of the case. | A summary of the business issue is thoroughly presented and strongly focuses on the sustainability concerns of the case offering rich detail. |
| Differentiation Between the Leadership and Management Theories Applicable to the Case Benchmarks C1.4: Differentiate management/leadership theories in diverse business situations. | 7.0% | A differentiation between the leadership and management theories applicable to the case is not presented. | A differentiation between the leadership and management theories is included, but is incomplete or does not focus on those theories applicable to the case. | A differentiation between the leadership and management theories applicable to the case is presented, but does not clearly delineate between management and leadership theories. | A differentiation between the leadership and management theories applicable to the case is presented and focuses on the theories relevant to the case. A reasonable delineation is made between management and leadership. | A differentiation between the leadership and management theories applicable to the case is thoroughly presented and strongly focuses on the theories relevant to the case. A clear delineation is made between management and leadership. |
| Review of at Least Two Potential Resolutions | 6.0% | A review of two potential resolutions is not presented. | A review of at least two potential resolutions is presented, but resolutions are ill-conceived and illogical. No research support is offered. | A review of at least two potential resolutions is presented, but is cursory and lacking in depth. Resolutions may be viable, but appear hastily conceived and lack depth of thought. Research support is limited and from dated resources. | A review of at least two potential resolutions is presented, is logical, and is thorough. Resolutions are viable, appear moderately well-conceived, and are logical. Research support is limited, but from current resources. | A review of at least two potential resolutions is thoroughly presented with clear logic and rich detail. Resolutions are viable and well-conceived and display exceptional depth of thought. Research support is thorough and from current or seminal resources. |
| Research-Based Discussion of How Technology Might Influence the Selection of a Resolution Benchmarks C 2.1: Assess the influence of technology on a business entity. | 7.0% | A research-based discussion of how technology might influence the selection of a resolution is not presented. | A research-based discussion of how technology might influence the selection of a resolution is included, but is illogical or not connected to the selection of a resolution. No research support is offered. | A research-based discussion of how technology might influence the selection of a resolution is presented, but offers only a distant relationship to the case. Limited research support is provided, and sources used are not all scholarly. | A research-based discussion of how technology might influence the selection of a resolution is presented and offers a reasonable relationship to the case. Research support is reasonable and scholarly, but dated. | A research-based discussion of how technology might influence the selection of a resolution is thoroughly presented and strongly related to the case. Ideas are supported with scholarly current or seminal research. |
| Research-Based Discussion of the Management Techniques Necessary to Enact Each of the Potential Resolutions Benchmarks C 2.2: Analyze techniques for management in a regulatory environment. | 7.0% | A research-based discussion of the management techniques necessary to enact each of the potential resolutions is not presented. | A research-based discussion of the management techniques necessary to enact each of the potential resolutions is included, but is illogical or inaccurate. No research support is offered. | A research-based discussion of the management techniques necessary to enact each of the potential resolutions is presented, but remains cursory. Limited research support is provided, and sources used are not all scholarly. | A research-based discussion of the management techniques necessary to enact each of the potential resolutions is presented and offers reasonable though dated support from scholarly sources. | A research-based discussion of the management techniques necessary to enact each of the potential resolutions is thoroughly presented and strongly supported with scholarly current or seminal research. |
| Research-Based Discussion of the Stakeholder Perspectives That Were Considered in Selection of a Resolution Benchmarks C 2.5: Support the necessity of integrating stakeholder perspectives. | 7.0% | A research-based discussion of the stakeholder perspectives that were considered in selection of a resolution is not presented. | A research-based discussion of the stakeholder perspectives that were considered in selection of a resolution is included, but is illogical or otherwise disconnected from the case. No research support is offered. | A research-based discussion of the stakeholder perspectives that were considered in selection of a resolution is presented, but remains cursory. Limited research support is provided, and sources used are not all scholarly. | A research-based discussion of the stakeholder perspectives that were considered in selection of a resolution is presented and offers reasonable though dated support from scholarly sources. | A research-based discussion of the stakeholder perspectives that were considered in selection of a resolution is thoroughly presented and strongly supported with scholarly current or seminal research. |
| Research-Based Discussion of the Factors That Were Considered in Order to Address the Consultant's Prompting to Consider a Move to the Conscious Capitalism Philosophy Benchmarks C 2.7: Propose methods to expand business perspective beyond profit. | 6.0% | A research-based discussion of the factors that were considered in order to address the consultant's prompting to consider a move to the conscious capitalism philosophy is not presented. | A research-based discussion of the factors that were considered in order to address the consultant's prompting to consider a move to the conscious capitalism philosophy is included, but is illogical or otherwise disconnected from the case. No research support is offered. | A research-based discussion of the factors that were considered in order to address the consultant's prompting to consider a move to the conscious capitalism philosophy is presented, but remains cursory. Limited research support is provided, and sources used are not all scholarly. | A research-based discussion of the factors that were considered in order to address the consultant's prompting to consider a move to the conscious capitalism philosophy is presented and offers reasonable though dated support from scholarly sources. | A research-based discussion of the factors that were considered in order to address the consultant's prompting to consider a move to the conscious capitalism philosophy is thoroughly presented and strongly supported with scholarly current or seminal research. |
| Research-Based Discussion of the Ethical Implications of Each Option and the Influence From the Mission, Vision, and Core Values of Purple Cloud | 7.0% | A discussion of the ethical implications of each option and the influence from the mission, vision, and core values of Purple Cloud is not presented. | A discussion of the ethical implications of one option and the influence from the mission, vision, and core values of Purple Cloud is presented, but is inaccurate or illogical. No research support is offered. | A discussion of the ethical implications of each option and the influence from the mission, vision, and core values of Purple Cloud is presented, but is cursory and lacking in depth. Research support is limited and from dated resources. | A discussion of the ethical implications of each option and the influence from the mission, vision, and core values of Purple Cloud is presented and is thorough. Research support is limited, but from current resources. | A discussion of the ethical implications of each option and the influence from the mission, vision, and core values of Purple Cloud is thoroughly presented with rich detail. Research support is thorough and from current resources. |
| Research-Supported Suggested Resolution and Rationale Benchmarks C 2.3: Analyze the complexities inherent in a global integrated enterprise. | 8.0% | A suggested resolution and rationale are not presented. | A suggested resolution is presented, but the resolution is not a resolution described earlier in the paper or is arguably not the best resolution. A valid rationale for the resolution is not presented. No information of how the resolution influences the profit and loss statement and/or other financial criteria and statements is given. No research support is offered. | A suggested resolution is presented and is a resolution described earlier in the paper. The rationale for the resolution is cursory and lacking in depth. Information of how the resolution influences the profit and loss statement and/or other financial criteria and statements is given, but appears hastily conceived and lacks depth of thought. Research support is limited and from dated resources. | A suggested resolution is presented, logical, and thorough and is a resolution described earlier in the paper. The rationale for the resolution is moderately well-conceived and logical. Information of how the resolution influences the profit and loss statement and/or other financial criteria and statements is given and appears relatively well-conceived. Research support is limited, but from current resources. | A suggested resolution is thoroughly presented with clear logic and rich detail. The rationale for the resolution is well-conceived and logical. Information of how the resolution influences the profit and loss statement and/or other financial criteria and statements is well-conceived, displaying a thorough understanding of the interconnected nature of business events. Research support is thorough and from current resources. |
| Research-Based Discussion of the Level of Ongoing Innovation That Will Be Required to Carry Out the Chosen Resolution Benchmarks C 2.4: Support the necessity of continual innovation. | 6.0% | A discussion of the level of ongoing innovation that will be required to carry out the chosen resolution is not presented. | A discussion of the ethical implications of the level of ongoing innovation that will be required to carry out the chosen resolution is presented, but is illogical or otherwise disconnected from the case. No research support is offered. | A discussion of the level of ongoing innovation that will be required to carry out the chosen resolution is presented, but is cursory and lacking in depth. Research support is limited and from dated resources. | A discussion of the level of ongoing innovation that will be required to carry out the chosen resolution is presented and is thorough. Research support is limited, but from current resources. | A discussion of the level of ongoing innovation that will be required to carry out the chosen resolution is thoroughly presented with rich detail. Research support is thorough and from current resources. |
| Discussion of Future Research That Could Be Conducted | 3.0% | A discussion of future research that could be conducted is not presented. | A discussion of future research that could be conducted is presented, but ill-conceived and illogical. | A discussion of future research that could be conducted is presented, but is cursory and appears hastily conceived lacking depth of thought. | A discussion of future research that could be conducted is presented, is logical, and is thorough. The discussion appears moderately well-conceived and logical. | A discussion of future research that could be conducted is thoroughly presented with clear logic and rich detail. The discussion is well-conceived and displays exceptional depth of thought. |
| Integration of Instructor Feedback | 3.0% | Integration of instructor feedback is either missing or not evident to the reader. | Integration of instructor feedback is vaguely attempted, but does not address the majority of instructor comments and suggestions. | Integration of instructor feedback is evident though it appears as a disjointed, cursory addition. Most of the instructor comments and suggestions are addressed. | Integration of instructor feedback is evident and relatively well incorporated into the natural flow of the paper. All instructor comments and suggestions are addressed. | Integration of instructor feedback is evident and meaningful. It is seamlessly incorporated into the flow of the paper. All instructor comments and suggestions are addressed. |
| Synthesis and Argument | 7.0% | No synthesis of source information is evident. Statement of purpose is not followed to a justifiable conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses non-credible sources. | Synthesis of source information is attempted, but is not successful. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. | Synthesis of source information is present, but pedantic. Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. | Synthesis of source information is present and meaningful. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. | Synthesis of source information is present and is scholarly. Argument is clear and convincing, presenting a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. |
| Organization and Effectiveness | 10.0% |
| Thesis Development and Purpose | 10.0% | Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. | Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear. | Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose. | Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. They are descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. | Thesis and/or main claim are clear and comprehensive; the essence of the paper is contained within the thesis. |
| Format | 10.0% |
| Mechanics of Writing | 5.0% | Mechanical errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used. | Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present. | Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used. | Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used. | Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. |
| APA Format | 5.0% | Required format is rarely followed correctly. No reference page is included. No in-text citations are used. | Required format elements are missing or incorrect. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. Reference page is present. However, in-text citations are inconsistently used. | Required format is generally correct. However, errors are present (e.g. font, cover page, margins, and in-text citations). Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately documented though some errors are present. | Required format is used, but minor errors are present (e.g. headings and direct quotes). Reference page is present and includes all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and citation style is usually correct. | The document is correctly formatted. In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct. The documentation of cited sources is free of error. |
| Total Weightage | 100% |
dcgina
Rubric-835-W5.xlsx
