| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points |
| HCA-620 | HCA-620-O500 | Benchmark – Business Plan Models | 110.0 |
| Criteria | Percentage | 1: Unsatisfactory (0.00%) | 2: Less Than Satisfactory (74.00%) | 3: Satisfactory (79.00%) | 4: Good (87.00%) | 5: Excellent (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned |
| Content | 70.0% |
| Business Plan Models Comparison | 14.0% | A comparison of the three business plan models is not included. | A comparison of the three business plan models is incomplete or otherwise deficient. | A comparison of the three business plan models is present, but only minimal detail or support is provided. | A comparison of the three business plan models is provided with appropriate details and support. | A comparison of the three business plan models is thoroughly explored and clearly explained with relevant details and support. |
| Model Strengths and Limitations | 14.0% | A description of the strengths and limitations of each model is not included. | A description of the strengths and limitations of each model is incomplete or otherwise deficient. | A description of the strengths and limitations of each model is present, but only minimal detail or support is provided. | A description of the strengths and limitations of each model is provided with appropriate details and support. | A description of the strengths and limitations of each model is thoroughly explored and clearly explained with relevant details and support. |
| Microsoft Project or Apple Merlin Business Plan Model Comparison | 14.0% | A comparison of the three business plan models with the models provided in Microsoft Project or Apple Merlin is not included. | A comparison of the three business plan models with the models provided in Microsoft Project or Apple Merlin is incomplete or otherwise deficient. | A comparison of the three business plan models with the models provided in Microsoft Project or Apple Merlin is present, but only minimal detail or support is provided. | A comparison of the three business plan models with the models provided in Microsoft Project or Apple Merlin is provided with appropriate details and support. | A comparison of the three business plan models with the models provided in Microsoft Project or Apple Merlin is thoroughly explored and clearly explained with relevant details and support. |
| CLC Business Plan Model Selection and Rationale | 14.0% | Selection of a business plan model that would work best for CLC Business Plan and a rationale for the selection are not included. | Selection of a business plan model that would work best for CLC Business Plan and a rationale for the selection are incomplete or otherwise deficient. | Selection of a business plan model that would work best for CLC Business Plan and a rationale for the selection are present, but only minimal detail or support is provided. | Selection of a business plan model that would work best for CLC Business Plan and a rationale for the selection are provided with appropriate details and support. | Selection of a business plan model that would work best for CLC Business Plan and a rationale for the selection are thoroughly explored and clearly explained with relevant details and support. |
| Systems-Based Theoretical Applications (C3.4) | 14.0% | A description of how to use systems-based theoretical applications in managing health care systems and services is not included. | A description of how to use systems-based theoretical applications in managing health care systems and services is incomplete or otherwise deficient. | A description of how to use systems-based theoretical applications in managing health care systems and services is present, but only minimal detail or support is provided. | A description of how to use systems-based theoretical applications in managing health care systems and services is provided with appropriate details and support. | A description of how to use systems-based theoretical applications in managing health care systems and services is thoroughly explored and clearly explained with relevant details and support. |
| Organization and Effectiveness | 20.0% |
| Thesis Development and Purpose | 7.0% | Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. | Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. | Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. | Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. | Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. |
| Argument Logic and Construction | 8.0% | Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. | Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. | 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. | Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. | Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. |
| Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) | 5.0% | Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. | Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. | Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. | Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. | Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. |
| Format | 10.0% |
| Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) | 5.0% | Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. | Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. | Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. | Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. | All format elements are correct. |
| Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) | 5.0% | Sources are not documented. | Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. | Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. |
| Total Weightage | 100% |
Need_Help_Now96
Rubric_Print_Format13.xlsx
