| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points |
| BUS-485 | BUS-485-EWF300A | Benchmark - Executive Summary | 80.0 |
| Criteria | Percentage | 1: Unsatisfactory (0.00%) | 2: Less Than Satisfactory (65.00%) | 3: Satisfactory (75.00%) | 4: Good (85.00%) | 5: Excellent (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned |
| % Scaling | 100.0% |
| Synthesis of Key Analytical Findings | 15.0% | Synthesis and presentation of key analytical findings are not included. | Synthesis and presentation of key analytical findings are incomplete or insufficiently developed. | Synthesis and presentation of key analytical findings are included but demonstrate only superficial research relevant to the corporation. | Synthesis and presentation of key analytical findings demonstrate some applied research relevant to the corporation. | Synthesis and presentation of key analytical findings demonstrate thorough critical research directly related to the corporation. |
| Strategic Alternatives Proposal | 15.0% | Proposal and assessment of two strategic alternatives are not included. | Proposal and assessment of two strategic alternatives are incomplete or insufficiently developed. | Proposal and assessment of two strategic alternatives are included but demonstrate only superficial research relevant to the corporation. | Proposal and assessment of two strategic alternatives demonstrate some applied research relevant to the corporation. | Proposal and assessment of two strategic alternatives demonstrate thorough critical research directly related to the corporation. |
| Competitive Advantage (C3.3) | 15.0% | Steps to create a competitive advantage for the proposed alternative are not included. | Steps to create a competitive advantage for the proposed alternative are incomplete or insufficiently developed. | Steps to create a competitive advantage for the proposed alternative are included but demonstrate only superficial familiarity with the mission, vision, and values of the firm. | Steps to create a competitive advantage for the proposed alternative demonstrate some familiarity with the mission, vision, and values of the firm. | Steps to create a competitive advantage for the proposed alternative demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the organizational mission, vision, and values. |
| Funding Source | 15.0% | Proposed funding source is not included. | Proposed funding source is identified, but selection is not defended. | Proposed funding source is identified, but defense of the selection demonstrates only a superficial familiarity with the inner workings of the corporation. | Proposed funding source and defense of the selection demonstrate some familiarity with the inner workings of the corporation. | Proposed funding source and defense of the selection demonstrate perceptive insights into the inner workings of the corporation. |
| Leadership Development Plan (C4.3) | 15.0% | Leadership development plan is not included. | Leadership development plan is incomplete or insufficiently developed. | Leadership development plan is lacking in specificity and detail and demonstrates only a superficial familiarity with the inner workings of the corporation. | Leadership development plan is appropriate for the corporation researched and provides some insight into how the initiative will promote a shared vision. | Leadership development plan is specifically tailored to the corporation researched and provides detailed steps for how the initiative will promote a shared cultural vision. |
| Thesis Development and Purpose | 5.0% | 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 | 5.0% | 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 progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. | Clear and convincing argument 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. |
| 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% |
dignedeb
Rubric_Print_Format7Executivesummary.xlsx
