Make the needed corrections to Assignment 1 using instructor feedback and initialize a new project in Microsoft Project to complete the following:

Week3Professorsremarks.xlsx

Home >Human Resource Management homework help >Make the needed corrections to Assignment 1 using instructor feedback and initialize a new project in Microsoft Project to complete the following:

Sheet1

	85		41	Specifically discussed the most important process functions effectively but you could have added more detail here
		48
	85		41	Two clear recommendations are given to improve the process. Specific detailed suggestions are offered but you could have added more detail here
		48
	85		41	Discussed a hypothetical situation where the process would not be effective but you could have added more detail here
		48
	85		51	Projected the next five years and made a decisive judgement as to whether the process can be used in the future but you could have expanded much more here
		60
	90		11	Four quality sources were used. APA needs work.
		12
	95		23	There are a few writing errors. (missing commas, grammar) Make sure to proofread more carefully.
		24
	Total		207
	Late penalty		0%
	Total		207
Instructor comments: Valerie, All areas of the grading rubric were addressed although some areas could have used more detail. You needed to expand more in most areas with more research or simply elaborate on your points more. There should be more course concepts woven into this paper, as well. There are writing and APA formatting errors. Make sure to read the comments for each section and proofread more carefully.

Points: 240	Case Study 1: Prioritizing Projects at D. D. Williamson (Chapter 2)
Criteria	Unacceptable Below 70% F	Fair 70-79% C	Proficient 80-89% B	Exemplary 90-100% A
1. Analyze the prioritizing process at D. D. Williamson. Weight: 20%	Did not submit or incompletely critiqued the prioritizing process at D. D. Williamson.	Partially critiqued the prioritizing process at D. D. Williamson.	Satisfactorily critiqued the prioritizing process at D. D. Williamson.	Thoroughly critiqued the prioritizing process at D. D. Williamson.
2. Suggest two (2) recommendation to improve the prioritizing process. Weight: 20%	Did not submit or incompletely suggested two (2) recommendations to improve the prioritizing process.	Partially suggested two (2) recommendations to improve the prioritizing process.	Satisfactorily suggested two (2) recommendations to improve the prioritizing process.	Thoroughly suggested two (2) recommendations to improve the prioritizing process.
3. Create a scenario where the implemented process at D. D. Williamson would not work. Weight: 20%	Did not submit or incompletely created a scenario where the implemented process at D. D. Williamson would not work.	Partially created a scenario where the implemented process at D. D. Williamson would not work.	Satisfactorily created a scenario where the implemented process at D. D. Williamson would not work.	Thoroughly created a scenario where the implemented process at D. D. Williamson would not work.
4. Project five (5) years ahead and speculate whether or not D. D. Williamson will be using the same process. Justify your answer. Weight: 25%	Did not submit or incompletely projected five (5) years ahead. Did not submit or incompletely speculated whether or not D. D. Williamson will be using the same process.	Partially projected five (5) years ahead. Partially speculated whether or not D. D. Williamson will be using the same process.	Satisfactorily projected five (5) years ahead. Satisfactorily speculated whether or not D. D. Williamson will be using the same process.	Thoroughly projected five (5) years ahead. Thoroughly speculated whether or not D. D. Williamson will be using the same process.
5. Four (4) References Weight: 5%	No references provided.	Does not meet the required number of references; some or all references poor quality choices.	Meets number of required references; all references high quality choices.	Exceeds number of required references; all references high quality choices.
6. Clarity and writing mechanics Weight: 10%	More than 6 errors present	5-6 errors present	3-4 errors present	0-2 errors present

Points: 240 Case Study 1: Prioritizing Projects at D. D. Williamson (Chapter 2) Criteria Unacceptable Below 70% F

Fair 70-79% C

Proficient 80-89% B

Exemplary 90-100% A

1. Analyze the prioritizing process at D. D. Williamson. Weight: 20%

Did not submit or incompletely critiqued the prioritizing process at D. D. Williamson.

Partially critiqued the prioritizing process at D. D. Williamson.

Satisfactorily critiqued the prioritizing process at D. D. Williamson.

Thoroughly critiqued the prioritizing process at D. D. Williamson.

2. Suggest two (2) recommendation to improve the prioritizing process. Weight: 20%

Did not submit or incompletely suggested two (2) recommendations to improve the prioritizing process.

Partially suggested two (2) recommendations to improve the prioritizing process.

Satisfactorily suggested two (2) recommendations to improve the prioritizing process.

Thoroughly suggested two (2) recommendations to improve the prioritizing process.

3. Create a scenario where the implemented process at D. D. Williamson would not work. Weight: 20%

Did not submit or incompletely created a scenario where the implemented process at D. D. Williamson would not work.

Partially created a scenario where the implemented process at D. D. Williamson would not work.

Satisfactorily created a scenario where the implemented process at D. D. Williamson would not work.

Thoroughly created a scenario where the implemented process at D. D. Williamson would not work.

4. Project five (5) years ahead and speculate whether or not D. D. Williamson will be using the same process. Justify your answer. Weight: 25%

Did not submit or incompletely projected five (5) years ahead. Did not submit or incompletely speculated whether or not D. D. Williamson will be using the same process.

Partially projected five (5) years ahead. Partially speculated whether or not D. D. Williamson will be using the same process.

Satisfactorily projected five (5) years ahead. Satisfactorily speculated whether or not D. D. Williamson will be using the same process.

Thoroughly projected five (5) years ahead. Thoroughly speculated whether or not D. D. Williamson will be using the same process.

5. Four (4) References Weight: 5%

No references provided. Does not meet the required number of references; some or all references poor quality choices.

Meets number of required references; all references high quality choices.

Exceeds number of required references; all references high quality choices.

6. Clarity and writing mechanics Weight: 10%

More than 6 errors present

5-6 errors present 3-4 errors present 0-2 errors present

Points: 240 Case Study 1: Prioritizing Projects at D. D. Williamson (Chapter 2)

Criteria

Unacceptable

Below 70% F

Fair

70-79% C

Proficient

80-89% B

Exemplary

90-100% A

1. Analyze the

prioritizing process at

D. D. Williamson.

Weight: 20%

Did not submit or

incompletely critiqued the

prioritizing process at D.

D. Williamson.

Partially critiqued

the prioritizing

process at D. D.

Williamson.

Satisfactorily critiqued the

prioritizing process at D. D.

Williamson.

Thoroughly critiqued the prioritizing

process at D. D. Williamson.

2. Suggest two (2)

recommendation to

improve the

prioritizing

process. Weight:

20%

Did not submit or

incompletely suggested

two (2) recommendations

to improve the prioritizing

process.

Partially suggested

two (2)

recommendations to

improve the

prioritizing process.

Satisfactorily suggested two

(2) recommendations to

improve the prioritizing

process.

Thoroughly suggested two (2)

recommendations to improve the

prioritizing process.

3. Create a scenario

where the

implemented process

at D. D. Williamson

would not work.

Weight: 20%

Did not submit or

incompletely created a

scenario where the

implemented process at

D. D. Williamson would

not work.

Partially created a

scenario where the

implemented

process at D. D.

Williamson would

not work.

Satisfactorily created a

scenario where the

implemented process at D.

D. Williamson would not

work.

Thoroughly created a scenario

where the implemented process at

D. D. Williamson would not work.

4. Project five (5)

years ahead and

speculate whether or

not D. D. Williamson

will be using the

same process.

Justify your answer.

Weight: 25%

Did not submit or

incompletely projected

five (5) years ahead. Did

not submit or

incompletely speculated

whether or not D. D.

Williamson will be using

the same process.

Partially projected

five (5) years ahead.

Partially speculated

whether or not D. D.

Williamson will be

using the same

process.

Satisfactorily projected five

(5) years ahead.

Satisfactorily speculated

whether or not D. D.

Williamson will be using the

same process.

Thoroughly projected five (5) years

ahead. Thoroughly speculated

whether or not D. D. Williamson will

be using the same process.

5. Four (4)

References

Weight: 5%

No references provided. Does not meet the

required number of

references; some or

all references poor

quality choices.

Meets number of required

references; all references

high quality choices.

Exceeds number of required

references; all references high

quality choices.

6. Clarity and writing

mechanics

Weight: 10%

More than 6 errors

present

5-6 errors present 3-4 errors present 0-2 errors present