Stakeholder Analysis

Points: 225

Assignment 2: Stakeholder Analysis

Criteria

Unacceptable Below 70% F

Fair 70-79% C

Proficient 80-89% B

Exemplary 90-100% A

1. Apply the procedures for argumentation analysis (located in Chapter 8) to display contending positions and underlying assumptions for the content of Review Question 1. Weight:15%

Did not submit or incompletely applied the procedures for argumentation analysis (located in Chapter 8) to display contending positions and underlying assumptions for the content of Review Question 1.

Partially applied the procedures for argumentation analysis (located in Chapter 8) to display contending positions and underlying assumptions for the content of Review Question 1.

Satisfactorily applied the procedures for argumentation analysis (located in Chapter 8) to display contending positions and underlying assumptions for the content of Review Question 1.

Thoroughly applied the procedures for argumentation analysis (located in Chapter 8) to display contending positions and underlying assumptions for the content of Review Question 1.

2. Rate the assumptions and plot them according to their plausibility and importance. (Refer to Figure 3.16, Distribution of warrant by plausibility and importance.) Weight: 10%

Did not submit or incompletely rated the assumptions and plotted them according to their plausibility and importance. (Refer to Figure 3.16, Distribution of warrant by plausibility and importance.)

Partially rated the assumptions and plotted them according to their plausibility and importance. (Refer to Figure 3.16, Distribution of warrant by plausibility and importance.)

Satisfactorily rated the assumptions and plotted them according to their plausibility and importance. (Refer to Figure 3.16, Distribution of warrant by plausibility and importance.)

Thoroughly rated the assumptions and plotted them according to their plausibility and importance. (Refer to Figure 3.16, Distribution of warrant by plausibility and importance.)

3. Determine which arguments are the most plausible. Provide a rationale for your views. Weight:15%

Did not submit or incompletely determined which arguments are the most plausible. Did not submit or incompletely provided a rationale for your views.

Partially determined which arguments are the most plausible. Partially provided a rationale for your views.

Satisfactorily determined which arguments are the most plausible. Satisfactorily provided a rationale for your views.

Thoroughly determined which arguments are the most plausible. Thoroughly provided a rationale for your views.

4 Apply the procedures for stakeholder analysis presented in Box 3.0 Conducting a Stakeholder Analysis to generate a list of at least five to ten (5-10) stakeholders who affect or are affected by problems in the issue area chosen for analysis. Weight:15%

Did not submit or incompletely applied the procedures for stakeholder analysis presented in Box 3.0 Conducting a Stakeholder Analysis to generate a list of at least five to ten (5-10) stakeholders who affect or are affected by problems in the issue area chosen for analysis.

Partially applied the procedures for stakeholder analysis presented in Box 3.0 Conducting a Stakeholder Analysis to generate a list of at least five to ten (5-10) stakeholders who affect or are affected by problems in the issue area chosen for analysis.

Satisfactorily applied the procedures for stakeholder analysis presented in Box 3.0 Conducting a Stakeholder Analysis to generate a list of at least five to ten (5-10) stakeholders who affect or are affected by problems in the issue area chosen for analysis.

Thoroughly applied the procedures for stakeholder analysis presented in Box 3.0 Conducting a Stakeholder Analysis to generate a list of at least five to ten (5-10) stakeholders who affect or are affected by problems in the issue area chosen for analysis.

5. After creating a cumulative frequency distribution from the list, discuss new ideas generated by each stakeholder. Weight:15%

Did not submit or incompletely discussed new ideas generated by each stakeholder after creating a cumulative frequency distribution from the list.

Partially discussed new ideas generated by each stakeholder after creating a cumulative frequency distribution from the list.

Satisfactorily discussed new ideas generated by each stakeholder after creating a cumulative frequency distribution from the list.

Thoroughly discussed new ideas generated by each stakeholder after creating a cumulative frequency distribution from the list.

6. Write an analysis of the results of the frequency distribution that answers the following questions: (a) Does the line graph flatten out? (b) If so, after how many stakeholders? (c) What conclusions can be drawn about the policy problems in the issue area? Weight:15%

Did not submit or incompletely wrote an analysis of the results of the frequency distribution that answers the following questions: (a) Does the line graph flatten out? (b) If so, after how many stakeholders? (c) What conclusions can be drawn about the policy problems in the issue area?

Partially wrote an analysis of the results of the frequency distribution that answers the following questions: (a) Does the line graph flatten out? (b) If so, after how many stakeholders? (c) What conclusions can be drawn about the policy problems in the issue area?

Satisfactorily wrote an analysis of the results of the frequency distribution that answers the following questions: (a) Does the line graph flatten out? (b) If so, after how many stakeholders? (c) What conclusions can be drawn about the policy problems in the issue area?

Thoroughly wrote an analysis of the results of the frequency distribution that answers the following questions: (a) Does the line graph flatten out? (b) If so, after how many stakeholders? (c) What conclusions can be drawn about the policy problems in the issue area?

7. 2 references Weight: 5%

Does not meet the required number of references

Meets the required number of references; some or all references poor quality choices.

Meets number of required references; most references quality choices.

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

8. Clarity, writing mechanics, and formatting requirements Weight: 10%

More than 6 errors present

5-6 errors present

3-4 errors present

0-2 errors present