need help 4

if_gte_mso_10.docx

Home >Computer Science homework help >need help 4

[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Calibri;} </style> <![endif]

StartFragment

Points: 80	Case Study 1: Florida Department of Management Services, Part I
Criteria	Unacceptable Below 70% F	Fair 70-79% C	Proficient 80-89% B	Exemplary 90-100% A
1. Analyze the security mechanisms needed to protect the DMS systems from both state employees and users accessing over the Internet. Weight: 20%	Did not submit or incompletely analyzed the security mechanisms needed to protect the DMS systems from both state employees and users accessing over the Internet.	Partially analyzed the security mechanisms needed to protect the DMS systems from both state employees and users accessing over the Internet.	Satisfactorily analyzed the security mechanisms needed to protect the DMS systems from both state employees and users accessing over the Internet.	Thoroughly analyzed the security mechanisms needed to protect the DMS systems from both state employees and users accessing over the Internet.
2. Critique the transition process performed by the DMS in the case study and recommend two (2) alternatives to the IP infrastructure or applications not already mentioned in the case study. Weight: 30%	Did not submit or incompletely critiqued the transition process performed by the DMS in the case study and did not submit or incompletely recommended two (2) alternatives to the IP infrastructure or applications not already mentioned in the case study.	Partially critiqued the transition process performed by the DMS in the case study and partially recommended two (2) alternatives to the IP infrastructure or applications not already mentioned in the case study.	Satisfactorily critiqued the transition process performed by the DMS in the case study and satisfactorily recommended two (2) alternatives to the IP infrastructure or applications not already mentioned in the case study.	Thoroughly critiqued the transition process performed by the DMS in the case study and thoroughly recommended two (2) alternatives to the IP infrastructure or applications not already mentioned in the case study.
3. Critique the merits of the major services found on the DMS Website. Weight: 20%	Did not submit or incompletely critiqued the merits of the major services found on the DMS Website.	Partially critiqued the merits of the major services found on the DMS Website.	Satisfactorily critiqued the merits of the major services found on the DMS Website.	Thoroughly critiqued the merits of the major services found on the DMS Website.
4. Recommend an additional service to add to the DMS Website. Weight: 15%	Did not submit or incompletely recommended an additional service to add to the DMS Website.	Partially recommended an additional service to add to the DMS Website.	Satisfactorily recommended an additional service to add to the DMS Website.	Thoroughly recommended an additional service to add to the DMS Website.
5. 3 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, writing mechanics, and formatting requirements Weight: 10%	More than 6 errors present	5-6 errors present	3-4 errors present	0-2 errors present