|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Criteria
|
Outstanding
|
Superior
|
Good
|
Substandard
|
Failure
|
|
Content: Background including Vision, Mission and Objectives
|
2.8 points
Background including vision, mission and objective are presented and thoroughly discussed; Vision, mission, and objectives are thoroughly discussed in terms of the definition. For example, vision is forward thinking and mission is about goals and values of organization).
(2.52 - 2.8)
|
2.38 points
Background including vision, mission and objective are presented with good discussion; Good discussion about vision, mission, and objectives are discussed in terms of the definition but could be more thorough.
(2.24 - 2.51)
|
2.1 points
Background including vision, mission and objective are presented with some discussion; Vision, mission, and objectives are provided but not discussed in any detail.
(1.96 - 2.23)
|
1.82 points
Attempted to discuss background or vision, mission and objectives but key points were missing or superficially presented.
(1.68 - 1.95)
|
0 points
Failed to discuss the background and vision, mission and objectives.
(0 – 1.67)
|
|
Content: Internal Environmental Analysis
|
2.8 points
Internal Environmental Analysis including corporate, business and functional analysis are presented and thoroughly discussed. Thorough discussion of stakeholders, organizational structure, organizational culture, and communication/decision making among managers within human resources, marketing production, operations, finance and accounting, R&D, and computer information systems
(2.52 - 2.8)
|
2.38 points
Internal Environmental Analysis including corporate, business and functional analysis are presented with good discussion; Good discussion about stakeholders, organizational structure, organizational culture, and communication/decision making among managers within human resources, marketing production, operations, finance and accounting, R&D, and computer information systems but could be more thorough.
(2.24 - 2.51)
|
2.1 points
Internal Environmental Analysis including corporate, business and functional analysis are presented with some discussion; stakeholders, organizational structure, organizational culture, and communication/decision making among managers within human resources, marketing production, operations, finance and accounting, R&D, and computer information systems are provided but not discussed in any detail.
(1.96 - 2.23)
|
1.82 points
Attempted to discuss Internal Environmental Analysis including corporate, business and functional analysis but key points were missing or superficially presented. Stakeholders, organizational structure, organizational culture, and communication/decision making among managers within human resources, marketing production, operations, finance and accounting, R&D, and computer information systems was not included.
(1.68 - 1.95)
|
0 points
Failed to present the Internal Environmental Analysis.
(0 – 1.67)
|
|
Content: Financial Analysis
|
2.8 points
Financial Analysis thoroughly and accurately presented with calculatedkey financial ratios, industry averages presented, strength/weakness/neutral identified and company financials to the industry compared and contrasted.
(2.52 - 2.8)
|
2.38 points
Financial Analysis was accurately presented withcalculated key financial ratios, industry averages presented, strength/weakness/neutral identified and company financials to the industry compared and contrasted but could have been more thorough.
(2.24 - 2.51)
|
2.1 points
Financial Analysis was presented with calculatedkey financial ratios, industry averages presented, strength/weakness/neutral identified and company financials to the industry compared and contrasted but was not consistently accurate or thorough in presentation. Ratios were taken from website rather than showing calculations.
(1.96 - 2.23)
|
1.82 points
Attempted to provide complete financial Analysis withcalculated key financial ratios, industry averages presented, strength/weakness/neutral identified and company financials to the industry compared and contrasted but was not consistently accurate or there was evidence of missing information or only partial presentation was seen.
(1.68 - 1.95)
|
0 points
Failed to present Financial Analysis.
(0 – 1.67)
|
|
Content: Technique Analysis
|
2.8 points
Technique Analysis: accurate development of each technique with thoroughly explanation of IFE, BCG matrix, Grand Strategy Matrix and QSPM; techniques are thoroughly discussed in terms of overall analysis.
(2.52 - 2.8)
|
2.38 points
Technique Analysis: accurate development of each technique with some explanation of IFE, BCG matrix, Grand Strategy Matrix and QSPM; techniques are discussed in terms of overall analysis.
(2.24 - 2.51)
|
2.1 points
Technique Analysis: development of each technique with some explanation of IFE, BCG matrix, Grand Strategy Matrix and QSPM; techniques are briefly discussed in terms of overall analysis but there was missing information or analysis could have been better presented.
(1.96 - 2.23)
|
1.82 points
Attempted to complete a technique analysis: there were several issues related to the development of each technique - IFE, BCG matrix, Grand Strategy Matrix and QSPM; techniques were performed but no discussion in terms of overall analysis or superficially presented.
(1.68 - 1.95)
|
0 points
Failed to present Technique Analysis.
(0 – 1.67)
|
|
Content: Strategy Analysis
|
2.8 points
Strategy Analysis accurately and thoroughly presented with discussion about strengths and weaknesses, success factors, how strategies can capitalize on major strengths, improve upon weaknesses, at least fivealternative strategies; cultural factors and selections are prioritized.
(2.52 - 2.8)
|
2.38 points
Strategy Analysis accurately and thoroughly presented with discussion about strengths and weaknesses, success factors, how strategies can capitalize on major strengths, improve upon weaknesses, at least fouralternative strategies; cultural factors and selections are prioritized.
(2.24 - 2.51)
|
2.1 points
Strategy Analysis accurately and thoroughly presented with discussion about strengths and weaknesses, success factors, how strategies can capitalize on major strengths, improve upon weaknesses, at leastthree alternative strategies; cultural factors and selections are prioritized. There are weak areas presented throughout this section.
(1.96 - 2.23)
|
1.82 points
Attempted to complete a strategy analysis but discussion about strengths and weaknesses, success factors, how strategies can capitalize on major strengths, improve upon weaknesses, alternative strategies; cultural factors and prioritized selections is missing information or superficially presented.
(1.68 - 1.95)
|
0 points
Failed to present Strategy Analysis.
(0 – 1.67)
|
|
Content: Recommendation
|
2.8 points
Recommendation for the best strategy among alternatives strategies is thoroughly discussed. The selected strategy(ies) aligns with all elements of the SM process.
(2.52 - 2.8)
|
2.38 points
Recommendation for the best strategy among alternatives strategies is briefly discussed. The selected strategy(ies) aligns with all elements of the SM process.
(2.24 - 2.51)
|
2.1 points
Recommendation for the best strategy among alternatives strategies is discussed but the selected strategy(ies) may not align with elements of the SM process.
(1.96 - 2.23)
|
1.82 points
Attempted to make recommendation for the best strategy among alternatives strategies but is superficially discussed. The selected strategy(ies) does not align with elements of the SM process.
(1.68 - 1.95)
|
0 points
Failed to provide recommendation for the best strategy.
(0 – 1.67)
|
|
Critical Thinking/Reasoning
|
2.8 points
Comments reflect a highly accomplished level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study facts resulting in accurate, thorough, and soundly reasoned conclusions.
(2.52 - 2.8)
|
2.38 points
Comments reflect an excellent level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study facts resulting in accurately reasoned conclusions.
(2.24 - 2.51)
|
2.1 points
Comments reflect a satisfactory level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study facts resulting in partially correct conclusions that lack development or detail that demonstrates insight into reasoning.
(1.96 - 2.23)
|
1.82 points
Comments reflect an unsatisfactory level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study facts, resulting in conclusions that are underdeveloped or lack soundly reasoned conclusions.
(1.68 - 1.95)
|
0 points
Comments reflect an unsatisfactory level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study facts, resulting in failure to draw little to no conclusions.
(0 – 1.67)
|
|
Application of Resources
|
2.8 points
Presents exceptionally well-supported arguments or positions with evidence from the readings/experience; ideas go beyond the course material and recognize implications and extensions of the material and concepts.
(2.52 - 2.8)
|
2.38 points
Presents excellent arguments or positions that are mostly supported by evidence from the readings and course content; ideas presented demonstrate understanding of the material and concepts.
(2.24 - 2.51)
|
2.1 points
Satisfactory arguments or positions are presented but there is a mix of opinion or unclear view with supported arguments using course readings. Case study facts are occasionally used but arguments would be much stronger with use of facts.
(1.96 - 2.23)
|
1.82 points
Arguments are frequently illogical and unsubstantiated; Limited use of facts in case study and essential information presented in course readings.
(1.68 - 1.95)
|
0 points
Arguments lack meaningful explanation or support of ideas. Does not provide facts presented in case study.
(0 – 1.67)
|
|
Attention to Instructions
|
1.4 points
Demonstrates exceptional understanding of requirements responding completely to each aspect of assignment including minor aspects of the assignment such as using third person writing, required use of course readings, and assignment format.
(1.26 - 1.4)
|
1.19 points
Demonstrates excellent understanding of requirements; missed one minor aspect of assignment.
(1.12 - 1.25)
|
1.05 points
Demonstrates satisfactory understanding of requirements; missed a key element or two minor aspects of assignment.
(0.98 - 1.11)
|
0.91 points
Fails to show a firm understanding of requirements; missed two key elements or several minor aspects of assignment.
(0.84 - 0.97)
|
0 points
Fails to demonstrate understanding of assignment requirements.
(0 – 0.83)
|
|
Writing Mechanics
|
2.8 points
Strictly adheres to standard usage rules of written English, including but not limited to capitalization, punctuation, run-on sentences, missing or extra words, stylistic errors, spelling and grammatical errors. No errors found. No contractions or jargon used.
(2.52 - 2.8)
|
2.38 points
Excellently adheres to standard usage of mechanics: conventions of written English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. One to three errors found.
(2.24 - 2.51)
|
2.1 points
Satisfactorily adheres to standard usage rules of mechanics: conventions of English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. Four to 10 errors found.
(1.96 - 2.23)
|
1.82 points
Minimally adheres to standard usage rules of mechanics: conventions of written English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. More than 10 errors found.
(1.68 - 1.95)
|
0 points
Does not adhere to standard usage rules of mechanics: conventions of written English largely incomprehensible; or errors are too plentiful to count.
(0 – 1.67)
|
|
APA Style (6th ed.)
|
1.4 points
No APA style or usage errors; Proper citation of source material is used throughout paper; Reference titles follow APA with only the first word, the first word after a colon and proper nouns capitalized.
(1.26 - 1.4)
|
1.19 points
Attempts in-text citations and reference list but one or two APA style errors noted or fails to use APA citations when appropriate 1-2 times.
(1.12 - 1.25)
|
1.05 points
Attempts in-text citations and reference lists; APA style errors are noted throughout document; Fails to use APA citations when appropriate 3 times in document.
(0.98 - 1.11)
|
0.91 points
Attempts in-text citations and reference lists; Fails to use APA citation when appropriate 4-5 times; or presents only 1-2 in-text citations and reference list in a paper that requires APA citations throughout the document.
(0.84 - 0.97)
|
|