Week 6 Case Study 2-PLEASE FOLLOW ATTACHED RUBRIC!
canmic
rubric_case_study_2__ing_life.docxGrading for this assignment will be based on answer quality, logic/organization of the paper, and language and writing skills, using the following rubric.
|
Points: 80 |
Case Study 2: ING Life |
|||
|
Criteria |
Unacceptable Below 70% F |
Fair 70-79% C |
Proficient 80-89% B |
Exemplary 90-100% A |
|
1. Assess the probable difficulties and risks associated with using a public infrastructure such as the Internet as part of a business solution. Weight: 25% |
Did not submit or incompletelyassessed the probable difficulties and risks associated with using a public infrastructure such as the Internet as part of a business solution. |
Partiallyassessed the probable difficulties and risks associated with using a public infrastructure such as the Internet as part of a business solution. |
Satisfactorilyassessed the probable difficulties and risks associated with using a public infrastructure such as the Internet as part of a business solution. |
Thoroughlyassessed the probable difficulties and risks associated with using a public infrastructure such as the Internet as part of a business solution. |
|
2. Analyze ING’s solution for providing security to determine if the solution is adequate or inadequate. Provide a rationale for your answer. Weight: 30% |
Did not submit or incompletelyanalyzed ING’s solution for providing security to determine if the solution is adequate or inadequate and did not submit or incompletely provided a rationale for your answer. |
Partiallyanalyzed ING’s solution for providing security to determine if the solution is adequate or inadequate and partially provided a rationale for your answer. |
Satisfactorilyanalyzed ING’s solution for providing security to determine if the solution is adequate or inadequate and satisfactorily provided a rationale for your answer. |
Thoroughlyanalyzed ING’s solution for providing security to determine if the solution is adequate or inadequate and thoroughly provided a rationale for your answer. |
|
3. Critique the extranet solution and recommend one (1) change to the solution to provide better connectivity to brokers. Weight: 30% |
Did not submit or incompletelycritiqued the extranet solution and did not submit or incompletely recommended one (1) change to the solution to provide better connectivity to brokers. |
Partiallycritiqued the extranet solution and partially recommended one (1) change to the solution to provide better connectivity to brokers. |
Satisfactorilycritiqued the extranet solution and satisfactorily recommended one (1) change to the solution to provide better connectivity to brokers. |
Thoroughlycritiqued the extranet solution and thoroughly recommended one (1) change to the solution to provide better connectivity to brokers. |
|
4. 2 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. |
|
5. 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 |
