|
Criteria
|
Outstanding
|
Superior
|
Good
|
Substandard
|
Failure
|
|
Company Overview
|
2.25 points
Company overview is accurately and comprehensively discussed.
(2.025 - 2.25)
|
1.9125 points
Company overview is accurately present and most areas are thoroughly discussed.
(1.8 - 2.024)
|
1.6875 points
Company analysis is mostly accurate; some areas are thoroughly presented but others may need clarification or additional information.
(1.575 - 1.79)
|
1.4625 points
Company overview was attempted but key points were missing or superficially presented.
(1.35 - 1.574)
|
0 points
Failed to perform a company overview.
(0 - 1.349)
|
|
Content: Industry Analysis
|
2.25 points
Industry analysis was presented accurately and comprehensively; includes PESTEL analysis, Five Forces, analysis of strategic groups, ideas that can be borrowed from strategic groups, gaps in industry that could lead to opportunities.
(2.025 - 2.25)
|
1.9125 points
Industry analysis is present accurately and most areas are developed including PESTEL analysis, Five Forces; analysis of strategic groups, ideas that can be borrowed from strategic groups, gaps in industry that could lead to opportunities.
(1.8 - 2.024)
|
1.68755 points
Industry analysis is mostly accurate; some areas are thoroughly presented but others may need clarification; PESTEL and Five Forces is discussed but could be more thorough, strategic groups mentioned; gaps mentioned but opportunities not fully addressed.
(1.575 - 1.79)
|
1.4625 points
Attempted to perform an industry analysis but key points were missing or superficially presented.
(1.35 - 1.574)
|
0 points
Failed to perform an industry analysis.
(0 - 1.349)
|
|
Content: Competitive Analysis
|
2.25 points
Competitive analysis was performed accurately and comprehensively; identified competitors, competitor product/service; competitor strengths and weaknesses; strategies used by each competitor to achieve their objective; market outlook.
(2.025 - 2.25)
|
1.9125 points
Competitive analysis is accurately present and most areas are thoroughly discussed.
(1.8 - 2.024)
|
1.6875 points
Competitive analysis is mostly accurate; some areas are thoroughly presented but others may need clarification.
(1.575 - 1.79)
|
1.4625 points
Competitive analysis was attempted but key points were missing or superficially presented.
(1.35 - 1.574)
|
0 points
Failed to perform a competitive analysis.
(0 - 1.349)
|
|
Content: External Environment - Techniques and Tools
|
2.25 points
Four or more techniques and tools were accurately and comprehensively used with thorough explanations.
(2.025 - 2.25)
|
1.9125 points
Three techniques and tools were accurately and comprehensively used with thorough explanations; four or more techniques and tools used but may not have been depicted accurately or comprehensively.
(1.8 - 2.024)
|
1.6875 points
Two techniques and tools were accurately and comprehensively used with thorough explanations; three techniques and tools used but may not have been depicted accurately or comprehensively.
(1.575 - 1.79)
|
1.4625 points
One technique or tool was accurately and comprehensively used with thorough explanations; two techniques or tools used but may not have been depicted accurately or comprehensively.
(1.35 - 1.574)
|
0 points
Failed to use tools.
(0 - 1.349)
|
|
Content: Trends
|
2.25 points
Trend analysis is accurately and comprehensively discussed.
(2.025 - 2.25)
|
1.9125 points
Trend analysis is accurately present and most areas are thoroughly discussed.
(1.8 - 2.024)
|
1.6875 points
Trends analysis is mostly accurate; some areas need clarification or more thoroughness.
(1.575 - 1.79)
|
1.4625 points
Discusson of trends was attempted but key points were missing or superficially presented.
(1.35 - 1.574)
|
0 points
Failed to discuss trends.
(0 - 1.349)
|
|
Critical Thinking/Reasoning
|
3.75 points
Concepts and ideas are fully developed. Thinking is consistent in accurately interpreting questions and material/provides solid assumptions, reasoning and evaluation with sound conclusions. Reader can easily follow the author's logic and reasoning.
(3.375 - 3.75)
|
3.1875 points
Concepts and ideas are developed. Thinking is mostly consistent in accurately interpreting questions and material/ provides good assumptions, reasoning and evaluation with sound conclusions. Reader can easily follow the author's logic and reasoning.
(3 - 3.374)
|
2.8125 points
Concepts and ideas are mostly developed but may need clarification on some aspects of thinking, reasoning or evaluation. Conclusions are drawn. Reader follows the author's logic but occasionally there are areas that are unclear.
(2.625 - 2.99)
|
2.6 points
Concepts and ideas are not cohesive. Misinterprets questions or material; ignores or superficially evaluates, justifies little and seldom explains reasoning; draws unwarranted conclusions. At times, the reader must attempt to determine the author's train of thought.
(2.25 - 2.624)
|
0 points
Concepts and ideas are not fully developed or presented in a cohesive manner. Misinterprets questions or material.
(0 - 2.249)
|
|
Slides Creation and Transition
|
1.25 points
Presentation flows well and logically; transitions are smooth, interesting and enhance presentation
(1.125 - 1.25)
|
1.0625 points
Presentation flows well; smooth transitions used on most slides
(1 - 1.124)
|
0.9375 points
Presentation flows well; smooth transitions used on some slides
(0.875 - 0.99)
|
0.8125 points
Presentation is unorganized; very few transitions and/or they distract from presentation
(0.75 - 0.874)
|
0 points
Presentation has no flow; no transitions used
(0 - 0.74)
|
|
Application of Resources
|
3.75 points
Arguments or positions are well-supported with evidence from the readings/experience; ideas go beyond the course material and recognize implications and extensions of the material and concepts.
(3.375 - 3.75)
|
3.1875 points
Arguments or positions are mostly supported by evidence from the readings and course content; ideas presented demonstrate understanding of the material and concepts.
(3 - 3.374)
|
2.81225 points
Arguments are more often based on opinion or unclear views than on position grounded in the readings of material or external sources of material.
(2.625 - 2.99)
|
2.4375 points
Arguments are frequently illogical and unsubstantiated; Limited use of facts in case study and essential information presented in resources; May resort to ad hominem attacks on the author instead of making meaningful application of the material.
(2.25 - 2.624)
|
0 points
Arguments lack meaningful explanation or support of ideas. Does not provide facts presented in case study.
(0 - 2.24)
|
|
Attention to Instructions
|
1.25 points
demonstrated full understanding of requirements responded to each aspect of assignment.
(1.125 - 1.25)
|
1.0625 points
demonstrated understanding of requirements; missed one minor aspect of assignment.
(1.0 - 1.124)
|
0.9375 points
demonstrated some understanding of requirements; missed a key element or two minor aspects of assignment.
(0.875 - 0.99)
|
0.8125 points
failed to show a firm understanding of requirements; missed two key elements or several minor aspects of assignment.
(0.75 - 0.874)
|
0 points
did not demonstrate understanding of assignment requirements.
(0 - 0.74)
|
|
Writing Mechanics
|
2.5 points
Strictly adheres to standard usage rules of written English, including but not limited to capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. No errors found. No jargon used.
(2.25 - 2.5)
|
2.125 points
Adheres to standard usage of mechanics: conventions of written English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. One to three errors found.
(2.0 - 2.249)
|
1.875 points
Minimally adheres to standard usage rules of mechanics: conventions of English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. Four to 10 errors found.
(1.75 - 1.99)
|
1.625 points
Does not adhere to standard usage rules of mechanics: conventions of written English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. More than 10 errors found.
(1.5 - 1.749)
|
0 points
Does not adhere to standard usage rules of mechanics: conventions of written English largely incomprehensible and errors are too plentiful to count.
(0 - 1.49)
|
|
APA Style (6th ed.)
|
1.25 points
No APA style 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.
(1.125 - 1.25)
|
1.0625 points
Attempts in-text citations and reference list but one or two APA style errors noted.
(1.0 - 1.124)
|
0.9375 points
Attempts in-text citations and reference lists; APA style errors are noted; inconsistencies in citation usage are noted throughout document.
(0.875 - 0.99)
|
0.8125 points
Attempts either in-text citations or reference list but omits the other.
(0.75 - 0.874)
|
0 points
No attempt at APA.
(0. - 0.74)
|
|
Overall Score
|
Outstanding
22.5 or more
|
Superior
20 or more
|
Good
17.5 or more
|
Substandard
15 or more
|
Failure
0 or more
|