| | | | | | |
| 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
Discussion 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
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. (3.375 - 3.75) | 3.1875 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. (3 - 3.374) | 2.8125 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. (2.625 - 2.99) | 2.6 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. (2.25 - 2.624) | 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 – 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
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. (3.375 - 3.75) | 3.1875 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. (3 - 3.374) | 2.81225 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. (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 course readings. (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
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. (1.125 - 1.25) | 1.0625 points
Demonstrates excellent understanding of requirements; missed one minor aspect of assignment. (1.0 - 1.124) | 0.9375 points
Demonstrates satisfactory understanding of requirements; missed a key element or two minor aspects of assignment. (0.875 - 0.99) | 0.8125 points
Fails to show a firm understanding of requirements; missed two key elements or several minor aspects of assignment. (0.75 - 0.874) | 0 points
Fails to 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, run-on sentences, missing or extra words, stylistic errors, spelling and grammatical errors. No errors found. No contractions or jargon used. (2.25 - 2.5) | 2.125 points
Excellently 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
Satisfactorily 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
Minimally adheres 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; or errors are too plentiful to count. (0 – 1.49) |
| APA Style (6th ed.) | 1.25 points
No APA style or usage errors; Proper citation of source material is used throughout; 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 or fails to use APA citations when appropriate 1-2 times. (1.0 - 1.124) | 0.9375 points
Attempts in-text citations and reference lists; APA style errors are noted throughout; Fails to use APA citations when appropriate 3 times in document. (0.875 - 0.99) | 0.8125 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 that requires APA citations throughout the document. (0.75 - 0.874) | 0 points
No attempt at APA style; or attempts either in-text citations or reference list but omits the other. (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 |
