|
| 2.4 points
Stakeholders to the decisionwere identified and discussed clearly, accurately and comprehensively delivering all relevant information.
(2.16 – 2.4)
|
2.04 points
Stakeholders to the decisionwere identified and discussedaccurately but could be more comprehensively or clearer with more relevant information.
(1.92 – 2.159)
|
1.8 points
Stakeholders to the decision were identified and discussed but needsmore clarification on some aspects.
(1.68 – 1.919)
|
1.56 points
Stakeholders to the decision were identified and discussed but does not fit the facts provided, inaccurate statements are madeor key points missing.
(1.44 – 1.679)
|
0 points
Stakeholders are not discussed.
(0 – 1.439)
|
| 2.7 points
All of the business consequences to the decision (example: keeping production going, costs of down time, costs of moving machines etc.) were explained and additional business concerns discussed accurately and comprehensively delivering all relevant information.
(2.43 – 2.7)
|
2.295 points
All of the business consequences to the decision (example: keeping production going, costs of down time, costs of moving machines etc.) were explained and additional business concerns discussed sufficiently but is not consistently accurate or comprehensive and is missing relevant information.
(2.16 – 2.429)
|
2.025 points
All of the business consequences to the decision (example: keeping production going, costs of down time, costs of moving machines etc.) were explained and additional business concerns discussed but needs more clarification on some aspects.
(1.89 – 2.159)
|
1.755 points
All of the business consequences to the decision (example: keeping production going, costs of down time, costs of moving machines etc.) were explained and additional business concerns discussed management is presented in a superficial manner or is missing key points.
(1.62 – 1.889)
|
0 points
Business consequences to the decision is not discussed.
(0 – 1.619)
|
| 2.7 points
Discussed complete plan (from beginning to end) as to how the move might work given and consequences of implementation is discussed clearly, accurately, and comprehensively presented delivering all relevant information.
(2.43 -2.7)
|
2.295 points
Discussed complete plan (from beginning to end) as to how the move might work given and consequences of implementation is discussed sufficiently but could be more accurate and comprehensive with more relevant information.
(2.16 – 2.429)
|
2.025 points
Discussed several ideas as to how the move might work given consequences of implementation/ could clarify some aspects.
(1.89 – 2.159)
|
1.755 points
Mentioned some ideas as to how the move might work given consequences of implementation.
(1.62 – 1.889)
|
0 points
Implementation Plan not discussed.
(0 – 1.619)
|
| 2.7 points
All of the steps needed to create change that the company must do to make move possible were identified and discussed clearly, accurately, and comprehensively presented delivering all relevant information. Communication specifically addressed.
(2.43 – 2.7)
|
2.295 points
All of the steps needed to create change that the company must do to make move possible identified and discussed sufficiently but could be more accurate or comprehensive with more relevant or specific information.
(2.16 – 2.429)
|
2.025 points
Most of the steps needed to create change that the company must do to make move possible identified and discussed. Some points may need clarification.
(1.89 – 2.159)
|
1.755 points
Mentioned some of the steps needed to create change that the company must do to make move possible/Key points missing.
(1.62 – 1.889)
|
0 points
Failed to identify the steps needed to create change that the company must do to make move possible.
(0 – 1.619)
|
| 6 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.
(5.4 – 6)
|
5.1 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.
(4.8 – 5.39 )
|
4.5 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.
(4.2 – 4.79)
|
3.9 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.
(3.6 – 4.19)
|
0 points
Concepts and ideas are not fully developed or presented in a cohesive manner. Misinterprets questions or material.
(0 – 3.59)
|
| 6 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.
(5.4 – 6)
|
5.1 points
Arguments or positions are mostly supported by evidence from the readings and course content; ideas presented demonstrate understanding of the material and concepts.
(4.8 -5.39)
|
4.5 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.
(4.2 – 4.79)
|
3.9 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.
(3.6 – 4.19)
|
0 points
Arguments lack meaningful explanation or support of ideas. Does not provide facts presented in case study.
(0 – 3.59)
|
| 3 points
demonstrated full understanding of requirements responded to each aspect of assignment
(2.7 – 3)
|
2.55 points
demonstrated understanding of requirements; missed one minor aspect of assignment
(2.4 – 2.69)
|
2.25 points
demonstrated some understanding of requirements; missed a key element or two minor aspects of assignment
(2.1 – 2.39)
|
1.95 points
failed to show a firm understanding of requirements; missed two key elements or several minor aspects of assignment
(1.8 -2. 09)
|
0 points
did not demonstrate understanding of assignment requirements
(0 – 1.79)
|
| 3 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.
(2.7 – 3)
|
2.55 points
Adheres to standard usage of mechanics: conventions of written English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. One to three errors found.
(2.4 -2.69)
|
2.25 points
Minimally adheres to standard usage rules of mechanics: conventions of English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. Four to 10 errors found.
(2.1 – 2.39)
|
1.95 points
Does not adhere to standard usage rules of mechanics: conventions of written English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. More than 10 errors found.
(1.8 – 2.09)
|
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 – 1.79)
|
| 1.5 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.
(1.35 – 1.5)
|
1.275 points
Attempts in-text citations and reference list but one or two APA style errors noted.
(1.2 – 1.349)
|
1.125 points
Attempts in-text citations and reference lists; APA style errors are noted; inconsistencies in citation usage are noted throughout document.
(1.05 – 1.19)
|
0.975 points
Attempts either in-text citations or reference list but omits the other.
(0.9 – 1.049)
|
0 points
No attempt at APA style.
(0 – 0.89)
|
|
|
|
|
|
