Unsatisfactory
0.00% |
2
Less than Satisfactory
74.00% |
3
Satisfactory
79.00% |
4
Good
87.00% |
5
Excellent
100.00% |
| 70.0 %Content |
|
| 40.0 %Quality Tool Analysis |
A quality tool analysis that includes a problem statement, root-cause analysis, and explanation of which quality tools you used to identify and vet the problem is absent, inappropriate, or irrelevant. An explanation of quantitative and qualitative tools you used and a summary of how you arrived at the problem is absent, inappropriate, or irrelevant. |
A quality tool analysis that includes a problem statement, root-cause analysis, and explanation of which quality tools you used to identify and vet the problem makes weak connections with several gaps in presentation. An explanation of quantitative and qualitative tools you used and a summary of how you arrived at the problem makes weak connections with several gaps in presentation. Supporting sources are present and that show limited understanding of the content. |
A quality tool analysis that includes a problem statement, root-cause analysis, and explanation of which quality tools you used to identify and vet the problem makes connections at a cursory level and contains minimal gaps. An explanation of quantitative and qualitative tools you used and a summary of how you arrived at the problem is at a cursory level and makes connections containing minimal gaps. Supporting sources are present and show some understanding of the content. |
A quality tool analysis that includes a problem statement, root-cause analysis, and explanation of which quality tools you used to identify and vet the problem is clear and integrated, and makes meaningful connections with no gaps. An explanation of quantitative and qualitative tools you used and a summary of how you arrived at the problem is clear and integrated, and makes meaningful connections with no gaps. Supporting sources are present that illustrate the understanding of the content. |
A quality tool analysis that includes a problem statement, root-cause analysis, and explanation of which quality tools you used to identify and vet the problem is thorough and well integrated and makes meaningful connections with no gaps. An explanation of quantitative and qualitative tools you used and a summary of how you arrived at the problem is thorough and well integrated, and makes meaningful connections with no gaps. Supporting sources are present that illustrate a deep understanding of the content. |
| 30.0 %Stakeholder Analysis |
A stakeholder analysis that includes a power interest grid and a summary of all considerations for all stakeholders is absent, inappropriate, or irrelevant. |
A stakeholder analysis that includes a power interest grid and a summary of all considerations for all stakeholders makes weak connections with several gaps in presentation. Supporting sources are present and that show limited understanding of the content. |
A stakeholder analysis that includes a power interest grid and a summary of all considerations for all stakeholders makes connections at a cursory level and contains minimal gaps. Supporting sources are present and show some understanding of the content. |
A stakeholder analysis that includes a power interest grid and a summary that of all considerations for all stakeholders is clear and integrated, and makes meaningful connections with no gaps. Supporting sources are present that illustrate the understanding of the content. |
A stakeholder analysis that includes a power interest grid and a summary of all considerations for all stakeholders is thorough and well integrated, and makes meaningful connections with no gaps. Supporting sources are present that illustrate a deep understanding of the content. |
| 20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness |
|
| 7.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose |
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. |
Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. |
Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. |
Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. |
Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. |
| 20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness |
|
| 8.0 %Argument Logic and Construction |
Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. |
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. |
Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. |
Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. |
Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. |
| 20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness |
|
| 5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) |
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. |
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. |
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. |
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. |
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. |
| 10.0 %Documentation |
|
| 10.0 %Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) |
Sources are not documented. |
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. |
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. |
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. |
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. |
| 100 %Total Weightage |
