Change Initiative: Creating Vision QUESTION AND RESOURCES ATTACHED. DEADLINE WEDNESDAY 09/08/21 8PM PACIFIC TIME. Criteria Description Presentation of Org

Change Initiative: Creating Vision QUESTION AND RESOURCES ATTACHED. DEADLINE WEDNESDAY 09/08/21 8PM PACIFIC TIME. Criteria Description

Presentation of Organization (Mission, Stakeholders, Driving Forces in the Industry or Field, Viability of Organization, etc.)

5. Excellent

20 points

A description of the organization is provided, including all major details necessary to understanding the mission of the organization and insight into the various organizational stakeholders. Evaluation of organizational viability and driving forces contains strong support and provides clear insight into organizational viability.

4. Good

17.4 points

A description of the organization is provided, including most major details necessary to understanding the mission of the organization and its stakeholders. Evaluation of organizational viability and driving forces provides insight into organizational viability, but evaluation lacks sufficient support and some minor details are missing.

3. Satisfactory

15.8 points

A general description of the organization is provided; some details necessary to understanding the mission of the organization, and its stakeholders are missing. Evaluation of organizational viability and driving forces is incomplete or lacks of support.

2. Less than Satisfactory

14.8 points

An incomplete description of the organization is presented; significant details regarding the mission and stakeholders have been omitted. Evaluation of organizational viability and driving forces is missing or incomplete.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

No organizational description is presented.

Analysis of the Effect of Specific Driving Force on Organization or Department

30 points

Criteria Description

Analysis of the Effect of Specific Driving Force on Organization or Department

5. Excellent

30 points

Analysis of specific driving force is logically presented, including all relevant details and strong supporting evidence. Specific organizational or departmental issues resulting from the driving force are clearly discussed. Analysis provides unique insight into the effects of the driving force on the viability of the organization or department.

4. Good

26.1 points

Analysis of specific driving force is presented, including major details and general supporting evidence. Specific organizational or departmental issues resulting from the driving force are discussed.

3. Satisfactory

23.7 points

Analysis of specific driving force is presented, but it lacks details and supporting evidence. Specific organizational or departmental issues resulting from the driving force are generally discussed. 

2. Less than Satisfactory

22.2 points

Analysis of specific driving force is presented, but it is incomplete. Specific organizational or departmental issues resulting from the driving force are not discussed. 

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Analysis of specific driving force and the effect of this force on the organization or department is not presented.

Proposal of Steps for Responding to Change 

30 points

Criteria Description

Proposal of Steps for Responding to Change 

5. Excellent

30 points

Detailed steps are proposed for responding to change through a clear and logical sequence. A well-developed prediction of stakeholder response to change is presented, with with strong evidence to support claims.

4. Good

26.1 points

Steps are proposed for responding to change through logical sequence. A prediction of stakeholder response to change is presented, with general evidence to support claims.

3. Satisfactory

23.7 points

Some steps are proposed responding to change, but they lack a logical sequence and major detail. A general prediction of stakeholder response to change is presented, but the prediction lacks major detail and evidence to support claims.

2. Less than Satisfactory

22.2 points

A general recommendation for responding to change is referenced, but it lacks specific steps. No prediction of stakeholder response to change is presented, or prediction is vague and lacks supportive evidence.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

No steps are proposed to respond to change.

Development of Vision for Change

40 points

Criteria Description

Development of Vision for Change

5. Excellent

40 points

A detailed vision is presented with strong supporting rationale. Vision correlates directly with the mission of the organization. Detailed steps for presenting the vision to all internal stakeholders are presented. Presentation of vision facilitates stakeholder involvement. Overall, vision is strongly conducive to supporting a change initiative.

4. Good

34.8 points

A vision is presented with rationale. Vision correlates with the mission of the organization. Steps for presenting the vison to stakeholders are presented. Overall, vision contains elements conducive to supporting a change initiative.

3. Satisfactory

31.6 points

A vision is presented with some supporting rationale. Vision loosely correlates with the mission of the organization. Steps for presenting the vision to stakeholders are generally presented.

2. Less than Satisfactory

29.6 points

A vision is presented, but it lacks rationale. Vision does not correlate with the mission of the organization, or the mission is not stated. Steps for presenting the vision to stakeholders are incomplete or missing.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

No vision is presented.

Evaluation of Stakeholder Response and Considerations to Change and Vision

20 points

Criteria Description

Evaluation of Stakeholder Response and Considerations to Change and Vision

5. Excellent

20 points

A detailed evaluation of stakeholder response to change is presented. Stakeholder considerations to change and proposed vison are clearly identified and discussed in detail; a clear and well-supported plan for responding to these considerations is proposed.

4. Good

17.4 points

A stakeholder evaluation of response to change is presented. Stakeholder considerations to change and proposed vison are discussed; a general plan for responding to these considerations is proposed.

3. Satisfactory

15.8 points

A stakeholder evaluation of response to change is generally presented. Stakeholder considerations to change and proposed vison are generally discussed; no clear plan for responding to these considerations is proposed. 

2. Less than Satisfactory

14.8 points

A partial stakeholder evaluation of response to change is presented, but it is incomplete.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

No stakeholder evaluation is presented.

Thesis Development and Purpose

14 points

Criteria Description

Thesis Development and Purpose

5. Excellent

14 points

Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

4. Good

12.18 points

Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.

3. Satisfactory

11.06 points

Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.

2. Less than Satisfactory

10.36 points

Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.

Argument Logic and Construction

16 points

Criteria Description

Argument Logic and Construction

5. Excellent

16 points

Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

4. Good

13.92 points

Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.

3. Satisfactory

12.64 points

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. 

2. Less than Satisfactory

11.84 points

Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, 

10 points

Criteria Description

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, 

5. Excellent

10 points

Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

4. Good

8.7 points

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.

3. Satisfactory

7.9 points

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.

2. Less than Satisfactory

7.4 points

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.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.

Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)

10 points

Criteria Description

Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)

5. Excellent

10 points

All format elements are correct. 

4. Good

8.7 points

Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.

3. Satisfactory

7.9 points

Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. 

2. Less than Satisfactory

7.4 points

Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.

Documentation of Sources 

10 points

Criteria Description

Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style

5. Excellent

10 points

Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.

4. Good

8.7 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. 

3. Satisfactory

7.9 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.

2. Less than Satisfactory

7.4 points

Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Sources are not documented.

Total 200 points

Submit a Comment

Open chat