Grading Criteria for Written Analysis of the Case Analysis (for non-presenters)

Performance Indicators
Objective/Criteria
Poor Adequate Average Good Strong
Clarity of Problem Statement (1 points) (2 points) (3 points) (4 points) (5 points)
(Reason why Company was
selected, background information
about the company)
Clarity of Problem Statement (2 points) (4 points) (6 points) (8 points) (10 points)
(Specific problem to address, why
this problem was selected and
clarity of the problem)
Match Between Problem and (3 points) (6 points) (9 points) (12 points) (15 points)
Tools Assigned
(Shows understanding of tools
based on class readings and
lectures)
Match Between Problem and (2 points) (4 points) (6 points) (8 points) (10 points)
Tools Assigned
(Fit between problem and tools
used: Demonstrates that these
tools can address this problem)
Analysis Plan and Data (4 points) (8 points) (12 points) (16 points) (20 points)
Presented
(Shows how the analysis using the
assigned tool will allow you to gain
insight on the problem and
objective)
Quality of Conclusions and (2 points) (4 points) (6 points) (8 points) (10 points)
Recommendations
(Quality of overall conclusions
reached)
Quality of Conclusions and (3 points) (6 points) (9 points) (12 points) (15 points)
Recommendations
(Quality and “actionability” of
recommendations based on
conclusions. Recommendations are
detailed enough that the path to
action is clear)
Knowledgeability (3 points) (6 points) (9 points) (12 points) (15 points)
(Exhibits understanding of the case
study)
Knowledgeability (4 points) (8 points) (12 points) (16 points) (20 points)
(Ability to respond to questions)

out of 120 points

 Grading Criteria for Written Analysis of the Case
Case Title: Date Presented:
Subject:
For Non-Presenters Class Schedule:

Performance Indicators
Objective/Criteria
Poor Adequate Average Good Strong
Clarity of Problem Statement
(Reason why Company was selected, background information about the company)
Clarity of Problem Statement
(Specific problem to address, why this problem was selected and clarity of the
problem)
Match Between Problem and Tools Assigned
(Shows understanding of tools based on class readings and lectures)
Match Between Problem and Tools Assigned
(Fit between problem and tools used: Demonstrates that these tools can address this
problem)
Analysis Plan and Data Presented
(Shows how the analysis using the assigned tool will allow you to gain insight on the
problem and objective)
Quality of Conclusions and Recommendations
(Quality of overall conclusions reached)
Quality of Conclusions and Recommendations
(Quality and “actionability” of recommendations based on conclusions.
Recommendations are detailed enough that the path to action is clear)
Knowledgeability
(Exhibits understanding of the case study)
Knowledgeability
(Ability to respond to questions)

Total Raw Score and Equivalent Rating (%)

Rated by: Group Number:

(Printed Name over Signature)

 Grading Criteria for Written Analysis of the Case Presentations

Performance Indicators
Objective/Criteria
Poor Adequate Average Good Strong
Clarity of Problem Statement (1 points) (2 points) (3 points) (4 points) (5 points)
(Reason why Company was
selected, background information
about the company)
Clarity of Problem Statement (2 points) (4 points) (6 points) (8 points) (10 points)
(Specific problem to address, why
this problem was selected and
clarity of the problem)
Match Between Problem and (3 points) (6 points) (9 points) (12 points) (15 points)
Tools Assigned
(Shows understanding of tools
based on class readings and
lectures)
Match Between Problem and (2 points) (4 points) (6 points) (8 points) (10 points)
Tools Assigned
(Fit between problem and tools
used: Demonstrates that these
tools can address this problem)
Analysis Plan and Data (4 points) (8 points) (12 points) (16 points) (20 points)
Presented
(Shows how the analysis using the
assigned tool will allow you to gain
insight on the problem and
objective)
Quality of Conclusions and (2 points) (4 points) (6 points) (8 points) (10 points)
Recommendations
(Quality of overall conclusions
reached)
Quality of Conclusions and (3 points) (6 points) (9 points) (12 points) (15 points)
Recommendations
(Quality and “actionability” of
recommendations based on
conclusions. Recommendations are
detailed enough that the path to
action is clear)
Quality of Presentation (2 points) (4 points) (6 points) (8 points) (10 points)
(Quality in the delivery of the
presentation)
Knowledgeability (3 points) (6 points) (9 points) (12 points) (15 points)
(Exhibits understanding of the case
study)
Knowledgeability (4 points) (8 points) (12 points) (16 points) (20 points)
(Ability to respond to questions)

out of 130 points

 Grading Criteria for Written Analysis of the Case Presentations
Case Title: Date Presented:
Subject:
Presenter: Class Schedule:

Performance Indicators
Objective/Criteria
Poor Adequate Average Good Strong
Clarity of Problem Statement
(Reason why Company was selected, background information about the company)
Clarity of Problem Statement
(Specific problem to address, why this problem was selected and clarity of the
problem)
Match Between Problem and Tools Assigned
(Shows understanding of tools based on class readings and lectures)
Match Between Problem and Tools Assigned
(Fit between problem and tools used: Demonstrates that these tools can address this
problem)
Analysis Plan and Data Presented
(Shows how the analysis using the assigned tool will allow you to gain insight on the
problem and objective)
Quality of Conclusions and Recommendations
(Quality of overall conclusions reached)
Quality of Conclusions and Recommendations
(Quality and “actionability” of recommendations based on conclusions.
Recommendations are detailed enough that the path to action is clear)
Quality of Presentation
(Quality in the delivery of the presentation)
Knowledgeability
(Exhibits understanding of the case study)
Knowledgeability
(Ability to respond to questions)

Total Raw Score and Equivalent Rating (%)

Rated by: Group Number:

(Printed Name over Signature)