Case-Study-2-American-Tool-and-Die-DECISION-MAKING-business-and-finance-homework-help

Defined the decision to be made with respect to the case facts.

(0.9 – 1)

Defined the decision to be made but was worded vaguely with respect to the case facts.

(0.8- 0.899)

Defined the decision to be made but inaccurate for the case facts.

(0.7 – 0.799)

Attempted to define the decision to be made not the best decision statement for the case facts.

(0. 6 – 0.699)

Failed to define the decision to be made.

(0 – 0.59)

Discussed the factors that impact on the objectivity of applying the process to decision making;discussed in-depth.

(1.44 – 1.6)

Discussed the factors that impact on the objectivity of applying the process to decision making; sufficiently discussed needs more clarification on some aspects.

(1.28 – 1.439)

Discussed several of the factors that impact on the objectivity of applying the process to decision making;discussed missed key points or needs more clarification on some aspects.

(1.12 – 1.279)

Attempted to discuss a few of the factors that impact on the objectivity of applying the process to decision making; discussion did not fully fit the facts provided or inaccurate statements made. Key points are missing.

(0.96 – 1.119)

Failed to discuss the factors that impact on the objectivity of applying the process to decision making.

(0 – 1.959)

Discussion explained the pros and cons to group and individual decision comprehensively and fit the facts of the case.

(1.26 – 1.4)

Discussion explained the pros and cons to group and individual decision sufficiently but some clarification on some aspects with respect to the facts of the case needed.

(1.12 – 1.259)

Discussion explained some of the pros and cons to group and individual decision making some inaccurate statements made.

(0.98 – 1.119)

Discussion attempted to explain the pros and cons to group and individual decision makingdid not fully fit the facts provided or inaccurate statements made.

(0.84 – 0.979)

Discussion failed to explain the pros and cons to group and individual decision making.

(0 – 0.839)

Discussed the factors that impact on the objectivity of applying the process to decision making;discussed in-depth.

(1.44 – 1.6)

Discussed the factors that impact on the objectivity of applying the process to decision making;sufficientlydiscussed needs more clarification on some aspects.

(1.28 – 1.439)

Discussed several of the factors that impact on the objectivity of applying the process to decision making;discussed missed key points or needs more clarification on some aspects.

(1.12 – 1.279)

Attempted to discuss a few of the factors that impact on the objectivity of applying the process to decision making; discussion did not fully fit the facts provided or inaccurate statements made.

(0.96 – 1.119)

Failed to discuss the factors that impact on the objectivity of applying the process to decision making.

(0 – 0.959)

Concepts are fully developed as to the type, composition, and authority of a team that is best for the scenario decision making.

(1.26 – 1.4)

Developed the type, composition, and authority of a team that is best for the scenario decision making but missing a few key ideas.

(1.12 – 1.259)

Mostly discussed the type, composition, and authority of team that is best for the scenario decision making but missing a few key ideas.

(0.98 – 1.119)

Attempted to discuss the type, composition, and authority of team that is best for the scenario decision making but the discussion imprecise and was missing key ideas.

(0.84 – 0.979)

Failed to discuss the type, authority and composition of team that is best for the scenario decision making.

(0 – 0.839)

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.

(3.6 -4)

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.

(3.2 – 3.59 )

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.

(2.8 – 3.19)

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.

(2.4 – 2.79)

Concepts and ideas are not fully developed or presented in a cohesive manner. Misinterprets questions or material.

(0 – 2.39)

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.

(3.6 – 4)

Arguments or positions are mostly supported by evidence from the readings and course content; ideas presented demonstrate understanding of the material and concepts.

(3.2 – 3.59)

Arguments are more often based on opinion or unclear views than on position grounded in the readings of material or external sources of material.

(2.8 – 3.19)

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.

(2.4 – 2.79)

Arguments lack meaningful explanation or support of ideas. Does not provide facts presented in case study.

(0 – 2.39)

demonstrated full understanding of requirements responded to each aspect of assignment

(1.8 – 2)

demonstrated understanding of requirements; missed one minor aspect of assignment

(1.6 – 1.79)

demonstrated some understanding of requirements; missed a key element or two minor aspects of assignment

(1.4 – 1.59)

failed to show a firm understanding of requirements; missed two key elements or several minor aspects of assignment

(1.2 – 1.39)

did not demonstrate understanding of assignment requirements

(0 – 1.19)

Strictly adheres to standard usage rules of written English, including but not limited to capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. No errors found. No jargon used.

(1.8 – 2)

Adheres to standard usage of mechanics: conventions of written English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. One to three errors found.

(1.6 – 1.79 )

Minimally adheres to standard usage rules of mechanics: conventions of English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. Four to 10 errors found.

(1.4 – 1.59)

Does not adhere to standard usage rules of mechanics: conventions of written English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. More than 10 errors found.

(1.2 – 1.39)

Does not adhere to standard usage rules of mechanics: conventions of written English largely incomprehensible and errors are too plentiful to count.

(0 – 1.19)

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.

(0.9 – 1)

Attempts in-text citations and reference list but one or two APA style errors noted.

(0.8 – 0.89)

Attempts in-text citations and reference lists; APA style errors are noted; inconsistencies in citation usage are noted throughout document.

(0.7 – 0.79)

Attempts either in-text citations or reference list but omits the other.

(0 – 0.69)

No attempt at APA style.

(0 – 0.89)