Part of gaining and keeping competitive advantage is?determining the opportunities to improve and innovate upon existing organizational operations. An?operations manager?uses t
Part of gaining and keeping competitive advantage is determining the opportunities to improve and innovate upon existing organizational operations. An operations manager uses their skill in innovation to bring a new product to market. They must be nimble to quickly evaluate the advantages of a product, scan the external environment, and design a development process with the right resources at the right time for a viable innovation.
This week, you must prepare an evaluation report of your innovation for the executive team and the project management office to determine whether to continue working on the innovation you previously selected or if you should focus your efforts elsewhere. Refer to your review from Week 3 as you evaluate your innovation and make your recommendation.
Assessment Deliverable
Write a 700- to 1,050-word evaluation of the product or process you selected. In your evaluation:
- Identify the obstacles your organization might face in attempting to adopt an innovative product or process.
- Explain how to mitigate the risks and leverage the advantages you identify.
- Identify people who will make good project champions. Explain how project champions help ensure that you’ll achieve the benefits of championing and minimize the risks.
- Consider whether to use mostly sequential or parallel processes.
- Address the influence using stage-gate processes would have on development cycle time and development costs.
- Analyze the benefits and costs of involving customers and suppliers in the development process. Consider how to test the viability of your product or process with your customers and suppliers in your analysis.
- Conclude whether you should continue with the development of your innovation based on the evaluation you performed.
Cite any references to support your assessment.
Format your report according to APA guidelines.
ENT/527 v3
Copyright 2022 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.
ENT/527 Grading Rubrics Wk 2 Summative Assessment: Financial Performance Review Presentation ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2 Wk 4 Summative Assessment: Innovation Evaluation Report ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4 Wk 6 Summative Assessment: Innovation Implementation Strategy ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6
Grading Rubrics ENT/527 v3 Page 2 of 7
Copyright 2022 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.
Wk 2 Summative Assessment: Financial Performance Review Presentation
Criteria Exemplary 90–100% A- to A
Proficient 74-89% C to B+
Developing 60-73% D to C-
Needs Improvement 0-59%
F
Competitor Research
Weight: 35%
Research of competitors’ financial performance, including an examination of their business models and strategies used to achieve their business objectives, was comprehensive.
Research of competitors’ financial performance, including an examination of their business models and strategies used to achieve their business objectives, was adequate.
Research of competitors’ financial performance, including an examination of their business models and strategies used to achieve their business objectives, was partially adequate.
Research of competitors’ financial performance, including an examination of their business models and strategies used to achieve their business objectives, was superficial or not evident.
Competitive Analysis
Weight: 35%
The competitive analysis of organizational performance considerations, such as revenue generation, product distribution, customer acquisition, and absolute value, was insightful.
The competitive analysis of organizational performance considerations, such as revenue generation, product distribution, customer acquisition, and absolute value, was sometimes insightful.
The competitive analysis of organizational performance considerations, such as revenue generation, product distribution, customer acquisition, and absolute value, was infrequently insightful.
The competitive analysis of organizational performance considerations, such as revenue generation, product distribution, customer acquisition, and absolute value, was not insightful or not evident.
Application to Your Innovation
Weight: 20%
The evaluation of how the competitive research applies to your innovation and can help with a development strategy was comprehensive.
The evaluation of how the competitive research applies to your innovation and can help with a development strategy was adequate.
The evaluation of how the competitive research applies to your innovation and can help with a development strategy was partially adequate.
The evaluation of how the competitive research applies to your innovation and can help with a development strategy was superficial or not evident.
Grading Rubrics ENT/527 v3 Page 3 of 7
Copyright 2022 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.
Criteria Exemplary 90–100% A- to A
Proficient 74-89% C to B+
Developing 60-73% D to C-
Needs Improvement 0-59%
F
Digital Fluency: Digital Creation Weight: 5%
Effectively used existing information to create and communicate new content to an appropriate audience
Mostly used existing information to create and communicate new content to an appropriate audience; use of information may not have been fully effective
Partially used existing information to create and communicate new content to an appropriate audience; use of information was partially effective
Did not use existing information to effectively create and communicate new content to an appropriate audience; use of information was ineffective
APA, Grammar, and Writing Mechanics Weight: 5%
Accuracy in grammar, sentence structures, sentence boundaries, and word choice enhanced content; when applicable, attention to APA citation and formatting enhanced the content.
Rare inaccuracies/errors in grammar, sentence structures, sentence boundaries, word choice; when applicable, APA citation and formatting did not detract from the content.
Occasional inaccuracies/errors in grammar, sentence structures, sentence boundaries, and word choice; when applicable, APA citation and formatting detracted from the content.
Frequent inaccuracies/errors in grammar, sentence structures, sentence boundaries, and word choice; when applicable, APA formatting made the content inaccessible.
Grading Rubrics ENT/527 v3 Page 4 of 7
Copyright 2022 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.
Wk 4 Summative Assessment: Innovation Evaluation Report
Criteria Exemplary 90–100% A- to A
Proficient 74-89% C to B+
Developing 60-73% D to C-
Needs Improvement 0-59%
F
Obstacles to Innovation
Weight: 15%
Identification of the obstacles in adopting the innovation was clear
Identification of the obstacles in adopting the innovation was mostly clear
Identification of the obstacles in adopting the innovation was somewhat clear
Identification of the obstacles in adopting the innovation was unclear or not evident
Mitigating Risks and Leveraging Advantages
Weight: 20%
Explanation of how to mitigate risks and leverage advantages was thorough and highly insightful
Explanation of how to mitigate risks and leverage advantages was adequate and insightful
Explanation of how to mitigate risks and leverage advantages was partially complete and sometimes insightful
Explanation of how to mitigate risks and leverage advantages was limited and not insightful, or it was not evident
Project Champions
Weight: 20%
Explanation of how identified project champions would maximize benefits and minimize risks was comprehensive
Explanation of how identified project champions would maximize benefits and minimize risks was adequate
Explanation of how identified project champions would maximize benefits and minimize risks was partially adequate
Explanation of how identified project champions would maximize benefits and minimize risks was inadequate or not evident
Sequential or Parallel Processes
Weight: 10%
Explanation of the considerations for using mostly sequential or parallel processes was comprehensive
Explanation of the considerations for using mostly sequential or parallel processes was adequate
Explanation of the considerations for using mostly sequential or parallel processes was partially adequate
Explanation of the considerations for using mostly sequential or parallel processes was inadequate or not evident
Stage-Gate Process
Weight: 10%
Explanation of the influence of stage-gate process on development time and costs was comprehensive
Explanation of the influence of stage-gate process on development time and costs was adequate
Explanation of the influence of stage-gate process on development time and costs was partially adequate
Explanation of the influence of stage-gate process on development time and costs was inadequate or not evident
Grading Rubrics ENT/527 v3 Page 5 of 7
Copyright 2022 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.
Criteria Exemplary 90–100% A- to A
Proficient 74-89% C to B+
Developing 60-73% D to C-
Needs Improvement 0-59%
F
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Weight: 15%
Cost-benefit analysis of the development process was thorough and highly insightful
Cost-benefit analysis of the development process was adequate and insightful
Cost-benefit analysis of the development process was partially complete and sometimes insightful
Cost-benefit analysis of the development process was limited and not insightful, or it was not evident
Critical Thinking and Problem Solving: Make Judgements/Draw Conclusions Weight: 5%
Fully formed judgement to arrive at a conclusion; identified and recommended the best solution
Mostly formed judgements to arrive at a conclusion; identified and recommended an acceptable solution
Partially formed judgement to arrive at a conclusion; identified and recommended a less favorable solution
Did not form or illogically formed judgement to arrive at a conclusion; identified and recommended an impractical solution
APA, Grammar, and Writing Mechanics
Weight: 5%
Accuracy in grammar, sentence structures, sentence boundaries, and word choice enhanced content; when applicable, attention to APA citation and formatting enhanced the content.
Rare inaccuracies/errors in grammar, sentence structures, sentence boundaries, word choice; when applicable, APA citation and formatting did not detract from the content.
Occasional inaccuracies/errors in grammar, sentence structures, sentence boundaries, and word choice; when applicable, APA citation and formatting detracted from the content.
Frequent inaccuracies/errors in grammar, sentence structures, sentence boundaries, and word choice; when applicable, APA formatting made the content inaccessible.
Grading Rubrics ENT/527 v3 Page 6 of 7
Copyright 2022 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.
Wk 6 Summative Assessment: Innovation Implementation Strategy
Criteria Exemplary 90–100% A- to A
Proficient 74-89% C to B+
Developing 60-73% D to C-
Needs Improvement 0-59%
F
Resources Needed
Weight: 25%
Identification of the organizational resources needed for implementation, whether internal or external, was thorough and highly insightful
Identification of the organizational resources needed for implementation, whether internal or external, was adequate and insightful
Identification of the organizational resources needed for implementation, whether internal or external, was partially complete and sometimes insightful
Identification of the organizational resources needed for implementation, whether internal or external, was inadequate and not insightful, or it was not evident
Regulatory
Weight: 15%
Explanation of the regulatory stakeholders and their influence on the implementation was comprehensive
Explanation of the regulatory stakeholders and their influence on the implementation was adequate
Explanation of the regulatory stakeholders and their influence on the implementation was partially adequate
Explanation of the regulatory stakeholders and their influence on the implementation was inadequate or not evident
Legal
Weight: 15%
Explanation of the legal mechanisms needed to protect the innovation, whether through patents, copyrights, trademarks, or trade secrets, was comprehensive
Explanation of the legal mechanisms needed to protect the innovation, whether through patents, copyrights, trademarks, or trade secrets, was adequate
Explanation of the legal mechanisms needed to protect the innovation, whether through patents, copyrights, trademarks, or trade secrets, was partially adequate
Explanation of the legal mechanisms needed to protect the innovation, whether through patents, copyrights, trademarks, or trade secrets, was inadequate or not evident
Ethics
Weight: 15%
Explanation of the ethical issues related to the implementation was comprehensive
Explanation of the ethical issues related to the implementation was adequate
Explanation of the ethical issues related to the implementation was partially adequate
Explanation of the ethical issues related to the implementation was inadequate or not evident
Grading Rubrics ENT/527 v3 Page 7 of 7
Copyright 2022 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.
Criteria Exemplary 90–100% A- to A
Proficient 74-89% C to B+
Developing 60-73% D to C-
Needs Improvement 0-59%
F
Timeline
Weight: 20%
The timeline for deployment of the innovation, including tasks or milestones, was thorough and highly insightful.
The timeline for deployment of the innovation, including tasks or milestones, was adequate and insightful.
The timeline for deployment of the innovation, including tasks or milestones, was partially complete and sometimes insightful.
The timeline for deployment of the innovation, including tasks or milestones, was inadequate and not insightful, or it was not evident.
Cultural Competence and Ethics: Respectful Communication and Interaction
Weight: 5%
Strongly engaged in transparent conversations and responded ethically in professional intercultural settings; inclusively acknowledged the value of others within diverse communities
Sufficiently engaged in transparent conversations and responded ethically in professional intercultural settings; adequately acknowledged the value of others within diverse communities
Insufficiently engaged in transparent conversations and responded ethically in professional intercultural settings; narrowly acknowledged the value of others within diverse communities
Did not engage in transparent conversations or respond ethically in professional intercultural settings; inappropriately acknowledged or did not acknowledge the value of others within diverse communities
APA, Grammar, and Writing Mechanics Weight: 5%
Accuracy in grammar, sentence structures, sentence boundaries, and word choice enhanced content; when applicable, attention to APA citation and formatting enhanced the content.
Rare inaccuracies/errors in grammar, sentence structures, sentence boundaries, word choice; when applicable, APA citation and formatting did not detract from the content.
Occasional inaccuracies/errors in grammar, sentence structures, sentence boundaries, and word choice; when applicable, APA citation and formatting detracted from the content.
Frequent inaccuracies/errors in grammar, sentence structures, sentence boundaries, and word choice; when applicable, APA formatting made the content inaccessible.
- ENT/527 Grading Rubrics
- Wk 2 Summative Assessment: Financial Performance Review Presentation
- Wk 4 Summative Assessment: Innovation Evaluation Report
- Wk 6 Summative Assessment: Innovation Implementation Strategy
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
