To effectively implement change, businesses must begin with internal operations. Communicating change can be challenging due to status quo and lack of information or shared vision.?Managers

ENT/588 v4

Copyright 2023 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.

ENT/588 Grading Rubrics Wk 2 Summative Assessment: Business Value Report ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2 Wk 4 Summative Assessment: Communication Plan …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3

Wk 6 Summative Assessment: Business Development Elevator Speech Video ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 5

Grading Rubrics ENT/588 v4 Page 2 of 6

Copyright 2023 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.

Wk 2 Summative Assessment: Business Value 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

1. SWOT Analysis

Weight: 20%

Constructed a comprehensive SWOT analysis and included a SWOT table

Constructed an adequate SWOT analysis and included a SWOT table 

Constructed a partial SWOT analysis and included a SWOT table

Little or no attempt to construct a SWOT table

2. Current Challenge

Weight: 25%

Fully analyzed the identified challenge that will be addressed in the business plan, including justifying how the challenge was determined

Sufficiently analyzed the identified challenge that will be addressed in the business plan, including justifying how the challenge was determined

Partially analyzed the identified challenge that will be addressed in the business plan, including justifying how the challenge was determined

Little to no attempt to analyze the identified challenge and/or justifying how the challenge was determined

3. Proposed Solution

Weight: 20%

Proposed an insightful solution for the identified challenge

Proposed a sufficient solution for the identified challenge

Proposed an insufficient solution for the identified challenge

Little to no attempt to propose a solution for the identified challenge

4. Solution Justification

Weight: 30%

Clearly justified the implications of the recommended solution to enhance organizational outcomes

Adequately justified the implications of the recommended solution to enhance organizational outcomes

Vaguely justified the implications of the recommended solution to enhance organizational outcomes

Little or no attempt to justify the implications of recommended solution to enhance organizational outcomes

5. Critical Thinking and Problem Solving: Make Judgements, Draw Conclusions

Weight: 5%

Judgement to arrive at a conclusion was sound; identified and recommended the best solution

Judgement to arrive at a conclusion was mostly sound; identified and recommended an acceptable solution

Judgement to arrive at a conclusion was partially sound; identified and recommended a less favorable solution

Judgement to arrive at a conclusion was not sound or was illogical; identified and recommended an impractical solution or did not recommend a solution

Grading Rubrics ENT/588 v4 Page 3 of 6

Copyright 2023 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.

Wk 4 Summative Assessment: Communication Plan

Criteria Exemplary 90–100% A- to A 

Proficient 74-89% C to B+

Developing  60-73% D to C-

Needs Improvement 0-59%

F

1. Solution Discussion

Weight: 25%

Thoroughly discussed the reason for change, while introducing the solution (e.g., new process, product, or service), including how the solution addresses the needs of the business

Sufficiently discussed the reason for change, while introducing the solution (e.g., new process, product, or service), including how the solution addresses the needs of the business

Somewhat discussed the reason for change, while introducing the solution (e.g., new process, product, or service), including how the solution addresses the needs of the business

Vaguely discussed, or did not discuss, the reason for change, while introducing the solution (e.g., new process, product, or service), including how the solution addresses the needs of the business

2. Engagement Strategy

Weight: 25%

Clearly explained how employees will be engaged in the decision-making process for the new process, product, or service, and proposed a strategy for ongoing engagement with staff and leaders

Adequately explained how employees will be engaged in the decision-making process for the new process, product, or service, and proposed a strategy for ongoing engagement with staff and leaders

Somewhat explained how employees will be engaged in the decision-making process for the new process, product, or service, and proposed a strategy for ongoing engagement with staff and leaders

Vaguely explained, or did not explain, how employees will be engaged in the decision-making process for the new process, product, or service, and proposed a strategy for ongoing engagement with staff and leaders

3. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Proposal

Weight: 25%

Proposed opportunities with insightful rationale that demonstrate CSR

Proposed opportunities with competent rationale that demonstrate CSR

Proposed opportunities with insufficient rationale that demonstrate CSR

Proposed opportunities with obscure or no rationale that demonstrate CSR

4. Delivery

Weight: 20%

Expressed the proposed solution and its rationales to internal team in a respectful manner

Expressed the proposed solution and its rationales to internal team in a moderately respectful manner

Expressed the proposed solution and its rationales to internal team in a tolerant manner

Expressed the proposed solution and its rationales to internal team in a brash manner

Grading Rubrics ENT/588 v4 Page 4 of 6

Copyright 2023 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

5. Critical Thinking and Problem Solving: Define the Problem

Weight: 5%

Thoroughly defined the problem, provided supporting information for understanding

Moderately defined the problem, provided supporting information for understanding

Vaguely defined the problem, provided supporting information for understanding

Did not define or incorrectly defined the problem, did not provide sufficient supporting information for understanding

Grading Rubrics ENT/588 v4 Page 5 of 6

Copyright 2023 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.

Wk 6 Summative Assessment: Business Development Elevator Speech Video

Criteria Exemplary 90–100% A- to A 

Proficient 74-89% C to B+

Developing  60-73% D to C-

Needs Improvement 0-59%

F

1. Overview

Weight: 15%

Provided a thorough, yet concise, personal introduction and the challenge facing the business

Provided a detailed personal introduction and the challenge facing the business

Provided an incomplete personal introduction and the challenge facing the business

Provided a vague introduction or did not provide an introduction

2. Proposed Solution

Weight: 20%

Provided a clear overview of the proposed solution

Provided a somewhat clear overview of the proposed solution

Provided a disorganized overview of the proposed solution

Provided a confusing overview of the proposed solution, or did not present an overview of the proposed solution

3. Financial Outlook

Weight: 20%

Provided a complete, yet concise, financial outlook overview, including assets, liabilities, and benefits of investing, to demonstrate the business’s financial position

Provided a mostly complete financial outlook overview, including assets, liabilities, and benefits of investing, to demonstrate the business’s financial position

Provided an incomplete financial outlook overview, that may have included assets, liabilities, and benefits of investing, to demonstrate the business’s financial position

Provided a superficial financial outlook overview or did not include a financial outlook overview

4. Metrics

Weight: 20%

Clearly explained the measurable analytics and ways to evaluate the effectiveness of the solution

Sufficiently explained the measurable analytics and ways to evaluate the effectiveness of the solution

Somewhat explained the measurable analytics and ways to evaluate the effectiveness of the solution

Vaguely explained, or did not explain, the measurable analytics and ways to evaluate the effectiveness of the solution

Grading Rubrics ENT/588 v4 Page 6 of 6

Copyright 2023 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

5. Delivery: Voice Technique

Weight: 10%

Natural and confident delivery, with balanced vocal inflection and clearly articulated language that the audience can hear throughout the presentation

Generally effective delivery, but vocal inflection and pronunciation were partially inconsistent, or audio was partially distorted

Attempted delivery, but vocal inflection and pronunciation were inconsistent, distracting, or audio was mostly distorted

Unclear delivery or did not appear on-screen

6. Delivery: Nonverbal (Posture, poise, eye contact, gestures, body positioning, and movement)

Weight: 10%

Compelling presentation; speaker appeared polished and confident

Interesting presentation; speaker appeared comfortable

Understandable presentation; speaker appeared tentative

Lacking presentation; speaker appeared uncomfortable

7. Critical Thinking and Problem Solving: Make Judgements, Draw Conclusions

Weight: 5%

Judgement to arrive at a conclusion was sound; identified and recommended the best solution

Judgement to arrive at a conclusion was mostly sound; identified and recommended an acceptable solution

Judgement to arrive at a conclusion was partially sound; identified and recommended a less favorable solution

Judgement to arrive at a conclusion was not sound or was illogical; identified and recommended an impractical solution or did not recommend a solution