Rubrics for Case Analysis/Presentation

Rubric for Case Analysis

		Level of Achievement
Criteria	Excellent (A) (4 pts)	Good (B) (3 pts)	Needs Improvement (C, D) (2 pts)	Unacceptable (F) (1 pt)
SWOT Analysis (20%)	A thorough SWOT analysis is presented and explained. There are no major strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, or threats missing. In addition, items under each category are appropriately categorized and written.	A SWOT analysis is presented and explained, but there are 1-2 things wrong with the analysis—e.g., at least one major item is missing, or an item is inappropriately categorized, or an opportunity is written as a tactic. Alternatively, the explanation of the SWOT may be unclear.	A SWOT analysis is presented and explained, but there are 3-4 things wrong with the analysis and/or the explanation is very unclear.	The SWOT analysis is either very poorly done (>5 things wrong with it) or missing, and/or the explanation is missing.
Identification of Problems/Issues (20%)	Clearly identifies problems/issues, based on the SWOT analysis. The problems/issues are prioritized, differentiating those that are important from those that are routine. Relationships among the problems are identified, with the underlying, primary or key problem/issue clearly designated.	Problem and issue identification is clear, based on the SWOT analysis, and prioritizations have been made. Most, but not all, judgments about priorities are appropriate. Relationships and the key underlying problem/issue are identified.	Problem and issue identification is unclear in some aspects and is not wholly based on SWOT analysis. Prioritization is confused. Relationships and the key underlying problem/issue are either misidentified or missing.	The problem identification is missing or not based on SWOT analysis at all. In addition, there is no attention given to relationships among and prioritization of problems. Shows lack of judgment.
Identification and Analysis of Strategic Alternative Actions (30%)	Clearly identifies several strategic alternative actions that can be taken to address problems/issues. The list of alternatives is complete and linkage to the SWOT and problems/issues is clear, providing clear reasoning for inclusion as an alternative action. Each strategic alternative clearly represents a broad strategic direction. Analysis of alternative actions is detailed. Any necessary assumptions are stated and justified. The analysis appropriately incorporates strategic marketing management concepts and financial analysis. The likely benefits/disadvantages of each action are clearly identified and supported by the analysis.	Identifies strategic alternative actions that can be taken to address problems/issues. Most, but not all, alternative actions are linked to the SWOT and problems/issues. One of the alternative actions is too narrow (tactical) and does not identify a broad strategic direction. Analysis of alternative actions is detailed, but some statements are unsupported by analysis/ calculations. Assumptions are stated, but some are not justified. Most, but not all, benefits/disadvantages are clearly identified and supported by the analysis.	The list of strategic alternative actions is incomplete or unclear in some aspects, and includes alternatives that are not based on the SWOT and/or are not reasonably linked to the problems and issues. More than one alternative is too narrow and does not identify a broad strategic direction. Some analysis is included, but it is not very detailed. Many statements are not supported by analysis/calculations. Most of the stated assumptions are not justified. Several benefits/ disadvantages are missing and/or not clearly identified or unsupported by the analysis.	Either the list of strategic alternative actions is missing or the list is very incomplete or there is no linkage of the alternative actions to the SWOT or to the problems/issues. None of the alternatives identifies a broad strategic direction. Shows lack of thorough consideration. Analysis is trivial or missing, lacking any depth. No assumptions are stated(& are needed). Likely benefits/disadvantages are not provided at all or are unsupported by the analysis.

Recommendation (20%)	A clear action plan is given, logically derived from alternative analysis, that provides optimal solution for identified problems/issues and that further makes sense, given the SWOT analysis; the recommendation is based on only one of the strategic alternative actions. Assumptions, caveats, ongoing considerations concerning recommendation are provided.	An action plan is given, which is mostly, but not completely, logically derived from alternative analysis. There may be a better solution to the problems/issues than the one recommended, given the SWOT analysis. Most, but not all, assumptions, caveats, and ongoing considerations are provided.	A solution is recommended, but logical derivation from alternative analysis is unclear, and there is clearly a better optimal solution, given the SWOT analysis. The recommendation is based on more than one alternative action. No identification of assumptions, caveats, or considerations that might affect the recommendation is provided.	A solution is recommended, but it is not derived from the alternative analysis at all; or the recommended solution is clearly not viable, given the SWOT analysis; or the recommended solution does not address the problems/issues; or there is no recommended solution.
Organization (10%, includes organization, integration, grammar, appendices)	Written work is well organized and easy to understand. There is a brief introduction. Sections of case analysis are marked with appropriate headings. There are page numbers.	The organization is generally good. There is a brief introduction and section headings; there are page numbers. But some sections seem out of place or mislabeled, diminishing the ease with which the case reads and is understood.	The organization is unclear; headings are missing. The introduction is not succinct. Page numbers may be missing.	The case analysis is disorganized to the extent that it prevents understanding of content. There are no headings. There is no introduction. There are no page numbers.
Integration of Writing Styles	The team developed a writing style that is uniform throughout the case analysis. There is no indication that the report involved multiple authors.	There is some indication of multiple authors (e.g., different fonts, different paper, etc.)	There is ample indication of multiple authors.	Report is clearly the work of multiple authors with different writing styles, margins, printer fonts, paper types, etc.
Grammar, Spelling, and Formatting	The work has been thoroughly spell-checked and proofread. There are none to almost none grammatical or spelling errors. There are no formatting errors.	There are a few spelling and grammatical errors. There are one to three formatting errors.	There is more than one spelling or grammatical error per page. There is at least one formatting error per page.	There are frequent misspelled words, serious grammatical errors, and formatting errors, indicating that time was not take to spell-check and proofread the report.
Use of Appendices	Information is appropriately placed in either the main text or an appendix. Appendices are documented and referenced in the text.	Information is appropriately placed in either the main text or an appendix. Documentation and referencing in text are somewhat incomplete.	There is some misplacement of information in the text vs. the appendix. Appendices are poorly documented and referenced in the text.	Considerable amount of material is misplaced. Appendices are not documented or referenced in text.