Business Blog

/in /by

Module One Blog Guidelines and Rubric.html

Overview

Raising money to invest in innovation is hard. Companies both large and small work to strike a balance between executing an existing business model and thinking ahead to advance their business. As individuals think critically about how their business should move forward, they should first get a 360-degree view of their environment. This journey starts with research on the current state of the business and critical thinking questions that can help leaders drill down deeper.

Prompt

In this blog post, you will take on the role of the recently-promoted chief innovation officer (CIO) of an established U.S.-based company of your choosing. It is within your responsibilities to discover new ways to improve an existing product or service in North America, or to introduce a new product or service to the market that will give the company a market edge over competition and fit within the company’s core competencies. For the purposes of this blog post, and for this entire course, you will do the latter.

The new product or service must be something that cannot be easily duplicated and takes into account consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP). If a consumer doesn’t have a problem or need for the product or service offered, they will not be willing to exchange money for the solution.

The first step of such an undertaking requires research and an examination of the selected company’s financials and current resources. Moreover, this new product or service offering must leverage the strengths of the company.

Using MarketLine, Yahoo Finance, and the investor relations page on the company’s website, select and research an established company of your choice. Specifically, look at the company’s 10K Report with a focus on the company’s business in North America. You will continue to research and work with this company throughout this course in the milestones and project.

In your blog post, identify the company you researched and describe its potential new and unique product or service. Include an image of the company’s current SWOT from the Shapiro Library and address the following questions:

  • Value proposition: What is the company’s main business?
    • What value does the company deliver to the customer?
  • Profitability: Is the company currently profitable?
  • SWOT analysis strengths: What are the company’s main strengths to be leveraged to create a new product or service?
  • Product or service singularity: What is unique about the new product or service?
  • New product or service projections: How can the new product or service improve profitability? Note: this is an estimation based on research of the company’s current market position.

Guidelines for Submission

Complete your blog post in WordPress and submit a link to your blog via the appropriate discussion topic. If you have not yet created your blog, the document Getting Started with Blogging provides concise instructions. Your blog should be written in a professional voice and should be appropriately formatted for a blog. Any sources cited should use APA formatting. Blog entries must be between 400 and 800 words in length.

Below are some additional resources for improving your blog: How to Write a Blog Post for Beginners: This article is an introduction to writing blog posts. 12 Easy Ways to Improve Your Blog: This article examines important elements in developing your own blog. How to Drastically Improve Your WordPress Blog’s Comments: This article examines how to better engage and manage your online community. Blogging Best Practices PDF: This bulleted list gives you a quick summary of the best practices top bloggers use.

Module One Blog Rubric

Criteria Exemplary (100%) Proficient (85%) Needs Improvement (55%) Not Evident (0%) Value
Value Proposition Exceeds proficiency in an exceptionally clear, insightful, sophisticated, or creative manner Describes the company’s value proposition Shows progress toward proficiency, but with errors or omissions; areas for improvement may include descriptions that are missing key components or cursory description in general Does not attempt criterion 16
Profitability Exceeds proficiency in an exceptionally clear, insightful, sophisticated, or creative manner Determines if the company is currently profitable Shows progress toward proficiency, but with errors or omissions; areas for improvement may include determinations that are incorrect or lacking research Does not attempt criterion 16
SWOT Analysis: Strengths Exceeds proficiency in an exceptionally clear, insightful, sophisticated, or creative manner Explains the company’s main strengths that can be leveraged to create a new product or service Shows progress toward proficiency, but with errors or omissions; areas for improvement may include incomplete explanations or SWOT analysis not included Does not attempt criterion 16
Product or Service Singularity Exceeds proficiency in an exceptionally clear, insightful, sophisticated, or creative manner Identifies what is unique about the new product or service Shows progress toward proficiency, but with errors or omissions; areas for improvement may include explanations lacking detail or product/service that is not unique Does not attempt criterion 16
New Product or Service Projections Exceeds proficiency in an exceptionally clear, insightful, sophisticated, or creative manner Describes how the new product or service can improve profitability Shows progress toward proficiency, but with errors or omissions; areas for improvement may include descriptions lacking detail or product/service does not improve profitability Does not attempt criterion 16
Articulation of Response Exceeds proficiency in an exceptionally clear, insightful, sophisticated, or creative manner Clearly conveys meaning with correct grammar, sentence structure, and spelling, demonstrating an understanding of audience and purpose Shows progress toward proficiency, but with errors in grammar, sentence structure, and spelling, negatively impacting readability Submission has critical errors in grammar, sentence structure, and spelling, preventing understanding of ideas 10
Citations and Attributions Uses citations for ideas requiring attribution, with few or no minor errors Uses citations for ideas requiring attribution, with consistent minor errors Uses citations for ideas requiring attribution, with major errors Does not use citations for ideas requiring attribution 10
Total: 100%

What, according to you, were the reasons for Salim’s disillusionment?

/in /by

Assignment 2 MGT101 (1st Term 2021-2022)

Case Study

Deadline: 20/11/2021 @ 23:59

Course Name: Principles of Management Student’s Name: Majed Ahmed Mohammed ALBatayan
Course Code: MGT101 Student’s ID Number: 200011731
Semester: 1st CRN: 13950
Academic Year: 1442/1443 H, 1st Term

For Instructor’s Use only

Instructor’s Name:
Students’ Grade: /5 Level of Marks: High/Middle/Low

 

Instructions – PLEASE READ THEM CAREFULLY

· This assignment is an individual assignment.

· Due date for Assignment 2 is by the end of Week 11.(20/11/2020)

· The Assignment must be submitted only in WORD format via allocated folder.

· Assignments submitted through email will not be accepted.

· Students are advised to make their work clear and well presented, marks may be reduced for poor presentation. This includes filling your information on the cover page.

· Students must mention question number clearly in their answer.

· Late submission will NOT be accepted.

· Avoid plagiarism, the work should be in your own words, copying from students or other resources without proper referencing will result in ZERO marks. No exceptions.

· All answered must be typed using Times New Roman (size 12, double-spaced) font. No pictures containing text will be accepted and will be considered plagiarism).

Submissions without this cover page will NOT be accepted.

Assignment Purposes/Learning Outcomes:

After completion of Assignment-2 students will able to understand the

1. Examine management issues and practices in motivation; organizational culture, structure, and behavior; team dynamics; and communication.

2. Relate motivational theories to motivating and demotivating factors. 3. Know and discuss manager’s role in motivating employees.

Assignment-2

Case Study

In September 2018, Mohammed Salim joined KAAF Software Solutions (KAFF) as a Senior Programmer, with a handsome pay. Prior to this job, he worked successfully as an Assistant Programmer in Gant Computers (Gant). Salim felt that working for KAFF, there are better career prospects, as it was growing much faster than Gant, which was a relatively small company.

Although Salim had enjoyed working there (at Gant), he realized that to grow further in his field, he would have to join a bigger company, and preferable one that handled international projects. He was sure he would excel in his position at KAFF, just as he had done in his old job at Gant.

KAFF had international operations and there was more than a slim chance that he would be sent to USA or the UK on a project. Knowing that this would give him a lot of exposure, besides looking good on his resume, Salim was quite excited about his new job.

Salim joined Mrs. Zeenat’s five-member team at KAFF. He had met Mrs. Zeenat during the orientation sessions, and was looking forward to working under her. His team members seemed warm and friendly, and comfortable with their work. He introduced himself to the team members and got to know more about each of them.

Wanting to know more about his boss, he casually asked one of the team members, about Mrs Zeenat. He was told that Mrs. Zeenat does not interfere with our work. Salim was surprised to know this and thought that probably Mrs. Zeenat was leaving them alone to do their work without any guidance, in order to allow them to realize their full potential.

At Gant, Salim had worked under Abdulrahman and had looked up to him as a guide and mentor – always guiding, but never interfering. Abdulrahman had let Salim make his own mistakes and learn from them. He had always encouraged individual ideas, and let the team discover the flaws, if any, through discussion and experience. He rarely held an individual member of his team responsible if the team as a whole failed to deliver – for him the responsibility for any failure was collective. Salim remembered telling his colleagues at Gant that the ideal boss would be someone who did not interfere with his/her subordinate’s work. Salim wanted to believe that Mrs. Zeenat too was the non-interfering type. If that was the case, surely her non-interference would only help him to grow.

In his first week at work, Salim found the atmosphere at the office a bit dull. However, he was quite excited. His team had been assigned a new project and was facing a few glitches with the new software. He had thought about the problem till late in the night and had come up with several possible solutions. He could not wait to discuss them with his team and Mrs. Zeenat. He smiled to himself when he thought of how Mrs. Zeenat would react when he will tell her that he had come up with several possible solutions to the problem. He was sure she would be happy with his having put in so much effort into the project, right from day one.

He was daydreaming about all the praise that he was going to get when Mrs. Zeenat walked into the office. Salim waited for her to go into her cabin, and after five minutes, called her up, asking to see her. She asked him to come in after tem minutes. When he went in, she looked at him blankly and asked, “Yes?” Not sure whether she had recognized him, Salim introduced himself. She said, “Ok, but why did you want to meet me?” He started to tell her about the problems they were having with the software. But before he could even finish, she told him that she was busy with other things, and that she would send an email with the solution to all the members of the team by the end of the day, and that they could then implement it immediately. Salim was somewhat taken aback. However, ever the optimist, he thought that she had perhaps already discussed the matter with the team.

Salim came out of Mrs. Zeenat’s cabin and went straight to where his team members sat. He thought it would still be nice to bounce ideas off them and also to see what solutions others might come up with. He told them of all the solutions he had in mind. He waited for the others to come up with their suggestions but not one of them spoke up. He was surprised, and asked them point-blank why they were so disinterested.

Faisal, one of the team members, said, “What is the point in our discussing these things? Mrs. Zeenat is not going to have time to listen to us on discuss anything. She will just give us the solution she thinks is best, and we will just do what she tells us to do; why waste everyone’s time?”

Salim felt his heart sink. Was this the way things worked over here? However, he refused to lose heart and thought that maybe, he could change things a little. But as the days went by, Salim realized that Mrs. Zeenat was the complete opposite of his old boss.

While she was efficient at what she did and extremely intelligent, she had neither the time nor the inclination to groom her subordinates. Her solutions to problem were always correct, but she was not willing to discuss or debate the merits of any other ideas that her team might have. She did not hold the team down to their deadlines not did she ever interfere. In fact, she rarely said anything at all. If work did not get finished on time, she would just blame her team, and totally disassociate herself from them.

Time and again, Salim found himself thinking of Abdulrahman his old boss, and of how he had been such a positive influence. Mrs. Zeenat, on the other hand, even without actively doing anything, had managed to significantly lower his motivation levels.

Salim gradually began to lose interest in his work – it had become too mechanical for his taste. He didn’t really need to think; his boss had all the answers. He was learning nothing new, and he felt his career was going nowhere. As he became more and more discouraged, his performance suffered. From being someone with immense promise and potential Salim was now in danger of becoming just another mediocre techie.

Questions:

Q1. What, according to you, were the reasons for Salim’s disillusionment? Answer the question using Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. (2.5 marks)

Q2. What should Salim do to resolve his situation? (1.25 marks)

Q3. What should a team leader do, to ensure high levels of motivation among his/her team members? (1.25 Marks)

Page 1 of 4

Case Study 1. Diagram The DEP/GARD Supply Chain. What Stages Are Adding Value? What Stages Are Not?

/in /by

A case analysis must be written in APA format and include the proper cover and reference list. The Case Analysis should be 500­700 words. Please use double spacing
(as required by APA) and an APA approved font (12 point). The Case Analysis must include at least three references. Reference support should be included in the evaluation of possible solutions as well as the recommendations and/or implementation sections. The Case Analysis MUST include the following heading and follow this prescribed format:
Title Page (APA formatted) I. Major Facts (Heading)
(State here the major facts as you see them. Make statements clear and concise for your own understanding as well as for the understanding of the other students and the instructor.) II. Major Problem (Heading)
(State here the major problem as you see it. Emphasize the present major problem. You
may wish to phrase your statement in the form of a question. In a few cases, there may be more than one major problem. A good problem statement will be concise, usually only one sentence.) III. Possible Solutions (Heading)
A. (List here the possible solutions to the major problem. Let your imagination come up with alternative ways to solve the problem.
B. Do not limit yourself to only one or two possible solutions. These solutions should be distinct from each other. You must include a minimum of three possible solutions.
C. However, you may wish to include portions of one solution in another solution, as long as each solution stands alone. Only in this manner will your subsequent choice be definitive.
D. Note advantages and disadvantages of each possible solution as well expected outcomes. This is an areas where outside support will help. IV. Choice and Rationale (Heading)
(State here your choice, A or B or ___ and the detailed reasons for your choice. You may also state your reasons for not choosing the other alternative solutions.) Explain the hopeful outcome of this alternative. V. Implementation (Heading)
Prepare a plan to implement your choice (recommendation).
Reference Page (APA formatted) – every source listed should be cited within the text. (Supply Chain Logistics Management pg.441)
Integrated Logistics for DEP/GARD
Steve Clinton
Tom Lippet, sales representative for DuPont Engineering Polymers (DEP), felt uneasy as he drove to his appointment at Gard Automotive Manufacturing (GARD). In the past, sales deals with GARD had proceeded smoothly. Oftentimes competitors were not even invited to bid on the
GARD business. Mike O’Leary, purchasing agent at GARD, claimed that was because no competitor could match DEP’s product quality.
But this contract negotiation was different. Several weeks before the contract renewal talks began, O’Leary had announced his plan to retire in 6 months. GARD management quickly promoted Richard Binish as O’Leary’s successor. Although Binish had been rela­ tively quiet at the previous two meetings Lippet sensed that it would not be business as usual with Binish. While the contract decision ultimately depended upon O’Leary’s recom­ mendation, Lippet felt Binish might pose a problem.
Binish, 35, had worked for a Fortune 500 firm following completion of his undergradu­ ate degree in operations management. While with the Fortune 500 firm Binish had become extensively involved with JIT and quality programs. He had returned to school and earned an MBA with a concentration in purchasing and logistics. Eager to make his mark, Binish had rejected offers to return to large corporations and instead accepted GARD’s offer in inventory management.
GARD, an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) for U.S. auto producers and after­ market retailers, makes a wide variety of plastic products for automobiles and light trucks. Examples of GARD products are dashboards, door and window handles, and assorted con­ trol knobs. When Binish began working with GARD’s inventory management he applied the 80/20 rule, illustrating to management that 80 percent of GARD’s business was related to 20 percent of its product line. Over the next 3 years, as contracts expired with customers and suppliers, Binish trimmed GARD’s product line. GARD management was impressed with the positive impact on GARD’s profits as unprofitable contracts and products were discarded. A trimmer product line composed primarily of faster­moving products also resulted in higher inventory velocity.
So, when O’Leary announced his retirement plans, management immediately offered Binish the position. After taking a few days to review GARD’s purchasing practices Binish felt he could make an impact. He accepted management’s offer. As he learned his way around the purchasing department Binish tried to stay in the background, but he soon found him­ self questioning many of O’Leary’s practices. He particularly disdained O’Leary’s frequent “business lunches” with long­time associates from GARD suppliers. Despite these feelings Binish made an effort to not be openly critical of O’Leary. Such efforts did not, however, prevent him from asking more and more questions about GARD’s purchasing process.
O’Leary, for his part, felt his style had served GARD well. Prices were kept low and quality was generally within established parameters. Although O’Leary typically main­ tained a wide network of suppliers, critical materials were sourced from a limited number of them. In those cases contract bids were a ritual, with the winner known well in advance.
DEP was one such winner. Its polymers were a critical feedstock material in GARD’s manufacturing process. When O’Leary began sourcing from DEP nearly 15 years ago, there was no question that DEP polymers were the best on the market. GARD’s production managers rarely complained about production problems caused by substandard polymers. O’Leary reasoned that the fewer complaints from manufacturing, the better. (Supply Chain Logistics Management 441) (Supply Chain Logistics Management 442)
Cases
“Hi, Tom! Come on in! Good to see you. You remember Richard Binish, don’t you?” Lippet’s spirits were buoyed by O’Leary’s cheery greeting.
“Absolutely! How are you, Richard? Coming out from the old horse’s shadow a bit now?”
Binish politely smiled and nodded affirmatively. Light banter continued as the three moved down the hallway to a small conference room.
“Well, great news, Tom! DEP has the contract again!” O’Leary paused, then continued, “But there’s going to be a slight modification. Instead of the traditional 2­year contract we’re only going to offer a 1­year deal. Nothing personal, just that management feels it’s only fair to Richard that these last contracts I negotiate be limited to a year. That way he doesn’t get locked into any deals that might make him look bad!” O’Leary roared with laughter at his last comment.
“It is certainly no reflection on DEP,” Richard interjected. “It simply gives me a chance to evaluate suppliers in the coming year without being locked into a long­term contract. If my evaluation concurs with what Mr. O’Leary has told me about DEP I see no reason that our successful relationship won’t continue.”
“Entirely understandable,” replied Tom as his mind pondered the meaning of Binish’s evaluation. “I’m confident you’ll find DEP’s service and product every bit as good as Mike has told you.” Following the meeting O’Leary invited Lippet to join him for a cup of coffee in GARD’s lunchroom. Binish excused himself, saying he had other matters to attend to.
As they enjoyed their coffee, O’Leary sighed. “You’ll be seeing some changes coming, Tom. The best I could do was get you a year.”
“I’m not sure I understand. As far as I know GARD’s never had a major problem with DEP’s products.”
“We haven’t,” O’Leary replied. “At least not under the guidelines I hammered out with management. But there will be some changes by next year.”
“Such as?”
“Well, you remember when I started buying from DEP? You were the leaders, no question about it. Now I knew some other suppliers had moved up since then but I figured, hey, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it! As long as DEP’s price was in line, I knew I wouldn’t have any trou­ bles with manufacturing. Less headaches for me. Now it turns out that Binish has some other ideas about purchasing. I can tell you for a fact that he’s sampled several lots of DEP feed­ stock. He’s also invited other potential suppliers to submit samples. The long and short of it is that there’s not much difference between DEP and the competition in terms of product.”
“I still don’t clearly understand the problem, Mike.”
“In Binish’s terms, product merely becomes a ‘qualifying criterion.’ If everyone’s prod­ uct is comparable, especially in something such as polymer feedstock, how do you distin­ guish yourself? Binish claims companies will need to demonstrate something called ‘order winning criteria’ to get our business in the future.”
“I still don’t see a problem. We have our reviews with GARD every year. Our service performance has always been found to be acceptable.”
“True. But acceptable according to my guidelines. Let me throw a number at you. On average GARD schedules delivery 10 days from date of order. I count on­time delivery as plus or minus 2 days from scheduled delivery date. That’s a 5­day service window. GARD’s minimum service threshold within this 5­day window is 95 percent. DEP had a 96.2 percent record last year using my window. Do you know what Binish is talking?”
“Probably 3?”
“Exactly. And do you know what DEP’s performance is if we use a 3­day service window?”
“No, Mike, I really don’t.” (Supply Chain Logistics Management 443) “Well, Tom. Sorry to tell you it’s 89.7 percent. Worse yet, with Binish not only will the window decline but also the threshold level will be bumped up to 96 percent. And, that’s only going to be
for the first 3 years after I retire. After that Binish is shooting for exact­ day delivery only with 96.5 percent service capability. Right now using exact day DEP only has 80 percent flat. You aren’t even close to being in the game.”
“So we’ve got a 1­year contract essentially to demonstrate that we can deliver service as well as product?”
“You understand the problem now.”
Polymer feedback production requires a mixture of chemical compounds. DEP’s manufac­ turing
process relies heavily on six principal compounds (A–F). DEP’s current procurement policy is to
source each of these compounds from three sources determined through an annual bidding process. Typically the firm with the lowest price is considered the best bid. The top bid receives 60 percent of DEP’s business while the other two firms receive 25 percent and 15 percent, respectively. Management feels this policy protects DEP from material shortages and unreasonable price increases. Table 1 indicates the current compound suppliers and their performance statistics (percentage of business, delivery time from order date, fill rate).
DEP currently uses the following performance criteria:
1. Delivery of A: On­time considered 4 days from date of order 6 2 days. 2. Delivery of B: On­
time considered 4 days from date of order 6 2 days. 3. Delivery of C: On­time considered 4 days from date of order 6 2 days. 4. Delivery of D: On­time considered 5 days from date of order 6 2 days. 5. Delivery of E: On­time considered 6 days from date of order 6 2 days. 6. Delivery of F: On­time considered 6 days from date of order 6 2 days. 7. Minimum acceptable fill rate on all compounds is 92 percent.
The manufacture of polymer feedstock is highly standardized. DEP has continually invested in technologically advanced manufacturing equipment. As a result, DEP can quickly change processes to manufacture different polymers. Chemical Compounds
TABLE 1

Organizational Design, Structure, And Change Presentation

/in /by

Each year Fortune magazine publishes a “Most Admired” list of the top companies in the United States. Firms are rated on these eight dimensions: innovativeness, quality of management, long-term investment value, social responsibility to the community and the environment, people management, quality of products and services, financial soundness, wise use of corporate assets, and, if international, a ninth dimension: effectiveness in doing business globally.

For this assignment, select a familiar organization (you are encouraged to select an organization in which you have been employed for at least 6 months (TARGET)). Then, choose one of the eight dimensions used to rate top U.S. companies in which the organization appears to be underperforming. Prepare a PowerPoint presentation (12-15 slides) that addresses the following:

1. Identify a major issue the organization is facing and in which dimension (of the eight identified above) it is underperforming. Explain the ramifications the underperformance is currently having on the organization. Identify the likely consequence of failure to improve in the selected dimension.

2. Analyze the relevance of the current organizational structure, design, and culture and their influence on organizational effectiveness, especially in relationship to the dimension in which the organization is struggling.

3. Determine whether the organization embodies the principles and values of conscious culture and management and its relevance to improving organizational function.

4. Present a plan to bring about necessary improvement using Kotter’s 8-step change model.

5. Address possible challenges to the suggested change and your plans for managing those challenges.

6. Explain how different subsystems need to be realigned in order to bring about the change.

7. Detail any lessons learned and evaluate strategies that you as a manager will either avoid or engage in when designing the structure, building culture, and managing change in your organization.

8. Present evidence from at least three scholarly articles to support your position and proposed change initiative.

While APA format is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and in-text citations and references should be presented using APA documentation guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric (SEE BELOW) prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

RUBRIC

  1 Unsatisfactory 0.00% 2 Less than Satisfactory 74.00% 3 Satisfactory 79.00% 4 Good 87.00% 5 Excellent 100.00%
60.0 %Content  
5.0 % Identification of Issue Identification of a major issue the organization is facing and in which dimension it is underperforming is absent, inappropriate, or irrelevant. Identification of a major issue the organization is facing and in which dimension it is underperforming is weak or marginal with gaps in presentation. Identification of a major issue the organization is facing and in which dimension it is underperforming is provided, but at a cursory level. Identification of a major issue the organization is facing and in which dimension it is underperforming is clear and integrated. Identification of a major issue the organization is facing and in which dimension it is underperforming is thorough and well integrated.  
10.0 % Ramifications and Consequences Explanation of the ramifications the underperformance is currently having on the organization and the likely consequence of failure to improve in the selected dimension is absent, inappropriate, or irrelevant. Explanation of the ramifications the underperformance is currently having on the organization and the likely consequence of failure to improve in the selected dimension is vague or incomplete. Explanation of the ramifications the underperformance is currently having on the organization and the likely consequence of failure to improve in the selected dimension is provided, but at a cursory level and may contain some inconsistencies. Explanation of the ramifications the underperformance is currently having on the organization and the likely consequence of failure to improve in the selected dimension is clear and integrated. Explanation of the ramifications the underperformance is currently having on the organization and the likely consequence of failure to improve in the selected dimension is thorough and well integrated.  
10.0 % Effect of Organizational Structure, Design, and Culture Analysis of the current organizational structure, design, and culture, and their influence on organizational effectiveness in relationship to the dimension in which the organization is struggling, is absent, inappropriate, or irrelevant. Analysis of the current organizational structure, design, and culture, and their influence on organizational effectiveness in relationship to the dimension in which the organization is struggling, is weak or marginal with gaps in presentation. Analysis of the current organizational structure, design, and culture, and their influence on organizational effectiveness in relationship to the dimension in which the organization is struggling, is provided, but at a cursory level and may contain inconsistencies. Analysis of the current organizational structure, design, and culture, and their influence on organizational effectiveness in relationship to the dimension in which the organization is struggling, is clear and integrated. Analysis of the current organizational structure, design, and culture, and their influence on organizational effectiveness in relationship to the dimension in which the organization is struggling, is thorough and well integrated.  
10.0 % Embodiment of Conscious Capitalism Identification of whether the organization embodies the principles and values of conscious culture and management and its relevance to improving organizational function is absent, inappropriate, or irrelevant. Identification of whether the organization embodies the principles and values of conscious culture and management and its relevance to improving organizational function is weak or marginal with gaps in presentation. Identification of whether the organization embodies the principles and values of conscious culture and management and its relevance to improving organizational function is provided, but at a cursory level and may contain inconsistencies. Identification of whether the organization embodies the principles and values of conscious culture and management and its relevance to improving organizational function is clear and integrated. Identification of whether the organization embodies the principles and values of conscious culture and management and its relevance to improving organizational function is thorough and well integrated.  
10.0 % Improvement Plan A plan to bring about necessary improvement using the 8-step change model is absent, inappropriate, or irrelevant. A plan to bring about necessary improvement using the 8-step change model is weak or marginal with gaps in presentation. A plan to bring about necessary improvement using the 8-step change model is provided, but at a cursory level and may contain inconsistencies. A plan to bring about necessary improvement using the 8-step change model is clear and integrated. A plan to bring about necessary improvement using the 8-step change model is thorough and well integrated.  
10.0 % Challenges and Plans for Managing Challenges Identification of possible challenges to the suggested change, plans for managing challenges, and explanation of subsystem realignment needed to bring about the change is not included. Identification of possible challenges to the suggested change, plans for managing challenges, and explanation of subsystem realignment needed to bring about the change is incomplete or incorrect. Identification of possible challenges to the suggested change, plans for managing challenges, and explanation of subsystem realignment needed to bring about the change is included but lacks relevant supporting details. Identification of possible challenges to the suggested change, plans for managing challenges, and explanation of subsystem realignment needed to bring about the change is complete and includes relevant supporting details. Identification of possible challenges to the suggested change, plans for managing challenges, and explanation of subsystem realignment needed to bring about the change is extremely thorough and includes extensive supporting details.  
5.0 % Lessons Learned and Evaluation of Strategies for Leading Teams and Fostering Collaboration Lessons learned and evaluation of strategies to avoid or engage in when designing the structure, building culture, and managing change in an organization as a manager are absent, inappropriate, or irrelevant. Lessons learned and evaluation of strategies to avoid or engage in when designing the structure, building culture, and managing change in an organization as a manager are weak or marginal with gaps in presentation. Lessons learned and evaluation of strategies to avoid or engage in when designing the structure, building culture, and managing change in an organization as a manager are provided, but at a cursory level and may contain inconsistencies. Lessons learned and evaluation of strategies to avoid or engage in when designing the structure, building culture, and managing change in an organization as a manager are clear and integrated. Lessons learned and evaluation of strategies to avoid or engage in when designing the structure, building culture, and managing change in an organization as a manager are thorough and well integrated.  
40.0 %Presentation  
15.0 % Presentation of Content The content lacks a clear point of view and logical sequence of information. Includes little persuasive information. Sequencing of ideas is unclear. The content is vague in conveying a point of view and does not create a strong sense of purpose. Includes some persuasive information. The presentation slides are generally competent, but ideas may show some inconsistency in organization or in their relationships to each other. The content is written with a logical progression of ideas and supporting information exhibiting a unity, coherence, and cohesiveness. Includes persuasive information from reliable sources. The content is written clearly and concisely. Ideas universally progress and relate to each other. The project includes motivating questions and advanced organizers. The project gives the audience a clear sense of the main idea.  
10.0 % Layout The layout is cluttered, confusing, and does not use spacing, headings, and subheadings to enhance the readability. The text is extremely difficult to read with long blocks of text, small point size for fonts, and inappropriate contrasting colors. Poor use of headings, subheadings, indentations, or bold formatting is evident. The layout shows some structure, but appears cluttered and busy or distracting with large gaps of white space or a distracting background. Overall readability is difficult due to lengthy paragraphs, too many different fonts, dark or busy background, overuse of bold, or lack of appropriate indentations of text. The layout uses horizontal and vertical white space appropriately. Sometimes the fonts are easy to read, but in a few places the use of fonts, italics, bold, long paragraphs, color, or busy background detracts and does not enhance readability. The layout background and text complement each other and enable the content to be easily read. The fonts are easy to read and point size varies appropriately for headings and text. The layout is visually pleasing and contributes to the overall message with appropriate use of headings, subheadings, and white space. Text is appropriate in length for the target audience and to the point. The background and colors enhance the readability of the text.  
5.0 % Language Use and Audience Awareness (includes sentence construction, word choice, etc.) Inappropriate word choice and lack of variety in language use are evident. Writer appears to be unaware of audience. Use of primer prose indicates writer either does not apply figures of speech or uses them inappropriately. Some distracting inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. The writer exhibits some lack of control in using figures of speech appropriately. Language is appropriate to the targeted audience for the most part. The writer is clearly aware of audience, uses a variety of appropriate vocabulary for the target audience, and uses figures of speech to communicate clearly. The writer uses a variety of sentence constructions, figures of speech, and word choice in distinctive and creative ways that are appropriate to purpose, discipline, and scope.  
5.0 % Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) Slide errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Slides are largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. Writer is clearly in control of standard, written academic English.  
5.0 % Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) Sources are not documented. Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.  
100 % Total Weightage