Information Systems? WENDY LEWIS?

CriteriaFar Above StandardsAbove StandardsMeets StandardsBelow StandardsWell Below StandardsStrategic Outcomes: Three strategic goals or objectives derived from Case Study and explained how new hiring system would help achieve.15 points
13-15 Points
Clearly derived from the Case Study and are strongly and fully explained using a sophisticated level of writing.
12 points
12 Points
Derived from the Case Study and are clearly explained.
11 points
10-11 Points
Related to the Case Study and are explained.
9 points
9 Points
Not related to the Case Study and/or are not explained.
0 points
0-8 Points
Too few strategic goals/ objectives are presented, are not explained or exhibit little effort.
Process Analysis: Analysis describes the hiring process in terms of CIC requirements.22 points
20-22 Points
Fully describes and is clearly derived from the Case Study, and demonstrates sophisticated analysis.
19 points
17-19 Points
Describes all aspects, is derived from the Case Study, and demonstrates effective analysis.
16 points
15-16 Points
Describes most aspects of the process being analyzed, and is related to the Case Study.
14 points
13-14 Points
Does not describe some aspects, and/or is not related to the Case Study, and/or contains significant incorrect information.
0 points
0-12 Points
Not included, is extremely incomplete, or is not related to the Case Study.
Requirements: 5 user (1 addresses reporting) and 2 system security and 3 system performance requirements35 points
31-35 Points
Correctly identified and sourced; clearly derived from the Case Study; demonstrates sophisticated analysis.
30 points
28-30 Points
Identified and sourced; requirements are derived from the Case Study; demonstrates effective analysis.
27 points
24-27 Points
Identified and sourced; requirements are related to the Case Study.
23 points
21-23 Points
Less than 10 requirements are identified and sourced; and/or information provided is not correct; and/or requirements are not all related to the Case Study.
0 points
0-20 Points
Few or no requirements are listed; sources are incorrect; and/or requirements are not related to the Case Study.
Incorporation of Feedback on Previous Stage: Substantive feedback related to key content is addressed and previous sections are improved8 points
8 Points
Substantive corrections very effectively incorporated to reflect feedback received on Stage 2.
7 points
6-7 Points
Substantive corrections incorporated to reflect feedback received on Stage 2.
5 points
5 Points
Corrections incorporated to reflect feedback received on Stage 2. May not have addressed all key points or sufficiently corrected.
4 points
3-4 Points
Minimal corrections made based on feedback received on Stage 2 – Some improvements still needed.
0 points
0-2 Points
No corrections made based on feedback received on Stage 2 and/or incorrect changes made.
Research: Two or more sources–one source from within the IFSM 300 course content and one external (other than the course materials)10 points
9-10 Points
Required resources are incorporated and used effectively. Sources used are relevant and timely and contribute strongly to the analysis. References are appropriately incorporated and cited using APA style.
8 points
8 Points
At least two sources are incorporated and are relevant and somewhat support the analysis. References are appropriately incorporated and cited using APA style.
7 points
7 Points
Only one resource is used and properly incorporated and/or reference(s) lack correct APA style.
6 points
6 Points
A source may be used, but is not properly incorporated or used, and/or is not effective or appropriate; and/or does not follow APA style for references and citations.
0 points
0-5 Points
No course content or external research incorporated; or reference listed is not cited within the text.
Format10 points
9-10 Points
Very well organized and easy to read. Very few or no errors in sentence structure, grammar, and spelling; double-spaced, written in third person and presented in a professional format.
8 points
8 Points
Effective organization; has few errors in sentence structure, grammar, and spelling; double-spaced, written in third person and presented in a professional format.
7 points
7 Points
Some organization; may have some errors in sentence structure, grammar and spelling. Report is double spaced and written in third person.
6 points
6 Points
Not well organized, and/or contains several grammar and/or spelling errors; and/or is not double-spaced and written in third person.
0 points
0-5 Points
Extremely poorly written, has many grammar and/or spelling errors, or does not convey the information.
Overall Score90-100% Far Above Standards90 or more80-89% Above Standards80 or more70-79% Meets Standards70 or more60-69% Below Standards60 or more< 60% Well Below Standards0 or more
Make sure to remember to include both the updated Stage 1 and Stage 2 content. I review the feedback to make sure the updates are included and a significant number of points in the rubric are allocated to the revisions.
The section on strategic outcomes is very similar to the write-up required for the organization strategy section in Stage 1. Make sure to describe the three strategic goals/objectives clearly and use facts from the case study and your research on hiring system capabilities to explain how the new hiring system will help the company achieve them.
For the process section, be sure to use the table format and first/last steps provided to document the current process. The table entries should all be process step descriptions in the order they were previously (before the new hiring system) accomplished for an end-to-end hiring process. These steps were described in the various interviews in the case study. Remember, these are steps for the current process (many steps are manual), not the improved process using the new hiring system.
Make sure you clearly describe the system requirements for the new hiring system using a complete sentence in each row of the table format provided. A requirement is something the system needs to do. You described many of these in the first assignment when you described what the various interviewees wanted the system to do. The performance requirements need to be focused on how well the system should perform. For example:
System performance (SP-1) : The system needs to reduce hiring time by 15-20%.