Evaluation Rubric for
Strategic Management Case
The following rubric will be used for the evaluation of team presentations of strategic management cases. Note that the component areas of a thorough case presentation are listed on the left column, and levels of performance are listed across. This listing can help you better prepare your case analysis and presentation. Evaluation criteria are listed for both the content presentation and the process aspects (e.g., teamwork, presentation style) of the
Component
Unacceptable (C)
Acceptable (B- to B)
Good (B+)
Excellent (A- to A)
Case Analysis
0 points
1 point
2 points
3 points
  • Mission Statement 
(concise statement of what business you are and are not in, key components of mission)
  • no mission statement
    		•
  • vague mission statement, does not distinguish organization, no clear components
    		•
  • clear & distinctive mission statement with 1-3 components
    		•
  • mission clearly tied to key strategic factors, 4+ components
    		•
    • External analysis 
    (description of external change drivers: political, economic, demographic, technological, social, legal, etc.)
  • limited discussion of external factors (1-2, poorly described, no examples)
    		•
  • 3-4 external factors identified and described with examples
    		•
  • 5-6 factors, described with examples, related to organizational events and performance
    		•
  • 7-10 factors, described with related examples, prioritized relevant to the firm (for ex. the EFE)
    		•
    • Internal analysis
    (description of functional departments & relationships: finance, marketing, R&D, manufacturing, HR, etc.)
  • limited discussion of internal factors (1 described, no examples)
    		•
  • 2-3 factors described, with examples
    		•
  • 4-5 described, with examples reflecting key processes
    		•
  • 6+ described, prioritized, show systemic connections (for ex. the IFE)
    		•
    • SWOT, integration of information
    (Internal Strengths & Weaknesses, external Opportunities & Threats)
  • no comparison or integration of internal and external factors
    		•
  • adequate but separate listing of internal and external factors
    		•
  • cross tabulation or other integrated presentation of I/E factors
    		•
  • Integrated presentation of factors with clear implications for strategy (for ex. SWOT, SPACE, etc.)
    		•
    • Strategic alternatives or scenarios
    (possible future scenarios and/or alternative recommendations for responding to strategic needs)
  • no alternatives provided
    		•
  • single alternative, vaguely described
    		•
  • single alternatives, well described, clearly related to organization
    		•
  • more than one scenario considered, one well described, clearly related to organization, clear outgrowth of SWOT, key factors
    		•
    • Decision criteria
    (bases for deciding on strategic alternatives)
  • no criteria identified
    		•
  • at least one, poorly defined criteria
    		•
  • at least two, well defined criteria
    		•
  • clear, well defined, multiple criteria, key factors (for ex. the QSPM matrix)
    		•
    • Evaluation & measurement
    (identification & measurement of key indicators of performance and change)
  • no performance evaluation criteria
    		•
  • poorly measurable criteria (e.g., specific, behavioral, objective, measurable)
    		•
  • clearly measurable criteria
    		•
  • key areas, clearly measurable, IT linkages, key personnel (may be included as part of the BSC)
    		•
    • Balanced Scorecard (BSC)
  • no apparent use of BSC
    		•
  • reference scorecard but do not explain or display
    		•
  • scorecard presented but not well connected or perspectives present
    		•
  • scorecard includes four perspectives, clearly explained, with links
    		•
    • Implementation & transition management
    (strategy for reducing resistance to change & facilitating transition for various stakeholders)
  • no consideration of implementation
    		•
  • listed suggestions for implementation and transition
    		•
  • listed suggestions and explained rationale for impementation and transition
    		•
  • analysis of stakeholders, culture, and stages of transition, & dealing with resistance, with corresponding recommendations
    		•
    Presentation
    • Teamwork
    (demonstrated ability to work together effectively, cuing, transitions, shared discussion)
  • unclear roles, poor transitions, team tension or conflict apparent, excuses
    		•
  • sequence of individual presentations
    		•
  • well coordinated and prepared presentation
    		•
  • team members have equivalent roles, smooth transitions, cross references to each other's parts, 
    		•
    • Communication Style
    (effective use of voice, gesture, volume, articulation, eye contact, etc.)
  • barely audible, little inflection, few gestures, little eye contact, 
    		•
  • audible but without enthusiasm, audience contact but little involvement
    		•
  • clearly audible and enthusiastic but with minimal audience involvement
    		•
  • excellent voice projection & modulation, nonverbal expression, enthusiasm eye contact, & involvement of audience
    		•
    • Vocabulary 
    (i.e., use of technical terms for content and processes, key figures, etc., related to case and strategic management)
  • inaccurate use of terms, common or slang rather than technical terms, mispronunciation
    		•
  • inconsistent use of technical and common or slang
    		•
  • consistent use of technical terms; some overuse or pretentiousness
    		•
  • consistent use of appropriate terms for all parts of case presentation, discussion and reflection
    		•
    • Graphics
    (visual materials used to supplement the presentation: transparencies, Power Point slides, chalk/whiteboard diagrams, etc.)
  • no graphics 
    		•
  • used graphics but difficult to read, inconsistent style, unnecessary, poor layout
    		•
  • legible, consistent style, related to key ideas, attractive layout
    		•
  • impactful visual content supplementing verbal points, integrates information visually
    		•
    • Use of Technology 
    (e.g., Power Point, Internet, overhead projector, TV/video, etc.)
  • no technology used
    		•
  • technology used but awkward and not tested or with backup
    		•
  • prepared and well organized use of at least one method
    		•
  • prepared and well organized use of  2 methods, supplements presentation
    		•
    • Discussion
    (interaction with audience to facilitate understanding, elicit questions & concerns, etc.)
  • no discussion
    		•
  • loosely organized discussion, random questions, some defensiveness
    		•
  • elicit audience questions & comments, followup and probe questions, little defensiveness
    		•
  • request specific feedback, prepared questions & responses for discussion, actively seek direct feedback with no defensiveness
    		•
    • Reflection
    (team discussion of what was learned, consideration of feedback and critique, areas for revision & improvement)
  • not covered or no ideas of what could be done differently
    		•
  • loose discussion of possible improvements, explanations why it couldn't be done
    		•
  • clear identification of 1-2 improvements
    		•
  • clear identification of 3-4 improvements based on feedback, discussion, reflection on team process: what to start, stop, continue
    		•