MGTCB/526 Competency 1 – Assessment and Rubric
Course Title: Managing in a Changing Environment
Competency Assessment Title: Organizational Analysis
Total Number of Points: 100
Assignment Directions:
Step 1:
Congratulations! You’ve been hired as a manager and have been asked to analyze the current status of your organization. Review at least 3 global companies on the Business Source Complete: SWOT Analyses list.
Select a company – either the company you work for, a company you have worked for in the past, or 1 of the companies on the Business Source Complete: SWOT Analyses list – to use for the rest of the course (this will sometimes be referred to as “your organization”) and research its history.
Note: Some reports are more recent than others. It’s in your best interest to find an organization with a recent (within 2 years) report.
Step 2:
Review your organization’s SWOT analysis and other available sources to evaluate the strategic needs of the organization within a changing global environment.
Complete the Organizational Analysis worksheet for your evaluation.
Note: This type of information is often found in the organization’s annual report.
MGTCB/526 Competency 1 Rubric
MGTCB/526 Competency Assessment Rubric
| Assignment/ Performance Criteria | Mastery 100% | Meets Expectations 85% | Not Met 0% |
| 1. Organization information
(weight 10%) |
Organization and industry were thoroughly defined | Organization and industry were partially defined | Organization and industry were narrowly defined or no attempt to define organization and industry was
made |
| 2. Organizational initiatives
(weight 10%) |
Organizational initiatives were thoroughly outlined and what the organization is currently doing to support these initiatives was thoroughly defined. | Organizational initiatives were partially outlined and what the organization is currently doing to support these initiatives was partially defined. | Organizational initiatives were narrowly outlined and what the organization is currently doing to support these initiatives was narrowly defined or no
attempt to outline the organizational initiatives was made. |
| 3. Organization Plans
(weight 10%) |
All plans were listed, plan descriptions were extensive, and all managers listed were appropriate. | Most plans were listed, plan descriptions were mediocre, and most types of managers listed were appropriate. | Some plans were listed, plan descriptions were limited, and some types of managers listed were appropriate or no attempt to submit a list of plans was made. |
| 4. SWOT Analysis
(weight 10%) |
Identified all internal and external factors based on the organization’s SWOT Analysis | Identified most internal and external factors based on the organization’s SWOT Analysis | Identified some internal and external factors based on the organization’s SWOT Analysis or no attempt to
identify internal and external factors was made |
| 5. Evaluation: Description of unmet need
(weight 15%) |
Comprehensively described an unmet need of the organization | Partially described an unmet need of the organization | Vaguely described an unmet need of the organization or not attempt to describe an unmet need of the
organization was made |
| 6. Evaluation: Competitive advantage
(weight 15%) |
Analysis of competitive advantage was thorough and supported with completely appropriate examples. | Analysis of competitive advantage was mediocre and supported with sufficiently appropriate examples | Analysis of competitive advantage was vague and supported with somewhat appropriate examples or no attempt to submit an analysis of competitive advantage was made |
| 7. Evaluation: Competitive business initiative
(weight 15%) |
Proposal for a competitive business initiative to address the unmet need was complete | Proposal for a competitive business initiative to address the unmet need was mostly complete | Proposal for a competitive business initiative to address the unmet need was incomplete or no attempt was made to propose a competitive
business initiative to address the unmet need |
| 8. Evaluation: Timeline and Operational Steps
(weight 15%) |
A thorough high-level timeline and operational steps for implementation were provided. | A mediocre high-level timeline and operational steps for implementation were provided. | An ambiguous high-level timeline and operational steps for implementation were provided or no attempt was made to provide a timeline and operational steps for implementation |
Reviews
There are no reviews yet.