Source: http://faculty.css.edu/dsurges/ASSESSMENT/mgt6700-rubricstrategycase.html
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
Case Analysis

External analysis
(description of external
change drivers: political,
economic, demographic,
technological, social, legal,
etc.)

Internal analysis
(description of functional
departments & relationships:
finance, marketing, R&D,
manufacturing, HR, etc.)

SWOT, integration
of information
(Internal Strengths &
Weaknesses, external
Opportunities & Threats)

Acceptable (Bto B)
Good (B+)
Excellent (A- to
A)
1 point
2 points
3 points
4 points
 vague
Mission Statement
(concise statement of what
business you are and are not
in, key components of
mission)

Unacceptable
(C)
Strategic
alternatives or
scenarios
 clear &
statement
mission
statement, does
not distinguish
organization,
no clear
components
 limited
 5-6 factors,
7-10 factors,
 3-4 external described with described
with
 no mission
discussion of
external factors
(1-2, poorly
described, no
examples)
 limited
discussion of
internal factors
(1 described, no
examples)
 no
comparison or
integration of
internal and
external factors
factors
identified and
described with
examples
 mission
distinctive
mission
clearly tied to key
statement with strategic factors,
1-3
4+ components
components
examples,
related to
organizational
events and
performance
related examples,
prioritized
relevant to the
firm
 4-5
 6+ described,
described, with
prioritized, show
described, with examples
systemic
examples
reflecting key
connections
processes
 2-3 factors
 cross
 adequate but tabulation or
 Integrated
presentation of
separate listing other
factors with clear
of internal and integrated
implications for
external factors presentation of
strategy
I/E factors
 more than one
 single
 no alternatives alternative,
(possible future scenarios
provided
vaguely
and/or alternative
described
recommendations for
responding to strategic needs)
scenario
considered, one
alternatives,
well described,
well described,
clearly related to
clearly related
organization,
to organization
clear outgrowth
of SWOT, key
 single
factors

Decision criteria
(bases for deciding on
strategic alternatives)

Evaluation &
measurement
 no criteria
identified
Implementation &
transition
management
(strategy for reducing
resistance to change &
facilitating transition for
various stakeholders)
poorly defined well defined
criteria
criteria
 poorly
 no
performance
(identification & measurement evaluation
of key indicators of
criteria
performance and change)

clear, well
 at least one,  at least two, defined,
multiple
 no
consideration of
implementation
measurable
criteria (e.g.,
specific,
behavioral,
objective,
measurable)
 listed
 clearly
measurable
criteria
 listed
suggestions
suggestions for and explained
implementation rationale for
and transition impementation
and transition
criteria, key
factors
 key areas,
clearly
measurable, IT
linkages, key
personnel
 analysis of
stakeholders,
culture, and
stages of
transition with
corresponding
recommendations
Presentation

Teamwork
 team members
 unclear roles,
 well
poor transitions,  sequence of
coordinated
(demonstrated ability to work team tension or individual
and prepared
together effectively, cuing,
conflict apparent, presentations
presentation
transitions, shared discussion) excuses

Communication
Style
(effective use of voice,
gesture, eye contact, etc.)

Vocabulary
 barely
audible, little
inflection, few
gestures, little
eye contact,
 audible but  clearly
without
enthusiasm,
audience
contact but
little
involvement
 inaccurate use
Graphics
(visual materials used to
supplement the presentation:
transparencies, Power Point
slides, chalk/whiteboard
 no graphics
 consistent
 excellent voice
projection &
modulation,
nonverbal
expression,
enthusiasm eye
contact, &
involvement of
audience
 consistent use
use of
technical
terms; some
overuse or
pretentiousness
of appropriate
terms for all parts
of case
presentation,
discussion and
reflection
 used
 legible,
 impactful
graphics but
difficult to
read,
inconsistent
style,
consistent
style, related to
key ideas,
attractive
layout
visual content
supplementing
verbal points,
integrates
information
 inconsistent
of terms,
(i.e., use of technical terms for common or slang use of technical
content and processes, key
rather than
and common or
figures, etc., related to case
technical terms, slang
and strategic management)
mispronunciation

audible and
enthusiastic
but with
minimal
audience
involvement
have equivalent
roles, smooth
transitions, cross
references to
each other's
parts,
diagrams, etc.)

unnecessary,
poor layout
visually
 technology  prepared
Use of Technology
but
 no technology used
awkward and
(e.g., Power Point, Internet,
used
overhead projector, TV/video,
etc.)
not tested or
with backup
and well
organized use
of at least one
method
 prepared and
well organized
use of at least 2
methods,
supplements
presentation
 request

 loosely
Discussion
(interaction with audience to
facilitate understanding, elicit
questions & concerns, etc.)

organized
discussion,
no discussion random
questions,
some
defensiveness
specific
feedback,
audience
prepared
questions &
questions &
comments,
responses for
followup and
discussion,
probe
actively seek
questions, little
direct feedback
defensiveness
with no
defensiveness
 elicit
 clear

Reflection
(team discussion of what was
learned, consideration of
feedback and critique, areas
for revision & improvement)
identification of
3-4
discussion of
improvements
 not covered or possible
 clear
based on
no ideas of what
identification
improvements,
feedback,
could be done
of 1-2
explanations
discussion,
differently
improvements
why it couldn't
reflection on
be done
team process:
what to start,
stop, continue
 loose