Students, please view the “Submit a Clickable Rubric
Assignment” in the Student Center.
Instructors, training on how to grade is within the Instructor Center.
Assignment 1: Prioritizing Projects at D. D.
Williamson (Case Study from Chapter 2)
Due Week 3 and worth 240
points
Read the case titled:
“Prioritizing Projects at D. D. Williamson” found in Chapter 2.
Write a six to eight (6-8)
page paper in which you:
1.
Analyze the prioritizing
process at D. D. Williamson.
2.
Suggest two (2) recommendations
to improve the prioritizing process.
3.
Create a scenario where the
implemented process at D. D. Williamson would not work.
4.
Project five (5) years ahead
and speculate whether or not D. D. Williamson will be using the same process.
Justify your answer.
5.
Use at least four (4) quality
(peer-reviewed) resources in this assignment.
Your assignment must:
·
Be typed, double spaced, using
Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations
and references must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your
professor for any additional instructions.
·
Include a cover page
containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s
name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are
not included in the required assignment page length.
The specific course learning
outcomes associated with this assignment are:
·
Assess organizational
strategies that contribute to effective project management of human resources.
·
Use technology and information
resources to research issues in managing human resource projects.
·
Write clearly and concisely
about managing human resource projects using proper writing mechanics.
Grading for this assignment
will be based on answer quality, logic/organization of the paper, and language
and writing skills. Clickhereto access the rubric for this assignment.
|
Points: 240 |
Assignment 1: Prioritizing Projects at D. D. |
|||
|
Criteria |
Unacceptable Below 70% F |
Fair 70-79% C |
Proficient 80-89% B |
Exemplary 90-100% A |
|
1. Analyze the prioritizing Weight: 20% |
Did not submit or |
Partially critiqued the prioritizing process at D. D. Williamson. |
Satisfactorily critiqued the prioritizing process at D. D. Williamson. |
Thoroughly critiqued the prioritizing process at D. D. Williamson. |
|
2. Suggest two (2) Weight: 20% |
Did not submit or incompletely suggested two (2)recommendations to improve the prioritizing |
Partially suggestedtwo (2)recommendations to improve the prioritizing process. |
Satisfactorily suggestedtwo (2)recommendations to improve the prioritizing |
Thoroughly suggestedtwo (2)recommendations to improve the prioritizing |
|
3. Create a scenario where Weight: 20% |
Did not submit or |
Partially created a scenario |
Satisfactorily created a |
Thoroughly created a |
|
4. Project five (5) years Weight: 25% |
Did not submit or |
Partially projected five (5) years ahead. Partially speculated whether or |
Satisfactorily projected five (5) years ahead. Satisfactorily speculated |
Thoroughly projected five (5) years ahead. Thoroughly speculated whether |
|
5. Four (4) References Weight: 5% |
No references provided. |
Does not meet the required number of references; some or all references |
Meets number of required references; all references high quality choices. |
Exceeds number of required references; all references high quality |
|
6. Clarity and writing Weight: 10% |
More than 6 errors present |
5-6 errors present |
3-4 errors present |
0-2 errors present |
