Description
The purpose of this assignment is to develop a performance measurement tool for your business plan.
In a PowerPoint presentation of 8-10 slides (not including title or reference slides), cover the following information:
What is the purpose of a monitoring and adjustment plan?
Analyze and describe three different performance measurement tools. Which one will work best for your business plan?
What metrics will you be monitoring and why?
What goals have you set for the selected metrics? What is your rationale for these goals?
What are three barriers that could cause a need to adjust your plan?
Include an example of your performance measurement tool as your final slide (prior to the references slide).
Use a minimum of three peer-reviewed references.
Refer to the resource, “Creating Effective PowerPoint Presentations,” located in the Student Success Center, for additional guidance on completing this assignment in the appropriate style.
While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
You are not required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
3/8/24, 8:23 AM
Collapse All
Building a Performance Measurement Tool – Rubric
Monitoring and Adjustment Plan Purpose
7.2 points
Criteria Description
Monitoring and Adjustment Plan Purpose
5. 5: Excellent
7.2 points
The purpose of a monitoring and adjustment plan is thoroughly explored
and clearly explained with relevant details and support.
4. 4: Good
6.26 points
The purpose of a monitoring and adjustment plan is provided with
appropriate details and support.
3. 3: Satisfactory
5.69 points
The purpose of a monitoring and adjustment plan is present, but only
minimal detail or support is provided.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
5.33 points
The purpose of a monitoring and adjustment plan is incomplete or
otherwise deficient.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
The purpose of a monitoring and adjustment plan is not included.
about:srcdoc
Page 1 of 11
3/8/24, 8:23 AM
Analysis of Three Performance Measurement Tools
7.2 points
Criteria Description
Analysis of Three Performance Measurement Tools
5. 5: Excellent
7.2 points
An analysis of three performance measurement tools is thoroughly
explored and clearly explained with relevant details and support.
4. 4: Good
6.26 points
An analysis of three performance measurement tools is provided with
appropriate details and support.
3. 3: Satisfactory
5.69 points
An analysis of three performance measurement tools is present, but only
minimal detail or support is provided.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
5.33 points
An analysis of three performance measurement tools is incomplete or
otherwise deficient.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
An analysis of three performance measurement tools is not included.
about:srcdoc
Page 2 of 11
3/8/24, 8:23 AM
Metrics to Monitor
7.2 points
Criteria Description
Metrics to Monitor
5. 5: Excellent
7.2 points
An explanation of which metrics will be monitored is thoroughly
explored and clearly explained with relevant details and support.
4. 4: Good
6.26 points
An explanation of which metrics will be monitored is provided with
appropriate details and support.
3. 3: Satisfactory
5.69 points
An explanation of which metrics will be monitored is present, but only
minimal detail or support is provided.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
5.33 points
An explanation of which metrics will be monitored is incomplete or
otherwise deficient.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
An explanation of which metrics will be monitored is not included.
about:srcdoc
Page 3 of 11
3/8/24, 8:23 AM
Goals for Selected Metrics
7.2 points
Criteria Description
Goals for Selected Metrics
5. 5: Excellent
7.2 points
Goals for the selected metrics and the rationale behind the goals are
thoroughly explored and clearly explained with relevant details and
support.
4. 4: Good
6.26 points
Goals for the selected metrics and the rationale behind the goals are
provided with appropriate details and support.
3. 3: Satisfactory
5.69 points
Goals for the selected metrics and the rationale behind the goals are
present, but only minimal detail or support is provided.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
5.33 points
Goals for the selected metrics and the rationale behind the goals are
incomplete or otherwise deficient.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Goals for the selected metrics and the rationale behind the goals are not
included.
about:srcdoc
Page 4 of 11
3/8/24, 8:23 AM
Three Potential Barriers
7.2 points
Criteria Description
Three Potential Barriers
5. 5: Excellent
7.2 points
Three potential barriers that could cause a need for adjustment to the
plan are thoroughly explored and clearly explained with relevant details
and support.
4. 4: Good
6.26 points
Three potential barriers that could cause a need for adjustment to the
plan are provided with appropriate details and support.
3. 3: Satisfactory
5.69 points
Three potential barriers that could cause a need for adjustment to the
plan are present, but only minimal detail or support is provided.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
5.33 points
Three potential barriers that could cause a need for adjustment to the
plan are incomplete or otherwise deficient.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Three potential barriers that could cause a need for adjustment to the
plan are not included.
about:srcdoc
Page 5 of 11
3/8/24, 8:23 AM
Presentation of Content
6 points
Criteria Description
Presentation of Content
5. 5: Excellent
6 points
The content is written clearly and concisely. Ideas universally progress
and relate to each other. The project includes motivating questions and
advanced organizers. The project gives the audience a clear sense of the
main idea.
4. 4: Good
5.22 points
The content is written with a logical progression of ideas and supporting
information exhibiting a unity, coherence, and cohesiveness. Includes
persuasive information from reliable sources.
3. 3: Satisfactory
4.74 points
The presentation slides are generally competent, but ideas may show
some inconsistency in organization or in their relationships to each
other.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
4.44 points
The content is vague in conveying a point of view and does not create a
strong sense of purpose. Includes some persuasive information.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
The content lacks a clear point of view and logical sequence of
information. Includes little persuasive information. Sequencing of ideas
is unclear.
about:srcdoc
Page 6 of 11
3/8/24, 8:23 AM
Layout
6 points
Criteria Description
Layout
5. 5: Excellent
6 points
The layout is visually pleasing and contributes to the overall message
with appropriate use of headings, subheadings, and white space. Text is
appropriate in length for the target audience and to the point. The
background and colors enhance the readability of the text.
4. 4: Good
5.22 points
The layout background and text complement each other and enable the
content to be easily read. The fonts are easy to read and point size varies
appropriately for headings and text.
3. 3: Satisfactory
4.74 points
The layout uses horizontal and vertical white space appropriately.
Sometimes the fonts are easy to read, but in a few places the use of
fonts, italics, bold, long paragraphs, color, or busy background detracts
and does not enhance readability.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
4.44 points
The layout shows some structure but appears cluttered and busy or
distracting with large gaps of white space or a distracting background.
Overall readability is difficult due to lengthy paragraphs, too many
different fonts, dark or busy background, overuse of bold, or lack of
appropriate indentations of text.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
The layout is cluttered, confusing, and does not use spacing, headings,
and subheadings to enhance the readability. The text is extremely
difficult to read with long blocks of text, small point size for fonts, and
about:srcdoc
Page 7 of 11
3/8/24, 8:23 AM
inappropriate contrasting colors. Poor use of headings, subheadings,
indentations, or bold formatting is evident.
about:srcdoc
Page 8 of 11
3/8/24, 8:23 AM
Language Use and Audience Awareness (includes sentence
construction, word choice, etc.)
6 points
Criteria Description
Language Use and Audience Awareness (includes sentence construction,
word choice, etc.)
5. 5: Excellent
6 points
The writer uses a variety of sentence constructions, figures of speech,
and word choice in distinctive and creative ways that are appropriate to
purpose, discipline, and scope.
4. 4: Good
5.22 points
The writer is clearly aware of audience, uses a variety of appropriate
vocabulary for the targeted audience, and uses figures of speech to
communicate clearly.
3. 3: Satisfactory
4.74 points
Language is appropriate to the targeted audience for the most part.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
4.44 points
Some distracting inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word
choice are present. The writer exhibits some lack of control in using
figures of speech appropriately.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Inappropriate word choice and lack of variety in language use are
evident. Writer appears to be unaware of audience. Use of primer prose
indicates writer either does not apply figures of speech or uses them
inappropriately.
about:srcdoc
Page 9 of 11
3/8/24, 8:23 AM
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar,
language use)
3 points
Criteria Description
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language
use)
5. 5: Excellent
3 points
Writer is clearly in control of standard, written, academic English.
4. 4: Good
2.61 points
Slides are largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be
present.
3. 3: Satisfactory
2.37 points
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly
distracting to the reader.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
2.22 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Slide errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of
meaning.
about:srcdoc
Page 10 of 11
3/8/24, 8:23 AM
Documentation of Sources
3 points
Criteria Description
Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography,
etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)
5. 5: Excellent
3 points
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to
assignment and style, and format is free of error.
4. 4: Good
2.61 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and
format is mostly correct.
3. 3: Satisfactory
2.37 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style,
although some formatting errors may be present.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
2.22 points
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to
assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Sources are not documented.
Total 60 points
© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
about:srcdoc
Page 11 of 11
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
