1500 Words Paper Due in 24 hrs

Rubic_Print_Format

Course Code Class Code Assignment Title Total Points

HCA-620 HCA-620-O500 Benchmark – Plan Models 110.0

Criteria Percentage 1: Unsatisfactory (0.00%) 2: Less Than Satisfactory (74.00%) 3: Satisfactory (79.00%) 4: Good (87.00%) 5: Excellent (100.00%) Comments Points Earned

Content 70.0%

Plan Models Comparison 14.0% A comparison of the three business plan models is not included. A comparison of the three business plan models is incomplete or otherwise deficient. A comparison of the three business plan models is present, but only minimal detail or support is provided. A comparison of the three business plan models is provided with appropriate details and support. A comparison of the three business plan models is thoroughly explored and clearly explained with relevant details and support.

Model Strengths and Limitations 14.0% A description of the strengths and limitations of each model is not included. A description of the strengths and limitations of each model is incomplete or otherwise deficient. A description of the strengths and limitations of each model is present, but only minimal detail or support is provided. A description of the strengths and limitations of each model is provided with appropriate details and support. A description of the strengths and limitations of each model is thoroughly explored and clearly explained with relevant details and support.

Microsoft Project or Apple Merlin Plan Model Comparison 14.0% A comparison of the three business plan models with the models provided in Microsoft Project or Apple Merlin is not included. A comparison of the three business plan models with the models provided in Microsoft Project or Apple Merlin is incomplete or otherwise deficient. A comparison of the three business plan models with the models provided in Microsoft Project or Apple Merlin is present, but only minimal detail or support is provided. A comparison of the three business plan models with the models provided in Microsoft Project or Apple Merlin is provided with appropriate details and support. A comparison of the three business plan models with the models provided in Microsoft Project or Apple Merlin is thoroughly explored and clearly explained with relevant details and support.

CLC Plan Model Selection and Rationale 14.0% Selection of a business plan model that would work best for CLC Plan and a rationale for the selection are not included. Selection of a business plan model that would work best for CLC Plan and a rationale for the selection are incomplete or otherwise deficient. Selection of a business plan model that would work best for CLC Plan and a rationale for the selection are present, but only minimal detail or support is provided. Selection of a business plan model that would work best for CLC Plan and a rationale for the selection are provided with appropriate details and support. Selection of a business plan model that would work best for CLC Plan and a rationale for the selection are thoroughly explored and clearly explained with relevant details and support.

Systems-Based Theoretical Applications (C3.4) 14.0% A description of how to use systems-based theoretical applications in managing health care systems and services is not included. A description of how to use systems-based theoretical applications in managing health care systems and services is incomplete or otherwise deficient. A description of how to use systems-based theoretical applications in managing health care systems and services is present, but only minimal detail or support is provided. A description of how to use systems-based theoretical applications in managing health care systems and services is provided with appropriate details and support. A description of how to use systems-based theoretical applications in managing health care systems and services is thoroughly explored and clearly explained with relevant details and support.

Organization and Effectiveness 20.0%

Thesis Development and Purpose 7.0% Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

Argument Logic and Construction 8.0% Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. Argument is orderly but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) 5.0% Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

Format 10.0%

Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) 5.0% Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. All format elements are correct.

Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) 5.0% Sources are not documented. Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.

Total Weightage 100%