Foundation Collegiate Case Competition Judging

Judging Criteria

Criteria 1 – Understanding of the organization’s situation (20pts)
Scoring criteria.

• Uses comprehensive sources including specialize literature/data, demonstrates mastery of the situation. (20–18pts)
• Uses broad sources including specialize literature/data, demonstrates a correct and detailed understanding of the situation. (17.5–16pts)
• Uses general sources including specialized literature/data, demonstrates a correct understanding of the situation. (15.5–14pts)
• Uses general sources, demonstrates a correct but limited understanding of the situation. (13.5–12pts)
• Uses inappropriate or limited sources, demonstrates an incorrect or shallow understanding of the situation. (11.5–0pts)

Criteria 2 – Critical analysis of the organization’s operating environment (20pts)
Scoring criteria.

• Evident of high-level thinking with the analysis of the organization’s operating environment. Identified opportunities or problems are very relevant. (20–18pts)
• Analysis shows critical thinking in relation to the organization’s operating environment. Relevant opportunities or problems identified. (17.5–16pts)
• Some parts lack evidence of critical thinking. Identified opportunities or problems are inconsistently linked to the environmental analysis. (15.5–14pts)
• Information is presented with little analysis of the organization’s operating environment. Linkage between operating environment and identified opportunities or problems is poor. (13.5–12pts)  (4)
• There is no analysis evident in the report just presentation of facts and information collected. Irrelevant or unclear opportunities or problems identified. (11.5–0pts)

Criteria 3 –  Application of theory and fact-based evidence to support recommended commercial strategies  (20pts)
Scoring criteria.

• The identified marketing strategies are extremely relevant to the proposed problems/opportunities, and closely backed by appropriate theories to justify the recommendations. (20–18pts)
• The identified marketing strategies are relevant to the proposed problems/opportunities. There are theories to justify decisions but others of equal or greater relevance could have been utilized in formulating the recommendations. (17.5–16pts)
• The identified marketing strategies are relevant to the proposed problems/opportunities. There are insufficient theories to justify decisions or better alternatives could have been utilized in formulating the recommendations. (15.5–14pts)
• The identified marketing strategies lack relevance to the proposed problems/opportunities. Poor linkage between the theories presented to justify the recommendations. (13.5–12pts)
• The identified marketing strategies are not related to the proposed problems/opportunities. The chosen theories are not at all appropriate to justify the recommendations. (11.5–0pts)

Criteria 4 –  Purpose and Expression in the presentation  (20pts)
Scoring criteria.

• Comprehensively addresses submission requirements and expresses ideas in a clear, compelling and insightful manner. The presentation is extremely persuasive with respect to the strategies presented. (20–18pts)
• Competently addresses submission requirements and expresses ideas in a clear and interesting manner. The presentation exhibits persuasive qualities with respect to the strategies presented. (17.5–16pts)
• Addresses submission requirements with consistency and expresses ideas in a clear manner. The quality of information detracted from the persuasiveness of the suggested strategies. (15.5–14pts)
• Addresses most requirements but with varying degrees of consistency and expresses ideas in a somewhat clear manner. The presentation was not persuasive with respect to pursuing the identified strategies. (13.5–12pts)
• Either fails or minimally addresses report requirements and expresses ideas with no or little clarity. The presentation was not at all convincing. (11.5–0pts)

Criteria 5 –  Presentation skills, effective use of visual aids     (20pts)
Scoring criteria.

• Presenters are enthusiastic and constantly engage the audience via exceptional verbal and non-verbal communication skills; Presentation is interesting and well-paced. Slides/visual aids exhibit high professionalism and effectiveness. (20–18pts)
• Presenters are able to engage the audience via appropriate verbal and non-verbal communication skills; Presentation is interesting and well-paced. Slides/ visual aids exhibit satisfactory professionalism and effectiveness. (17.5–16pts)
• Presenters use appropriate verbal and non-verbal communication skills; Presentation is somewhat interesting and managed at an acceptable pace. Slides/visual aids exhibit moderate professionalism and effectiveness. (15.5–14pts)
• Presenters use appropriate verbal and non-verbal communication skills, Presentation lacks engagement from the audience and poorly managed. Slides/ visual aids need significant improvement. (13.5–12pts)
• Presenters exhibit some verbal and non-verbal communication skills, Presentation lacks engagement from the audience and poorly managed. Slides/visual aids are not effective nor professional. (11.5–0pts)