Ibm Strategic Plan

The questions in this instrument are weighted a numerical value of zero to three, with three being the highest score on each question.

Develop at least four criteria, assign weights to each criterion, assign scores, and then calculate the weighted scores. Print the spreadsheet and bar chart with the results.

Their scores are: 55, 47, 62, 27, 50, 49, 66, 53, 50, 44, 63, 59.

e) Balanced scorecard results: My total performance for Q1+Q2 was 8.989. Financial Performance was -1.533. Market Performance was 0. Marketing Effectiveness was 28.500.

This score would be given by Anthony Cherwinski. For the section regarding showing up on time, the hiring team requires someone to show up almost every day on time. The section that talks about helping other students has a minimum of 3 points which correlates with a candidate assisting one peer in the class. The section on focus was rated at a minimum of a 5 because if a candidate is prone to looking at their phone or not focusing during class, they could potentially do that during the dinner, which would look bad to guests. The manager has higher standards of attentiveness and focus therefore the rating scale is much higher. The Reference Rating Sheet can be found in Appendix E.

Even the ranking is consistent and high the institute needs performance standards devised along the lines of end goals. A balanced scorecard has four perspectives and this report gives the complete exploration of financial, internal, customer and

I was doing an evaluation using the PAS tool at Caring Connection Children’s Center, the owner Julie Jenkins Sathe, for-profit, tuition based program. The results show the average PAS Item Score for 21 items if we not include Staff Qualifications area the average PAS Item Score is 3.33, and if we include Staff Qualification Area the average Pas Item Score even drop down to 3.16, because PAS score in this area is very low. Few items rated at a level 1, main portion of items have score2 to 6 and no one item has a level 7. Consequently, using a 7-poin rating scale results shows that this program has middle score. Based on information gathered from this assessment it shows that some items have lowest score and some have pretty good score unfortunately no one didn’t achieved the highest level of rating scale.

The rating system for grading ranks of random things has been around the world for quite some time. In the article “The Order of Things” by Malcom Gladwell, Gladwell explains how terrible the ranking system is by giving us comparison examples from vehicles to education. The system feels dull and corrupt without giving the full detailed rating. People would appreciate the ratings more if it were more precise and accurate. There are many ideas on how to fix the rating system according to Gladwell’s great ideas.

The overall score = sum of the product of weight and rating for each key dimension.

The ratings game is where the group identify the legislation that consider most important to goals & then monitor how policymakers voted on it. The legislators then receive scores based on their votes, on a range from 0 to 100%. A 100 percent means that the policymaker voted with the group on every issue (Schmidt, S., et al., 2011, p.151).

The average daily net worth was 21 out of 35, my guess is that IceFlake did not make a good profit at start affected the score, otherwise I did not understanding this part of the scoring system. For the business longevity, even though with daily between 20-30% market shares, IceFlake scored at 9 out of 15. The market share was doing well against other 4 competitors but still scored low, however the customer satisfaction is at 12 and 11 for employee

I started with an analysis of the Episode Ratings for Modern Family (ignoring seasons). For the 168 episodes of Modern Family the average rating was ȳ=8.0304 stars out of 10, with a standard deviation of 휎=0.3469 stars. The minimum rating received by an episode is 7.3 stars out of 10 and the maximum rating is 9.5 stars out of 10. By using the median, any outliers in the data can be excluded, the median rating was 8 stars out of 10. Quartile 3 was 8.2 stars out of 10, while quartile 1 was 7.8 stars out of 10, resulting

BuildASign has a score of 5/5 on quality, 3/5 on delivery, 5/5 on price, and 4 / 5 on service, customer evaluation 4/5 with a total score of 95. TRTBanner has the same scores for price and quality, but scores better than BuildASign on delivery, service and customer evaluation with a total score of 110. Displays2Go has the same scores for price quality and delivery as TRTBanner, but lacks in service and customer evaluation compared to the other two suppliers with a total score of 96. Given the associated weights on quality, delivery, price, service and customer evaluation that are important to the purchaser, the weighted scoring system suggests that TRTBanner is better suited for this purchase, and should be awarded the

Firstly, the old system was prone to central tendency error. It had 13 rating levels and lacked a described evaluation criteria. As one can understand, if the rating scale is large and the different levels are not sufficiently explained, the evaluators will be more likely to evaluate less accurately. In the case, one can read that managers gave almost to everyone a B or a C,

Key External Factors Opportunities Overall Market Size Increasing Annual Market Growth Rate Low Technological Requirement Threats High Competitive Intensity High Inflationary Vulnerability High Customer Demand Environment Impact Social impact TOTAL 0.30 0.15 0.20 0.05 0.05 1.00 3 2 3 3 2 0.9 0.3 0.6 0.15 0.10 2.80 0.05 0.10 0.10 3 3 3 0.15 0.30 0.30 Weight Rating Weighted Score