BOARD OF DIRECTOR ASSIGNMENTS

Grading Comments

Econ 332

1. Scoring Sheet

Each assignment report by your director >team= will be based on 1) meeting logistics information (10 pts), 2) written report mechanics (20 pts), 3) written report content (60 pts), and 4) oral report/comments (10 pts). Refer to the >Scoring Sheet= for more details.

2. Scores

The assigned problems do not necessarily have right or wrong answers. More important than your team=s recommendation is the process by which your team arrives at its decision (see scoring sheet again) and the clarity with which that is communicated. Scores are competitively determined which means that the >best= (most thorough, most original, most articulate, etc.) reports receive the highest scores. Hence, doing the minimum that is required may not result in a perfect score. This also means that no team scores are assigned until all reports have been evaluated. While there may be some subjectivity in determining a team=s score (welcome to the real world), previous scores of a team are not a factor.

3. Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation criteria usually relate to questions about the likely consequences or impacts of alternative courses of action. Multiple criteria are often identified and, in some situations, they may be conflicting. Some criteria may be regarded as more important than others (i.e. carry different weights of importance). At least some evaluation criteria should be determined before the discussion of alternatives begins. During the discussion of alternatives, a need to revise or alter the original criteria may arise. Extensive brainstorming and in-depth discussions by all members of a group or team usually result in the most comprehensive and appropriate criteria being specified. A common approach in choosing among alternatives is to put together a table where relevant evaluation criteria are listed down the left side and the alternatives being considered are listed across the top; each table cell could contain a measure of how well that alternative meets the specified criterion.

Specific examples of evaluation criteria include the following:

⋆ consistency with desired goals/objectives

⋆ desired traits, characteristics, aspects, or features

⋆ benefits/costs

⋆ risks/returns

⋆ long run/short run impacts

⋆ simplicity/ease of implementation and execution

⋆ legality/conformity with policies

⋆ economical/sociological/environmental results

⋆ capitalizes on strengths/avoids weaknesses (SWOT analysis)

⋆ ethical concerns

⋆ fairness/equity objectives (define clearly)

⋆ provides desired incentives

⋆ profitability/efficiency measures

⋆ constituency satisfaction

⋆ stability

⋆ survivability

⋆ extent to which results are known in advance or predictable

4. Methods for Selecting an Alternative (examples)

1) Everyone votes for their preferred choice and then:

a) take the one with the most first-place votes

b) vote again on the top 2 alternatives

c) eliminate the least preferred choice before voting again

2) Everyone votes for or against a recommended course of action

3) Everyone ranks the alternatives and then:

a) add ranks of each taking the one with the lowest sum of ranks

b) take the one with the most #1 ranks

c) rank again the two alternatives with the most #1 ranks

d) eliminate the alternative with the highest sum of ranks and repeat process

c:\casegr