# CM108G 1151 Management | Weekly Rubric Framework

> Status: English learner-facing draft v0.1 | 2026-09-06 | prepared for Microsoft Teams

## 1. Format gate before grading

1. Check that the assignment body and log are both present, readable, and saved as Markdown or TXT.
2. If AI was used, check for exporter evidence. If AI was not used, check for a clear non-use statement and a record of sources and reasoning.
3. For group work, check the full list of student IDs and official Chinese names.
4. If the gate is not met, return the submission for resubmission. Do not replace the resubmission rule with a zero for content.
5. After the gate is met, grade the work with the 100-point rubric and then apply the late policy using the Teams submission time: 15% off for ordinary late work and 30% off for work first submitted after the semester ends.

The teacher's latest weekly announcement decides whether AI is forbidden, allowed, or required. A shared rubric does not give students permission to use AI on its own.

## 2. Shared 100-point rubric

### R1 | Management concept and problem understanding (25 points)

| Level | Description |
|---|---|
| 4 / 22–25 | Defines the week's management problem accurately, uses the concept correctly, and explains why it fits the case. |
| 3 / 17–21 | Understands the main problem and concept, with only small gaps in precision. |
| 2 / 10–16 | Mentions a relevant concept, but the problem definition or case connection is incomplete. |
| 1 / 1–9 | Mostly lists terms or opinions without addressing the week's management task. |
| 0 / 0 | No assessable work is submitted. |

### R2 | Evidence, sources, and case application (25 points)

| Level | Description |
|---|---|
| 4 / 22–25 | Major judgments are supported by specific case evidence or clearly labeled assumptions; sources can be checked and limits are stated. |
| 3 / 17–21 | Most judgments have evidence or case support, with a few weak links or missing limits. |
| 2 / 10–16 | Some evidence is present, but the connection to the conclusion is weak or guesses are written as facts. |
| 1 / 1–9 | Little checkable support is provided, or much of the work is copied from untraceable AI or web text. |
| 0 / 0 | No usable evidence or sources are submitted. |

### R3 | Management tool and practical use (25 points)

| Level | Description |
|---|---|
| 4 / 22–25 | The required tool is complete and specific. It identifies the people, order, measures, backup, or next steps needed to use the judgment. |
| 3 / 17–21 | The tool is mostly complete and usable, with one or two areas needing more detail. |
| 2 / 10–16 | Part of the tool is present, but much of the work remains a slogan, summary, or recommendation without a next step. |
| 1 / 1–9 | Major parts are missing and the tool cannot support a management decision or action. |
| 0 / 0 | The required tool is not submitted. |

### R4 | Reasoning, revision, and responsibility (25 points)

| Level | Description |
|---|---|
| 4 / 22–25 | The log is traceable. It shows the starting judgment, checks, AI use if any, reasons for revisions, and each group member's actual contribution. |
| 3 / 17–21 | The log and main revisions are present, and responsibility is mostly clear, but some process detail is missing. |
| 2 / 10–16 | The log is mostly a result or scattered notes, so the reasoning and group integration are difficult to follow. |
| 1 / 1–9 | The log is incomplete or member contributions are unclear. If the format gate is also broken, return the work for resubmission first. |
| 0 / 0 | No assessable process record is submitted. |

R4 grades the quality of a compliant log. Missing required files, invalid formats, missing exporter evidence, or an incomplete group list are handled by the format gate first.

## 3. Weekly focus

| Week | Concept and problem | Evidence and application | Tool and practical use | Process and responsibility |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Understand what a Rubric is for | Each criterion has observable evidence | Five Teams Rubric criteria with usable fields and levels | Individual design process and log |
| 2 | Roles, responsibility, and management conflict | Role judgments use case details | Role map supports delegation | Individual judgment and revision |
| 3 | Define the decision problem | Options, criteria, and evidence quality | Memo leads to a provisional choice | First judgments and revision trail |
| 4 | Self-study reflection on the market | Reading or case evidence is traceable | Concept, opportunity, constraint, gap, and action are clear | Individual reflection and log |
| 5 | Positioning, goals, and planning | Goals connect to earlier evidence | Goals can be checked and acted on | Full member list and contributions |
| 6 | Strategy and trade-offs | Value and cost of each business line | Keep, pause, outsource, or expand decisions | Group decision log |
| 7 | Core capabilities and resources | Capabilities have case evidence | Build, partner, or do not invest classification | Integration and individual contribution |
| 8 | Self-study reflection on people management | Earlier tools or assigned cases support the reflection | Learning, revision, and next step are clear | Individual reflection and log |
| 9 | Midterm integration and operations | Evidence, assumptions, and gaps are combined | Business model, organization, and next steps can be handed over | Progress and responsibility record |
| 10 | Teams, communication, and authority | Communication problems connect to the case | Meeting, document, decision, reporting, and exception system | Traceable decisions |
| 11 | Operations and quality | The likely failure points are identified | SOP, checks, backup, and acceptance conditions | Allocation and revision process |
| 12 | Customers, marketing, and value | Customer needs have support | Segments, value, measures, risks, and test are usable | Assumption testing and group record |
| 13 | Finance, growth, and risk | Scenario assumptions are visible | Three scenarios, cash pressure, and stop-loss points | Estimation and checking log |
| 14 | Motivation, leadership, and fairness | Different needs have a reason | Income, learning, exposure, participation, and growth options | Fairness review and responsibility |
| 15 | Ethics, risk, and change | Affected parties and trust risks are identified | Trigger, prevention, response, and public explanation are usable | Judgment responsibility and revision |
| 16 | Final exam; no weekly rubric | Follow the exam rules | No additional weekly assignment | Weekly assignment rules do not apply |
| 17 | Case analysis and management recommendation | Recommendations link to evidence and assumptions | Growth path, systems, dashboard, and next-quarter actions | Member contribution and AI disclosure |
| 18 | Company-building blueprint | Future information needs and limits are clear | Action order, systems, measures, and risks can be implemented | Feedback revision and handover quality |

## 4. Week 1 special rubric: five Teams Rubric criteria

The Week 1 student output is five criteria that could be used in Teams. Each criterion should answer four questions:

1. Is the purpose clear?
2. Is the evidence observable rather than a vague label such as "good," "complete," or "deep"?
3. Do the levels or scores show what a student must add to improve?
4. Are the Markdown/TXT file and log complete, with exporter evidence if AI was used and a note about the student's own revisions?

The five criteria together make the Week 1 100-point assignment. Students are designing criteria; they do not need to create or publish an official course assignment in Teams.