Case Study Analysis Rubric (Bachelor's)
Bachelor's · General · 6 criteria · 100 points
This rubric gives the most weight to analysis using course concepts (25 points), then alternatives and recommendation (20) and justification with evidence (20). The summary carries 15, and organization and APA 7 carry 10 each. On those three, the top level asks you to walk a named framework through the case facts step by step and to recommend an option that beats real alternatives, with implementation steps.
Criteria and levels
| Criterion | Exemplary | Proficient | Developing | Beginning |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case summary and problem identification15 ptsA concise summary of the case facts and a clear statement of the central problem or decision, separated from symptoms and side issues. | Exemplary · 15 ptsThe summary covers the relevant facts in a few paragraphs without retelling the whole case, and it ends with a one or two sentence statement of the core problem or decision. Symptoms are distinguished from the underlying cause, and the key stakeholders are named. | Proficient · 12 ptsThe case is summarized accurately and a problem is stated, but the summary includes unnecessary detail or the problem named is partly a symptom rather than the root issue. | Developing · 9 ptsThe summary retells the case at length or omits facts the analysis later depends on; the problem statement is vague or lists several problems without ranking them. | Beginning · 5 ptsNo clear problem is identified, or the facts are misstated in ways that undermine the analysis. |
| Analysis using course concepts25 ptsWhether the analysis applies specific theories, models, or frameworks from the course to the facts of the case, by name and correctly. | Exemplary · 25 ptsAt least two course concepts, models, or frameworks are named, defined briefly, and applied step by step to specific facts from the case. The analysis explains what the frameworks reveal about why the problem exists, not just that they apply. | Proficient · 20 ptsCourse concepts are named and applied correctly, but the application is partly general (the concept is described more than it is used), or only one framework is used where several were relevant. | Developing · 15 ptsConcepts are mentioned by name but misapplied or not connected to specific case facts, or the analysis is common sense without reference to course content. | Beginning · 8 ptsNo course concepts appear in the analysis. |
| Alternatives and recommendation20 ptsWhether realistic alternative courses of action are considered and one is clearly recommended. | Exemplary · 20 ptsAt least two or three distinct, realistic alternatives are described, each with its main advantages and drawbacks, and one is chosen with a clear statement of why it beats the others. The recommendation includes concrete implementation steps and a rough timeline or responsible parties. | Proficient · 16 ptsAlternatives and a recommendation are present, but one alternative is obviously a straw option, or the implementation plan is brief. | Developing · 12 ptsOnly one option is discussed, or alternatives are listed without pros and cons; the recommendation is stated without explaining how it would be carried out. | Beginning · 6 ptsNo recommendation is made, or the recommendation does not address the problem identified. |
| Justification with evidence20 ptsWhether the recommendation is backed by case facts, course concepts, and outside scholarly sources. | Exemplary · 20 ptsThe recommendation is justified with specific case facts, the frameworks used in the analysis, and at least the required number of scholarly sources cited in APA 7 format. Anticipated risks or objections are addressed. | Proficient · 16 ptsJustification draws on the case and course material, but outside sources are fewer than required or are used only in passing; risks are mentioned without being answered. | Developing · 12 ptsThe justification is mostly opinion ('this seems best') with little reference to case facts or sources. | Beginning · 6 ptsNo justification beyond restating the recommendation. |
| Organization and writing10 ptsUse of the required headings or sections, paragraph focus, clarity, grammar, and professional tone. | Exemplary · 10 ptsThe paper follows the assigned section order with APA 7 headings, each paragraph has one point, and the prose is clear with at most one or two minor errors. Tone is professional and third person. | Proficient · 8 ptsSections are present and labeled, with a few mixed paragraphs or minor errors that do not affect clarity. | Developing · 6 ptsHeadings are missing or sections are out of order, and grammar or sentence errors appear in most paragraphs. | Beginning · 3 ptsNo sectioning and frequent errors that make the analysis hard to follow. |
| APA 7 citations and references10 ptsCorrect in-text citations for the case, course materials, and outside sources, plus a complete reference list. | Exemplary · 10 ptsThe case itself, the textbook, and every outside source are cited in-text in author-date form and appear on an alphabetized reference list with hanging indents and correct elements. | Proficient · 8 ptsAll sources are cited with minor formatting slips, such as a missing DOI or inconsistent title capitalization. | Developing · 6 ptsSome sources used in the paper (often the case or textbook) are not cited, or the reference list is incomplete. | Beginning · 3 ptsNo citations or reference list. |
What the phrases mean, and how to show it
- “identifies the central problem”
A one or two sentence statement of the core problem or decision, separated from symptoms and side issues, with the key stakeholders named.
Show it: End your summary with a sentence that begins 'The central problem is...'. Then check: is that a cause, or a symptom of something deeper? Name the people or groups affected.
- “applies course concepts”
At least two named theories, models, or frameworks from the course, each defined briefly and applied step by step to specific facts from the case.
Show it: For each framework, write one sentence defining it, then pair each of its components with a specific fact from the case. End with what the framework reveals about why the problem exists.
- “considers alternatives”
Two or three distinct, realistic courses of action, each with its main advantages and drawbacks, before you pick one.
Show it: Give each alternative its own short section with its advantages and drawbacks. If one option exists only so you can dismiss it, replace it with something a manager might actually choose.
- “justified recommendation”
Your choice is explained with case facts, the frameworks from your analysis, and the required number of scholarly sources, and it answers anticipated risks or objections.
Show it: In the recommendation, cite at least one case fact, one framework finding, and one outside source for the choice. Add a paragraph that names a risk and says how you would handle it.
- “implementation plan”
Concrete steps for carrying out the recommendation, with a rough timeline and who is responsible.
Show it: Add a short numbered list or table: step, who does it, when. Three to five steps is usually enough to show the recommendation is workable.
- “cites the case and textbook”
The case itself, the textbook, and every outside source have author-date in-text citations and appear on an alphabetized reference list.
Show it: Create reference entries for the case study and the textbook first, then cite them wherever you draw a fact or concept from them. Check that every outside source also appears in both places.
Where papers lose points
- The summary retells the whole case instead of selecting the facts the analysis depends on.
- A framework is named but not walked through the case facts step by step.
- Only one option is discussed, or a second option is included only to be dismissed.
- The recommendation has no implementation steps, timeline, or responsible parties.
- The case study and the textbook are quoted or paraphrased but never cited.
- The justification is 'this seems best' with no case facts or sources behind it.
What “Exemplary” looks like on Analysis using course concepts
Applying the five-stage team development model (Nakamura, 2020) shows the project team never left the storming stage. The case notes three leadership changes in four months, which reset the team each time, and the open conflict between the two engineers in the June meeting is a storming marker, not a personality clash. The model points to unstable roles, not individuals, as the cause.
An original example written for this page, not a student's work. Any names and studies in it are invented.
Questions about this rubric
How much of the case should I summarize?
Only the facts your analysis will use. A few paragraphs is enough. The rubric penalizes retelling the whole case under both summary and organization. A good test: if a fact never appears again in your analysis, cut it from the summary.
Do I need outside sources for a case study?
On this rubric, yes. The justification criterion expects the required number of scholarly sources in APA 7 format alongside case facts and course frameworks. Check the assignment for the minimum, and use the sources to back your recommendation, not just to decorate the analysis.
Can I recommend something the case characters did not consider?
Yes, as long as it is realistic for the organization in the case and you compare it against the other alternatives. The rubric rewards distinct, realistic options and a clear reason your choice beats them.