1. Student Case Competition
  2. Judging Criteria for the Oral Presentation

Judging Criteria for the Oral Presentation

2017 SHRM CASE COMPETITION
ORAL PRESENTATION SCORING RUBRIC 

The following general criteria are the ones judges will use to assess your Oral Presentation. In order to help you understand the expectations of the judges, the maximum number of points that may be awarded in each category is indicated. Note that we do not release scores to teams, only rankings.

Category 1: Did the team successfully define the major and minor problems presented in the case?
20 POINTS

17-20 pointsThe team clearly identified all the major and minor problems presented in the case.
13-16 pointsThe team identified nearly all the major and minor problems presented in the case.
9-12 pointsThe team identified the major problems but missed some of the minor problems in the case.
5-8 pointsThe team missed some of the major and some of the minor problems in the case.
1-4 pointsThe team missed most of the significant problems in the case.
 

Category 2: Did the team identify and explain the causes of the problems in the case?
20 POINTS

17-20 pointsThe team clearly identified, understood and explained the causes of the problems in the case.
13-16 pointsThe team clearly identified, understood and explained most of the causes of the problems in the case.
9-12 pointsThe team missed some of the significant causes of the problems in the case.
5-8 pointsThe team missed most of the causes of the problems in the case.
1-4 pointsThe team did not understand the causes of the problems in the case.
 

Category 3: Generating various alternatives to the case. 
20 POINTS

17-20 pointsThe team generated a variety of excellent solutions to the case. Solutions were well-explained and demonstrated sound HR principles.
13-16 pointsThe team generated good solutions to the case using sound HR principles.
9-12 pointsThe team used HR principles to generate a solution to the case.
5-8 pointsThe team's solution to the case was weak and HR principles were not well-reflected in the solution.
1-4 pointsThe case solution was poor or missing and HR principles were not incorporated or were poorly incorporated into the case solution.
 

Category 4: Selecting an alternative.
10 POINTS

9-10 pointsThe team clearly identified their recommended solution and, using sound HR principles they logically defended why that alternative was chosen instead of other alternatives.
7-8 pointsThe team identified their recommended solution and did a good job incorporating HR principles in explaining their alternative.
5-6 pointsThe team adequately explained and defended their chosen alternative; however, HR principles played a minor role in the alternative they recommended.
3-4 pointsThe alternative chosen was weak with little HR involvement in the solution.
1-2 pointsThe alternative chosen was poor or inadequate for solving the case and HR principles were either ignored or not appropriate to the solution.
 

Category 5: Implementing the chosen alternative.
10 POINTS

9-10 pointsThe team's implementation plan was a logical, plausible and well-explained solution to the problems identified in the case.
7-8 pointsThe team's implementation plan was good and presented a workable solution to the case.
5-6 pointsThe team's implementation plan was acceptable but a weak solution to the case.
3-4 pointsThe team's implementation plan addressed some, but not all, of the issues identified in the case.
1-2 pointsThe team’s implementation plan was not workable and fell far short of resolving the issues identified in the case.
 

Category 6: Answering the judges’ questions.
5 POINTS

5 pointsThe answers given to the judges' questions were excellent and demonstrated a sound knowledge of HR principles and how to apply that knowledge to the issues in the case.
4 pointsThe answers given to the judges' questions were good and incorporated HR principles.
3 pointsThe team used some HR principles and adequately answered the judges' questions.
2 pointsThe judges' questions were not well answered with little or no demonstration of appropriate HR principles.
1 point The team was unable to answer the judges' questions.
 

Category 7: Presentation Graphics.
5 POINTS

5 pointsGraphics used were innovative and creative, easily understood and enhanced the presentation.
4 pointsGraphics used enhanced the presentation, were appealing and easily understood.
3 pointsGraphics reinforced the presentation and were easy to follow.
2 pointsGraphics were adequate but did not reinforce the information or add interest to the presentation.
1 point  Graphics were not used at all or were distracting and/or inappropriate to the material presented.
 

Category 8: Team Delivery and Appearance.
5 POINTS

5 pointsExcellent - All team members participated. They were professional in appearance and demonstrated excellent presentation skills.
4 pointsGood presentation skills, some team members were stronger than others but all were professional in appearance.
3 pointsAdequate presentation skills, effective delivery and acceptable appearance.
2 pointsSome team members not relating to the audience, difficult to hear, not professional.
1 point Team members not professional in appearance or presentation not equally shared by all team members.
 

Category 9: Overall, would you be comfortable with this team managing the HR function in your organization?
5 POINTS

5 pointsAbsolutely. The team was outstanding in all areas. They used sound HR principles to solve the case and demonstrated excellent presentation skills.
4 pointsYes. The team did a good job. Good solution to the case and good presentation.
3 pointsIt would be "ok." The team demonstrated adequate HR knowledge in solving the case and presented the information well.
2 pointsIt would make me nervous - The team missed several important points in the case. HR knowledge is limited and presentation skills are weak.
1 point No. The team is not at a level where I would be comfortable having them represent my company within expectations. Their HR knowledge is too deficient at this stage in their development.