Points: 200

Assignment 5: e-Compensation

Criteria

Unacceptable

Below 70% F

Fair

70-79% C

Proficient

80-89% B

Exemplary

90-100% A

1. Assess the advantages and disadvantages of using a Web-based compensation tool versus a client-server or stand-alone PC-based system and then give your opinion on which system would provide the most value to the organization’s stakeholders. Include three (3) facts to support your opinion.

Weight: 15%

Did not submit or incompletely assessed the advantages and disadvantages of using a Web-based compensation tool versus a client-server or stand-along PC-based system. Did not submit or incompletely gave your opinion on which system would provide the most value to the organization’s stakeholders. Did not submit or incompletely included three (3) facts to support your opinion.

Partially assessed the advantages and disadvantages of using a Web-based compensation tool versus a client-server or stand-alone PC-based system. Partially gave your opinion on which system would provide the most value to the organization’s stakeholders. Partially included three (3) facts to support your opinion.

Satisfactorily assessed the advantages and disadvantages of using a Web-based compensation tool versus a client-server or stand-alone PC-based system. Satisfactorily gave your opinion on which system would provide the most value to the organization’s stakeholders. Satisfactorily included three (3) facts to support your opinion.

Thoroughly assessed the advantages and disadvantages of using a Web-based compensation tool versus a client-server or stand-alone PC-based system. Thoroughly gave your opinion on which system would provide the most value to the organization’s stakeholders. Thoroughly included three (3) facts to support your opinion.

2. Justify the use of e-Compensation tools in the job-evaluation process from the perspective of HR, management, and the employee.

Weight: 15%

Did not submit or incompletely justified the use of e-Compensation tools in the job- evaluation process from the perspective of HR, management, and the employee.

Partially justified the use of e-Compensation tools in the job-evaluation process from the perspective of HR, management, and the employee.

Satisfactorily justified the use of e-Compensation tools in the job-evaluation process from the perspective of HR, management, and the employee.

Thoroughly justified the use of e-Compensation tools in the job-evaluation process from the perspective of HR, management, and the employee.

3. Evaluate three (3) benefits and three (3) drawbacks of a centralized approach to managing merit pay programs compared to a more decentralized approach.
Weight: 15%

Did not submit or incompletely evaluated three (3) benefits and three (3) drawbacks of a centralized approach to managing merit pay programs compared to a more decentralized approach.

Partially evaluated three (3) benefits and three (3) drawbacks of a centralized approach to managing merit pay programs compared to a more decentralized approach.

Satisfactorily evaluated three (3) benefits and three (3) drawbacks of a centralized approach to managing merit pay programs compared to a more decentralized approach.

Thoroughly evaluated three (3) benefits and three (3) drawbacks of a centralized approach to managing merit pay programs compared to a more decentralized approach.

4. Suggest three (3) types of integrated analytical features that are needed for compensation planning and decision support in e-Compensation systems.

Weight: 10%

Did not submit or incompletely suggested three (3) types of integrated analytical features that are needed for compensation planning and decision support in e-Compensation systems.

Partially suggested three (3) types of integrated analytical features that are needed for compensation planning and decision support in e-Compensation systems.

Satisfactorily suggested three (3) types of integrated analytical features that are needed for compensation planning and decision support in e-Compensation systems.

Thoroughly suggested three (3) types of integrated analytical features that are needed for compensation planning and decision support in e-Compensation systems.

5. Assess the barriers that prevent organizations from realizing the potential of Web-based internal equity tools and propose three (3) approaches to overcome those barriers.

Weight: 15%

Did not submit or incompletely assessed the barriers that prevent organizations from realizing the potential of Web-based internal equity tools. Did not submit or incompletely proposed three (3) approaches to overcome those barriers.

Partially assessed the barriers that prevent organizations from realizing the potential of Web-based internal equity tools. Partially proposed three (3) approaches to overcome those barriers.

Satisfactorily assessed the barriers that prevent organizations from realizing the potential of Web-based internal equity tools. Satisfactorily proposed three (3) approaches to overcome those barriers.

Thoroughly assessed the barriers that prevent organizations from realizing the potential of Web-based internal equity tools. Thoroughly proposed three (3) approaches to overcome those barriers.

6. Recommend three (3) strategies that HR managers can use to evaluate the quality of market data (surveys, benchmark salary studies, etc.) that receive from outside sources.

Weight: 15%

Did not submit or incompletely recommended three (3) strategies that HR managers can use to evaluate the quality of market data (surveys, benchmark salary studies) that they receive from outside sources.

Partially recommended three (3) strategies that HR managers can use to evaluate the quality of market data (surveys, benchmark salary studies) that they receive from outside sources.

Satisfactorily recommended three (3) strategies that HR managers can use to evaluate the quality of market data (surveys, benchmark salary studies) that they receive from outside sources.

Thoroughly recommended three (3) approaches that HR managers can use to evaluate the quality of market data (surveys, benchmark salary studies) that they receive from outside sources.

7. 4 references

Weight: 5%

No references provided

Does not meet the required number of references; some or all references poor quality choices.

Meets number of required references; all references high quality choices.

Exceeds number of required references; all references high quality choices.

8. Clarity, writing mechanics, and formatting requirements

Weight: 10%

More than 6 errors present

5-6 errors present

3-4 errors present

0-2 errors present