View the step-by-step solution to:

Week 2 Assignment Rubric CATEGORY SWOT Analysis (48 points possible) EXCELLENT - above expectations The SWOT Analysis shows depth, breath,...

Exploring the Capabilities of HIT Industry Solutions

Week 2 Assignment Rubric CATEGORY EXCELLENT – above expectations GOOD – met expectations FAIR – below expectations POOR – significantly below expectations or missing SCORE SWOT Analysis (48 points possible) The SWOT Analysis shows depth, breath, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking in addressing the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of three vendors. (43–48 points) The SWOT Analysis fully addresses the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of three vendors. Triangulation was attempted but not fully addressed. (39–42 points) The SWOT Analysis lacks depth, breath, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking in addressing the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of three vendors. (35–38 points ) The SWOT Analysis does not address (zero points) or poorly addresses the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of three vendors. (0–34 points) Executive Summary (48 points possible) The executive summary shows depth, breath, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking in recommending vendors. (43–48 points) The executive summary fully addresses the recommendation of vendors. Triangulation was attempted but not fully addressed. (39–42 points) The executive summary lacks depth, breath, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking in recommending vendors. (35–38 points ) The executive summary does not address (zero points) or poorly addresses the recommendation of vendors. (0–34 points) Writing (24 points possible) The Assignment uses professional tone appropriate to the audience, contains original writing and proper paraphrasing, contains very few or no writing and/or spelling errors, and is fully consistent with graduate level writing style. The work is supported by the Learning Resources and more than three additional scholarly sources. (22–24 points) The Assignment is mostly consistent with graduate level writing style and may have some spelling, and writing errors. The tone is mostly professional and appropriate to the audience. The work is supported by the Learning Resources and at least three additional scholarly sources. (20–21 points) The Assignment is somewhat consistent with graduate level writing style and may have some spelling, and writing errors. The tone is somewhat professional, but may not be appropriate to the audience. The work is supported by the Learning Resources and less than three additional scholarly sources. (18–19 points) The Assignment is well below graduate level writing style expectations for organization, scholarly tone, and writing, or shows heavy reliance on quoting. The tone is not professional and not appropriate to the audience. The work is not supported by the Learning Resources or additional scholarly sources. (0–17 points) Instructor comments: Total Score (120 possible points): points © 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 1 of 1
Background image of page 1
Week 2 Assignment Rubric CATEGORY EXCELLENT – above expectations GOOD – met expectations FAIR – below expectations POOR – significantly below expectations or missing SCORE SWOT Analysis (48 points possible) The SWOT Analysis shows depth, breath, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking in addressing the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of three vendors. (43–48 points) The SWOT Analysis fully addresses the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of three vendors. Triangulation was attempted but not fully addressed. (39–42 points) The SWOT Analysis lacks depth, breath, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking in addressing the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of three vendors. (35–38 points ) The SWOT Analysis does not address (zero points) or poorly addresses the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of three vendors. (0–34 points) Executive Summary (48 points possible) The executive summary shows depth, breath, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking in recommending vendors. (43–48 points) The executive summary fully addresses the recommendation of vendors. Triangulation was attempted but not fully addressed. (39–42 points) The executive summary lacks depth, breath, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking in recommending vendors. (35–38 points ) The executive summary does not address (zero points) or poorly addresses the recommendation of vendors. (0–34 points) Writing (24 points possible) The Assignment uses professional tone appropriate to the audience, contains original writing and proper paraphrasing, contains very few or no writing and/or spelling errors, and is fully consistent with graduate level writing style. The work is supported by the Learning Resources and more than three additional scholarly sources. (22–24 points) The Assignment is mostly consistent with graduate level writing style and may have some spelling, and writing errors. The tone is mostly professional and appropriate to the audience. The work is supported by the Learning Resources and at least three additional scholarly sources. (20–21 points) The Assignment is somewhat consistent with graduate level writing style and may have some spelling, and writing errors. The tone is somewhat professional, but may not be appropriate to the audience. The work is supported by the Learning Resources and less than three additional scholarly sources. (18–19 points) The Assignment is well below graduate level writing style expectations for organization, scholarly tone, and writing, or shows heavy reliance on quoting. The tone is not professional and not appropriate to the audience. The work is not supported by the Learning Resources or additional scholarly sources. (0–17 points) Instructor comments: Total Score (120 possible points): points © 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 1 of 1
Background image of page 1
Week 2: Exploring the Capabilities of HIT Industry Solutions Introduction Technology solutions are often costly in both their initial capital outlay and their ongoing operational costs such as maintenance and upgrades. While they can be part of strategies that bring tremendous value to an organization by way of increases in revenue or decreases in expenses, their purchase and ongoing funding must be justified like any other investment. As leaders you may be part of collaborative executive teams who are responsible for the thoughtful acquisition of technology-based solutions. You will also be responsible for the ongoing financial support of these technologies in concert with operational strategies that have highly embedded technical components. This week you focus on the SWOT analysis of such investments and the analysis of your findings to form a knowledgeable recommendation. Learning Objectives Students will: Assess the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of contracting with Health Information Technology vendors Evaluate the purchase of a vendor HIT solution in the form of a management recommendation Please proceed to the Resources.
Background image of page 1
Week 2 Learning Resources This page contains the Learning Resources for this week. Be sure to scroll down the page to see all of this week's assigned Learning Resources. Required Resources Note: To access this week's required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus. Readings Wager, K. A., Lee, F. W., & Glaser, J. P. (2013). Health care information systems: A practical approach for health care management (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Chapter 7, “Systems Acquisition” (pp. 209–239) Chapter 13, “IT Alignment and Strategic Planning” (pp. 437–465) Chapter 14, “Strategy Considerations” (pp. 467–489) o Devriendt, E., Wellens, N. I. H., Flamaing, J., Declercq, A., Moons, P., Boonen, S., & Milisen, K. (2013). The interRAI acute care instrument incorporated in an eHealth system for standardized and web-based geriatric assessment: Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats in the acute hospital setting. BMC Geriatrics , 13 (1). Retrieved from the Walden Library databases. o Gartner. (2013). Magic quadrant for global enterprise EHR systems . Retrieved from https://www.gartner.com/doc/2586552/magic-quadrant-global-enterprise-ehr Handler, T.J. (2013, September 9). Magic Quadrant for Global Enterprise EHR Systems. Gartner blog network . Retrieved from https://www.gartner.com/doc/2586552/magic-quadrant-global-enterprise-ehr o KLAS Reports. (2015). Is ambulatory EMR usability improving? Retrieved from http://www.klasresearch.com/ KLAS Enterprises, LLC (2015). KLAS reports: Ambulatory EMR’s Report, 2015. Retrieved from http://www.klasresearch.com/reports o Weng, W., & Lin, W. (2014). Development trends and strategy planning in big data industry. Contemporary Management Research, 10 (3), 203–213. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
Background image of page 2
Show entire document
Sign up to view the entire interaction

Top Answer

Let me explain the... View the full answer

solution.xlsx

Stock Portfolio Analysis
Sources Interest Rate Margin Loan 10,000 20% Equity 50,000 80% Total 60,000 100% Uses 7% Stocks 52,058 87% Cash 7,942 13% Total 60,000 100% Summary
2-Nov-15 (49,951)...

Sign up to view the full answer

Why Join Course Hero?

Course Hero has all the homework and study help you need to succeed! We’ve got course-specific notes, study guides, and practice tests along with expert tutors.

-

Educational Resources
  • -

    Study Documents

    Find the best study resources around, tagged to your specific courses. Share your own to gain free Course Hero access.

    Browse Documents
  • -

    Question & Answers

    Get one-on-one homework help from our expert tutors—available online 24/7. Ask your own questions or browse existing Q&A threads. Satisfaction guaranteed!

    Ask a Question
Ask a homework question - tutors are online