Tool: Rubric for consumer audit
This tool will allow you to judge the quality of an audit process (from Iowa State University's Marketing Class)
Rubric for Consumer Audit
| Criteria | Excellent (3 pts) | Satisfactory (2 pts) | Unsatisfactory (1 pt) |
| Data Collection | |||
| Observations | Observations of both customers and employees are thoroughly and clearly reported. There is no to almost no missing information that could be collected via observation. | Observations of both customers and employees are reported, but the thoroughness and / or clarity of the information is problematic. There is clearly other informationt that should have been collected via observation. | Either the observations for customers or employees are missing, or the information that is reported is so scant as to be useless. |
| Surveys / Interviews | Information collected via survey/interviews of both customers and employees is thoroughly and clearly reported. There is no to almost no missing information that could be collected via surveys / interviews. The correspondence between this information and the observation data is clearly and thoroughly detailed. | Information collected via surveys / interviews of both customers and employees is reported, but the thoroughness and / or clarity of the information is problematic. There is clearly other information that should have been collected via surveys / interviews. The relationship of this information to the observational data is discussed, but not in enough detail. | Either the information collected via surveys / interviews for customers or employees is missing, or the information that is reported is so scant as to be useless. The relationship between this data and the observational data is not provided. |
| Data Analysis | Analysis of data is detailed. Any necessary assumptions are stated and justified. The analysis appropriately incorporates consumer behavior theories and concepts. | Some analysis is included, but it is not very detailed. Some statements are not supported by analysis. Linkage to consumer behavior concepts is incomplete and / or sometimes incorrect. | Analysis is missing or trivial, lacking any depth. Necessary assumptions are not stated. Linkage to consumer behavior concepts is missing. |
| Data Inferences | |||
| Market Segmentation | Careful identification of all possible market segments is provided and is based solely on the consumer data. Each identified segment is clearly and thoroughly described; it is clear how multiple segments differ from one another. Reasoning for segment)s is provided and logical. | Some, but not all possible market segments are identified and thoroughly described, given the consumer data. How multiple segments differ from one another and / or the reasoning for each segment is weakly argued. | Market segmentation is provided, but it is only the most basic of segmentation, suggesting that little critical thought was given to this issue. Reasoning for segmentation is missing or faulty. Arguments for multiple segments (if applicable) is missing. |
| Marketing Recommendations | Reasonable marketing recommendations are thoroughly described and reasoned and are clearly linked to market segmentation. | Marketing recommendations are made, but not as thoroughly as possible. Some of the recommendations may lack reasonability. Some of the recommendations may be only obscurely linked to market segmentation. | Marketing recommendations are missing, or the recommendations that are identified are clearly not linked to market segmentation, or the recommendations that are identified are not at all reasonable. |
| Written Communications | |||
| Organization | Written work is well organized and easy to understand. Sections of paper are marked with appropriate headings. Tables and charts are appropriately used and easy to understand, and contribute to the ease of reading the paper. | The organization is generally good, but some sections seems out of place. Some headings may be missing. Tables and charts are included, but are difficult to understand (e.g., poorly labeled). | The paper is disorganized to the extent that it prevents understanding the content. There are no headings, inappropriate use of charts or tables, or, use of tables and charts is indicated, but not included. |
| Integration of Writing Styles | The team developed a writing style that is uniform throughout the paper. There is no indication that the paper involved multiple authors. | There is some indication of multiple authors (.e.g., different fonts, different paper, etc.) | Paper is clearly the work of multiple authors with different writing styles, margins, printer fonts, paper types, etc. |
| Grammar, Spelling, and Formatting | The paper has been thoroughly spell-checked and proofread. There are none to almost no grammatical or spelling errors. There are no formatting errors. | There are a few spelling and / or grammatical errors. There are one to three formatting errors. | There are frequent instances of misspelled words, serious grammatical errors, and formatting errors, indicating that time was not taken to spell-check and proofread. |
| Use of Appendices | Information is appropriately placed in either the main text or an appendix. Appendices are documented and referenced in the text. | Information is sometimes misplaced. Documenting and referencing in text are somewhat incomplete. Appendices are poorly documented and referenced in text. | Considerable amount of material is misplaced. Appendices are not documented or referenced in the text. |