Embry Riddle Aeronautical University Crisis Situations and Contingency Plans Paper Hello, Here are the instructions for this case study: Review the follo

Embry Riddle Aeronautical University Crisis Situations and Contingency Plans Paper Hello,

Here are the instructions for this case study:

Review the following blog regarding some of the largest targets for cyber attacks on MSPs (Managed Service Providers) in 2019. Choose one of these attacks. Imagine this attack occurred throughout all MSPs in a large industry, such as banks causing a major crisis situation. Write a 1-2 page paper explaining how you would create a contingency plan to address the threats discussed in this attack. Explain how you would test this contingency plan.

Why MSPs Are Now Big Targets for Cyber Attacks — And What You Can Do About It (Ninja RMM)

MGMT 394 7.4 Case Study Rubric

MGMT 394 7.4 Case Study Rubric

Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIdentification and Analysis of the Main Issues/Problem

25.0 pts

(Excellent – A) Identifies and understands all of the main issues in the case study. Insightful and thorough analysis of all the issues.

23.0 pts

(Above-Average – B) Identifies and understands most of the main issues in the case study. Thorough analysis of most of the issues.

21.0 pts

(Average – C) Identifies and understands some of the issues in the case study. Superficial analysis of some of the issues in the case.

19.0 pts

(Near-Failing – D) Identifies and understands few of the issues in case study. Incomplete analysis of the issues.

17.0 pts

(Failing – F) Identifies and understands very little of the issues in case study. No analysis of the issues.

25.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnswers to Case Study Questions

20.0 pts

(Excellent – A) Answers to case study questions are clear throughout. Connection with class and study material goes well beyond the obvious connections among ideas; demonstrates insight and original thinking.

18.0 pts

(Above-Average – B) Answers to case study questions present some irrelevant information on topic etc., but very little; treatment goes beyond obvious connections with class and study material.

16.0 pts

(Average – C) Answers to case study questions are vague in places; some irrelevant or distracting information.

14.0 pts

(Near-Failing – D) Answers to case study questions are unclear and/or confusing. Treatment is very superficial; paper may be well written but says nothing.

12.0 pts

(Failing – F) Does not address the case study questions. Treatment is very superficial and says very little.

20.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeComments on effective solutions/strategies

20.0 pts

(Excellent – A) Well documented, reasoned, and pedagogically appropriate comments on solutions, or proposals for solutions, to all issues in the case study.

18.0 pts

(Above-Average – B) Appropriate, well thought out comments about solutions, or proposals for solutions, to most of the issues in the case study.

16.0 pts

(Average – C) Superficial and/or inappropriate solutions to some of the issues in the case study.

14.0 pts

(Near-Failing – D) Little or no action suggested, and/or inappropriate solutions to all of the issues in the case study.

12.0 pts

(Failing – F) Provided no feasible solutions or strategies to the issues in the case study.

20.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLinks to Course Readings and Additional Research

20.0 pts

(Excellent – A) Excellent research into the issues with clearly documented links to class (and/or outside) readings.

18.0 pts

(Above-Average – B) Good research and documented links to the material read.

16.0 pts

(Average – C) Limited research and documented links to any readings.

14.0 pts

(Near-Failing – D) Incomplete research and links to any readings.

12.0 pts

(Failing – F) Provided no references or support of analysis.

20.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStyle and Mechanics

15.0 pts

(Excellent – A) Chooses words for their precise meaning and uses an appropriate level of specificity. Sentence style fits audience and purpose. Sentences clearly structured and carefully focused. Almost entirely free of spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors.

12.0 pts

(Above-Average – B) Generally uses words accurately and effectively, but may be too general. Sentences generally clear, structured, and focused, though some may be awkward or ineffective. May contain a few errors, which may annoy the reader but not impede understanding.

10.0 pts

(Average – C) Uses relatively vague and general words, may use some inappropriate language. Sentence’s structure generally correct, but sentences may be wordy, unfocused, repetitive, or confusing. Usually contains several mechanical errors, which may temporarily confuse the reader but not impede the overall understanding.

8.0 pts

(Near-Failing – D) Tends to being vague and abstract, or very personal and specific. Usually contains several awkward or ungrammatical sentences; sentence structure is simple or monotonous. Usually contains either many mechanical errors or a few important errors that block the reader’s understanding and ability to see connections between thoughts.

6.0 pts

(Failing – F) Misuse of words throughout. Awkward sentences throughout. Difficult to attach a thought process. Poorly punctuated, misspelled words, grammatically abusive.

15.0 pts

Total Points: 100.0

PreviousNext