MKT6080 · Module 6 · Creating a Winning Marketing Team
30%
Exercises weight
70%
Performance task weight
masters
Degree level
Meets Expectations (90–100%)
Applies the 7Ps framework with precision — correctly identifies Process as the internal brief-workflow gap, Promotion as the CPM/ROAS efficiency dimension, and maps both diagnostic findings to specific evidence from the scenario (18-day cycle, 36 of 56 KPIs undelivered, £42 CPM). Applies the 6-step vendor management process accurately, correctly placing a formal compliance notice at Step 4 before escalation to termination. CMO brief identifies the correct 7Ps gap from the team analysis, names the alternative recommendation explicitly, and defends the position with scenario-specific data. Framework terminology from both 7Ps and the vendor management process appears in the response.
Mostly Meets (80–89%)
7Ps application is mostly accurate — Process gap and Promotion CPM dimension identified, but one framework term is applied loosely or without scenario evidence. Vendor management step sequencing correct but the distinction between Step 4 (compliance notice) and Step 6 (termination) is asserted rather than explained. CMO brief addresses the correct 7Ps finding and includes a recommendation, but the argument against the named alternative relies on assertion rather than scenario data.
Somewhat Meets (70–79%)
7Ps framework present but applied generically — Process identified but described in non-framework language (e.g. 'communication problem' rather than internal workflow and handoff standards). Vendor management process referenced but step-level sequencing is incorrect or the compliance notice is framed as optional. CMO brief makes a recommendation but does not apply the vendor management process framework or uses framework terms incorrectly. Scenario data cited is incomplete or inaccurate.
Does Not Meet (<70%)
7Ps framework absent or framework terms applied to the wrong dimensions (e.g. Promotion identified for the brief-delay question). Vendor management process step not identified or termination recommended before compliance notice. CMO brief lacks a framework reference and does not engage with the specific scenario data (ROAS figure, CPM cost, KPI delivery rate). No named alternative addressed.
Meets Expectations (90–100%)
Causal chain is explicit and grounded — for team analysis, explains why misaligned taxonomies generate rework at handoffs (not just that they do); for vendor management, explains why a compliance notice must precede termination (evidential and contractual logic, not just procedural sequence); for AI readiness, explains why training on taxonomically contradictory data encodes rather than resolves conflicts. CMO brief recommendation follows directly from earlier analysis with a logical if-then structure rather than assertion.
Mostly Meets (80–89%)
Reasoning is sound but one causal link is asserted rather than explained — e.g., the compliance-before-termination sequence is stated correctly but without articulating why (documentation, contractual standing, evidential record). CMO brief recommendation is consistent with the earlier MCQ analysis but the counter-argument is weak (a general dismissal rather than a specific rebuttal based on scenario constraints).
Somewhat Meets (70–79%)
Analysis identifies correct answers but reasoning is post-hoc description rather than explanation — e.g., states that Process is the gap because 'the teams don't communicate well' without connecting to the 7Ps framework logic or the rework-cycle mechanism. CMO brief recommendation is stated but not argued; the brief reads as a summary of options rather than a defended position.
Does Not Meet (<70%)
No causal reasoning — responses are restatements of scenario facts or MCQ options without any logical progression from observation to conclusion. CMO brief contains no argument structure: either a recommendation without justification, or both sides presented without a defended position.
Meets Expectations (90–100%)
Identifies a second-order consequence beyond the prompt's explicit framing — e.g., explains that deploying the AI brief tool before taxonomic alignment would accelerate the conflict rather than resolve it (not just that it wouldn't work); or articulates that the CPM increase compounds the ROAS underperformance because fewer impressions at higher cost compound the attribution distortion (not just that efficiency has fallen). CMO brief advances a non-obvious argument for why the chosen vendor action is preferable under the specific budget constraint.
Mostly Meets (80–89%)
Analysis goes slightly beyond restating the scenario — one observation is not derivable directly from the question text, but the insight does not extend the framework to a second-order consequence. CMO brief recommendation is argued but the constraint (£2.4M fixed budget) is acknowledged without being integrated into the argument.
Somewhat Meets (70–79%)
Responses largely restate the question stem or the correct MCQ option in different words. CMO brief adds a preference without analytical synthesis — reads as an extended option description rather than an advisory brief.
Does Not Meet (<70%)
No analytical contribution — responses are reproductions of scenario information or generic marketing principles with no application to the specific P&G situation. CMO brief is a list of considerations rather than a recommendation.
Canvas import
Canvas does not support direct rubric CSV import. Use this view to manually create the rubric in Canvas, or download the JSON above for programmatic creation via the Canvas API.