Walden University Contemporary Environmental Force Report

Select a contemporary environmental force/trend, such as politics in health care, new technological advances in health care,, etc. Using the Walden Library, locate and review a scholarly article that discusses this force/trend.

ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED SOLUTION PAPERS

Reflect on your own health care organization. Imagine you have been hired as a marketing consultant to help guide your organization in understanding evolving environmental forces/trends that may impact marketing.

Note: If you do not currently work for a health care organization, you may select one that is of interest to you.

The Assignment

In a 4- to 5-page report, address the following:

Analyze the environmental force/trend you selected (the impact of recession/economic issues on utilization of health care). Include how the organization in the article is using the force/trend to better understand itself.
With your selected health care organization in mind (Emory Hospital), conduct a SWOT analysis of the environmental force/trend you selected.

Note: Be sure to use the SWOT Analysis Template in this week’s Learning Resources.
Analyze how the force/trend might impact the marketing of your organization. Recommend strategies to maximize opportunities and overcome threats.

Note: Your Assignment must be written in standard edited English. Be sure to support your work with at least five high-quality references, including two from peer-reviewed journals. Refer to the Essential Guide to APA Style for Walden Students to ensure that your in-text citations and reference list are correct. See the Week 2 Assignment rubric for additional requirements related to research and scholarly writing.

Grading Rubric

EXCELLENT – above expectations GOOD – met expectations FAIR – below expectations POOR – significantly below expectations or missing

Analysis of the environmental force/trend

Points Range: 22 (22%) – 25 (25%)

The analysis of the environmental force/trend shows depth, breadth, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking.

Feedback:

Points Range: 20 (20%) – 21 (21%)

The analysis fully addresses the environmental force/trend.
Triangulation was attempted but not fully shown.

Feedback:

Points Range: 18 (18%) – 19 (19%)

The analysis of the environmental force/trend lacks depth, breadth, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking.

Feedback:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 17 (17%)

The analysis does not address (zero points) or poorly addresses the environmental force/trend.

Feedback:

SWOT Analysis

Points Range: 27 (27%) – 30 (30%)

The four components of the SWOT analysis show depth, breadth, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking.

Feedback:

Points Range: 24 (24%) – 26 (26%)

The four components of the SWOT analysis fully analyze the organization.
Triangulation was attempted but not shown.

Feedback:

Points Range: 21 (21%) – 23 (23%)

The four components of the SWOT analysis lack depth, breadth, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking.
One of the four components of the SWOT analysis is missing in the project.

Feedback:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 20 (20%)

The SWOT analysis does not analyze (zero points) or poorly analyzes the organization.
Two of the four components of the SWOT analysis are missing in the project.

Feedback:

Analysis of the force/trend impact on the marketing of an organization

Points Range: 22 (22%) – 25 (25%)

The analysis of the force/trend impact on the marketing of an organization shows depth, breadth, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking.

Feedback:

Points Range: 20 (20%) – 21 (21%)

The analysis fully addresses the force/trend impact on the marketing of an organization.
Triangulation was attempted but not fully shown.

Feedback:

Points Range: 18 (18%) – 19 (19%)

The analysis of the force/trend impact on the marketing of an organization lacks depth, breadth, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking.

Feedback:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 17 (17%)

The analysis does not address (zero points) or poorly addresses the force/trend impact on the marketing of an organization.

Feedback:

Writing

Points Range: 18 (18%) – 20 (20%)

The analysis is well organized, uses professional tone, 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 least five high-quality references including two from peer-reviewed journals.

Feedback:

Points Range: 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)

The analysis is mostly consistent with graduate-level writing style and may have some spelling and writing errors.
The work is supported by least five high-quality references including two from peer-reviewed journals.

Feedback:

Points Range: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

The analysis is somewhat consistent with graduate-level writing style and may have some spelling and writing errors.
The work is supported by least five high-quality references but does not include two from peer-reviewed journals.

Feedback:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 13 (13%)

The analysis is well below graduate-level writing style expectations for organization, professional tone and writing, or shows heavy reliance on quoting.
The work is not supported by least five high-quality references including two from peer-reviewed journals.

	EXCELLENT – above expectations	GOOD – met expectations	FAIR – below expectations	POOR – significantly below expectations or missing
Analysis of the environmental force/trend	Points Range: 22 (22%) – 25 (25%) The analysis of the environmental force/trend shows depth, breadth, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking. Feedback:	Points Range: 20 (20%) – 21 (21%) The analysis fully addresses the environmental force/trend. Triangulation was attempted but not fully shown. Feedback:	Points Range: 18 (18%) – 19 (19%) The analysis of the environmental force/trend lacks depth, breadth, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking. Feedback:	Points Range: 0 (0%) – 17 (17%) The analysis does not address (zero points) or poorly addresses the environmental force/trend. Feedback:
SWOT Analysis	Points Range: 27 (27%) – 30 (30%) The four components of the SWOT analysis show depth, breadth, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking. Feedback:	Points Range: 24 (24%) – 26 (26%) The four components of the SWOT analysis fully analyze the organization. Triangulation was attempted but not shown. Feedback:	Points Range: 21 (21%) – 23 (23%) The four components of the SWOT analysis lack depth, breadth, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking. One of the four components of the SWOT analysis is missing in the project. Feedback:	Points Range: 0 (0%) – 20 (20%) The SWOT analysis does not analyze (zero points) or poorly analyzes the organization. Two of the four components of the SWOT analysis are missing in the project. Feedback:
Analysis of the force/trend impact on the marketing of an organization	Points Range: 22 (22%) – 25 (25%) The analysis of the force/trend impact on the marketing of an organization shows depth, breadth, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking. Feedback:	Points Range: 20 (20%) – 21 (21%) The analysis fully addresses the force/trend impact on the marketing of an organization. Triangulation was attempted but not fully shown. Feedback:	Points Range: 18 (18%) – 19 (19%) The analysis of the force/trend impact on the marketing of an organization lacks depth, breadth, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking. Feedback:	Points Range: 0 (0%) – 17 (17%) The analysis does not address (zero points) or poorly addresses the force/trend impact on the marketing of an organization. Feedback:
Writing	Points Range: 18 (18%) – 20 (20%) The analysis is well organized, uses professional tone, 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 least five high-quality references including two from peer-reviewed journals. Feedback:	Points Range: 16 (16%) – 17 (17%) The analysis is mostly consistent with graduate-level writing style and may have some spelling and writing errors. The work is supported by least five high-quality references including two from peer-reviewed journals. Feedback:	Points Range: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) The analysis is somewhat consistent with graduate-level writing style and may have some spelling and writing errors. The work is supported by least five high-quality references but does not include two from peer-reviewed journals. Feedback:	Points Range: 0 (0%) – 13 (13%) The analysis is well below graduate-level writing style expectations for organization, professional tone and writing, or shows heavy reliance on quoting. The work is not supported by least five high-quality references including two from peer-reviewed journals.