MMHA6600 Walden University Ambulatory EHR Vendors Worksheet

The Assignment—Part 1: Compare and contrast the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) of three vendors offering an ambulatory Electronic Health Record to independent physician practices. Construct a table that summarizes your SWOT analysis with an accompanying reference page listing any external resources used in your analysis. Comparisons should include quantitative/evidence-based information as well as qualitative.

Note: The following table is an example of what to construct for Part 1.

Vendor: (Consider Functional, Technical, Operational, and Strategic for each element of the SWOT)	A	B	C
Strengths
Weaknesses
Opportunities
Threats

The Assignment—Part 2: Write a 2-page executive summary outlining the one or two IT vendors that you recommend engaging for further acquisition activities such as stakeholder demos and request for proposals. The executive summary should be addressed to the members of your fellow executive leadership team. Be sure to clearly outline the strategic, operational, technical (IT) requirements, and market reasons for your recommendation. If you are recommending one vendor, justify your strategy to handle the organizations’ anticipated loss in negotiating leverage.

Note: You should submit both parts as one document, with Part 1 being an appendix to your executive summary. Your Assignment should show effective application of triangulation of content and resources to show your conclusion and recommendations. See the Week 2 Assignment Rubric for additional requirements related to research and professional writing.

EXCELLENT – above expectations	GOOD – met expectations	FAIR – below expectations	POOR – significantly below expectations or missing
SWOT Analysis	Points: Points Range: 43 (35.83%) – 48 (40%) The SWOT Analysis shows depth, breath, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking in addressing the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of three vendors. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 39 (32.5%) – 42 (35%) The SWOT Analysis fully addresses the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of three vendors. Triangulation was attempted but not fully addressed. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 35 (29.17%) – 38 (31.67%) The SWOT Analysis lacks depth, breath, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking in addressing the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of three vendors. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 34 (28.33%) The SWOT Analysis does not address (zero points) or poorly addresses the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of three vendors. Feedback:
Executive Summary	Points: Points Range: 43 (35.83%) – 48 (40%) The executive summary shows depth, breath, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking in recommending vendors. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 39 (32.5%) – 42 (35%) The executive summary fully addresses the recommendation of vendors. Triangulation was attempted but not fully addressed. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 35 (29.17%) – 38 (31.67%) The executive summary lacks depth, breath, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking in recommending vendors. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 34 (28.33%) The executive summary does not address (zero points) or poorly addresses the recommendation of vendors. Feedback:
Writing	Points: Points Range: 22 (18.33%) – 24 (20%) 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. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 20 (16.67%) – 21 (17.5%) 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. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 18 (15%) – 19 (15.83%) 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. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 17 (14.17%) 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. Feedback:

EXCELLENT – above expectations

GOOD – met expectations

FAIR – below expectations

POOR – significantly below expectations or missing

SWOT Analysis

Points:

Points Range: 43 (35.83%) – 48 (40%)

The SWOT Analysis shows depth, breath, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking in addressing the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of three vendors.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 39 (32.5%) – 42 (35%)

The SWOT Analysis fully addresses the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of three vendors.
Triangulation was attempted but not fully addressed.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 35 (29.17%) – 38 (31.67%)

The SWOT Analysis lacks depth, breath, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking in addressing the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of three vendors.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 34 (28.33%)

The SWOT Analysis does not address (zero points) or poorly addresses the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of three vendors.

Feedback:

Executive Summary

Points:

Points Range: 43 (35.83%) – 48 (40%)

The executive summary shows depth, breath, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking in recommending vendors.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 39 (32.5%) – 42 (35%)

The executive summary fully addresses the recommendation of vendors.
Triangulation was attempted but not fully addressed.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 35 (29.17%) – 38 (31.67%)

The executive summary lacks depth, breath, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking in recommending vendors.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 34 (28.33%)

The executive summary does not address (zero points) or poorly addresses the recommendation of vendors.

Feedback:

Writing

Points:

Points Range: 22 (18.33%) – 24 (20%)

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.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 20 (16.67%) – 21 (17.5%)

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.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 18 (15%) – 19 (15.83%)

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.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 17 (14.17%)

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.

Feedback:

Show DescriptionsShow Feedback

SWOT Analysis—

Levels of Achievement:

EXCELLENT – above expectations43
(35.83%) – 48
(40%)

The SWOT Analysis shows depth, breath, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking in addressing the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of three vendors.

GOOD – met expectations39 (32.5%) – 42 (35%)

The SWOT Analysis fully addresses the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of three vendors.
Triangulation was attempted but not fully addressed.

FAIR – below expectations35 (29.17%) – 38 (31.67%)

The SWOT Analysis lacks depth, breath, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking in addressing the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of three vendors.

POOR – significantly below expectations or missing0 (0%) – 34 (28.33%)

The SWOT Analysis does not address (zero points) or poorly addresses the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of three vendors.

Feedback:

Executive Summary—

Levels of Achievement:

EXCELLENT – above expectations43
(35.83%) – 48
(40%)

The executive summary shows depth, breath, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking in recommending vendors.

GOOD – met expectations39 (32.5%) – 42 (35%)

The executive summary fully addresses the recommendation of vendors.
Triangulation was attempted but not fully addressed.

FAIR – below expectations35 (29.17%) – 38 (31.67%)

The executive summary lacks depth, breath, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking in recommending vendors.

POOR – significantly below expectations or missing0 (0%) – 34 (28.33%)

The executive summary does not address (zero points) or poorly addresses the recommendation of vendors.

Feedback:

Writing—

Levels of Achievement:

EXCELLENT – above expectations22
(18.33%) – 24
(20%)

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.

GOOD – met expectations20 (16.67%) – 21 (17.5%)

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.

FAIR – below expectations18 (15%) – 19 (15.83%)

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.

POOR – significantly below expectations or missing0 (0%) – 17 (14.17%)

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.

Feedback:

Total Points: 120