Criteria
Excellent
Outstanding
Acceptable
Needs Improvement
Needs Significant Improvement
Missing or Unacceptable
Criterion Score
Introduction or Overview for Mobile Apps
15 points
Provided an excellent overview of mobile apps for digital government. Addressed Connected Government Act requirements for mobile apps and mobile friendly websites. Discussion included 5 or more examples of mobile apps which have been recognized as being innovative or “best of category” for delivering government information and services to mobile devices. The overview appropriately used information from 3 or more authoritative sources.
14 points
Provided an outstanding overview of mobile apps for digital government. Addressed Connected Government Act requirements for mobile apps and mobile friendly websites. Discussion included 3 or more examples of mobile apps which have been recognized as being innovative or “best of category” for delivering government information and services to mobile devices. The overview appropriately used information from 2 or more authoritative sources.
13 points
Provided an overview of mobile apps for digital government. Discussed the purpose of mobile apps from the federal government and briefly described requirements deriving from the Connected Government Act. Included at least one example of a mobile app that is available from the federal government’s app store. The overview appropriately used information from 1 or more authoritative sources.
11 points
Provided an overview but the section lacked important details about federal government mobile apps. Did not address the Connected Government Act requirements. Information from authoritative sources was cited and used in the overview.
4 points
Attempted to provide an introduction to the paper but this section lacked detail and/or was not well supported by information drawn from authoritative sources.
0 points
The introduction and/or overview sections of the paper were off topic.
Score of Introduction or Overview for Mobile Apps,/ 15
Federal Perspective on Mobile App Security
20 points
Provided an excellent overview of the federal government’s requirements and recommendations for mobile app security architectures and the associated design recommendations. Explanations were written for non-technical managers and included at least three useful diagrams or pictures with appropriate in-text citations for the source (appended to the figure caption). Appropriately used information from 3 or more authoritative sources.
18 points
Provided an outstanding overview of the federal government’s requirements and recommendations for mobile app security architectures and the associated design recommendations. Explanations were written for non-technical managers and included at least two useful diagrams or pictures with appropriate in-text citations for the source (appended to the figure caption). Appropriately used information from 2 or more authoritative sources.
16 points
Provided an overview of the federal government’s requirements and recommendations for mobile app security architectures and the associated design recommendations. Included at one or more useful diagrams or pictures with appropriate in-text citations for the source (appended to the figure caption). Appropriately used information from 1 or more authoritative sources.
14 points
Provided a discussion of the federal government’s requirements or recommendations for mobile app security. Appropriately used information from authoritative sources.
10 points
Provided a discussion of mobile app security in the context of the federal government. The discussion lacked detail and/or was not well supported by information drawn from authoritative sources.
0 points
This section was missing, off topic, or failed to provide information about mobile app security in the context of the federal government.
Score of Federal Perspective on Mobile App Security,/ 20
Industry Perspective on Mobile App Security
15 points
Provided an excellent overview of industry recommendations for mobile app security architectures and the associated design recommendations. Explanations were written for non-technical managers and included at least three useful diagrams or pictures with appropriate in-text citations for the source (appended to the figure caption). Appropriately used information from 3 or more authoritative sources.
14 points
Provided an outstanding overview of industry recommendations for mobile app security architectures and the associated design recommendations. Explanations were written for non-technical managers and included at least two useful diagrams or pictures with appropriate in-text citations for the source (appended to the figure caption). Appropriately used information from 2 or more authoritative sources.
13 points
Provided an overview of industry recommendations for mobile app security architectures and the associated design recommendations. Included at one or more useful diagrams or pictures with appropriate in-text citations for the source (appended to the figure caption). Appropriately used information from 1 or more authoritative sources.
11 points
Provided a discussion of industry recommendations for mobil app security. Appropriately used information from authoritative sources.
4 points
Provided a discussion of mobile app security from industry’s perspective. The discussion lacked detail and/or was not well supported by information drawn from authoritative sources.
0 points
This section was missing, off topic, or failed to provide information about mobile app security from the industry perspective.
Score of Industry Perspective on Mobile App Security,/ 15
Best Practice Recommendations & Strategy for Mobile App Security
15 points
Provided an excellent discussion of best practice recommendations for ensuring the confidentiality, integrity, availability, authenticity, and non-repudiation for Mobile Applications. Included 5 or more specific recommendations as part of an overall strategy for reducing risk. Appropriately used information from 3 or more authoritative sources.
14 points
Provided an outstanding discussion of best practice recommendations for ensuring the confidentiality, integrity, availability, authenticity, and non-repudiation for Mobile Applications. Included 4 or more specific recommendations as part of an overall strategy for reducing risk. Appropriately used information from 2 or more authoritative sources.
13 points
Provided a discussion of best practice recommendations for ensuring the confidentiality, integrity, availability, authenticity, and non-repudiation for Mobile Applications. Included 3 or more specific recommendations and mentioned using them as a strategy for reducing risk. Appropriately used information from 1 or more authoritative sources.
11 points
Discussion provided some information about best practices for ensuring security for Mobile Applications. Did not mention using recommendations as a strategy for risk reduction. Mentioned information obtained from authoritative sources.
4 points
Discussion provided some information about best practices for ensuring security for Mobile Applications, but the lacked detail and/or was not supported by information from authoritative sources.
0 points
Did not address best practices for security for Mobile Applications.
Score of Best Practice Recommendations & Strategy for Mobile App Security,/ 15
Summary of Research and Recommendations
10 points
Provided an excellent summary of the research and recommendations for this deliverable. Summary was clear, concise, and accurate. Appropriately used information from authoritative sources.
8.5 points
Provided an outstanding summary of the research and recommendations for this deliverable. Summary was clear and accurate. Appropriately used information from authoritative sources.
7 points
Provided an acceptable summary of the research and recommendations for this deliverable. Appropriately used information from authoritative sources.
6 points
Provided a summary section but, this section was disorganized or lacked relevant details. Mentioned information from authoritative sources.
4 points
Attempted to provide a summary for this deliverable. But, the summary was not relevant to the deliverable. OR, this section was not well supported by information from authoritative sources.
0 points
The summary was missing.
Score of Summary of Research and Recommendations,/ 10
Addressed security issues using standard cybersecurity terminology
5 points
Demonstrated excellence in the use of standard cybersecurity terminology to support discussion of security issues. Appropriately used 5 or more standard terms.
4 points
Discussion showed an outstanding understanding and integration of standard cybersecurity terminology to support discussion of security issues. Appropriately used 4 or more standard terms.
3 points
Correctly used standard cybersecurity terminology to support discussion of security issues. Appropriately used 3 or more standard terms.
2 points
Correctly used standard cybersecurity terminology to support discussion of security issues. Appropriately used 2 or more standard terms.
1 point
Attempted to use standard cybersecurity terminology to support discussion of security issues.
0 points
Did not integrate standard cybersecurity terminology into the discussion OR misused or incorrectly defined standard cybersecurity terms.
Score of Addressed security issues using standard cybersecurity terminology,/ 5
Professionalism Part 1: Consistent Use and Formatting for Citations and Reference List
5 points
Work contains a reference list containing entries for all cited resources. Sufficient information is provided to allow a reader to find and retrieve the cited sources. Reference list entries and in-text citations are consistently and correctly formatted using an appropriate citation style (APA, MLA, etc.).
4 points
Work contains a reference list containing entries for all cited resources. Sufficient information is provided to allow a reader to find and retrieve the cited sources. One or two inconsistencies or errors in format for in-text citations and/or reference list entries.
3 points
Work contains a reference list containing entries for all cited resources. Sufficient information is provided to allow a reader to find and retrieve the cited sources. No more than 5 inconsistencies or errors in format for in-text citations and/or reference list entries.
2 points
Work has no more than three paragraphs with omissions of citations crediting sources for facts and information. Work contains a reference list containing entries for cited resources. Work contains no more than 10 inconsistencies or errors in format.
1 point
Work attempts to credit sources but demonstrates a fundamental failure to understand and/or consistently apply a professional formatting style for the reference list and/or citations.
0 points
Reference list is missing. Work demonstrates an overall failure to incorporate and/or credit authoritative sources for information used in the paper.
Score of Professionalism Part 1: Consistent Use and Formatting for Citations and Reference List,/ 5
Professionalism Part 2: Organization & Appearance
5 points
Submitted work shows outstanding organization and the use of color, fonts, titles, headings and sub-headings, etc. is appropriate to the assignment type.
4 points
Submitted work has minor style or formatting flaws but still presents a professional appearance. Submitted work is well organized and appropriately uses color, fonts, and section headings (per the assignment’s directions).
3 points
Organization and/or appearance of submitted work could be improved through better use of fonts, color, titles, headings, etc. OR Submitted work has multiple style or formatting errors. Professional appearance could be improved.
2 points
Submitted work has multiple style or formatting errors. Organization and professional appearance need substantial improvement.
1 point
Submitted work meets minimum requirements but has major style and formatting errors. Work is disorganized and needs to be rewritten for readability and professional appearance.
0 points
Submitted work is poorly organized and formatted. Writing and presentation are lacking in professional style and appearance. Work does not reflect college level writing skills.
Score of Professionalism Part 2: Organization & Appearance,/ 5
Professionalism Part 3: Execution
10 points
No formatting, grammar, spelling, or punctuation errors.
8.5 points
Work contains minor errors in formatting, grammar, spelling or punctuation which do not significantly impact professional appearance.
7 points
Errors in formatting, spelling, grammar, or punctuation which detract from professional appearance of the submitted work.
6 points
Submitted work has numerous errors in formatting, spelling, grammar, or punctuation. Work is unprofessional in appearance.
4 points
Submitted work is difficult to read / understand and has significant errors in formatting, spelling, grammar, punctuation, or word usage.
0 points
Submitted work is poorly executed OR does not reflect college level work.
Score of Professionalism Part 3: Execution,/ 10