can you please do this really nicely and properly asap in affordable rate please
Microsoft Word - Assignment 2 Rubric 2019.docx STC5MSI: Assessment 2 – Issue Management Plan CRITERIA A: Excellent (> 80 %) B: Very good (70 – 79%) C: Good (60 – 69%) D: Acceptable (50 – 59%) N: Unacceptable (<50%) reads="" and="" interprets="" research="" data="" as="" they="" apply="" to="" public="" relations="" relevant="" to="" the="" issue.="" (30%="" of="" total="" mark)="" excellent="" environmental="" scanning="" and="" organisational="" analysis,="" including="" wide="" harvesting="" across="" traditional="" and="" social="" media,="" a="" thorough="" swot="" analysis,="" and="" extensive="" identification="" of="" stakeholders.="" comprehensive="" identification="" and="" prioritisation="" of="" issues,="" relevant="" publics,="" and="" most="" important="" target="" audiences="" as="" highly="" relevant="" to="" the="" issue="" management="" plan.="" (24-30="" marks)="" effective="" environmental="" scanning="" and="" organisational="" analysis,="" including="" harvesting="" across="" traditional="" and="" social="" media,="" an="" effective="" swot="" analysis,="" and="" very="" good="" identification="" of="" stakeholders.="" effective="" identification="" and="" prioritisation="" of="" issues,="" relevant="" publics,="" and="" important="" target="" audiences="" as="" relevant="" to="" the="" issue="" management="" plan.="" (21-23="" marks)="" competent="" environmental="" scanning="" and="" organisational="" analysis,="" including="" across="" traditional="" and="" social="" media,="" a="" good="" swot="" analysis,="" and="" good="" identification="" of="" stakeholders.="" appropriate="" identification="" and="" prioritisation="" of="" issues,="" relevant="" publics,="" and="" target="" audiences="" as="" relevant="" to="" the="" issue="" management="" plan.="" (18-20="" marks)="" acceptable="" environmental="" scanning="" and="" organisational="" analysis,="" but="" may="" have="" missed="" relevant="" detail="" from="" one="" of:="" public,="" media,="" interest="" group="" government="" or="" other="" opinion="" leader.="" acceptable="" swot="" analysis="" and="" identification="" of="" stakeholders,="" but="" may="" have="" one="" omission.="" (15-17="" marks)="" unacceptable="" environmental="" scanning="" and="" organisational="" analysis;="" may="" have="" missed="" relevant="" detail="" from="" two="" or="" more="" of:="" public,="" media,="" interest="" group="" government="" or="" other="" opinion="" leader.="" may="" have="" key="" omissions="" from="" swot="" analysis="" and/or="" identification="" of="" stakeholders,=""><15 marks)="" applies="" public="" relations="" principles="" to="" develop="" issue="" management="" plan.="" (30%="" of="" total="" mark)="" excellent="" application="" of="" principles="" in="" creating="" the="" issue="" management="" plan.="" comprehensive="" and="" principal="" based:="" definition="" of="" the="" issue="" and="" overarching="" objective;="" outline="" of="" 3="" or="" more="" intended="" outcomes="" and="" associated="" target="" audience(s)="" and="" tactics;="" and="" implementation="" plan="" inclusive="" of="" all="" nominated="" tactics.="" principal="" based="" development="" of="" evaluation="" plan="" which="" comprehensively="" addresses="" impact="" and="" outcome.="" (24-30="" marks)="" effectively="" applies="" principles="" in="" creating="" the="" issue="" management="" plan.="" effective="" and="" principal="" based:="" definition="" of="" the="" issue="" and="" overarching="" objective;="" outline="" of="" 3="" or="" more="" intended="" outcomes="" and="" associated="" target="" audience(s)="" and="" tactic;="" and="" implementation="" plan="" inclusive="" of="" all="" nominated="" tactics.="" principal="" based="" development="" of="" evaluation="" plan="" which="" effectively="" addresses="" impact="" and="" outcome.="" (21-23="" marks)="" clearly="" applies="" principles="" in="" some="" areas="" of="" creating="" the="" issue="" management="" plan.="" good="" definition="" of="" the="" issue="" and="" overarching="" objective,="" outline="" of="" at="" least="" 3="" intended="" outcomes="" and="" associated="" target="" audience(s)="" and="" tactics;="" and="" implementation="" plan="" with="" all="" nominated="" tactics.="" generally="" good="" development="" of="" evaluation="" plan="" that="" addresses="" impact="" and="" outcome.="" (18-20="" marks)="" reasonable="" application="" of="" principles="" in="" some="" areas="" of="" creating="" the="" issue="" management="" plan.="" acceptable="" definition="" of="" the="" issue="" and="" overarching="" objective,="" outline="" of="" at="" least="" 3="" intended="" outcomes="" and="" associated="" target="" audience(s)="" and="" tactics,="" and="" implementation="" plan="" with="" nominated="" tactics.="" acceptable="" development="" of="" evaluation="" plan="" that="" reasonably="" addresses="" impact="" and="" outcome.="" (15-17="" marks)="" does="" not="" adequately="" apply="" principles="" from="" the="" subject="" in="" creating="" the="" issue="" management="" plan.="" unacceptable="" definition="" of="" the="" issue="" and="" overarching="" objective,="" or="" failed="" to="" outline="" at="" least="" 3="" intended="" outcomes="" and="" associated="" target="" audience(s)="" and="" tactics.="" unacceptable="" development="" of="" implementation="" plan="" and/or="" evaluation="" plan.=""><15 marks)="" stc5msi:="" assessment="" 2="" –="" issue="" management="" plan="" applies="" advanced="" public="" relations="" theories="" to="" evaluate="" the="" effectiveness="" of="" the="" issue="" management="" plan="" process.="" (30%="" of="" total="" mark)="" comprehensively="" evaluates="" the="" effectiveness="" of="" the="" entire="" process="" in="" preparing="" the="" issue="" management="" plan.="" comprehensively="" details="" own="" view="" of="" the="" effectiveness="" of="" the="" issue="" management="" planning="" process,="" using="" quality,="" advanced="" theory="" to="" support="" this="" position="" and="" to="" provide="" counter-arguments.="" (24-30="" marks)="" effectively="" evaluates="" the="" effectiveness="" of="" the="" entire="" process="" in="" preparing="" the="" issue="" management="" plan.="" effectively="" details="" own="" view="" of="" the="" effectiveness="" of="" the="" issue="" management="" planning="" process,="" using="" quality,="" advanced="" theory="" to="" support="" this="" position="" and/or="" to="" provide="" counter-arguments.="" (21-23="" marks)="" good="" evaluation="" of="" the="" effectiveness="" of="" the="" overall="" process="" in="" preparing="" the="" issue="" management="" plan.="" clearly="" identifies="" own="" view="" of="" the="" effectiveness="" of="" the="" issue="" management="" planning="" process,="" using="" theory="" to="" support="" the="" evaluation.="" (18-20="" marks)="" reasonably="" evaluates="" the="" effectiveness="" of="" the="" overall="" process="" in="" preparing="" the="" issue="" management="" plan.="" identifies="" own="" view="" of="" the="" effectiveness="" of="" the="" issue="" management="" planning="" process,="" using="" theory="" to="" support="" the="" evaluation.="" (15-17="" marks)="" does="" not="" adequately="" evaluate="" the="" effectiveness="" of="" the="" overall="" process="" in="" preparing="" the="" issue="" management="" plan.="" does="" not="" adequately="" identify="" or="" describe="" own="" view="" of="" the="" effectiveness="" of="" the="" issue="" management="" planning="" process="" and/or="" use="" theory="" to="" support="" the="" evaluation.=""><15 marks)="" plan="" is="" developed="" appropriately="" to="" assessment="" requirements.="" (10%="" of="" total="" mark)="" highly="" appropriate="" choice="" of="" organisation="" and="" issue="" with="" a="" major="" focus="" or="" elements,="" which="" was="" not="" used="" previously="" in="" the="" subject="" or="" in="" assessment="" 1.="" polished="" presentation="" and="" structure="" of="" plan,="" which="" provides="" well-balanced="" coverage="" of="" all="" areas="" required,="" approximately="" within="" word="" limits.="" properly="" references="" all="" sources="" using="" the="" recommended="" referencing="" style,="" and="" references="" 2="" or="" more="" references="" from="" the="" subject,="" and="" 3="" or="" more="" external="" quality,="" academic="" references.="" (8-10="" marks)="" very="" appropriate="" choice="" of="" organisation="" and="" issue="" with="" a="" focus="" or="" elements,="" which="" was="" not="" used="" previously="" in="" the="" subject="" or="" in="" assessment="" 1.="" effective="" presentation="" and="" structure="" of="" plan,="" which="" provides="" largely="" balanced="" coverage="" of="" all="" areas="" required,="" approximately="" within="" word="" limits.="" properly="" references="" all="" sources="" using="" the="" recommended="" referencing="" style,="" and="" references="" at="" least="" 2="" references="" from="" the="" subject,="" and="" at="" least="" 3="" external="" quality,="" academic="" references.="" (7="" marks)="" appropriate="" choice="" of="" organisation="" and="" issue="" with="" a="" focus="" or="" elements,="" which="" was="" not="" used="" previously="" in="" the="" subject="" or="" in="" assessment="" 1.="" good="" presentation="" and="" structure="" of="" plan,="" which="" provides="" coverage="" of="" all="" areas="" required,="" approximately="" within="" word="" limits.="" references="" all="" sources="" but="" may="" have="" minor="" errors="" using="" the="" recommended="" referencing="" style,="" and="" references="" at="" least="" 2="" references="" from="" the="" subject,="" and="" at="" least="" 3="" external="" academic="" references.="" (6="" marks)="" acceptable="" choice="" of="" organisation="" and="" issue="" which="" was="" not="" used="" previously="" in="" the="" subject="" or="" in="" assessment="" 1.="" reasonable="" presentation="" and="" structure="" of="" plan,="" which="" includes="" all="" areas="" required,="" but="" may="" need="" more="" information="" in="" at="" least="" one="" area.="" mainly="" within="" approximate="" word="" limits.="" references="" all="" sources="" but="" may="" have="" minor="" errors="" using="" the="" recommended="" referencing="" style;="" uses="" references="" from="" the="" subject,="" but="" may="" have="" chosen="" more="" relevant="" external="" references.="" (5="" marks)="" may="" have="" chosen="" an="" organisation="" and="" issue="" without="" enough="" relevance,="" and="" one="" that="" was="" used="" previously="" in="" the="" subject="" or="" in="" assessment="" 1.="" insufficient="" detail="" provided="" for="" two="" or="" more="" required="" areas="" required,="" references="" may="" be="" missing,="" inadequate,="" not="" relevant="" or="" reliable,="" or="" poorly="" referenced.=""><5 marks) total 100 model assignment issue & crisis management – assignment template sample method for – assignments 2 & 3 methods issue management plan (dougall, 2008) plus jaques 2014. crisis managment plan jaques 2014. (coombs, 2007) communication plan civitella – notes issue management plan step 1–monitoring ▪ analyze the business environment. ▪ scan and monitor what is being said, written and done by public, media, interest groups, government and other opinion leaders. ▪ what is being said on social media? ▪ are social trends emerging that can impact on the organization? (privacy, gmo, whistleblowers, environment, hacking, anti-vaccination, etc) ▪ consider what may impact on the organisation or its divisions. step 2–identification ▪ assess from the business environment those elements that are important ▪ look for new patterns emerging from what most people take for granted. ▪ identify the issues that impact on the organisation and are gaining widespread support or interest. ▪ what is the type of issue and where is it in its lifecycle? step 3–prioritization ▪ how far-reaching will an issue’s impact be (product sector, company, industry)? ▪ assess what is at stake—profit? reputation? freedom of action - regulation? ▪ what is the probability of occurrence? ▪ how immediate is the issue? step 4–analysis ▪ analyze the most important issues in some detail. ▪ determine their probable impact on the company or its divisions as precisely as possible. ▪ establish issue support teams if appropriate. ▪ identify/rank stakeholders. may use traditional model such as swot analysis: in conjunction with a more advanced add-on: mendelow’s matrix stakeholder mapping –interest marks)="" total="" 100="" model="" assignment="" issue="" &="" crisis="" management="" –="" assignment="" template="" sample="" method="" for="" –="" assignments="" 2="" &="" 3="" methods="" issue="" management="" plan="" (dougall,="" 2008)="" plus="" jaques="" 2014.="" crisis="" managment="" plan="" jaques="" 2014.="" (coombs,="" 2007)="" communication="" plan="" civitella="" –="" notes="" issue="" management="" plan="" step="" 1–monitoring="" ▪="" analyze="" the="" business="" environment.="" ▪="" scan="" and="" monitor="" what="" is="" being="" said,="" written="" and="" done="" by="" public,="" media,="" interest="" groups,="" government="" and="" other="" opinion="" leaders.="" ▪="" what="" is="" being="" said="" on="" social="" media?="" ▪="" are="" social="" trends="" emerging="" that="" can="" impact="" on="" the="" organization?="" (privacy,="" gmo,="" whistleblowers,="" environment,="" hacking,="" anti-vaccination,="" etc)="" ▪="" consider="" what="" may="" impact="" on="" the="" organisation="" or="" its="" divisions.="" step="" 2–identification="" ▪="" assess="" from="" the="" business="" environment="" those="" elements="" that="" are="" important="" ▪="" look="" for="" new="" patterns="" emerging="" from="" what="" most="" people="" take="" for="" granted.="" ▪="" identify="" the="" issues="" that="" impact="" on="" the="" organisation="" and="" are="" gaining="" widespread="" support="" or="" interest.="" ▪="" what="" is="" the="" type="" of="" issue="" and="" where="" is="" it="" in="" its="" lifecycle?="" step="" 3–prioritization="" ▪="" how="" far-reaching="" will="" an="" issue’s="" impact="" be="" (product="" sector,="" company,="" industry)?="" ▪="" assess="" what="" is="" at="" stake—profit?="" reputation?="" freedom="" of="" action="" -="" regulation?="" ▪="" what="" is="" the="" probability="" of="" occurrence?="" ▪="" how="" immediate="" is="" the="" issue?="" step="" 4–analysis="" ▪="" analyze="" the="" most="" important="" issues="" in="" some="" detail.="" ▪="" determine="" their="" probable="" impact="" on="" the="" company="" or="" its="" divisions="" as="" precisely="" as="" possible.="" ▪="" establish="" issue="" support="" teams="" if="" appropriate.="" ▪="" identify/rank="" stakeholders.="" may="" use="" traditional="" model="" such="" as="" swot="" analysis:="" in="" conjunction="" with="" a="" more="" advanced="" add-on:="" mendelow’s="" matrix="" stakeholder="" mapping="">