Very nice and efficient team, I contacted with. The chat support is very steady and consistent. Wonderful write up. Definitely a life saver for the persons like me who are busy with their work. Good and supportive. Again thank you guys keep it up.

5.0 %Research Citations (In-text citations for paraphrasing and direct quotes, and reference page listing and formatting, as appropriate to assignment and style) No reference page is included. No citations are used. Reference page is present. Citations are inconsistently used. Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately documented, although some errors may be present Reference page is present and fully inclusive of all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and citation style is usually correct. In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct. The documentation of cited sources is free of error.

10.0 %Format 5.0 %Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. All format elements are correct.

5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used. Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

8.0 %Argument Logic and Construction Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. Argument shows logical progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness 7.0 %Assignment Development and Purpose Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear. Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose. Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. It is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. Thesis and/or main claim are comprehensive. The essence of the paper is contained within the thesis. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

30.0 %Integrates information from outside resources into the body of paper. Does not use references, examples, or explanations. Provides some supporting examples, but minimal explanations and no references. Supports main points with examples and explanations and includes few references to support claims and ideas. Supports main points with references, explanations, and examples. Analysis and description are direct, competent, and appropriate of the criteria. Supports main points with references, examples, and full explanations of how they apply. Thoughtfully analyzes, evaluates and describes major points of the criteria.

4 Good 85.00% 5 Excellent 100.00% Demonstrates acceptable knowledge of the process of implementing a new technology, the issues, and possible mistakes (in your own words). Develops an acceptable analysis of the effectiveness of the process. Utilizes some examples. Demonstrates thorough knowledge of the process of implementing a new technology, the issues, and possible mistakes. Clearly develops a strong analysis of the effectiveness of the process. Introduces appropriate examples.

1 Unsatisfactory 0.00% 2 Less Than Satisfactory 65.00% 3 Satisfactory 75.00% 70.0 %Content 40.0 %Interview a health care leader about a new technology he or she selected, planned for, and implemented. Covers what the process was, what happened, what the leader would do again, and what mistakes he or she made. Does not demonstrate understanding of the process of implementing a new technology, the issues, and possible mistakes. Does not demonstrate critical thinking and analysis of the material. Demonstrates only minimal understanding of the process of implementing a new technology, the issues, and possible mistakes. Demonstrates only minimal abilities for critical thinking and analysis. Demonstrates knowledge of the process of implementing a new technology, the issues, and possible mistakes, but has some slight misunderstanding of the impacts on the current system. Provides a basic idea of critical thinking and analysis. Does not include examples or descriptions.