Review "Benchmark Assignment - Data Analysis Case Study" and "Benchmark Assignment - Data Analysis Case Study Data" for this topic's case study, evaluating operations for a local restaurant.

Although your friend and restauranteur Michael Tanaglia offered to go over your findings in person, you believe it would be appropriate to also prepare a report and document your findings in writing. In a 1,000-1,250-word report, explain your approach for each evaluation and the rationale for the methods you used. Include any recommendations based on customer satisfaction, forecasting, and staff scheduling data.

Use an Excel spreadsheet file for the calculations and explanations. Cells should contain the formulas (i.e., if a formula was used to calculate the entry in that cell). Students are highly encouraged to use the "Benchmark Assignment - Data Analysis Case Study Template" and "Benchmark Assignment - Data Analysis Case Study Linear Programming Template" to complete this assignment.

Mac users can use Stat Plus: mac LE, free of charge, from Analyst Soft.

Prepare the assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide. An abstract is not required.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric (SEE BELOW) prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

RUBRIC

Benchmark - Data Analysis Case Study

	1 Unsatisfactory 0.00%	2 Less than Satisfactory 74.00%	3 Satisfactory 79.00%	4 Good 87.00%	5 Excellent 100.00%
70.0 %Content
10.0 % Variables for Predicting Satisfaction	The identification of variables for predicting satisfaction is not included or is incomprehensible.	The identification of variables for predicting satisfaction is included, but lacks detail or is incomplete.	The identification of variables for predicting satisfaction is present and reasonable.	The identification of variables for predicting satisfaction is clearly provided and well-developed.	The identification of variables for predicting satisfaction is thoroughly developed with supporting details.
10.0 % Prediction Equation and Coefficient of Determination (Benchmark Competency 2.3)	The development and interpretation prediction equation and coefficient of determination are not included or are incomprehensible.	The development and interpretation prediction equation and coefficient of determination are included, but lack detail or are incomplete.	The development and interpretation prediction equation and coefficient of determination are appropriate.	The development and interpretation prediction equation and coefficient of determination are well-developed.	The development and interpretation prediction equation and coefficient of determination are thoroughly developed with supporting details.
15.0 % Areas of Focus to Improve Customer Satisfaction	Recommended areas of focus to improve customer satisfaction are not included or are illogical.	Recommended areas of focus to improve customer satisfaction are included, but lack detail or are incomplete.	Recommended areas of focus to improve customer satisfaction are adequate.	Recommended areas of focus to improve customer satisfaction are appropriate and well-developed.	Recommended areas of focus to improve customer satisfaction are rational and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
15.0 % Recommended Method and December Forecast	The recommended method to yield the lowest error and the December forecast are not included or are incomprehensible.	The recommended method to yield the lowest error and the December forecast are included, but lack detail or are incomplete.	The recommended method to yield the lowest error and the December forecast are relevant.	The recommended method to yield the lowest error and the December forecast are appropriate.	The recommended method to yield the lowest error and the December forecast are purposeful and clever.
15.0 % Recommendations of Staff for Each Shift	The recommendations of staff for each shift to accommodate the minimum requirements for customer service are not included.	The recommendations of staff for each shift to accommodate the minimum requirements for customer service are illogical or incomplete.	The recommendations of staff for each shift to accommodate the minimum requirements for customer service are fairly reasonable.	The recommendations of staff for each shift to accommodate the minimum requirements for customer service are appropriate.	The recommendations of staff for each shift to accommodate the minimum requirements for customer service are smartly chosen.
5.0 % Excel Spreadsheet	The Excel spreadsheet is not included.	The Excel spreadsheet is incomplete.	The Excel spreadsheet is understandable.	The Excel spreadsheet is accurate.	The Excel spreadsheet is accurate and appropriately organized.
20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness
7.0 % Thesis Development and Purpose	Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.	Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.	Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.	Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.	Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
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 progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.	Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
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 or sentence construction is used.	Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.	Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.	Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.	Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
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 % Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)	Sources are not documented.	Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.	Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.	Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.	Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.
100 % Total Weightage