The organization I chose to write about is a for - profit hospital. Any and all information collected should be in regards to the same organization. Please follow the guidelines below and include all of the proper information. I also attached the grading rubric. Please feel free to reach out with any questions or concerns. Thanks!Option #1: Healthcare Delivery Organization PresentationDevelop a financial analysis of a healthcare delivery organization of your choosing. The intent of this assignment is to evaluate the financial and operational health of the organization and disseminate the information to the class. You may pursue, analyze, and synthesize any information source you choose (e.g., website content, personal interviews, organizational documentation). Strive to be rigorous and thorough in your research.Note: For-profit organizations are generally easier to research than not-for-profits as all financials are reportable to the Securities and Exchange Commission.Final Paper Instructions:Projects are not limited in size, should be professional in appearance, and cover (at a minimum) the evaluation of the metrics discussed in Gapenski and Pink (2015), which are detailed in Chapter 13 in the sections about Ratio Analysis, DuPont Analysis, and Operating Indicator Analysis.You may pursue, analyze, and synthesize any information source you choose (e.g., website content, personal interviews, organizational documentation). Strive to be rigorous and thorough in your research.Your final presentation should report on the business’ location(s), competitive market(s), service lines, and business segments, for example. Unless otherwise indicated, a five-year trend analysis—including the most recent year of available information/data—is expected.Do not just report the data—discuss what it means. Ultimately, would you invest in the company? Why or why not?Presentations should adhere to Advisory Board formatting. See the Strategic Plan Template for an example.HCM301 Module 8 Portfolio ProjectHCM301 Module 8 Portfolio ProjectCriteriaRatingsPtsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRequirements40.0 to >32.0 ptsMeets ExpectationThe Portfolio includes all of the required components, as specified in the assignment.32.0 to >24.0 ptsApproaches ExpectationThe Portfolio includes most of the required components, as specified in the assignment.24.0 to >16.0 ptsBelow ExpectationThe Portfolio includes some of the required components, as specified in the assignment.16.0 to >0 ptsLimited EvidenceThe Portfolio includes few of the required components, as specified in the assignment.40.0 ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent40.0 to >32.0 ptsMeets ExpectationDemonstrates strong or adequate knowledge of accounting and finance in healthcare management; correctly represents knowledge from the readings and sources.32.0 to >24.0 ptsApproaches ExpectationSome significant but not major errors or omissions in demonstration of knowledge in accounting and finance in healthcare management.24.0 to >16.0 ptsBelow ExpectationMajor errors or omissions in demonstration of knowledge in accounting and finance in healthcare management.16.0 to >0 ptsLimited EvidenceFails to demonstrate knowledge of the materials.40.0 ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCritical Analysis40.0 to >32.0 ptsMeets ExpectationDemonstrates strong or adequate critical analysis of accounting and finance in healthcare management.32.0 to >24.0 ptsApproaches ExpectationSome significant but not major errors or omissions in critical analysis of accounting and finance in healthcare management.24.0 to >16.0 ptsBelow ExpectationMajor errors or omissions in critical analysis of accounting and finance in healthcare management.16.0 to >0 ptsLimited EvidenceFails to demonstrate critical analysis.40.0 ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSynthesis and Evaluation40.0 to >32.0 ptsMeets ExpectationDemonstrates strong or adequate synthesis and evaluation of course concepts in accounting and finance in healthcare management.32.0 to >24.0 ptsApproaches ExpectationSome significant but not major errors or omissions in synthesis and evaluation of accounting and finance in healthcare management.24.0 to >16.0 ptsBelow ExpectationMajor errors or omissions in synthesis and evaluation of accounting and finance in healthcare management.16.0 to >0 ptsLimited EvidenceFails to demonstrate synthesis and evaluation.40.0 ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePresentation40.0 to >32.0 ptsMeets ExpectationThe presentation was highly effective and appropriately addressed the target audience.32.0 to >24.0 ptsApproaches ExpectationSome significant but not major errors or omissions in selection, application or audience of the presentation.24.0 to >16.0 ptsBelow ExpectationMajor errors or omissions in selection, application or audience of the presentation.16.0 to >0 ptsLimited EvidenceThe presentation was totally ineffective and not targeted at the specified audience.40.0 ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSources20.0 to >16.0 ptsMeets ExpectationCite and report on the business location(s), the competitive market(s), service lines, business segments, etc. Unless otherwise indicated, a five year trend analysis – including the most recent year of available information/data.16.0 to >12.0 ptsApproaches ExpectationCite and report on most of the following: the business location(s), the competitive market(s), service lines, business segments, etc. Unless otherwise indicated, a five year trend analysis – including the most recent year of available information/data.12.0 to >8.0 ptsBelow ExpectationCite and report on at least three of the following: the business location(s), the competitive market(s), service lines, business segments, etc. Unless otherwise indicated, a five year trend analysis – including the most recent year of available information/data.8.0 to >0 ptsLimited EvidenceDoes not cite and report on the business location(s), the competitive market(s), service lines, business segments, etc. Unless otherwise indicated, a five year trend analysis – including the most recent year of available information/data.20.0 ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeApplication of Source Material20.0 to >16.0 ptsMeets ExpectationSources well or adequately chosen to provide substance and perspectives on the issue; knowledge from the course linked properly to source material.16.0 to >12.0 ptsApproaches ExpectationSome significant but not major problems with selection and linkage of sources.12.0 to >8.0 ptsBelow ExpectationMajor problems with selection and linkage of sources.8.0 to >0 ptsLimited EvidenceSource selection is seriously flawed; no linkage to knowledge from the course.20.0 ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOrganization20.0 to >16.0 ptsMeets ExpectationProject is clearly organized, well written, and in proper Advisory Board formatting including an introduction, body, and conclusion. Conforms to project requirements.16.0 to >12.0 ptsApproaches ExpectationSmall number of significant but not major flaws in organization and writing; is in proper Advisory Board formatting. In a minor way does not conform to project requirements.12.0 to >8.0 ptsBelow ExpectationMajor problems in organization and writing; does not completely follow proper Advisory Board formatting. In a significant way does not conform to project requirements.8.0 to >0 ptsLimited EvidenceProject is not well organized or well written and is not in proper Advisory Board formatting. Does not conform to project requirements.20.0 ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar and Style20.0 to >16.0 ptsMeets ExpectationStrong sentence and paragraph structure; few or no minor errors in grammar and spelling; appropriate writing style; clear and concise with no unsupported comments.16.0 to >12.0 ptsApproaches ExpectationSmall number of significant but not major errors in grammar and spelling; generally appropriate writing.12.0 to >8.0 ptsBelow ExpectationInconsistent to inadequate sentence and paragraph development; work needed on grammar and spelling; does not meet program expectations.8.0 to >0 ptsLimited EvidencePoor quality; unacceptable in terms of grammar and/or spelling; inappropriate writing style that interferes with clarity.20.0 ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDemonstrates proper use of APA style20.0 to >16.0 ptsMeets ExpectationProject contains proper APA formatting, according to the CSU-Global Guide to Writing and APA, with no more than one significant error.16.0 to >12.0 ptsApproaches ExpectationFew errors in APA formatting, according to the CSU-Global Guide to Writing and APA, with no more than two to three significant errors.12.0 to >8.0 ptsBelow ExpectationSignificant errors in APA formatting, according to the CSU-Global Guide to Writing and APA, with four to five significant errors.8.0 to >0 ptsLimited EvidenceNumerous errors in APA formatting, according to the CSU-Global Guide to Writing and APA, with more than five significant errors.20.0 ptsTotal Points: 300.0

Option #2: Harvard Business Review: Should You Listen to the Customer?Read the case study: Should You Listen to the Customer. Write a paper in which you analyze the process of gathering information and collecting marketing research. Use Delacroix as your example and make a case for and against the use of marketing research and consumer input. Defend both Nataslia's and Elizabeth's perspectives. Nataslia, the executive director, believes that artistic considerations should drive the type of dance offered by Delacroix Elizabeth, the newly hired marketing director, believes much more customer input should be considered when deciding on the offering. When siding with Elizabeth, explain different ways of gathering market research from customers.