Unit Details | Name | ISStrategyandInnovation |
Code | HI6036 | |
Year,Trimester | 2024,Trimester2 |
Assessment Details | Name | IndividualAssessment |
DueDateandWeek | Finalversionofthepaper(50%):Week9Friday |
Individual Student Details | StudentNumber | |
FirstName | ||
FamilyName |
Submission Declaration | IntegrityDeclaration | I have read and understand academic integrity policies andpracticesandmyassessmentdoesnotviolatethese. |
FullName | ||
SubmissionDate |
Instructions
Objectives | Thisassessmentitemrelatestotheunitlearningoutcomesasintheunitdescriptor. This assessment is designed to improve student learning skills andto give students experience in researching the literature on a topic relevant to the Unit of Study subjectmatter,criticallyanalysingcurrentacademicpapersthenpresentingideaor questionsandexpectedoutcomeswithclarityanddefinitioninareferenced written report. |
Instructions | Overview: This assignment challenges you to apply the design thinking methodology to develop an Information Systems (IS) strategy that addresses a real business problemprovidedina casestudy.Your goalisto demonstrate howstrategicuseof information systems can lead to innovative solutions and support the organization's transformation and renewal.
Objectives: Toenhanceyourabilitytoanalyzecomplexbusinessscenarios. Todeveloppracticalsolutionsusingdesignthinkingandinformationsystems. TocriticallyevaluatethestrategicimpactofISinnovationsonbusinessoperations. Assignment Details:
CaseStudyAnalysis: You will be provided with a case study that describes a business problem in an organizational context. Carefully read and analyze the case to understand the underlying issues. DesignThinkingApplication: Empathize:Gatherinsightsabouttheorganization’sneeds,challenges, and
StrategicAppraisal: Assess the potential of the proposed IS solutions to align with and propel the organization's strategic objectives. Discuss the expected impacts, benefits, and possible challenges of implementing your solutions.
Studentscanchoosetowriteaboutthe samecasestudy,buttheapproachandthe thrust of each paper must be different. Herearesomeproposed topics:
|
TheKeyelementsoftheresearchproposal Thefollowingelementsmustbeincludedinyourresearchproposal:
|
10.Listofreferencesusedinpreparingtheproposal | |
Guidelinesfor Writing |
|
| |
Submissions |
The final version of your paper is the polished version. You should not use a lot of small sections and bullet points in the final version. Your research proposal should present the state of current knowledge in a specific area and as such, should have a narrative that flows from one paragraph to another. You cannot achieve thiswith bullet points and small disjoint sections. All references included with your paper must be cited within the paper and be appropriate to the context of the citation.
|
Academic Integrity Information | Holmes Institute is committed to ensuring and upholding academic integrity. All assessmentmustcomplywithacademicintegrityguidelines.Importantacademic integritybreachesincludeplagiarism,collusion,copying,impersonation,contract cheating,datafabricationandfalsification.Pleaselearnaboutacademicintegrity and consult your teachers with any questions. Violating academic integrity is seriousandpunishablebypenaltiesthatrangefromdeductionofmarks,failureof |
theassessmenttaskorunitinvolved,suspensionofcourseenrolment,or cancellation of course enrolment. | |
Format Instructions |
|
Penalties |
|
ResearchProposalMarkingScheme-Outline
Criterion | MissingorUnacceptable(0-39) | Developing(40-49) | Accomplished(50-74) | Exemplary(75-100) |
Introduction: Research question,andbackground (25%) | Research question(s), definitions, assumptionsandlimitationswereomitted or inappropriate given the context, purpose or methods of the study. | Elements are poorly formed, ambiguous, or not logically connected to the description of theproblem,purposeorresearch methods. | Research questions are stated clearlyandareconnectedtothe researchtopic. | Articulatesclear,reasonable,andsuccinctresearch questions,andquestionsarefresh,interestingand significant. |
Literaturereview(25%) | Little or no evidence of a systematic approach,incompletereview;Littleorno evidence of having read completely paperscited. | Incomplete and not systematic, but adequate to identify part of theliterature,verylittleevidence of critical evaluation of papers cited | Evidence of reviewing, possibly incompletebutusingappropriate approaches, Some evidence of criticalappraisalorpartialcritical appraisal | The literature review addresses a relevant question.Theplannedmethodandprocedurefor the structured/systematic literature review is clearly presented, in sufficient detail, and appropriate for the question to be addressed. |
Organizationandneatnessof the proposal (25%) | The length of the narrative exceeds the suggested limit as indicated in the solicitation.Theideasarepresentedina random manner with no focus. | The content and length of the proposalareinadequate(i.e.there is some logic inthe narrative part, but the ideas lack of clear focus and structural argumentation). | Proposal format has been followedmostly.Thenarrative presentstheideasinanalmost structural and logical manner. | Thenarrativehastheappropriatelengthandthe ideasarepresentedinaclearstructuralandlogic manner identifying reasonable well the reasons and means to achieve the goal of the proposal. |
Harvard Referencestyle(25%) | Clearstyleswithexcellentsourceof references. | Generallygoodreferencingstyle | Sometimes clearreferencingstyle | Lacksconsistencywithmanyerrors |
ResearchProposalMarkingScheme-FinalVersion
Criterion | MissingorUnacceptable(0-39) | Developing(40-49) | Accomplished(50-74) | Exemplary(75-100) |
Introduction: Research question,andbackground (20%) | Research question(s), definitions, assumptionsandlimitationswereomitted or inappropriate given the context, purpose or methods of the study. | Elements are poorly formed, ambiguous, or not logically connected to the description of theproblem,purposeorresearch methods. | Research questions are stated clearlyandareconnectedtothe researchtopic. | Articulatesclear,reasonable,andsuccinctresearch questions,andquestionsarefresh,interestingand significant. |
Literaturereviewand references(40%) | Little or no evidence of a systematic approach,incompletereview;Littleorno evidence of having read completely paperscited. | Incomplete and not systematic, but adequate to identify part of theliterature,verylittleevidence of critical evaluation of papers cited | Evidence of reviewing, possibly incompletebutusingappropriate approaches, Some evidence of criticalappraisalorpartialcritical appraisal | The literature review addresses a relevant question.Theplannedmethodandprocedurefor the structured/systematic literature review is clearly presented, in sufficient detail, and appropriate for the question to be addressed. |
Researchdesign:theoretical framework, contribution, researchmethodology (20%) | The research design is erroneous for the hypothesis states or has not been identifiedandordescribedusingstandard terminology.Limitationsandassumptions areomitted. | Theresearchdesignisconfusing orincompletegiventheresearch questions.Importantlimitations and assumptions have not been identified. | The research design has been identified and described in sufficientlydetailedterms.Some limitationsandassumptionshave been identified. | The purpose, questions, and design are mutually supportive and coherent.Appropriate and importantlimitationsandassumptionshavebeen clearly stated. |
Organizationandneatnessof the proposal (10%) | The length of the narrative exceeds the suggested limit as indicated in the solicitation.Theideasarepresentedina random manner with no focus. | The content and length of the proposalareinadequate(i.e.there is some logic inthe narrative part, but the ideas lack of clear focus and structural argumentation). | Proposal format has been followedmostly.Thenarrative presentstheideasinanalmost structural and logical manner. | Thenarrativehastheappropriatelengthandthe ideasarepresentedinaclearstructuralandlogic manner identifying reasonable well the reasons and means to achieve the goal of the proposal. |
Researchplanandtimeline(10%) | Planand/ortimelinearemissingorthe timelineisbeyondoursuggestedtime. | Planand/ortimelinearepresent butnotadequatetosupportthe project. | Planand/ortimelinearepresent butnotverywelldefined,not easy to understand. | Planandtimelineareadequatetosupportthe projectactivities,costsarereasonableinrelation tothe |
Get original papers written according to your instructions and save time for what matters most.